Press, and by a measure of May 7th, 1874, which gives to this
provision concrete form. This is the Press Law of Germany
to-day. The law does, indeed, concede, in principle at least,
the freedom of the Press (Pressfreiheit), and it abolishes the
formal censorship. But a severe form of control is still
exercised by the police, whose authority over the Press is
greater in reality than it seems to be from the letter of the
statute. It is no longer necessary, as it once was, and still
is in Russia, to obtain sanction for the issue of each number
before it is sent into the world, but it is the legal duty of
a publisher to lay a copy of his journal before the police
authority directly it reaches the press. This an informal
censor revises, and in the event of any article being
obnoxious he may order the immediate confiscation of the whole
issue, or a court of law, which in such matters works very
speedily, may do so for him. As the police and judicial
authorities have wide discretion in the determination of
editorial culpability, this power of confiscation is felt to
be a harsh one. While the Socialist Law existed the powers of
the police were far more extensive than now, and that they
were also real is proved by the wholesale extermination of
newspapers of Socialistic tendencies which took place between
the years 1878 and 1890. Since that law disappeared, however,
Socialist journals have sprung up again in abundance, though
the experience gained by their conductors in the unhappy past
does not enable them to steer clear of friction with the
authorities. The police, too, regulates the public sale of
newspapers and decides whether they shall be cried in the
street or not. In Berlin special editions cannot be published
without the prior sanction of this authority. … So frequent
are prosecutions of editors that many newspapers are compelled
to maintain on their staffs batches of Sitzredakteure, or
'sitting editors,' whose special function is to serve in
prison (colloquially sitzen=sit) the terms of detention that
may be awarded for the too liberal exercise of the critical
faculty. … Some measure of the public depreciation of
newspapers is due to the fact that they are largely in Hebrew
hands. In the large towns the Press is, indeed, essentially a
Jewish institution."
_W. H. Dawson,
Germany and the Germans,
part 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
PRINTING AND THE PRESS:
American Periodicals founded before 1870 and existing in 1894.
The following is a carefully prepared chronological list of
important newspapers and other periodicals, still published
(1894) in the United States and Canada, which have existed for
a quarter of a century or more, having been founded before
1870. The * before a title indicates that the information
given has been obtained directly from the publisher. For some
of the periodicals not so marked, the dates of beginning have
been taken from their own files. In other cases, where
publishers have neglected to answer a request for information,
the facts have been borrowed from Rowell's American Newspaper
Directory:
1764.
* Connecticut Courant (Hartford), w.;
added Courant, d., 1836.
* Quebec Gazette (French and English), weekly; ran many years
as tri-weekly, in English; discontinued for about 16 years;
now resumed as Quebec Gazette in connection with Quebec
Morning Chronicle (founded 1847).
1766 or 1767.
* Connecticut Herald and Post Boy
(New Haven); various names;
now Connecticut Herald and Weekly Journal.
1768.
* Essex Gazette; changes of name and place; suspended;
revived at Salem, Massachusetts, as Salem Mercury, 1786;
became semi-weekly, 1796; became Salem Daily Gazette, 1892.
1770.
Worcester Spy, weekly; added daily, 1845.
1771.
* Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser
(Philadelphia), weekly;
became Pennsylvania Packet and American Daily Advertiser,
daily, 1784;
consolidated with North American (founded 1839), 1839;
consolidated with United States Gazette (established 1789,
see 1789, Gazette of the U. S.),
as North American and United States Gazette, 1847;
became North American, 1876.
{2603}
1773.
* Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser;
merged in Baltimore American, 1799.
1778.
* Gazette (Montreal), weekly; now daily and weekly;
since 1870 absorbed Telegraph and Daily News.
1785.
*Falmouth (Maine) Gazette and Weekly Advertiser;
Cumberland Gazette, 1786;
Gazette of Maine, 1790;
Eastern Herald, 1792;
Eastern Herald and Gazette of Maine, 1796;
Jenks' Portland Gazette, 1798;
Portland Gazette and Maine Advertiser, 1805;
Portland Advertiser, semi-weekly, 1823; daily, 1831.
* Journal (Poughkeepsie, New York); established to take the
place of New York Journal, published at Poughkeepsie, 1778-1783;
consolidated with Eagle (founded 1828—see 1828,
Dutchess Intelligencer), as Journal and Eagle;
became Eagle after a few years.
1786.
Hampshire Gazette (Northampton, Massachusetts).
Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette.
1789.
* Gazette of the United States (New York);
removed to Philadelphia, 1790; daily, 1793;
became The Union, or United States Gazette and True American;
merged in North American, 1847.
Berkshire County Eagle (Pittsfield, Massachusetts), weekly.
1793.
Gazette (Cincinnati), weekly; added daily,
Commercial Gazette, 1841.
Minerva (New York), daily, and Herald, semi-weekly;
became Commercial Advertiser, and New York Spectator.
Newburyport (Massachusetts) Herald.
Utica Gazette; consolidated with Herald (founded 1847),
as Morning Herald and Gazette.
1794.
Rutland (Vermont) Herald.
1796.
* Sentinel of Freedom (Newark), weekly;
added Newark Daily Advertiser, daily, 1832.
1800.
* Salem Register, weekly; then semi-weekly; now weekly.
1801.
New York Evening Post.
Ægis and Gazette (Worcester), weekly;
added Evening Gazette, 1843.
1803.
Charleston News and Courier.
Portland (Maine) Eastern Argus.
1804.
Pittsburgh Post.
1805.
Missionary Herald (Boston), monthly.
* Quebec Mercury, tri-weekly; became daily about 1860.
1806.
* Precurser (Montpelier), weekly;
became Vermont Watchman, 1807, weekly.
1807.
* New Bedford (Massachusetts) Mercury, weekly;
added daily, 1831.
1808.
* Cooperstown(New York) Federalist;
became Freeman's Journal, weekly, 1820.
Le Canadien (Montreal).
St. Louis Republic, weekly; added daily, 1835.
1809.
* New Hampshire Patriot (Concord, New Hampshire);
consolidated with People (founded 1868)
as People and Patriot, 1878, daily and weekly.
Montreal Herald.
1810.
Kingston (Ontario) News, weekly.; added daily, 1851.
1811.
* Buffalo Gazette, weekly;
became Niagara Patriot, weekly, 1818;
became Buffalo Patriot, weekly, July 10, 1821;
added Buffalo Commercial Advertiser, daily, 1835.
* Western Intelligencer;
Western Intelligencer and Columbus Gazette, 1814;
became Ohio State Journal, 1825; daily, 1839.
1812.
* Columbian Weekly Register (New Haven);
added Evening Register, daily, 1848.
1813.
Albany Argus.
Boston Advertiser.
Acadian Recorder (Halifax).
1815.
North American Review (New York), monthly.
1816.
* Boston Recorder; merged in Congregationalist, weekly, 1867.
Knoxville Tribune, weekly; added daily, 1865.
Rochester Union and Advertiser, weekly; added daily, 1826.
1817.
* Hartford Times, weekly; added daily., 1841.
1819.
* Cleveland Herald;
consolidated with Evening News (founded 1868), 1885.
See 1848. Cleveland Leader.
Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock).
* Oswego Palladium, weekly; added daily about 1860.
1820.
Nova Scotian (Halifax), weekly;
added Chronicle, 3 times a week, 1845;
added Morning Chronicle, 1865.
* Manufacturers' and Farmers' Journal
(Providence), semi-weekly; added Daily Journal, 1829.
1821.
* Christian Register (Boston), weekly.
Indianapolis Sentinel.
Mobile Register.
1822.
Broome Republican (Binghamton, New York), weekly;
added Republican, daily, 1849.
* Old Colony Memorial (Plymouth, Massachusetts), weekly;
has absorbed Plymouth Rock, and Old Colony Sentinel.
1823.
Auburn (New York) News and Democrat, weekly;
added Bulletin, daily, 1870.
Zion's Herald (Boston), weekly.
* New Hampshire Statesman (Concord), weekly;
consolidated with Independent Democrat (founded 1845),
as Independent Statesman, 1871; added daily,
Concord Evening Monitor, 1864.
* Western Censor and Emigrant's Guide (Indianapolis);
became Indianapolis Journal, weekly,
and semi-weekly during session of the Legislature;
became weekly and daily, 1850.
* Observer (New York), weekly.
* Register (New York), weekly; became Examiner, 1855.
Poughkeepsie News-Telegraph, weekly;
added News-Press, daily, 1852.
1824.
* Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican, weekly;
added daily, 1844.
1825.
Kennebec Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
* Rome (New York) Republican, weekly; became Telegram;
became Sentinel, 1837; added daily, 1852-1860;
added daily, 1881.
1826.
Detroit Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1835.
* Lowell Courier, weekly; added daily, 1845;
weekly now called Lowell Weekly Journal.
* La Minerve (Montreal), daily and weekly.
Christian Advocate (New York), weekly.
Journal of the Franklin Institute (Philadelphia), monthly.
* St. Lawrence Republican (Potsdam, New York) weekly;
removed to Canton, N. Y., 1827; removed to Ogdensburg, 1830,
and consolidated with St. Lawrence Gazette (founded 1815);
purchased by Ogdensburg Journal (founded 1855), daily, 1858;
both papers continue.
Rochester Democrat; consolidated with
Chronicle (founded 1868) as Democrat and Chronicle.
{2604}
1827.
* Youth's Companion (Boston), weekly.
* Independent News Letter (Cleveland);
became Advertiser, 1832; became Plain Dealer, 1842.
Columbus (Ohio) Press.
New York Journal of Commerce.
1828.
* Orleans Republican (Albion, New York), weekly.
Burlington (Vermont) Free Press, weekly, added daily, 1844.
Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser.
* Dutchess Intelligencer (Poughkeepsie, New York);
consolidated with Dutchess Republican, as Poughkeepsie Eagle,
weekly, 1833; consolidated with Poughkeepsie Journal
(see 1785, Journal), as Journal and Eagle, 1844; now Eagle;
added daily, 1860.
1829.
* Auburn (New York) Journal, weekly;
added Daily Advertiser, 1844.
* Northwestern Journal (Detroit), weekly;
semi-weekly, then 3 times a week, 1835;
became Daily Advertiser, 1836;
consolidated with Tribune (founded 1849), as
Advertiser and Tribune, 1862;
consolidated with Daily Post (founded 1866),
as Post and Tribune, 1877; became Tribune, 1885.
* Elmira Gazette, weekly, added daily, 1860.
Philadelphia Inquirer.
* Providence Daily Journal.
* Syracuse Standard; successor to Onondaga Standard.
1830.
* Albany Evening Journal.
* Boston Transcript.
Louisville Journal; consolidated with Courier
(founded 1843) and Democrat (founded 1844),
under name of Louisville Courier-Journal, 1868.
* Evangelist (New York), weekly.
* Sunday School Journal (Philadelphia), weekly;
merged in Sunday School Times, 1859.
1831.
Orleans American (Albion, New York), weekly.
* Boston Daily Post.
Presbyterian (Philadelphia), weekly.
Illinois State Journal (Springfield), weekly;
added daily, 1848.
1832.
* Patriot (Montpelier, Vermont);
consolidated with Argus (founded 1851, Bellows Falls),
as Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
* Herald (New Haven), daily; various names;
became Journal and Courier, 1849.
Morning Journal and Courier (New Haven).
1833.
* Catholic Intelligencer (Boston), weekly;
successor to Jesuit; became Pilot, 1836.
* Boston Mercantile Journal; now Boston Journal.
* The Sun (New York).
1834.
Bangor Whig and Courier.
* Western Christian Advocate (Cincinnati), weekly.
* British Whig (Kingston, Ontario), daily, 1849.
* New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, weekly; added daily, 1845
Anzeiger des Westens (St. Louis).
1835.
* New York Herald.
Schenectady Reflector, weekly; added Evening Star, 1855.
Troy Morning Telegram.
1836.
* Miner's Express, weekly;
merged in Dubuque Herald (founded 1853), now daily and weekly.
* Public Ledger and Daily Transcript (Philadelphia).
* Illinois State Register (Vandalia), weekly;
absorbed People's Advocate, 1836;
removed to Springfield, 1839;
absorbed Illinois Republican, 1839; added daily, 1848.
* Toledo Blade, weekly; added daily, 1848.
1837.
* Sun (Baltimore), daily and weekly.
Buffalo Demokrat und Weltbürger.
Burlington (Iowa) Gazette.
* Cincinnati Times, daily and weekly;
daily consolidated with Star (founded 1872),
daily and weekly, as Cincinnati Times-Star, 1880.
Southern Christian Advocate (Columbia, South Carolina), weekly.
Jackson (Mississippi) Clarion, weekly.
* Milwaukee Sentinel, weekly;
absorbed Gazette and became Sentinel-Gazette, 1846;
dropped "Gazette," 1851; daily 1844.
* New Orleans Picayune.
1838.
Bangor Commercial.
* Philadelphia Demokrat.
* St. Louis Evening Gazette;
became Evening Mirror, 1847;
became New Era, 1848;
became Intelligencer, 1849;
became Evening News, 1857;
consolidated with Dispatch, 1867;
consolidated with Evening Post, as Post Dispatch, 1878.
1839.
* Iowa Patriot (Burlington), weekly;
became Hawkeye and Iowa Patriot;
has been, at various times, semi-weekly, and daily;
now Burlington Hawkeye, daily and weekly.
* Christliche Apologete (Cincinnati), weekly.
* Madison Express, weekly;
became Wisconsin Express, 1848; daily, 1851;
consolidated with a new paper, Statesman, as Palladium,
daily and weekly, 1852;
became Wisconsin State Journal, 1852.
Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register (New York), weekly.
* North American (Philadelphia);
absorbed Pennsylvania Packet
(see 1771, Pennsylvania Packet), 1839.
Western State Journal (Syracuse), weekly;
became Syracuse Journal, 1844; added daily, 1846;
absorbed Evening Chronicle, 1856; added semi-weekly, 1893.
1840.
Chicago Tribune.
* Appeal Memphis);
consolidated with Avalanche (founded 1857),
as Appeal-Avalanche, 1890 (?);
consolidated with Commercial (founded 1889),
as Commercial Appeal, 1894.
* Union and Evangelist (Uniontown, Pennsylvania);
became Evangelist and Observer at Pittsburgh;
succeeded by Cumberland Presbyterian,
about 1846, at Uniontown; removed to Brownsville;
then to Waynesburg; to Alton, Illinois, in 1868;
and to Nashville, Tennessee, in 1874;
here consolidated with Banner of Peace
(founded, Princeton, Kentucky, 1840;
removed to Lebanon, Tennessee, 1843; then to Nashville).
* Roman Citizen, weekly; became Rome Semi-Weekly Citizen, 1888.
1841.
* Brooklyn Eagle.
* Prairie Farmer (Chicago), weekly.
* New York Tribune.
* Pittsburgh Chronicle;
consolidated with Pittsburgh Telegraph (founded 1873), as
Pittsburgh Chronicle Telegraph, 1884.
Reading Eagle, weekly; added daily, 1868.
{2605}
1842.
* Daily Mercantile Courier and Democratic Economist (Buffalo);
became Daily Courier and Economist, 1843;
became Buffalo Courier, daily, 1845.
* Cincinnati Enquirer, daily and semi-weekly.
* Galveston News.
Rural New Yorker (New York), weekly.
* Preacher (Pittsburgh), weekly;
became United Presbyterian, 1854.
1843.
* Albany Daily Knickerbocker;
consolidated with Press (founded 1877), as
Daily Press and Knickerbocker, 1877.
* Steuben Courier (Bath, New York).
1844.
Chicago Evening Journal.
* Woechentlicher Seebote (Milwaukee);
became Der Seebote, daily and Woechentlicher Seebote.
* American Baptist (New York);
became Baptist Weekly;
has absorbed Gospel Age;
became Christian Inquirer, weekly, 1888.
* Churchman (New York), weekly.
*New Yorker Demokrat; New Yorker Journal, 1862;
consolidated as New Yorker Zeitung, 1878.
Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature (New York), monthly.
Ledger (New York), weekly.
Oswego Times.
* Globe (Toronto).
1845.
* Binghamton Democrat, weekly; added daily, 1864.
* Buffalo Morning Express.
* Independent Democrat (Concord, New Hampshire).
See 1823, New Hampshire Statesman.
Montreal Witness, weekly; added daily, 1860.
Scientific American (New York), weekly.
* St. Joseph (Missouri) Gazette, daily and weekly.
1846.
* Boston Herald, daily and weekly.
* Evening News (Hamilton, Ontario), daily and weekly;
successor to Journal and Express, semi-weekly;
became Banner and Railway Chronicle, 1852 or 1853;
became Evening Times, 1858.
* Hamilton (Ontario) Spectator, semi-weekly; added daily, 1852.
Keokuk (Iowa) Gate City.
* Bankers' Magazine (New York), monthly.
* Newport (Rhode Island) Daily News.
Pittsburgh Dispatch.
1847.
* Albany Morning Express.
New England Historical and Genealogical Register (Boston),
quarterly.
Boston Traveller.
Illinois Staats-Zeitung (Chicago).
* Lewiston (Maine) Weekly Journal;
added Evening Journal, 1861.
London (Ontario) Free Press, weekly; added daily, 1859.
* Evening Wisconsin Milwaukee).
Iron Age (New York), weekly.
Toledo Commercial.
Utica Morning Herald; consolidated with Gazette (founded 1793),
as Morning Herald and Gazette.
1848.
* Massachusetts Teacher;
afterwards, with College Courant (founded 1866, New Haven),
Rhode Island Schoolmaster (founded 1855),
and Connecticut School Journal,
formed Journal of Education (founded 1875, Boston).
* Williamsburg Times; became Brooklyn Daily Times, 1854.
* Cleveland Leader, daily;
added, by purchase, Evening News (founded 1868), 1869;
purchased Cleveland Herald (founded 1819), and consolidated it
with Evening News, as News and Herald, 1885.
Des Moines Leader.
* Independent (New York), weekly.
1849.
* Congregationalist (Boston), weekly;
absorbed Boston Recorder (founded 1816), 1867.
* Detroit Tribune; consolidated with Post, 1877.
See 1829, Northwestern Journal.
* Irish American (New York), weekly.
* Water Cure Journal (New York);
became Herald of Health, 1863;
became Journal of Hygiene and Herald of Health, m., 1893.
* St. Paul Pioneer, weekly; daily, 1854;
consolidated with St. Paul Press (founded 1860), daily,
as Pioneer Press, 1875.
Wilkesbarre Leader, weekly; added daily, 1879.
1850.
* Buffalo Christian Advocate, weekly.
Kansas City (Missouri) Times.
Mirror and American (Manchester, New Hampshire).
Harper's New Monthly Magazine (New York).
* Oregonian (Portland), weekly; added daily, 1861.
Richmond Dispatch.
* Deseret News (Salt Lake City), weekly;
added semi-weekly, 1865; added daily, 1867.
* Morning News (Savannah, Georgia), daily and weekly;
absorbed Savannah Republican (founded 1802),
and Savannah Daily Advertiser (founded 1866), 1874.
* Watertown (New York) Weekly Reformer;
added Daily Times, 1860.
1851.
La Crosse Morning Chronicle.
* Union Democrat (Manchester, New Hampshire), weekly;
added Manchester Union, daily, 1863.
* Argus (Bellows Falls); consolidated with Patriot,
at Montpelier, under name of Argus and Patriot, weekly, 1862.
* New York Times, daily and weekly.
* Rochester Beobachter, weekly; 3 times a week, 1855;
daily, 1863; consolidated with Abendpost (founded 1880),
as Rochester Abendpost und Beobachter, daily and weekly, 1881.
St. Joseph (Mo.) Herald.
* Troy (New York) Times, daily.
1852.
Wächter am Erie (Cleveland).
St. Louis Globe–Democrat.
Wheeling Intelligencer (Wheeling, West Virginia).
1853.
Elmira Advertiser.
Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly (New York).
Richmond Anzeiger.
San Francisco Evening Post.
Toledo Express.
Washington Evening Star.
* Record of the Times (Wilkesbarre), weekly;
added Wilkesbarre Record, daily, 1873.
1854.
* Deutsche Zeitung (Charleston, South Carolina),
semi-weekly and weekly;
suspended during four years of Civil War.
Chicago Times, daily and weekly.
* American Israelite (Cincinnati), weekly.
* Kansas City (Missouri) Journal, weekly; added daily, 1864.
La Crosse Republican and Leader.
Herold (Milwaukee).
* Nebraska City News.
* Anzeiger des Nordens (Rochester);
became Rochester Volksblatt, weekly, 1859, added daily, 1863.
{2606}
1855.
* Ogdensburg Journal, daily;
purchased St. Lawrence Republican (founded 1826), weekly, 1858.
1856.
* Albany Times; absorbed Evening Courier, 1861;
consolidated with Evening Union (founded 1882),
as Albany Times-Union, daily and weekly, 1891.
* Buffalo Allgemeine Zeitung, weekly;
succeeded by Buffalo Freie Presse, daily 3 months,
then semi-weekly; daily, 1872.
* Iowa State Register (Des Moines), weekly; added daily, 1861.
Dubuque Times.
* Western Railroad Gazette (Chicago), weekly;
became Railroad Gazette; removed to New York, 1871.
San Francisco Call.
* Scranton Republican, weekly; added daily, 1867.
1857.
Baltimore News.
Atlantic Monthly (Boston).
* Banner of Light (Boston), weekly.
Leavenworth Times.
New Haven Union.
Harper's Weekly (New York).
* Jewish Messenger (New York), weekly.
* Scottish American (New York), weekly.
Philadelphia Press.
Courrier du Canada (Quebec).
Westliche Post (St. Louis).
Syracuse Courier.
1858.
Hartford Evening Post; Connecticut Post, weekly.
Nebraska Press (Nebraska City), daily and weekly.
Rochester Post-Express.
1859.
* Boston Commercial Bulletin, weekly.
* Rocky Mountain News (Denver), weekly; added daily, 1860.
Kansas City (Missouri) Post (German).
* Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), weekly;
succeeded Sunday School Journal (founded 1830);
absorbed Sunday School Workman (founded 1870), 1871;
absorbed National Sunday School Teacher (founded 1866), 1882.
St. John (New Brunswick) Globe.
1860.
World (New York).
1861.
Commonwealth (Boston), weekly.
1862.
* New Yorker Journal. See 1844, New Yorker Demokrat.
* Maine State Press (Portland), weekly;
Portland Press, daily.
Raleigh News and Observer.
St. John (New Brunswick) Telegraph, weekly;added daily, 1869.
1863.
* Brooklyn Daily Union;
consolidated with Brooklyn Daily Standard (founded 1884),
as Brooklyn Standard Union, 1887.
London (Ontario) Advertiser.
* New Orleans Times;
consolidated with Democrat (founded 1876),
as New Orleans Times–Democrat, 1881, all daily and weekly.
Army and Navy Journal (New York), weekly.
Portland (Oregon) Evening Telegram.
Providence Evening Bulletin.
* Sioux City Journal, weekly; added daily, 1870.
* Wheeling Register.
1864.
* Concord (New Hampshire) Evening Monitor, daily;
issued in connection with Independent Statesman
(see 1823, New Hampshire Statesman).
Reading Post (German), weekly; added daily, 1867.
* Springfield (Massachusetts) Union.
1865.
Albany Evening Post.
* Skandinaven (Chicago), weekly; daily, 1871.
Halifax Morning Chronicle.
Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville).
Memphis Public Ledger.
* Catholic World (New York City), monthly.
[https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39367 (first of many)]
* Commercial and Financial Chronicle (New York), weekly;
absorbed Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, 1870.
Nation (New York), weekly
Norfolk Virginian.
* Daily Herald (Omaha, Nebraska); consolidated with
Evening World (founded 1885), as World-Herald, 1889.
* Index (Petersburg, Virginia);
consolidated with Appeal (successor to Express,
founded in 1848), as Index-Appeal, 1873.
Philadelphia Abend Post.
San Antonio Express.
* San Francisco Chronicle.
* Union (Schenectady), daily, and weekly.
1866.
* Denver Tribune;
consolidated with Denver Republican (founded 1878),
under name of Tribune-Republican, 1884;
became Denver Republican, daily and weekly.
* Christian at Work (New York), weekly;
became Christian Work, 1894;
has absorbed The Continent, The Manhattan Magazine,
Every Thursday, and others.
Engineering and Mining Journal (New York), weekly.
Sanitarian (New York), monthly.
1867.
* Advance (Chicago), weekly.
* Evening Journal (Jersey City).
* Nebraska Commonwealth (Lincoln), weekly; became
Nebraska State Journal, weekly, 1869; added daily, 1870.
* Democrat (Madison, Wisconsin), daily and weekly.
Minneapolis Tribune.
* Le Monde (Montreal).
Engineering News (New York), weekly.
Harper's Bazaar (New York), weekly.
American Naturalist (Philadelphia), monthly.
* L'Evenement (Quebec).
* Seattle Intelligencer, weekly; daily, 1876;
consolidated with Post (founded 1878), daily,
under name of Post-Intelligencer, 1881.
Vicksburg Commercial Herald, weekly; added daily, 1869.
Wilmington (North Carolina) Messenger.
* Morning Star (Wilmington, North Carolina).
1868.
Atlanta Constitution.
* Buffalo Volksfreund, daily and weekly.
* People (Concord, New Hampshire).
See 1809, New Hampshire Patriot.
Lippincott's Magazine (Philadelphia), monthly.
St. Paul Dispatch.
* San Diego Union, weekly; added daily, 1871.
Troy Press.
1869.
* Evening Star (Montreal);
became Montreal Evening Star, then Montreal Daily Star;
added Family Herald and Weekly Star, weekly.
* Christian Union (New York), weekly; became The Outlook, 1893.
Manufacturer and Builder (New York), monthly.
* Ottawa Free Press, daily and weekly.
Scranton Times, daily and weekly.
{2607}
PRIOR.
PRIORY.
See MONASTERY.
PRIORIES, Alien.
"These were cells of foreign abbeys, founded upon estates
which English proprietors had given to the foreign houses."
_E. L. Cutts,
Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,
chapter 4._
PRIORS OF THE FLORENTINE GUILDS.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1203.
PRISAGE.
See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE.
PRISON-SHIPS, British, at New York.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777
PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.
PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS,
Confederate.
Libby.
Belle Isle.
Andersonville.
"The Libby, which is best known, though also used as a place
of confinement for private soldiers, is generally understood
to be the officers' prison. It is a row of brick buildings,
three stories high, situated on the canal [in Richmond,
Virginia], and overlooking the James river, and was formerly a
tobacco warehouse. … The rooms are 100 feet long by 40 feet
broad. In six of these rooms, 1,200 United States officers, of
all grades, from the Brigadier-General to the Second-Lieutenant,
were confined for many months, and this was all
the space that was allowed them in which to cook, eat, wash,
sleep, and take exercise. … Ten feet by two were all that
could be claimed by each man—hardly enough to measure his
length upon; and even this was further abridged by the room
necessarily taken for cooking, washing and clothes-drying. At
one time they were not allowed the use of benches, chairs, or
stools, nor even to fold their blankets and sit upon them, but
those who would rest were obliged to huddle on their haunches,
as one of them expresses it, 'like so many slaves on the
middle passage.' After awhile this severe restriction was
removed, and they were allowed to make chairs and stools for
themselves, out of the barrels and boxes which they had
received from the North. They were overrun with vermin in
spite of every precaution and constant ablutions. Their
blankets, which averaged one to a man, and sometimes less, had
not been issued by the rebels, but had been procured in
different ways; sometimes by purchase, sometimes through the
Sanitary Commission. The prisoners had to help themselves from
the refuse accumulation of these articles. … The prison did
not seem to be under any general and uniform army regulations,
but the captives were subject to the caprices of Major Turner,
the officer in charge, and Richard Turner, inspector of the
prison. It was among the rules that no one should go within
three feet of the windows, a rule which seems to be general in
all Southern prisons of this character. … Often by accident,
or unconsciously, an officer would go near a window, and be
instantly shot at without warning. The reports of the sentry's
musket were heard almost every day, and frequently a prisoner
fell either killed or wounded. It was even worse with a large
prison near by, called the Pemberton Buildings, which was
crowded with enlisted men. … The daily ration in the officers'
quarter of Libby Prison was a small loaf of bread about the
size of a man's fist, made of Indian meal. Sometimes it was
made from wheat flour, but of variable quality. It weighed a
little over half a pound. With it was given a piece of beef
weighing two ounces. … But there is a still lower depth of
suffering to be exposed. The rank of the officers, however
disregarded in most respects, induced some consideration, but
for the private soldiers there seemed to be no regard
whatever, and no sentiment which could restrain. It is to this
most melancholy part of their task that the Commissioners now
proceed. Belle Isle is a small island in the James river,
opposite the Tredegar Iron–works, and in full sight from the
Libby windows. … The portion on which the prisoners are
confined is low, sandy, and barren, without a tree to cast a
shadow, and poured upon by the burning rays of a Southern sun.
Here is an enclosure, variously estimated to be from three to
six acres in extent, surrounded by an earthwork about three
feet high, with a ditch on either side. … The interior has
something of the look of an encampment, a number of Sibley
tents being set in rows, with 'streets' between. These tents,
rotten, torn, full of holes,—poor shelter at any
rate,—accommodated only a small proportion of the number who
were confined within these low earth walls. The number varied
at different periods, but from 10,000 to 12,000 men have been
imprisoned in this small space at one time, turned into the
enclosure like so many cattle, to find what resting place they
could. … Thousands had no tents, and no shelter of any kind.
Nothing was provided for their accommodation. Lumber was
plenty in a country of forests, but not a cabin or shed was
built. … Every day, during the winter season, numbers were
conveyed away stiff and stark, having fallen asleep in
everlasting cold. … They were fed as the swine are fed. A
chunk of corn-bread, 12 or 14 ounces in weight, half-baked,
full of cracks as if baked in the sun, musty in taste,
containing whole grains of corn, fragments of cob, and pieces
of husks; meat often tainted, suspiciously like mule–meat, and
a mere mouthful at that; two or three spoonfuls of rotten
beans; soup thin and briny, often with worms floating on the
surface. None of these were given together, and the whole
ration was never one-half the quantity necessary for the
support of a healthy man."
_V. Mott, and others,
Report of United States Sanitary Commission Com. of
Inquiry on the Sufferings of Prisoners of War in
the hands of the Rebel Authorities,
chapters 2-3._
The little hamlet of Anderson, so named, in 1853, after John
W. Anderson, of Savannah, but called Andersonville by the Post
Office Department, is situated in the heart of the richest
portion of the cotton and corn-growing region of Georgia, on
the Southwestern Railroad, 62 miles south from Macon and 9
miles north of Americus. "Here, on the 27th day of November,
1863, W. S. Winder, a captain in the rebel army, and who was
selected for the purpose, came and located the grounds, for a
'Confederate States Military Prison.' … When the site was
definitely established, it was found to be covered with a
thick growth of pines and oaks. … It was … suggested to W. S.
Winder by a disinterested spectator of his preliminary
proceedings … that the shade afforded by the trees would prove
grateful protections to the prisoners. The reply was
characteristic of the man and prophetic of their future fate.
'That is just what I am not going to do! I will make a pen
here for the d—d Yankees, where they will rot faster than they
can be sent!' … The trees were leveled to the ground, and the
space was cleared. … No buildings, barracks, houses, or huts
of any kind were built.
{2608}
The canopy of the sky was the only covering." In March, 1864,
John H. Winder, father of the W. S. Winder mentioned above,
became commandant of the post, and with him came Henry Wirz,
as superintendent of the prison. These two names are linked in
infamy with the horrors of the Andersonville Prison-Pen. "The
stockade at Andersonville was originally built, as we learn
from many sources, with a capacity for 10,000, its area being
about 18 acres. It continued without enlargement until the
month of June, 1864, when it was increased about one third,
its area then, as shown by actual survey, being 23½ acres. …
From Colonel Chandler's Inspection Report [the report of a
Confederate official], dated August 5th, 1864, I quote the
following: 'A railing around the inside of the stockade, and
about 20 feet from it, constitutes the 'dead line,' beyond
which prisoners are not allowed to pass. A small stream passes
from west to east through the inclosure, about 150 yards from
its southern limit, and furnishes the only water for washing
accessible to the prisoners. Bordering this stream, about
three quarters of an acre in the centre of the inclosure are
so marshy as to be at present unfit for occupation, reducing
the available present area to about 23½ acres, which gives
somewhat less than six square feet to each prisoner'; and, he
remarks, 'even this is being constantly reduced by the
additions to their number.' … Dr. Joseph Jones, Professor of
Chemistry in the Medical College of Georgia, … went to
Andersonville under the direction of the surgeon general of
the Confederacy, pursuant to an order dated Richmond,
Virginia, August 6th, 1864. … Dr. Jones proceeds to give a
table illustrating the mean strength of prisoners confined in
the stockade. … His table … shows the following as the mean
result: March, 7,500; April, 10,000; May, 15,000; June,
22,291; July, 29,030; August, 32,899. He says: 'Within the
circumscribed area of the stockade the Federal prisoners were
compelled to perform all the offices of life, cooking,
washing, urinating, defecation, exercise, and sleeping.' …
'The low grounds bordering the stream were covered with human
excrement and filth of all kinds, which in many cases appeared
to be alive with working maggots. An indescribable sickening
stench arose from the fermenting mass of human dung and
filth.' And again: 'There were nearly 5,000 seriously-ill
Federals in the stockade and Confederate States Military
Prison Hospital, and the deaths exceeded 100 per day. … I
visited 2,000 sick within the stockade, lying under some long
sheds which they had built at the northern portion for
themselves. At this time only one medical officer was in
attendance.'" At the close of the war, Wirz, the inhuman
jailor of Andersonville was tried for his many crimes before a
military commission, over which General Lewis Wallace
presided, was condemned and was hanged, at Andersonville,
November 10, 1865. His superior officer, Winder, escaped the
earthly tribunal by dying of a gangrenous disorder, which had
been caused, without doubt, by the poisoned air of the place.
_A. Spencer,
Narrative of Andersonville,
chapters 1, 4, 5, 13, 15._
"There can be no accurate count of the mortality in rebel
prisons. The report made by the War Department to the 40th
Congress shows that about 188,000 Union soldiers were captured
by the Confederates; that half of them were paroled, and half
confined in prison; of this number 36,000 died in captivity.
The Union armies, on the other hand, captured 476,000
Confederates: of these 227,000 were retained as prisoners, and
30,000 died. While the percentage of mortality in Northern
prisons was 13 in the hundred, that in rebel prisons was 38."
_J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 7, chapter 16._
_Report of Special Commission on Treatment of Prisoners
(H.R. Report No. 45, 40th Cong., 3d Session)._
_Trial of Henry Wirz._
_Southern Historical Society Papers,
volume 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. McElroy,
Andersonville.
[https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4257 (volume 1)]_
_F. F. Cavada,
Libby Life_.
_A. B. Isham, H. M. Davidson and H. B. Furness,
Prisoners of War and Military Prisons._
PRIVATE WARFARE, The Right of.
See LANDFRIEDE.
PRIVATEERING, American, in the War of 1812.
"The war [of 1812-14] lasted about three years, and the result
was, as near as I have been able to ascertain, a loss to Great
Britain of about 2,000 ships and vessels of every description,
including men-of-war and merchantmen. Eighteen hundred sail
are recorded as having been taken, burnt, sunk, or destroyed.
To this number may be added 200 more, which were either
destroyed or considered too insignificant to be reported;
making an aggregate of 2,000 sail of British shipping captured
by our little navy, with the aid of privateers and
letters-of-marque. … I have not had sufficient time in giving
this summary to ascertain, precisely, what proportion of these
2,000 vessels were captured by the United States government
ships; but, at a rough estimate, should judge one-third part
of the whole number, leaving two-thirds, or, say, 1330 sail,
to have been taken by American privateers and private-armed
vessels. I have found it difficult to ascertain the exact
number of our own vessels taken and destroyed by the English;
but, from the best information I can obtain, I should judge
they would not amount to more than 500 sail. It must be
recollected that the most of our losses occurred during the
first six months of the war. After that period, we had very
few vessels afloat, except privateers and letters-of–marque."
_G. Coggeshall,
History of American Privateers, 1812-14,
pages 394-395._
PRIVATEERS.
LETTERS OF MARQUE.
"Until lately all maritime states have … been in the habit of
using privateers, which are vessels belonging to private
owners, and sailing under a commission of war [such
commissions being denominated letters of marque and reprisal]
empowering the person to whom it is granted to carry on all
forms of hostility which are permissible at sea by the usages
of war. … Universally as privateers were formerly employed,
the right to use them has now almost disappeared from the
world. It formed part of the Declaration adopted at the
Congress of Paris in 1856 with reference to Maritime Law that
'privateering is and remains abolished'; and all civilised
states have since become signataries of the Declaration,
except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. For the future
privateers can only be employed by signataries of the
Declaration of Paris during war with one of the last-mentioned
states."
_W. E. Hall,
Treatise on International Law,
part 3, chapter 7, section 180._
{2609}
"There is a distinction between a privateer and a letter of
marque in this, that the former are always equipped for the
sole purpose of war, while the latter may be a merchantman,
uniting the purposes of commerce to those of capture. In
popular language, however, all private vessels commissioned
for hostile purposes, upon the enemy's property, are called
letters of marque."
_F. H. Upton,
The Law of Nations affecting Commerce during War,
page 186._
See, also, DECLARATION OF PARIS.
PRIVILEGE OF UNION AND GENERAL PRIVILEGE OF ARAGON.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
PRIVILEGIUM MAJUS, THE.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
PRIVY COUNCIL, THE.
"It was in the reign of Henry VI. that the King's Council
first assumed the name of the 'Privy Council,' and it was also
during the minority of this King that a select Council was
gradually emerging from out of the larger body of the Privy
Council, which ultimately resulted in the institution of our
modern Cabinet.
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
From the accession of Henry VII. to the reign of Charles I.
the Privy Council was wholly subservient to the royal will,
and the instrument of unconstitutional and arbitrary
proceedings. The first act of the Long Parliament was to
deprive the Council of most of its judicial power, leaving,
however, its constitution and political functions unchanged.
Since the Revolution of 1688 the Privy Council has dwindled
into comparative insignificance, when contrasted with its
original authoritative position. Its judicial functions are
now restrained within very narrow limits. The only relic of
its ancient authority in criminal matters is its power of
taking examinations, and issuing commitments for treason. It
still, however, continues to exercise an original jurisdiction
in advising the Crown concerning the grant of charters, and it
has exclusively assumed the appellate jurisdiction over the
colonies and dependencies of the Crown, which formerly
appertained to the Council in Parliament. Theoretically, the
Privy Council still retains its ancient supremacy, and in a
constitutional point of view is presumed to be the only legal
and responsible Council of the Crown. … As her Majesty can
only act through her privy councillors, or upon their advice,
all the higher and more formal acts of administration must
proceed from the authority of the Sovereign in Council, and
their performance be directed by orders issued by the
Sovereign at a meeting of the Privy Council specially convened
for that purpose. No rule can be laid down defining those
political acts of the Crown which may be performed upon the
advice of particular ministers, or those which must be
exercised only 'in Council'—the distinction depends partly on
usage and partly on the wording of Acts of Parliament. … The
ancient functions of the Privy Council are now performed by
committees, excepting those formal measures which proceed from
the authority of her Majesty in Council. The acts of these
committees are designated as those of the Lords of the
Council. These Lords of Council (who are usually selected by
the Lord President of the Council, of whom more hereafter)
constitute a high court of record for the Investigation of all
offences against the Government, and of such other
extraordinary matters as may be brought before them. … If the
matter be one properly cognisable by a legal tribunal, it is
referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This
committee, which is composed of the Lord President, the Lord
Chancellor, and such members of the Privy Council as from time
to time hold certain high judicial offices, has jurisdiction
in appeals from all colonial courts: it is also the supreme
court of maritime jurisdiction, and the tribunal wherein the
Crown exercises its judicial supremacy in ecclesiastical
cases. The Privy Council has also to direct local authorities
throughout the kingdom in matters affecting the preservation
of the public health. A committee of the Privy Council is also
appointed to provide 'for the general management and
superintendence of Education,' and subject to this committee
is the Science and Art Department for the United Kingdom. …
Formerly meetings of the Council were frequently held, but
they now seldom occur oftener than once in three or four
weeks, and are always convened to assemble at the royal
residence for the time being. The attendance of seven Privy
Councillors used to be regarded as the quorum necessary to
constitute a Council for ordinary purposes of state, but this
number has been diminished frequently to only three. No Privy
Councillor presumes to attend upon any meeting of the Privy
Council unless specially summoned. The last time the whole
Council was convoked was in 1839. Privy Councillors are
appointed absolutely, without patent or grant, at the
discretion of the Sovereign. Their number is unlimited. …
Since the separate existence of the Cabinet Council, meetings
of the Privy Council for purposes of deliberation have ceased
to be held. The Privy Council consists ordinarily of the
members of the Royal Family, the Archbishops of Canterbury and
York, the Bishop of London, all the Cabinet Ministers, the
Lord Chancellor, the chief officers of the Royal Household,
the Judges of the Courts of Equity, the Chief Justices of the
Courts of Common Law, and some of the Puisne Judges, the
Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Judges and the Judge-Advocate,
the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, the Speaker of the House of
Commons, the Ambassadors and the Chief Ministers
Plenipotentiary, the Governors of the chief colonies, the
Commander-in-Chief, the Vice-President of the Committee of
Council for Education, certain other officials I need not
particularise, and occasionally a Junior Lord of the
Admiralty, though it is not usual for Under Secretaries of
State or Junior Lords of the Treasury or Admiralty to have
this rank conferred upon them. A seat in the Privy Council is
sometimes given to persons retiring from the public service,
who have filled responsible situations under the Crown, as an
honorary distinction. A Privy Councillor is styled Right
Honourable, and he takes precedence of all baronets, knights,
and younger sons of viscounts and barons."
_A. C. Ewald,
The Crown and its Advisers,
lecture 2._
ALSO IN:
_A. V. Dicey,
The Privy Council._
{2610}
PROBULI, The.
A board of ten provisional councillors, instituted at Athens
during the later period of the Peloponnesian War, after the
great calamity at Syracuse. It was intended to introduce a
conservative agency into the too democratic constitution of
the state; to be "a board composed of men of mature age, who
should examine all proposals and motions, after which only
such among the latter as this board had sanctioned and
approved should come before the citizens. This new board was,
at the same time, in urgent cases itself to propose the
necessary measures."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 5._
See ATHENS; B. C. 413-411.
PROBUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 276-282.
PROBUS, Wall of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 277.
PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Controversy on.
See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.
PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR, ROMAN.
"If a Consul was pursuing his operations ever so successfully,
he was liable to be superseded at the year's close by his
successor in the Consulship: and this successor brought with
him new soldiers and new officers; everything, it would seem,
had to be done over again. This was always felt in times of
difficulty, and the constitutional usages were practically
suspended. … In the year 328 B. C. the Senate first assumed
the power of decreeing that a Consul or Prætor might be
continued in his command for several successive years, with
the title of Proconsul, or Proprætor, the power of these
officers being, within their own district, equal to the power
of the Consul or Prætor himself. The Proconsul also was
allowed to keep part of his old army, and would of course
continue his Tribunes and Centurions in office. … Almost all
the great successes of Marcellus and Scipio were gained in
Proconsular commands."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 35._
PROCURATOR.
PROCTOR.
See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
PROHIBITIONISTS.
A party in American politics which contends for the enactment
of laws to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating
liquors.
PROMANTY, The Right of.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
PROPAGANDA, The College of the.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1622.
PROPHESYINGS.
In the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, among those
English reformers who were subsequently known as Puritans,
"the clergy in several dioceses set up, with encouragement
from their superiors, a certain religious exercise, called
prophesyings. They met at appointed times to expound and
discuss together particular texts of Scripture, under the
presidency of a moderator appointed by the bishop, who
finished by repeating the substance of their debate, with his
own determination upon it. These discussions were in public,
and it was contended that this sifting of the grounds of their
faith, and habitual argumentation, would both tend to edify
the people, very little acquainted as yet with their religion,
and supply in some degree the deficiencies of learning among
the pastors themselves." The prophesyings, however, were
suppressed by the queen and Archbishop Parker.
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_J. B. Marsden,
History of the Early Puritans,
chapter 4. sections 7-25._
PROPHETS, The Hebrew.
"The Hebrew word 'Nabi' is derived from the verb 'naba.' … The
root of the verb is said to be a word signifying 'to boil or
bubble over,' and is thus taken from the metaphor of a
fountain bursting forth from the heart of man, into which God
has poured it. Its actual meaning is 'to pour forth excited
utterances,' as appears from its occasional use in the sense
of 'raving.' Even to this day, in the East, the ideas of
prophet and madman are closely connected. The religious sense,
in which, with these exceptions, the word is always employed,
is that of 'speaking' or 'singing under a divine afflatus or
impulse,' to which the peculiar form of the word, as just
observed, lends itself. … It is this word that the Seventy
translated by a Greek term not of frequent usage in classical
authors, but which, through their adoption of it, has passed
into all modern European languages; namely, the word …
Prophet. … The English words 'prophet,' 'prophecy,'
'prophesying,' originally kept tolerably close to the Biblical
use of the word. The celebrated dispute about 'prophesyings,'
in the sense of 'preachings,' in the reign of Elizabeth, and
the treatise of Jeremy Taylor on 'The Liberty of Prophesying,'
i. e. the liberty of preaching, show that even down to the
seventeenth century the word was still used, as in the Bible,
for 'preaching,' or 'speaking according to the will of God.'
In the seventeenth century, however, the limitation of the
word to the sense of 'prediction' had gradually begun to
appear. … The Prophet then was 'the messenger or interpreter
of the Divine will.'"
_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 19 (volume 1)._
PROPHETS, Schools of the.
See EDUCATION, ANCIENT; JUDÆA.
PROPONTIS, The.
The small sea which intervenes between the Pontus Euxinus
(Black Sea) and the Ægean. So-called by the Greeks; now called
the Sea of Marmora.
PROPRÆTOR, Roman.
See PROCONSUL.
PROPYLÆA OF THE ACROPOLIS, The.
See ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS.
PROTECTIVE TARIFFS.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION.
PROTECTORATE, Cromwell's.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (DECEMBER); 1654-1658.
PROTESTANT, Origin of the name.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
PROTESTANT FLAIL, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.
----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: Start--------
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415. and after.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
France.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535; and
FRANCE; A. D. 1532-1547, and after.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Germany.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,
1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;
also, GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, and 1530-1532,
to 1552-1561;
also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE: A. D. 1518-1572.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Ireland: its failure.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Piedmont.
See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;
and 1561-1568.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Sweden and Denmark.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES; A. D. 1397-1527.
PROTESTANT REFORMATION:
Switzerland.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
----------PROTESTANT REFORMATION: End--------
PROTOSEVASTOS.
See SEVASTOS.
{2611}
PROVENCE:
Roman origin.
"The colonization of Narbo [Narbonne, B. C. 118] may be
considered as the epoch when the Romans finally settled the
province of southern Gallia, which they generally named Gallia
Provincia, and sometimes simply Provincia. From the time of
Augustus it was named Narbonensis Provincia, and sometimes
Gallia Braccata. It comprehended on the east all the country
between the Rhone and the Alps. The most northeastern town in
the Provincia was Geneva in the territory of the Allobroges.
Massilia, the ally of Rome, remained a free city. On the west
side of the Rhone, from the latitude of Lugdunum (Lyon), the
Cevenna, or range of the Cévennes, was the boundary of the
Provincia. … The limits of the Provincia were subsequently
extended to Carcaso (Carcassone) and Tolosa (Toulouse); and it
will appear afterwards that some additions were made to it
even on the other side of the Cévennes. This country is a part
of France which is separated by natural boundaries from the
rest of that great empire, and in climate and products it is
Italian rather than French. In the Provincia the Romans have
left some of the noblest and most enduring of their great
works."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 22._
The Provincia of the Romans became the Provence of mediæval
times.
PROVENCE:
Cession to the Visigoths.
"The fair region which we now call Provence, nearly the
earliest formed and quite the latest lost 'Provincia' of Rome,
that region in which the Latin spirit dwelt so strongly that
the Roman nobles thought of migrating thither in 401, when
Alaric first invaded Italy, refused to submit to the rule of
the upstart barbarian [Odovacar, or Odoacer, who subverted the
Western Empire in 476]. The Provençals sent an embassy to
Constantinople to claim the protection of Zeno for the still
loyal subjects of the Empire." But Zeno "inclined to the cause
of Odovacar. The latter, however, who perhaps thought that he
had enough upon his hands without forcing his yoke on the
Provençals, made over his claim to Euric king of the
Visigoths, whose influence was at this time predominant in
Gaul."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 3)._
See, also,
ARLES: A. D. 508-510.
PROVENCE: A. D. 493-526.
Embraced in the Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.
See ROME: A. D. 488-526.
PROVENCE: A. D. 536.
Cession to the Franks.
Out of the wreck of the Visigothic kingdom in Gaul, when it
was overthrown by the Frank king, Clovis, the Ostrogothic king
of Italy, Theodoric, seems to have secured Provence. Eleven
years after the death of Theodoric, and on the eve of the
subversion of his own proudly planted kingdom, in 536, his
successor Witigis, or Vitigis, bought the neutrality of the
Franks by the cession to them of all the Ostrogothic
possessions in Gaul, which were Provence and part of Dauphiné.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 3 (volume 3),
and book 5, chapter 3 (volume 4)._
PROVENCE: A. D. 877-933.
The Kingdom.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.
PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092.
The Kings become Counts.
The Spanish connection.
"Southern France, … after having been the inheritance of
several of the successors of Charlemagne, was elevated in 870
to the rank of an independent kingdom, by Bozon, who was
crowned at Mantes under the title of King of Arles, and who
reduced under his dominion Provence, Dauphiny, Savoy, the
Lyonnese, and some provinces of Burgundy. The sovereignty of
this territory exchanged, in 943, the title of King for that
of Count, under Bozon II.; but the kingdom of Provence was
preserved entire, and continued in the house of Burgundy, of
which Bozon I. was the founder. This noble house became
extinct in 1092, in the person of Gilibert, who left only two
daughters, between whom his possessions were divided. One of
these, Faydide, married Alphonso, Count of Toulouse; and the
other, Douce, became the wife of Raymond Berenger, Count of
Barcelona. … The accession of Raymond Berenger, Count of
Barcelona and husband of Douce, to the throne of Provence,
gave a new direction to the national spirit, by the mixture of
the Catalans with the Provençals. … Raymond Berenger and his
successors introduced into Provence the spirit both of liberty
and chivalry, and a taste for elegance and the arts, with all
the sciences of the Arabians. The union of these noble
sentiments gave birth to that poetical spirit which shone out,
at once, over Provence and all the south of Europe, like an
electric flash in the midst of the most palpable darkness,
illuminating all things by the brightness of its flame."
_J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
Literature of the South of Europe,
chapter 3 (volume l)._
See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
Before the Albigensian Crusade.
"At the accession of Philippe Auguste [crowned as joint-king
of France, 1179, succeeded his father, 1180], the greater part
of the south of France was holden, not of him, but of Pedro of
Arragon, as the supreme suzerain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
To the Arragonese king belonged especially the counties of
Provence, Forcalquier, Narbonne, Beziers, and Carcassonne. His
supremacy was acknowledged by the Counts of Bearn, of
Armagnac, of Bigorre, of Comminges, of Foix, of Roussillon,
and of Montpellier; while the powerful Count of Toulouse,
surrounded by his estates and vassals, maintained with
difficulty his independence against him. To these extensive
territories were given the names sometimes of Provence, in the
larger and less exact use of that word, and sometimes of
Languedoc, in allusion to the rich, harmonious, picturesque,
and flexible language which was then vernacular there.
See LANGUE D'OC.
They who used it called themselves Provençaux or Aquitanians,
to indicate that they were not Frenchmen, but members of a
different and indeed of a hostile nation. Tracing their
descent to the ancient Roman colonists and to the Gothic
invaders of Southern Gaul, the Provençaux regarded with a
mixture of contempt, of fear, and ill will, the inhabitants of
the country north of the Loire, who had made far less progress
than themselves, either in civil liberty, or in the arts and
refinements of social life. … Toulouse, Marseilles, Arles,
Beziers, and many other of their greater cities, emulous of
the Italian republics, with whom they traded and formed
alliances, were themselves living under a government which was
virtually republican. Each of these free cities being,
however, the capital of one of the greater lords among whom
the whole of Aquitaine was parceled out, became the seat of a
princely and luxurious court.
{2612}
A genial climate, a fertile soil, and an active commerce,
rendered the means of subsistence abundant even to the poor,
and gave to the rich ample resources for indulging in all the
gratifications which wealth can purchase. … They lived as if
life had been one protracted holiday. Theirs was the land of
feasting, of gallantry, and of mirth. … They refined and
enhanced the pleasures of appetite by the pleasures of the
imagination. They played with the stern features of war in
knightly tournaments. They parodied the severe toils of
justice in their courts of love. They transferred the poet's
sacred office and high vocation to the Troubadours, whose
amatory and artificial effusions posterity has willingly let
die, notwithstanding the recent labours of MM. Raynouard and
Fauriel to revive them."
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 7._
"In the south of France, more particularly, peace, riches, and
a court life, had introduced, amongst the nobility, an extreme
laxity of manners. Gallantry seems to have been the sole
object of their existence. The ladies, who only appeared in
society after marriage, were proud of the celebrity which
their lovers conferred on their charms. They were delighted
with becoming the objects of the songs of their Troubadour;
nor were they offended at the poems composed in their praise,
in which gallantry was often mingled with licentiousness. They
even themselves professed the Gay Science, 'el Gai Saber,' for
thus poetry was called; and, in their turn, they expressed
their feelings in tender and impassioned verses. They
instituted Courts of Love, where questions of gallantry were
gravely debated and decided by their suffrages. They gave, in
short, to the whole south of France the character of a
carnival, affording a singular contrast to the ideas of
reserve, virtue, and modesty, which we usually attribute to
those good old times."
_J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
Literature of the South of Europe,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_C. C. Fauriel,
History of Provençal Poetry._
See, also, TROUBADOURS.
PROVENCE: A. D. 1209-1242.
The Albigensian Crusades.
See ALBIGENSES.
PROVENCE: A. D. 1246.
The count becomes founder of the Third House of Anjou.
See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
PROVENCE: A. D. 1348.
Sale and transfer of Avignon to the Pope.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
PROVENCE: A. D. 1536-1546.
Invasion by Charles V.
Defensive wasting of the country.
Massacre of Waldenses.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
PROVENCE: 16th Century.
Strength of Protestantism.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
----------PROVENCE: End--------
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND:
The Plantation and the City.
See RHODE ISLAND.
PROVISIONS OF OXFORD AND WESTMINSTER.
See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.
PROVISORS, Statute of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.
PROXENI.
In ancient Sparta, "the so-called Proxeni, whose number was
fluctuating, served as the subordinates of the kings in their
diplomatic communication with foreign States."
_G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1, section 9._
PRUSA: A. D. 1326.
The first capital of the Ottomans.
See TURKS (OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326.
----------PRUSSIA: Start--------
PRUSSIA:
The original country and its name.
"Five–hundred miles, and more, to the east of Brandenburg,
lies a Country then [10th century] as now called Preussen
(Prussia Proper), inhabited by Heathens, where also endeavours
at conversion are going on, though without success hitherto. …
Part of the great plain or flat which stretches, sloping
insensibly, continuously, in vast expanse, from the Silesian
Mountains to the amber–regions of the Baltic; Preussen is the
seaward, more alluvial part of this,—extending west and east,
on both sides of the Weichsel (Vistula), from the regions of
the Oder river to the main stream of the Memel.
'Bordering-on-Russia' its name signifies: Bor-Russia,
B'russia, Prussia; or—some say it was only on a certain
inconsiderable river in those parts, river Reussen, that it
'bordered,' and not on the great Country, or any part of it,
which now in our days is conspicuously its next neighbour. Who
knows?—In Henry the Fowler's time, and long afterwards,
Preussen was a vehemently Heathen country; the natives a
Miscellany of rough Serbic Wends, Letts, Swedish Goths, or
Dryasdust knows not what;—very probably a sprinkling of
Swedish Goths, from old time, chiefly along the coasts.
Dryasdust knows only that these Preussen were a strong-boned,
iracund herdsman-and-fisher people; highly averse to be
interfered with, in their religion especially. Famous
otherwise, through all the centuries, for the amber they had
been used to fish, and sell in foreign parts. … Their
knowledge of Christianity was trifling; their aversion to
knowing anything of it was great."
_T. Carlyle,
Frederick the Great,
book 2, chapter 2._
PRUSSIA: 13th Century.
Conquered and Christianized by the Teutonic Knights.
The first Christian missionary who ventured among the savage
heathen of Prussia Proper was Adalbert, bishop of Prague, who
fell a martyr to his zeal in 997. For two centuries after that
tragedy they were little disturbed in their paganism; but
early in the 13th century a Pomeranian monk named Christian
succeeded in establishing among them many promising churches.
The heathen party in the country, however, was enraged by the
progress of the Christians and rose furiously against them,
putting numerous converts to the sword. "Other agencies were
now invoked by Bishop Christian, and the 'Order of Knights
Brethren of Dobrin,' formed on the model of that which we have
already encountered in Livonia, was bidden to coerce the
people into the reception of Christianity. But they failed to
achieve the task assigned them, and then it was that the
famous 'Order of Teutonic Knights,' united with the 'Brethren
of the Sword' in Livonia, concentrated their energies on this
European crusade. Originally instituted for the purpose of
succouring German pilgrims in the Holy Land, the 'Order of
Teutonic Knights,' now that the old crusades had become
unpopular, enrolled numbers of eager adventurers determined to
expel the last remains of heathenism from the face of Europe.
After the union of the two Orders had been duly solemnized at
Rome, in the presence of the Pope, in the year A. D. 1238,
they entered the Prussian territory, and for a space of nearly
fifty years continued a series of remorseless wars against the
wretched inhabitants.
{2613}
Slowly but surely they made their way into the very heart of
the country, and secured their conquests by erecting castles,
under the shadow of which rose the towns of Culm, Thorn,
Marienwerder, and Elbing, which they peopled with German
colonists. The authority of the Order knew scarcely any
bounds. Themselves the faithful vassals of the Pope, they
exacted the same implicit obedience, alike from the German
immigrant, or colonist, and the converted Prussians. … In A.
D. 1243 the conquered lands were divided by the Pope into
three bishoprics, Culm, Pomerania, and Ermeland, each of which
was again divided into three parts, one being subject to the
bishop, and the other two to the brethren of the Order."
_G. F. Maclear,
Apostles of Mediæval Europe,
chapter 16._
"None of the Orders rose so high as the Teutonic in favour
with mankind. It had by degrees landed possessions far and
wide over Germany and beyond, … and was thought to deserve
favour from above. Valiant servants, these; to whom Heaven had
vouchsafed great labours and unspeakable blessings. In some
fifty or fifty-three years they had got Prussian Heathenism
brought to the ground; and they endeavoured to tie it well
down there by bargain and arrangement. But it would not yet
lie quiet, nor for a century to come; being still secretly
Heathen; revolting, conspiring ever again, ever on weaker
terms, till the Satanic element had burnt itself out, and
conversion and composure could ensue."
_T. Carlyle,
History of Frederick the Great,
book 2, chapter 6 (volume l)._
See, also, LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1466-1618.
Conquest and annexation to the Polish crown.
Surrender by the Teutonic Knights.
Erection into a duchy.
Union with the electorate of Brandenburg.
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572;
and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1626-1629.
Conquests of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden
in his war with Poland.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1656-1688.
Complete sovereignty of the duchy acquired by
the Great Elector of Brandenburg.
His curbing of the nobles.
See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
The Dukedom erected into a Kingdom.
In the last year of the 17th century, Europe was on the verge
of the great War of the Spanish Succession. The Emperor was
making ready to contest the will by which Charles II. of Spain
had bequeathed his crown to Philip, Duke of Anjou, grandson of
Louis XIV. of France.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
"He did not doubt that he would speedily involve England,
Holland, and the Germanic diet in his quarrel. Already several
German princes were pledged to him; he had gained the Duke of
Hanover by an elector's hat, and a more powerful prince, the
Elector of Brandenburg, by a royal crown. By a treaty of
November 16, 1700, the Emperor had consented to the erection
of ducal Prussia into a kingdom, on condition that the new
King should furnish him an aid of 10,000 soldiers. The Elector
Frederick III. apprised his courtiers of this important news
at the close of a repast, by drinking 'to the health of
Frederick I. King of Prussia'; then caused himself to be
proclaimed King at Konigsberg, January 15, 1701."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 5._
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1713.
Neufchatel and Spanish Guelderland acquired.
Orange relinquished.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1717-1809.
Abolition of serfdom.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720.
Acquisition of territory from Sweden, including Stettin.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
PRUSSIA: A. D. 1720-1794.
Reign of Frederick William I., and after.
The later history of Prussia, under Frederick William,
Frederick the Great, and their successors, will be found
included in that of GERMANY.
----------PRUSSIA: End--------
PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, The Old.
"The Old Prussian, a member of the Lithuanic family of
languages, was spoken here as late as the 16th century,
remains of which, in the shape of a catechism, are extant.
This is the language of the ancient Æstyi, or 'Men of the
East,' which Tacitus says was akin to the British, an error
arising from the similarity of name, since a Slavonian … would
call the two languages by names so like as 'Prytskaia' and
'Brytskaia,' and a German … by names so like as 'Pryttisc' and
'Bryttisc.' The Guttones, too, of Pliny, whose locality is
fixed from the fact of their having been collectors of the
amber of East Prussia and Courland, were of the same stock."
_R. G. Latham,
The Ethnology of Europe,
chapter 8._
PRUTH, The Treaty of the (1711).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
PRYDYN.
See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.
PRYTANES.
PRYTANEUM.
The Council of Four Hundred, said to have been instituted at
Athens by Solon, "was divided into sections, which, under the
venerable name of prytanes, succeeded each other throughout
the year as the representatives of the whole body. Each
section during its term assembled daily in their session
house, the prytaneum, to consult on the state of affairs, to
receive intelligence, information, and suggestions, and
instantly to take such measures as the public interest
rendered it necessary to adopt without delay. … According to
the theory of Solon's constitution, the assembly of the people
was little more than the organ of the council, as it could
only act upon the propositions laid before it by the latter."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 11._
"Clisthenes … enlarged the number of the senate, 50 being now
elected by lot from each tribe, so as to make in all 500. Each
of these companies of 50 acted as presidents of both the
senate and the assemblies, for a tenth part of the year, under
the name of Prytanes: and each of these tenth parts, of 35 or
36 days, so as to complete a lunar year, was called a
Prytany."
_G. F. Schömann,
Dissertation on the Assemblies of the Athenians,
page 14._
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.
PRYTANIS.
A title frequently recurring among the Greeks was that of
Prytanis, which signified prince, or supreme ruler. "Even
Hiero, the king or tyrant of Syracuse, is addressed by Pindar
as Prytanis. At Corinth, after the abolition of the monarchy,
a Prytanis, taken from the ancient house of the Bacchiadæ, was
annually appointed as supreme magistrate
See CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.
… The same title was borne by the supreme magistrate in the
Corinthian colony of Corcyra. … In Rhodes we find in the time
of Polybius a Prytany lasting for six months."
_G. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 2, chapter 5._
{2614}
PSALTER OF CASHEL.
PSALTER OF TARA.
See TARA, HILL AND FEIS OF.
PSEPHISM.
A decree, or enactment, in ancient Athens.
PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.
PTOLEMAIS, Syria.
See ACRE.
PTOLEMIES, The.
See EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.
PTOLEMY KERAUNOS, The intrigues and death of.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280;
and GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
PTOLEMY SOTER, and the Wars of the Diadochi.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316, to 297-280;
and EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.
PTOLEMY'S CANON.
An important chronological list of Chaldean, Persian,
Macedonian and Egyptian kings, compiled or continued by
Claudius Ptolemæus, an Alexandrian mathematician and
astronomer in the reign of the Second Antoninus.
_W. Hales,
New Analysis of Chronology,
volume I, book 1._
PUANS, OR WINNEBAGOES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
PUBLIC MEALS.
See SYSSITIA.
PUBLIC PEACE, The.
See LANDFRIEDE.
PUBLIC WEAL, League of the.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1461-1468; and 1453-1461.
PUBLICANI.
The farmers of the taxes, among the Romans.
See VECTIGAL.
PUBLICIANI, The.
See ALBIGENSES;
and PAULICIANS.
PUEBLA: Capture by the French (1862).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
PUBLILIAN LAW OF VOLERO, The.
See ROME: B. C. 472-471.
PUBLILIAN LAWS, The.
See ROME: B. C. 340.
PUEBLOS.
The Spanish word pueblo, meaning town, village, or the
inhabitants thereof, has acquired a special signification as
applied, first, to the sedentary or village Indians of New
Mexico and Arizona, and then to the singular villages of
communal houses which they inhabit.
_D. G. Brinton,
The American Race,
page 113._
"The purely civic colonies of California were called pueblos
to distinguish them from missions or presidios. The term
pueblo, in its most extended meaning, may embrace towns of
every description, from a hamlet to a city. … However, in its
special significance, a pueblo means a corporate town."
_F. W. Blackmar,
Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
chapter 8._
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
PUELTS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
PUERTO CAVELLO, Spanish capitulation at (1823).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.
PUJUNAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUJUNAN FAMILY.
PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1861.
Threatened by the Union forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA—GEORGIA).
PULASKI, Fort: A. D. 1862 (February-April).
Siege and capture.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).
PULLANI, The.
The descendants of the first Crusaders who remained in the
East and married Asiatic women are represented as having been
a very despicable half-breed race. They were called the
Pullani. Prof. Palmer suggests a derivation of the name from
"fulani," anybodies. Mr. Keightley, on the contrary, states
that before the crusading colonists overcame their prejudice
against Oriental wives, women were brought to them from
Apulia, in Italy. Whence the name Pullani, applied
indiscriminately to an the progeny of the Latin settlers.
_W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem, chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_T. Keightley,
The Crusaders,
chapter 2._
PULTNEY ESTATE, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
PULTOWA, Battle of (1709).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
PULTUSK,
Battle of (1703).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
Battle of (1806).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.
PUMBADITHA, The. School of.
See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.
PUNCAS, OR PONCAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
PUNIC.
The adjective Punicus, derived from the name of the
Phœnicians, was used by the Romans in a sense which commonly
signified "Carthaginian,"—the Carthaginians being of Phœnician
origin. Hence "Punic Wars," "Punic faith," etc., the phrase
"Punic faith" being an imputation of faithlessness and
treachery.
----------PUNIC WARS: Start--------
PUNIC WARS,
The First.
When Pyrrhus quitted Italy he is said to have exclaimed, "How
fair a battle–field are we leaving to the Romans and
Carthaginians." He may easily have had sagacity to foresee the
deadly struggle which Rome and Carthage would soon be engaged
in, and he might as easily have predicted, too, that the
beginning of it would be in Sicily. Rome had just settled her
supremacy in the whole Italian peninsula; she was sure to
covet next the rich island that lies so near to it. In fact,
there was bred quickly in the Roman mind such an eagerness to
cross the narrow strait that it waited only for the slenderest
excuse. A poor pretext was found in the year 264 B. C. and it
was so despicably poor that the proud Roman senators turned
over to the popular assembly of the Comitia the responsibility
of accepting it. There came to Rome from Messene, in Sicily—or
Messana, as the Romans called the city—an appeal. It did not
come from the citizens of Messene, but from a band of
freebooters who had got possession of the town. These were
mercenaries from Campania (lately made Roman territory by the
Samnite conquest) who had been in the pay of Agathocles of
Syracuse. Disbanded on that tyrant's death, they had
treacherously seized Messene, slain most of the male
inhabitants, taken to themselves the women, and settled down
to a career of piracy and robbery, assuming the name of
Mamertinl,—children of Mamers, or Mars. Of course, all Sicily,
both Greek and Carthaginian, was roused against them by the
outrages they committed. Being hard pressed, the Mamertines
invoked, as Italians, the protection of Rome; although one
party among them appears to have preferred an arrangement of
terms with the Carthaginians.
{2615}
The Roman Senate, being ashamed to extend a friendly hand to
the Mamertine cutthroats, but not having virtue enough to
decline an opportunity for fresh conquests, referred the
question to the people at large. The popular vote sent an army
into Sicily, and Messene, then besieged by Hiero of Syracuse
on one side and by a Carthaginian army on the other, was
relieved of both. The Romans thereon proceeded, in two
aggressive campaigns, against Syracusans and Carthaginians
alike, until Hiero bought peace with them, at a heavy cost,
and became their half-subject ally for the remainder of his
life. The war with the Carthaginians was but just commenced.
Its first stunning blow was struck at Agrigentum, the splendid
city of Phalaris, which the Carthaginians had destroyed, B. C.
405, which Timoleon had rebuilt, and which one of the
Hannibals ("son of Gisco") now seized upon for his stronghold.
In a great battle fought under the walls of Agrigentum (B. C.
262) Hannibal lost the city and all but a small remnant of his
army. But the successes of the Romans on land were worth
little to them while the Carthaginians commanded the sea.
Hence they resolved to create a fleet, and are said to have
built a hundred ships of the quinquereme order and twenty
triremes within sixty days, while rowers for them were trained
by all imitative exercise on land. The first squadron of this
improvised navy was trapped at Lipara and lost; the remainder
was successful in its first encounter with the enemy. But
where naval warfare depended on good seamanship the Romans
were no match for the Carthaginians. They contrived therefore
a machine for their ships, called the Corvus, or raven, by
which, running straight on the opposing vessel, they were able
to grasp it by the throat, so to speak, and force fighting at
close quarters. That accomplished, they were tolerably sure of
victory. With their corvus they half annihilated the
Carthaginian fleet in a great sea-fight at Mylæ, B. C. 260,
and got so much mastery of the sea that they were able to
attack their Punic foes even in the island of Sardinia, but
without much result. In 257 B. C. another naval battle of
doubtful issue was fought at Tyndaris, and the following year,
in the great battle of Ecnomus, the naval power of the
Carthaginians, for the time being, was utterly crushed. Then
followed the invasion of Carthaginian territory by Regulus,
his complete successes at first, his insolent proposal of hard
terms, and the tremendous defeat which overwhelmed him at Adis
a little later, when he, himself, was taken prisoner. The
miserable remnant of the Roman army which held its ground at
Clypea on the African coast was rescued the next year (B. C.
255) by a new fleet, but only to be destroyed on the voyage
homeward, with 260 ships, in a great storm on the south coast
of Sicily. Then Carthaginians reappeared in Sicily and the war
in that unhappy island was resumed. In 254 B. C. the Romans
took the strong fortified city of Panormus. In 253, having
built and equipped another fleet, they were robbed of it again
by a storm at sea, and the Carthaginians gained ground and
strength in Sicily. In 251 the Roman consul, Cæcilius
Metellus, drove them back from the walls of Panormus and
inflicted on them so discouraging a defeat, that they sent
Regulus, their prisoner, on parole, with an embassy, to
solicit peace at Rome. How Regulus advised his countrymen
against peace, and how he returned to Carthage to meet a cruel
death—the traditional story is familiar to all readers, but
modern criticism throws doubt upon it. In 250 B. C. the Romans
undertook the siege of Lilybæum, which, with the neighboring
port of Drepana, were the only strongholds left to the
Carthaginians. The siege then commenced was one of the most
protracted in history, for when the First Punic War ended,
nine years later, Lilybæum was still resisting, and the Romans
only acquired it with all the rest of Sicily, under the terms
of the treaty of peace. Meantime the Carthaginians won a
bloody naval victory at Drepana (B. C. 249) over the Roman
fleet, and the latter, in the same year, had a third fleet
destroyed on the coast by relentless storms. In the year 247
B. C. the Carthaginian command in Sicily was given to the
great Hamilcar, surnamed Barca, who was the father of a yet
greater man, the Hannibal who afterwards brought Rome very
near to destruction. Hamilcar Barca, having only a few
mutinous mercenary soldiers at his command, and almost
unsupported by the authorities at Carthage, established
himself, first, on the rocky height of Mount Ercte, or Hercte,
near Panormus, and afterwards on Mount Eryx, and harassed the
Romans for six years. The end came at last as the consequence
of a decisive naval victory near the Ægatian Isles, which the
Romans achieved, with a newly built fleet, in March B. C. 241.
The Carthaginians, discouraged, proposed peace, and purchased
it by evacuating Sicily and paying a heavy war indemnity. Thus
Rome acquired Sicily, but the wealth and civilization of the
great island had been ruined beyond recovery.
_R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
chapters 4-7._
ALSO IN:
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 3._
_Polybius,
Histories,
book l._
_A. J. Church,
The Story of Carthage,
part 4, chapters 1-3._
See, also, ROME: B. C. 264-241.
PUNIC WARS:
The Second.
Between the First Punic War and the Second there was an
interval of twenty-three years. Carthage, meantime, had been
brought very near to destruction by the Revolt of the
Mercenaries and had been saved by the capable energy of
Hamilcar Barca.
See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.
Then the selfish faction which hated Hamilcar had regained
power in the Punic capital, and the Barcine patriot could do
no more than obtain command of an army which he led, on his
own responsibility, into Spain, B. C. 237. The Carthaginians
had inherited from the Phœnicians a considerable commerce with
Spain, but do not seem to have organized a control of the
country until Hamilcar took the task in hand. Partly by
pacific influences and partly by force, he established a rule,
rather personal than Carthaginian, which extended over nearly
all southern Spain. With the wealth that he drew from its gold
and silver mines he maintained his army and bought or bribed
at Carthage the independence he needed for the carrying out of
his plans. He had aimed from the first, no doubt, at
organizing resources with which to make war on Rome. Hamilcar
was killed in battle, B. C. 228, and his son-in-law,
Hasdrubal, who succeeded him, lived only seven years more.
Then Hannibal, the son of Hamilcar, in his twenty–sixth year,
was chosen to the command in Spain.
{2616}
He waited two years, for the settling of his authority and for
making all preparations complete, and then he threw down a
challenge to the Romans for the war which he had sworn to his
father that he would make the one purpose of his life. The
provocation of war was the taking of the city of Saguntum, a
Greek colony on the Spanish coast, which the Romans had formed
an alliance with. It was taken by Hannibal after a siege of
eight months and after most of the inhabitants had destroyed
themselves, with their wealth. When Rome declared war it was
with the expectation, no doubt, that Spain and Africa would be
the battle grounds. But Hannibal did not wait for her attack.
He led his Spanish army straight to Italy, in the early summer
of B. C. 218, skirting the Pyrenees and crossing the Alps. The
story of his passage of the Alps is familiar to every reader.
The difficulties he encountered were so terrible and the
losses sustained so great that Hannibal descended into Italy
with only 20,000 foot and 6,000 horse, out of 50,000 of the
one and 9,000 of the other which he had led through Gaul. He
received some reinforcement and co-operation from the
Cisalpine Gauls, but their strength had been broken by recent
wars with Rome and they were not efficient allies. In the
first encounter of the Romans with the dread invader, on the
Ticinus, they were beaten, but not seriously. In the next, on
the Trebia, where Scipio, the consul, made a determined stand,
they sustained an overwhelming defeat. This ended the campaign
of B. C. 218. Hannibal wintered in Cisalpine Gaul and passed
the Apennines the following spring into Etruria, stealing a
march on the Roman army, under the popular consul Flaminius,
which was watching to intercept him. The latter pursued and
was caught in ambush at Lake Trasimene, where Flaminius and
15,000 of his men were slain, while most of the survivors of
the fatal field were taken prisoners and made slaves. Rome
then seemed open to the Carthaginian, but he knew, without
doubt, that his force was not strong enough for the besieging
of the city, and he made no attempt. What he aimed at was the
isolating of Rome and the arraying of Italy against her, in a
great and powerfully handled combination of the jealousies and
animosities which he knew to exist. He led his troops
northward again, after the victory of Lake Trasimene, across
the mountains to the Adriatic coast, and rested them during
the summer. When cooler weather came he moved southward along
the coast into Apulia. The Romans meantime had chosen a
Dictator, Q. Fabius Maximus, a cautious man, whose plan of
campaign was to watch and harass and wear out the enemy,
without risking a battle. It was a policy which earned for him
the name of "The Cunctator," or Lingerer. The Roman people
were discontented with it, and next year (B. C. 216) they
elected for one of the consuls a certain Varro who had been
one of the mouth-pieces of their discontent. In opposition to
his colleague, Æmilius Paullus, Varro soon forced a battle
with Hannibal at Cannæ, in Apulia, and brought upon his
countrymen the most awful disaster in war that they ever knew.
Nearly 50,000 Roman citizens were left dead on the field,
including eighty senators, and half the young nobility of the
state. From the spoils of the field Hannibal was said to have
sent three bushels of golden rings to Carthage, stripped from
the fingers of Roman knights. Rome reeled under the blow, and
yet haughtily refused to ransom the 20,000 prisoners in
Hannibal's hands, while she met the discomfited Varro with
proud thanks, because "he had not despaired of the Republic."
Capua now opened its gates to Hannibal and became the
headquarters of his operations. The people of Southern Italy
declared generally in his favor; but he had reached and
passed, nevertheless, the crowning point of his success. He
received no effective help from Carthage; nor from his brother
in Spain, who was defeated by the elder Scipios, that same
year (B. C. 216) at Ibera, just as he had prepared to lead a
fresh army into Italy. On the other hand, the energies of the
Romans had risen with every disaster. Their Latin subjects
continued faithful to them; but they lost at this time an
important ally in Sicily, by the death of the aged Hiero of
Syracuse, and the Carthaginians succeeded in raising most of
the island against them. The war in Sicily now became for a
time more important than that in Italy, and the consul
Marcellus, the most vigorous of the Roman generals, was sent
to conduct it. His chief object was the taking of Syracuse and
the great city sustained another of the many dreadful sieges
which it was her fate to endure. The siege was prolonged for
two years, and chiefly by the science and the military
inventions of the famous mathematician, Archimides. When the
Romans entered Syracuse at last (B. C. 212) it was to pillage
and slay without restraint, and Archimides was one of the
thousands cut down by their swords. Meantime, in Italy,
Tarentum had been betrayed to Hannibal, but the Romans still
held the citadel of the town. They had gained so much strength
in the field that they were now able to lay siege to Capua and
Hannibal was powerless to relieve it. He attempted a diversion
by marching on Rome, but the threat proved idle and Capua was
left to its fate. The city surrendered soon after (B. C. 211)
and the merciless conquerors only spared it for a new
population. For three or four years after this the war in
Italy was one of minor successes and reverses on both sides,
but Hannibal lost steadily in prestige and strength. In Spain,
Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, had opportunely beaten and
slain (B. C. 212) both the elder Scipios; but another and
greater Scipio, P. Cornelius, son of Publius, had taken the
field and was sweeping the Carthaginians from the peninsula.
Yet, despite Scipio's capture of New Carthage and his
victories, at Bæcula, and elsewhere, Hasdrubal contrived, in
some unexplained way, in the year 208, B. C., to cross the
Pyrenees into Gaul and to recruit reinforcements there for a
movement on Italy. The next spring he passed the Alps and
brought his army safely into Cisalpine Gaul; but his
dispatches to Hannibal fell into the hands of the Romans and
revealed his plans. The swift energy of one of the consuls, C.
Claudius Nero, brought about a marvellous concentration of
Roman forces to meet him, and he and his army perished
together in an awful battle fought on the banks of the
Metaurus, in Umbria. The last hopes of Hannibal perished with
them; but he held his ground in the extreme south of Italy and
no Roman general dared try to dislodge him. When Scipio
returned next year (B. C. 206) and reported the complete
conquest of Spain, he was chosen consul with the understanding
that he would carry the war into Africa, though the senate
stood half opposed.
{2617}
He did so in the early months of the year 204 B. C. crossing
from Sicily with a comparatively small armament and laying
siege to Utica. That year he accomplished nothing, but during
the next winter he struck a terrible blow, surprising and
burning the camps of the Carthaginians and their Numidian
allies and slaughtering 40,000 of their number. This success
was soon followed by another, on the Great Plains, which lie
70 or 80 miles to the southwest of Carthage. The Numidian
king, Syphax, was now driven from his throne and the kingdom
delivered over to an outlawed prince, Massinissa, who became,
thenceforth, the most useful and unscrupulous of allies to the
Romans. Now pushed to despair, the Carthaginians summoned
Hannibal to their rescue. He abandoned Italy at the call and
returned to see his own land for the first time since as a boy
he left it with his father. But even his genius could not save
Carthage with the means at his command. The long war was ended
in October of the year 202 B. C. by the battle which is called
the battle of Zama, though it was fought at some distance
westward of that place. The Carthaginian army was routed
utterly, and Hannibal himself persuaded his countrymen to
accept a peace which stripped them of their ships and their
trade, their possessions in Spain and all the islands, and
their power over the Numidian states, besides wringing from
them a war indemnity of many millions. On those hard terms,
Carthage was suffered to exist a few years longer.
_R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians._
ALSO IN:
_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapters 43-47._
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
chapters 31-34._
_T. A. Dodge,
Hannibal,
chapters 11-39._
See, also, ROME: B. C. 218-211, to 211-202.
PUNIC WARS:
The Third.
See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146;
and ROME: B. C. 151-146.
----------PUNIC WARS: End--------
PUNJAB,
PUNJAUB,
PANJAB, The.
"Everything has a meaning in India, and the Panjab is only
another name for the Five Rivers which make the historic
Indus. They rise far back among the western Himalayas, bring
down their waters from glaciers twenty-five miles in length,
and peaks 26,000 feet high, and hurl their mighty torrent into
one great current, which is thrown at last into the Arabian
Sea. It is a fertile region, not less so than the Valley of
the Ganges. This Panjab is the open door, the only one by
which the European of earlier days was able to descend upon
the plains of India for conquest and a new home. … In the
Panjab every foot of the land is a romance. No one knows how
many armies have shivered in the winds of the hills of
Afghanistan, and then pounced down through the Khaibar Pass
into India, and overspread the country, until the people could
rise and destroy the stranger within the gates. Whenever a
European invader of Asia has reached well into the continent,
his dream has always been India. That country has ever been,
and still is, the pearl of all the Orient. Its perfect sky in
winter, its plenteous rains in summer, its immense rivers, its
boundless stores of wealth, an its enduring industries, which
know no change, have made it the dream of every great
conqueror."
_J. F. Hurst,
Indika,
chapter 75._
"In form, the country is a great triangle, its base resting on
the Himalayan chain and Cashmere, and its apex directed due
south–west. … The five streams which confer its name, counting
them from north to south, are the Upper Indus, the Jhelum, the
Chenab, the Ravee and the Sutlej, the Indus and Sutlej
constituting respectively the western and eastern boundary. …
The four divisions enclosed by the five convergent streams are
called doabs—lands of two waters. … Besides the territory thus
delineated, the Punjab of the Sikhs included Cashmere, the
Jummoo territory to Spiti and Tibet, the trans-Indus frontier
and the Hazara highlands in the west; and to the east the
Jullundhur Doab with Kangra and Noorpoor. These last, with the
frontier, are better known as the cis- and trans-Sutlaj
states."
_E. Arnold,
The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration of British India,
chapter 2 (volume 1)._
The Sikhs established their supremacy in the Punjab in the
18th century, and became a formidable power, under the famous
Runjet Singh, in the early part of the 19th century. (The
English conquest of the Sikhs and annexation of the Punjab to
British India took place in 1849.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849,
and SIKHS
PUNT, Land of.
"Under the name of Punt, the old inhabitants of Kemi [ancient
Egypt] meant a distant land, washed by the great ocean, full
of valleys and hills, abounding in ebony and other rich woods,
in incense, balsam, precious metals, and costly stones; rich
also in beasts, as cameleopards, hunting leopards, panthers,
dog-headed apes, and long-tailed monkeys. … Such was the Ophir
of the Egyptians, without doubt the present coast of the
Somauli land in sight of Arabia, but separated from it by the
sea. According to an old obscure tradition, the land of Punt
was the original seat of the gods. From Punt the holy ones had
travelled to the Nile valley, at their head Amon, Horus,
Hathor."
_H. Brugsch,
History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,
chapter 8._
PURCHASE IN THE ARMY, Abolition of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
----------PURITANS: Start--------
PURITANS:
The movement taking form.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566.
PURITANS:
First application of the Name.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1564-1565 (?).
PURITANS:
In distinction from the Independents or Separatists.
"When, in 1603, James I. became king of England, he found his
Protestant subjects divided into three classes,—Conformists,
or High Ritualists; Nonconformists, or Broad-Church Puritans;
and Separatists, popularly called Brownists [and subsequently
called Independents]. The Conformists and the Puritans both
adhered to the Church of England, and were struggling for its
control. … The Puritans objected to some of the ceremonies of
the Church, such as the ring in marriage, the sign of the
cross in baptism, the promises of god-parents, the showy
vestments, bowing in the creed, receiving evil-livers to the
communion, repetitions, and to kneeling at communion as if
still adoring the Host, instead of assuming an ordinary
attitude as did the apostles at the Last Supper. The majority
of the lower clergy and of the middle classes are said to have
favored Puritanism. … Dr. Neal says that the Puritan body took
form in 1564, and dissolved in 1644.
{2618}
During that term of eighty years the Puritans were ever 'in
and of the Church of England'; as Dr. Prince says in his
Annals (1736), those who left the Episcopal Church 'lost the
name of Puritans and received that of the Separatists.' … The
Separatists, unlike the Puritans, had no connection with the
National Church, and the more rigid of them even denied that
Church to be scriptural, or its ministrations to be valid. …
The Pilgrim Fathers, the founders of our Plymouth, the pioneer
colony of New England, were not Puritans. They never were
called by that name, either by themselves or their
contemporaries. They were Separatists, slightingly called
Brownists, and in time became known as Independents or
Congregationalists. As Separatists they were oppressed and
maligned by the Puritans. They did not restrict voting or
office-holding to their church-members. They heartily welcomed
to their little State all men of other sects, or of no sects,
who adhered to the essentials of Christianity and were ready
to conform to the local laws and customs. … Though their faith
was positive and strong, they laid down no formal creed."
_J. A. Goodwin,
The Pilgrim Republic,
chapters 2 and 1._
"The reader of this history must have remarked that 'Puritan'
and 'Separatist' were by no means convertible terms; that, in
point of fact, they very often indicated hostile parties,
pitted against each other in bitter controversies. And the
inquiry may have arisen—How is this? Were not the Separatists
all Puritans? … The term 'Puritan' was originally applied to
all in the church of England who desired further reformation—a
greater conformity of church government and worship to
primitive and apostolic usages. But after awhile the term
became restricted in its application to those who retained
their respect for the church of England, and their connection
with it, notwithstanding its acknowledged corruptions; in
distinction from those who had been brought to abandon both
their respect for that church and their connection with it,
under the conviction that it was hopelessly corrupt, and could
never be reformed. The Separatists, then, were indeed all
Puritans, and of the most thorough and uncompromising kind.
They were the very essence—the oil of Puritanism. But the
Puritans were by no means all Separatists; though they agreed
with them in doctrinal faith, being all thoroughly Calvinistic
in their faith."
_G. Punchard,
History of Congregationalism,
volume 3, appendix, note F._
ALSO IN:
_G. E. Ellis,
The Puritan Age and Rule in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
chapter 3._
See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.
_D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England, and America,
chapter 16 (volume 2)._
PURITANS: A. D. 1604.
Hampton Court Conference with James I.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1604.
PURITANS: A. D. 1629.
Incorporation of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.
PURITANS: A. D. 1629-1630.
The exodus to Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629; 1629-1630; and 1630.
PURITANS: A. D. 1631-1636.
The Theocracy of Massachusetts Bay.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636; and 1636.
PURITANS: A. D. 1638-1640.
At the beginning of the English Civil War.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
----------PURITANS: End--------
PURUARAN, Battle of (1814).
See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.
PURUMANCIANS, The.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
PUT-IN-BAY, Naval Battle at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
PUTEOLI.
The maritime city of Puteoli, which occupied the site of the
modern town of Pozzuoli, about 7 miles from Naples, became
under the empire the chief emporium of Roman commerce in
Italy. The vicinity of Puteoli and its neighbor Baiæ was one
of the favorite resorts of the Roman nobility for villa
residence. It was at Puteoli that St. Paul landed on his
journey to Rome.
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 11._
PUTNAM, Israel, and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY), (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
PYDNA, Battle of (B. C. 168).
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.
PYLÆ CASPIÆ.
See CASPIAN GATES.
PYLÆ CILICIÆ. See
CILICIAN GATES.
PYLUS, Athenian seizure of.
See GREECE: B. C. 425.
PYRAMID.
"The name 'pyramid'—first invented by the ancients to denote
the tombs of the Egyptian kings, and still used in geometry to
this day—is of Greek origin. The Egyptians themselves denoted
the pyramid—both in the sense of a sepulchre and of a figure
in Solid Geometry—by the word 'abumir;' while, on the other
hand, the word' Pir-am-us' is equivalent to the 'edge of the
pyramid,' namely, the four edges extending from the apex of
the pyramid to each corner of the quadrangular base."
_H. Brugsch
History of Egypt,
chapter 7._
PYRAMIDS, Battle of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
PYRENEES, Battles of the (1813).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
PYRENEES, Treaty of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
PYRRHIC DANCE.
A spirited military dance, performed in armor, which gave much
delight to the Spartans, and is said to have been taught to
children only five years old. It was thought to have been
invented by the Cretans.
_G. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapters 1-2._
PYRRHUS, and his campaigns in Italy and Sicily.
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
PYTHIAN GAMES.
See DELPHI.
PYTHO, The Sanctuary of.
According to the Greek legend, a monstrous serpent, or dragon,
Pytho, or Python, produced from the mud left by the deluge of
Deucalion, lived in a great cavern of Mount Parnassus until
slain by the god Apollo. The scene of the exploit became the
principal seat of the worship of Apollo, the site of his most
famous temple, the home of the oracle which he inspired. The
temple and its seat were originally called Pytho; the cavern,
from which arose mephitic and intoxicating vapors was called
the Pythium; the priestess who inhaled those vapors and
uttered the oracles which they were supposed to inspire, was
the Pythia; Apollo, himself, was often called Pythius.
Subsequently, town, temple and oracle were more commonly known
by the name of Delphi.
See DELPHI.
{2619}
----------QUADI, The: Start--------
QUADI, The:
Early place and history.
See MARCOMANNI.
QUADI, The:
Campaigns of Marcus Aurelius against.
See SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.
QUADI, The: A. D. 357-359.
War of Constantius.
See LIMIGANTES.
QUADI, The: A. D. 374-375.
War of Valentinian.
A treacherous outrage of peculiar blackness, committed by a
worthless Roman officer on the frontier, in 374, provoked the
Quadi to invade the province of Pannonia. They overran it with
little opposition, and their success encouraged inroads by the
neighboring Sarmatian tribes. In the following year, the
Emperor Valentinian led a retaliatory expedition into the
country of the Quadi and revenged himself upon it with
unmerciful severity. At the approach of winter he returned
across the Danube, but only to wait another spring, when his
purpose was to complete the annihilation of the offending
Quadi. The latter, thereupon, sent ambassadors to humbly pray
for peace. The choleric emperor received them, but their
presence excited him to such rage that a blood vessel was
ruptured in his body and he died on the spot.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 25._
QUADI, The:
Probable Modern Representatives of.
See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE.
----------QUADI, The: End--------
QUADRILATERAL, The.
A famous military position in northern Italy, formed by the
strong fortresses at Peschiera, Verona, Mantua, and Legnano,
bears this name. "The Quadrilateral … fulfils all the
requirements of a good defensive position, which are to cover
rearward territory, to offer absolute shelter to a defending
army whenever required, and to permit of ready offensive:
first, by the parallel course of the Mincio and Adige;
secondly, by the fortresses on these rivers; thirdly, by
passages offered at fortified points which insure the command
of the rivers."
_Major C. Adams,
Great Campaigns in Europe from 1790 to 1870,
page 232._
QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE (A. D. 1718).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
QUÆSTIO PERPETUA.
See CALPURNIAN LAW.
QUÆSTOR, The Imperial.
In the later Roman empire, "the Quaestor had the care of
preparing the Imperial speeches, and was responsible for the
language of the laws. … His office is not unlike that of the
Chancellor of a mediaeval monarch."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
QUÆSTORS, Roman.
"Probably created as assistants to the consuls in the first
year of the republic. At first two; in 421 B. C., four; in
241, eight; in 81, twenty; in 45, forty. Thrown open to
plebeians in 421 B. C. Elected in the Comitia Tributa. The
quæstor's office lasted as long as the consul's to whom he was
attached."
_H. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
appendix A._
"We have seen how the care of the city's treasures had been
intrusted to two city quæstors, soon after the abolition of
the monarchy. In like manner, soon after the fall of the
decemvirate, the expenditures connected with military affairs,
which had hitherto been in the hands of the consuls, were put
under the control of new patrician officers, the military
quæstors, who were to accompany the army on its march."
_A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_W. Ihne,
Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
pages 70-84._
QUÆSTORS OF THE FLEET.
See ROME: B. C. 275.
----------QUAKERS: Start--------
QUAKERS:
Origin of the Society of Friends.
George Fox and his early Disciples.
"The religious movement which began with the wandering
preacher George Fox … grew into the Society of Friends, or, as
they came to be commonly called, 'The Quakers.' George Fox was
born in 1624, the year before Charles I. came to the throne:
and he was growing up to manhood all through the troubled time
of that king's reign, while the storms were gathering which at
last burst forth in the civil wars. It was not much that he
knew of all this, however. He was growing up in a little
out-of-the-way village of Leicestershire—Fenny Drayton—where
his father was 'by profession a weaver.'" While he was still a
child, the companions of George Fox "laughed at his grave,
sober ways, yet they respected him, too; and when, by-and-by,
he was apprenticed to a shoemaker, his master found him so
utterly trustworthy, and so true and unbending in his word,
that the saying began to go about, 'If George says "verily"
there is no altering him.' … He was more and more grieved at
what seemed to him the lightness and carelessness of men's
lives. He felt as if he were living in the midst of hollowness
and hypocrisy. … His soul was full of great thoughts of
something better and nobler than the common religion, which
seemed so poor and worldly. … He wandered about from place to
place—Northampton, London, various parts of Warwickshire
—seeking out people here and there whom he could hear of as
very religious, and likely to help him through his
difficulties. … After two years of lonely, wandering life, he
began to see a little light. It came to his soul that all
these outward forms, and ceremonies, and professions that
people were setting up and making so much ado about as
'religion,' were nothing in themselves; that priestly
education and ordination was nothing—did not really make a man
any nearer to God; that God simply wanted the hearts and souls
of all men to be turned to Him, and the worship of their own
thought and feeling. And with the sense of this there arose
within him a great loathing of all the formalism, and
priestcraft, and outward observances of the Churches. … But he
did not find peace yet. … He writes: 'My troubles continued,
and I was often under great temptations; I fasted much and
walked abroad in solitary places many days.' … It was a time
like Christ's temptations in the wilderness, or Paul's three
years in Arabia, before they went forth to their great
life-mission. But to him, as to them, came, at last, light and
peace and an open way. … A voice seemed to come to him which
said, 'There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy
condition.' 'And when I heard it,' he says, 'my heart did leap
for joy.' Fixing his mind upon Christ, all things began to be
clearer to him; he saw the grand simple truth of a religion of
spirit and life.
{2620}
… It was at Dukinfield, near Manchester, in 1647, that he
began to speak openly to men of what was in his heart. … In
those days, when he was wandering away from men, and shrinking
with a sort of horror from the fashions of the world, he had
made himself a strong rough suit of leather, and this for many
years was his dress. Very white and clean indeed was the linen
under that rough leather suit, for he hated all uncleanness
either of soul or body; and very calm and clear were his eyes,
that seemed to search into men's souls, and quailed before no
danger, and sometimes lighted up with wonderful tenderness. A
tall, burly man he was, too, of great strength. … Everywhere
he saw vanity and worldliness, pretence and injustice. It
seemed laid upon him that he must testify against it all. He
went to courts of justice, and stood up and warned the
magistrates to do justly; he went to fairs and markets, and
lifted up his voice against wakes, and feasts and plays, and
also against people's cozening and cheating. … He testified
against great things and small, bade men not swear, but keep
to 'yea' and 'nay,' and this in courts of justice as
everywhere else; he spoke against lip-honour—that men should
give up using titles of compliment, and keep to plain 'thee'
and 'thou'; 'for surely,' he said, 'the way men address God
should be enough from one to another.' But all this was merely
the side-work of his life, flowing from his great central
thought of true, pure life in the light of the Spirit of God.
That was his great thought, and that he preached most of all;
he wanted men to give up all their forms, and come face to
face with the Spirit of God, and so worship Him and live to
Him. Therefore he spoke most bitterly of all against all
priestcraft. … Gradually followers gathered to him; little
groups of people here and there accepted his teachings—began
to look to him as their leader. He did not want to found a
sect; and as for a church—the Church was the whole body of
Christ's faithful people everywhere; so those who joined him
would not take any name as a sect or church. They simply
called themselves 'friends'; they used no form of worship, but
met together, to wait upon the Lord with one another;
believing that His Spirit was always with them, and that, if
anything was to be said, He would put it into their hearts to
say it." From the first, Fox suffered persecution at the hands
of the Puritans. They "kept imprisoning him for refusing to
swear allegiance to the Commonwealth; again and again he
suffered in this way: in Nottingham Castle, in 1648; then, two
years later, at Derby, for six months, at the end of which
time they tried to force him to enter the army; but he
refused, and so they thrust him into prison again, this time
into a place called the Dungeon, among 30 felons, where they
kept him another half-year. Then, two years later, in 1653, he
was imprisoned at Carlisle, in a foul, horrible hole. … He was
again imprisoned in Launceston gaol, for eight long months.
After this came a quieter time for him; for he was taken
before Cromwell, and Cromwell had a long conversation with
him. … During Cromwell's life he was persecuted no more, but
with the restoration of Charles II. his dangers and sufferings
began again. … His followers caught his spirit, and no
persecutions could intimidate them. … They made no secret of
where their meetings were to be, and at the time there they
assembled. Constables and informers might be all about the
place, it made no difference; they went in, sat down to their
quiet worship; if anyone had a word to say he said it. The
magistrates tried closing the places, locked the doors, put a
band of soldiers to guard them. The Friends simply gathered in
the street in front, held their meetings there; went on
exactly as if nothing had happened. They might all be taken
off to prison, still it made no difference. … Is it wonderful
that such principles, preached with such noble devotion to
truth and duty, rapidly made way? By the year 1665, when Fox
had been preaching for 18 years, the Society of Friends
numbered 80,000, and in another ten years it had spread more
widely still, and its founder had visited America, and
travelled through Holland and Germany, preaching his doctrine
of the inward light, and everywhere founding Meetings. Fox
himself did not pass away until [1690] he had seen his people
past all the days of persecution."
_B. Herford,
The Story of Religion in England,
chapter 27._
"At a time when personal revelation was generally believed, it
was a pardonable self-delusion that he [Fox] should imagine
himself to be commissioned by the Divinity to preach a system
which could only be objected to as too pure to be practised by
man: This belief, and an ardent temperament, led him and some
of his followers into unseasonable attempts to convert their
neighbours, and unseemly intrusions into places of worship for
that purpose, which excited general hostility against them,
and exposed them to frequent and severe punishments. …
Although they, like most other religious sects, had arisen in
the humble classes of society, … they had early been joined by
a few persons of superior rank and education. … The most
distinguished of their converts was William Penn, whose
father, Admiral Sir William Penn, had been a personal friend
of the King [James II.], and one of his instructors in naval
affairs."
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England in 1688,
chapter 6._
"At one of the interviews between G. Fox and Gervas Bennet—one
of the magistrates who had committed him at Derby—the former
bade the latter 'Tremble at the word of the Lord'; whereupon
Bennet called him a Quaker. This epithet of scorn well suited
the tastes and prejudices of the people, and it soon became
the common appellation bestowed on Friends."
_C. Evans,
Friends in the 17th Century,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. Gough,
History of the People called Quakers._
_W. R. Wagstaff,
History of the Society of Friends._
_T. Clarkson,
Portraiture of Quakerism._
_American Church History,
volume 12._
QUAKERS: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution in Massachusetts.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
QUAKERS: A. D. 1681.
Penn's acquisition of Pennsylvania.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1681.
QUAKERS: A. D. 1682.
Proprietary purchase of New Jersey.
See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1673-1682.
QUAKERS: A. D. 1688-1776.
Early growth of anti-slavery sentiment in the Society.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1688-1780.
----------QUAKERS: End--------
QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:
In England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
QUALIFICATION OF SUFFRAGE:
In Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.
{2621}
QUANTRELL'S GUERRILLAS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).
QUAPAWS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
QUATRE BRAS, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
----------QUEBEC, CITY: Start--------
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1535.
Its Indian occupants.
Its name.
"When Jacques Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence, in 1535, he
found an Indian village called Stadacona occupying the site of
the present city of Quebec. "The Indian name Stadacona had
perished before the time of Champlain, owing, probably, to the
migration of the principal tribe and the succession of
others." The name Quebec, afterwards given to the French
settlement on the same ground, is said by some to be likewise
of Indian origin, having reference to the narrowing of the
river at that point. "Others give a Norman derivation for the
word: it is said that Quebec was so–called after Caudebec, on
the Seine." La Potherie says that the Normans who were with
Cartier, when they saw the high cape, cried "Quel bec!" from
which came the name Quebec. "Mr. Hawkins terms this 'a
derivation entirely illusory and improbable,' and asserts that
the word is of Norman origin. He gives an engraving of a seal
belonging to William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, dated in the
7th of Henry V., or A. D. 1420. The legend or motto is
'Sigillum Willielmi de la Pole, Comitis Suffolckiæ, Domine de
Hamburg et de Quebec.'"
_E. Warburton,
The Conquest of Canada,
volume 1, chapter 2, and foot-note._
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1608.
The founding of the city by Champlain.
See CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1629-1632.
Capture by the English, brief occupation
and restoration to France.
See CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1639.
The founding of the Ursuline Convent.
See CANADA: A. D. 1637–1657.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1690.
Unsuccessful attack by Sir Williams Phips
and the Massachusetts colonists.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1711.
Threatened by the abortive expedition of Admiral Walker.
See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1759.
Wolfe's conquest.
See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1760.
Attempted recovery by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1760.
QUEBEC, CITY: A. D. 1775-1776.
Unsuccessful siege by the Americans.
Death of Montgomery.
See 'CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
----------QUEBEC, CITY: End--------------
----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: Start--------
QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1763.
Creation of the English province.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1774.
Vast extension of the province by the Quebec Act.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
QUEBEC, Province: A. D. 1867.
On the formation of the confederated Dominion of Canada, in
1867, the eastern province formerly called Lower Canada
received the name of Quebec.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
----------QUEBEC, PROVINCE: End--------
QUEBEC ACT, The.
See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.
QUEBEC RESOLUTIONS, The.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
QUEBRADA-SECA, Battle of (1862).
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
QUEEN, Origin of the word.
See King.
QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.
"Her Majesty's [Queen Anne's] birthday, which was the 6th of
February, falling this year [1704] on a Sunday, its
celebration had been postponed till the next day. On that day,
then, as well beseeming her pious and princely gift, Sir
Charles Hedges as Secretary of State brought down to the House
of Commons a message from the Queen, importing that Her
Majesty desired to make a grant of her whole revenue arising
out of the First Fruits and Tenths for the benefit of the
poorer clergy. These First Fruits and Tenths had been imposed
by the Popes some centuries ago for the support of the Holy
Wars, but had been maintained long after those wars had
ceased.
See ANNATES.
The broad besom of Henry VIII. had swept them from the Papal
to the Royal treasury, and there they continued to flow. In
the days of Charles II. they had been regarded as an excellent
fund out of which to provide for the female favourites of His
Majesty and their numerous children. … Upon the Queen's
message the Commons returned a suitable address, and proceeded
to pass a bill enabling Her Majesty to alienate this branch of
the revenue, and to create a corporation by charter to apply
it for the object she desired. … This fund has ever since and
with good reason borne the name of 'Queen Anne's Bounty.' Its
application has been extended to the building of
parsonage-houses as well as to the increase of poor livings."
_Earl Stanhope,
History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 4._
QUEEN ANNE'S WAR.
The wide-ranging conflict which is known in European history
as the War of the Spanish Succession, appears in American
history more commonly under the name of Queen Anne's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.
QUEENSBERRY PLOT, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
QUEENSLAND.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.
QUEENSTOWN HEIGHTS, The battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
QUELCHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
QUERANDIS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
QUESNOY: A. D. 1659.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
QUESNOY: A. D. 1794.
Siege and capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
QUIBÉRON BAY,
Naval battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
Defeat of French Royalists (1795).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
QUICHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES.
QUICHUAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
{2622}
QUIDS, The.
John Randolph of Virginia. "had been one of the Republican
leaders while the party was in opposition [during the second
administration of Washington and the administration of John
Adams, as Presidents of the United States], but his irritable
spirit disqualified him for heading an Administration party.
He could attack, but could not defend. He had taken offense at
the President's [Jefferson's] refusal to make him Minister to
England, and immediately took sides with the Federalists
[1805] followed by a number of his friends, though not
sufficient to give the Federalists a majority. … The Randolph
faction, popularly called 'Quids,' gave fresh life to the
Federalists in Congress, and made them an active and useful
opposition party."
_A. Johnston,
History of American Politics,
chapter 6, section 3._
QUIETISM.
See MYSTICISM.
QUIJO, OR NAPO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
QUINARIUS, The.
See AS.
QUINCY RAILWAY, The.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
QUINDECEMVIRS, The.
The quindecemvirs, at Rome, had the custody of the Sibylline
books.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 31._
QUINNIPIACK.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.
QUIPU.
WAMPUM.
"The Peruvians adopted a … unique system of records, that by
means of the quipu. This was a base cord, the thickness of the
finger, of any required length, to which were attached
numerous small strings of different colors, lengths, and
textures, variously knotted and twisted one with another. Each
of these peculiarities represented a certain number, a
quality, quantity, or other idea, but what, not the most
fluent quipu reader could tell unless he was acquainted with
the general topic treated of. Therefore, whenever news was
sent in this manner a person accompanied the bearer to serve
as verbal commentator, and to prevent confusion the quipus
relating to the various departments of knowledge were placed
in separate storehouses, one for war, another for taxes, a
third for history, and so forth. On what principle of
mnemotechnics the ideas were connected with the knots and
colors we are totally in the dark; it has even been doubted
whether they had any application beyond the art of numeration.
Each combination had, however, a fixed ideographic value in a
certain branch of knowledge, and thus the quipu differed
essentially from the Catholic rosary, the Jewish phylactery,
or the knotted strings of the natives of North America and
Siberia, to all of which it has at times been compared. The
wampum used by the tribes of the North Atlantic coast was, in
many respects, analogous to the quipu. In early times it was
composed chiefly of bits of wood of equal size, but different
colors. These were hung on strings which were woven into belts
and bands, the hues, shapes, sizes, and combinations of the
strings hinting their general significance. Thus the lighter
shades were invariable harbingers of peaceful or pleasant
tidings, while the darker portended war and danger. The
substitution of beads or shells in place of wood, and the
custom of embroidering figures in the belts were, probably,
introduced by European influence."
_D. G. Brinton,
The Myths of the New World,
chapter 1._
See, also, WAMPUM.
QUIRINAL, The.
"The Palatine city was not the only one that in ancient times
existed within the circle afterwards enclosed by the Servian
walls; opposite to it, in its immediate vicinity, there lay a
second city on the Quirinal. … Even the name has not been lost
by which the men of the Quirinal distinguished themselves from
their Palatine neighbours. As the Palatine city took the name
of 'the Seven Mounts,' its citizens called themselves the
'mount-men' ('montani'), and the term 'mount,' while applied
to the other heights belonging to the city, was above all
associated with the Palatine; so the Quirinal height—although
not lower, but on the contrary somewhat higher, than the
former—as well as the adjacent Viminal, never in the strict
use of the language received any other name than 'hill'
('collis'). … Thus the site of the Roman commonwealth was
still at this period occupied by the Mount-Romans of the
Palatine and the Hill-Romans of the Quirinal as two separate
communities confronting each other and doubtless in many
respects at feud. … That the community of the Seven Mounts
early attained a great preponderance over that of the Quirinal
may with certainty be inferred."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 4._
See, also, PALATINE HILL,
and SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.
QUIRITES.
In early Rome the warrior-citizens, the full burgesses, were
so-called. "The king, when he addressed them, called them
'lance-men' (quirites). … We need not … regard the name
Quirites as having been originally reserved for the burgesses
on the Quirinal. … It is indisputably certain that the name·
Quirites denoted from the first, as well as subsequently,
simply the full burgess."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapters 4 and 5._
The term quirites, in fact, signified the citizens of Rome as
a body. Whether it originally meant "men of the spear," as
derived from a Sabine word, is a question in some dispute.
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 5._
QUITO: The ancient kingdom and the modern city.
See ECUADOR.
QUIVIRA.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
QUORATEAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUORATEAN FAMILY.
R
RAAB, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
RABBLING.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
RABELAIS, on Education.
See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE.
RAB-SHAKEH.
The title of the chief minister of the Assyrian kings. The
Rab-Shakah of Sennacherib demanded the surrender of Jerusalem.
RACHISIUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 744-750.
RADAGAISUS,
RADAGAIS,
RODOGAST;
Invasion of Italy by.
"In the year 406, Italy was suddenly overrun by a vast
multitude composed of Vandals, Sueves, Burgunds, Alans, and
Goths, under the command of a king named Radagais. To what
nation this king belonged is not certain, but it seems likely
that he was an Ostrogoth from the region of the Black Sea, who
had headed a tribe of his countrymen in a revolt against the
Huns.
{2623}
The invading host is said to have consisted of 200,000
warriors, who were accompanied by their wives and families.
These barbarians were heathens, and their manners were so
fierce and cruel that the invasion excited far more terror
than did that of Alaric. … Stilicho [the able minister and
general of the contemptible Emperor of the West, Honorius]
found it hard work to collect an army capable of opposing this
savage horde, and Radagais had got as far as Florence before
any resistance was offered to him. But while he was besieging
that city, the Roman general came upon him, and, by
surrounding his army with earthworks, compelled him to
surrender. The barbarian king was beheaded, and those of the
captives whose lives were spared were sold into slavery."
_H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths,
chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 5._
See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.
RÆTIA.
See RHÆTIA.
RAGA,
RAGHA,
RHAGES.
"The Median city next in importance to the two Ecbatanas was
Raga or Rhages, near the Caspian Gates, almost at the extreme
eastern limits of the territory possessed by the Medes. The
great antiquity of this place is marked by its occurrence in
the Zendavesta among the primitive settlements of the Arians.
Its celebrity during the time of the Empire is indicated by
the position which it occupies in the romances of Tobit and
Judith. … Rhages gave name to a district; and this district
may be certainly identified with the long narrow tract of
fertile territory intervening between the Elburz
mountain-range and the desert, from about Kasvin to Khaar, or
from longitude 50° to 52° 30'. The exact site of the city of
Rhages within this territory is somewhat doubtful. All
accounts place it near the eastern extremity; and, as there
are in this direction ruins of a town called Rhei or Rhey, it
has been usual to assume that they positively fix the
locality. But … there are grounds for placing Rhages very much
nearer to the Caspian Gates."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Media,
chapter 1._
See, also, CASPIAN GATES.
RAGÆ.
See RATÆ.
RAGMAN'S ROLL.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.
RAID OF RUTHVEN, The.
See SCOTLAND. A. D. 1582.
RAILROADS, The beginning of.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
RAISIN RIVER, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
RAJA,
RAJAH.
MAHARAJA.
Hindu titles, equivalent to king and great king.
RAJPOOTS,
RAJPUTS.
RAJPOOTANA.
"The Rajpoots, or sons of Rajas, are the noblest and proudest
race in India, … They claim to be representatives of the
Kshatriyas; the descendants of those Aryan warriors who
conquered the Punjab and Hindustan in times primeval. To this
day they display many of the characteristics of the heroes of
the Maha Bharata and Ramayana. They form a military
aristocracy of the feudal type. … The Rajpoots are the links
between ancient and modern India. In days of old they strove
with the kings of Magadha for the suzerainty of Hindustan from
the Indus to the lower Gangetic valley. They maintained
imperial thrones at Lahore and Delhi, at Kanouj and Ayodhya.
In later revolutions their seats of empire have been shifted
further west and south, but the Rajpoot kingdoms still remain
as the relics of the old Aryan aristocracy. … The dynasties of
Lahore and Delhi faded away from history, and perchance have
reappeared in more remote quarters of India. The Rajpoots
still retain their dominion in the west, whilst their power
and influence have been felt in every part of India; and to
this day a large Rajpoot element characterizes the
populations, not only of the Punjab and Hindustan, but of the
Dekhan and Peninsula. The Rajpoot empire of a remote antiquity
is represented in the present day by the three kingdoms of
Meywar, Marwar, and Jeypore. Meywar, better known as Chittore
or Udaipore, is the smallest but most important of the three.
It forms the garden of Rajpootana to the eastward of the
Aravulli range. Westward of the range is the dreary desert of
Marwar. Northward of Meywar lies the territory of Jeypore, the
intermediate kingdom between Meywar and the Mussulmans. … In
former times the sovereigns of Meywar were known as the Ranas
of Chittore; they are now known as the Ranas of Udaipore. They
belong to the blue blood of Rajpoot aristocracy."
_J. T. Wheeler,
History of India,
volume 3, chapter 7._
"Everywhere [in the central region of India] Rajput septs or
petty chiefships may still be found existing in various
degrees of independence. And there are, of course, Rajput
Chiefs outside Rajputana altogether, though none of political
importance. But Rajputana proper, the country still under the
independent rule of the most ancient families of the purest
clans, may now be understood generally to mean the great tract
that would be crossed by two lines, of which one should be
drawn on the map of India from the frontier of Sind Eastward
to the gates of Agra; and the other from the Southern border
of the Punjab Government near the Sutlej Southward and
South-Eastward until it meets the broad belt of Maratha States
under the Guicowar, Holkar, and Scindia, which runs across
India from Baroda to Gwalior. This territory is divided into
nineteen States, of which sixteen are possessed by Rajput
clans, and the Chief of the clan or sept is the State's ruler.
To the Sesodia clan, the oldest and purest blood in India,
belong the States of Oodeypoor, Banswarra, Pertabgarh, and
Shahpura; to the Rathore clan, the States of Jodhpoor and
Bikanir; Jeypoor and Ulwar to the Kuchwaha, and so on."
_Sir A. C. Lyall,
Asiatic Studies,
chapter 8._
RALEIGH, Sir Walter:
Colonizing undertakings in Virginia.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586, and 1587-1590.
Guiana and El Dorado expeditions.
See EL DORADO.
RAMBOUILLET, The Hôtel de.
The marquise de Rambouillet, who drew around herself, at
Paris, the famous coterie which took its name from her
hospitable house, was the daughter of a French nobleman, Jean
de Vivonne, sieur de Saint-Gohard, afterwards first marquis de
Pisani, who married a Roman lady of the noble family of the
Strozzi. Catherine de Vivonne was born of this union in 1588,
and in 1600, when less than twelve years old, became the wife
of Charles d'Angennes, vidame du Mans afterwards marquis de
Rambouillet. Her married life was more than half a century in
duration; she was the mother of seven children, and she
survived her husband thirteen years.
{2624}
During the minority of the husband the ancient residence of
his family had been sold, and from 1610 to 1617 the marquis
and marquise were engaged in building a new Hôtel de
Rambouillet, which the latter is credited with having, in
great part, designed. Her house being finished, she opened it
"to her friends and acquaintances, and her receptions, which
continued until the Fronde (1648), brought together every
evening the choicest society of the capital, and produced a
profound influence upon the manners and literature of the day.
The marquise ceased attending court some years before the
death of Henry IV., her refinement and pure character finding
there an uncongenial atmosphere. The marquise was not alone a
woman of society, but was carefully educated and fond of
literature. Consequently the reunions at the Hôtel de
Rambouillet were distinguished by a happy combination of rank
and letters. Still more important was the new position assumed
by the hostess and the ladies who frequented her house. Until
the XVIIth century the crudest views prevailed as to the
education and social position of woman. It was at the Hôtel de
Rambouillet that her position as the intellectual companion of
man was first recognized, find this position of equality, and
the deferential respect which followed it, had a powerful
influence in refining the rude manners of men of rank whose
lives had been passed in camps, and of men of letters who had
previously enjoyed few opportunities for social polish. The
two classes met for the first time on a footing of equality,
and it resulted in elevating the occupation of letters, and
imbuing men of rank with a fondness for intellectual pursuits.
The reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet began, as has been
said, about 1617, and extend until the Fronde (1648) or a few
years later. This period Larroumet ('Précieuses Ridicules,'
page 14) divides into three parts: from 1617 to about 1629;
from 1630 to 1640; and from 1640 to the death of the marquise
in 1665. During the first period the habitués of the Hôtel de
Rambouillet were": the marquis du Vigean, the maréchal de
Souvré, the duke de la Tremoïlle, Richelieu (then bishop of
Luçon), the cardinal de la Valette, the poets Malherbe, Racan,
Gombauld, Chapelain, Marino, the preacher Cospeau, Godeau, the
grammarian Vaugelas, Voiture, Balzac, Segrais, Mlle. Paulet,
the princess de Montmorency, Mlle. du Vigean, and the
daughters of the marquise de Rambouillet, "of whom the eldest,
Julie d'Angennes, until her marriage in 1645 to the marquis de
Montausier, was the soul of the reunions of the Hôtel de
Rambouillet. The second period was that of its greatest
brilliancy. To the illustrious names just mentioned must be
added": the great Condé, the marquis de Montausier,
Saint-Évremond, La Rochefoucald, Sarrasin, Costar, Patru,
Conrart, Georges de Scudéry, Mairet, Colletet, Ménage,
Benscrade, Cotin, Desmarets, Rotrou, Scarron, P. Corneille,
Bossuet, Mlle. de Bourbon, later duchesse de Longueville,
Mlle. de Coligny, Mme. Aubry, and Mlle. de Scudéry, "yet
unknown as a writer. After 1640 the Hôtel de Rambouillet began
to decline; but two names of importance belong to this period:
Mme. de la Fayette, and Mme. de Sévigné. … Voiture died in
1648, the year which witnessed the outbreak of the Fronde,
after which the reunions at the Hôtel de Rambouillet virtually
ceased. … Until the time of Roederer ['Mémoire pour servir à
l'histoire de la société polie en France'] it was generally
supposed that the word 'Précieuse' was synonymous with Hôtel
de Rambouillet, and that it was the marquise and her friends
whom Molière intended to satirize. Roederer endeavored to show
that it was not the marquise but her bourgeois imitators, the
circle of Mlle. de Scudéry …; Victor Cousin attempts to prove
that it was neither the marquise nor Mlle. de Scudéry, but the
imitators of the latter. … The editor of Molière in the
'Grands Écrivains de la France,' M. Despois (volume 2, page 4)
believes that the Hôtel de Rambouillet, including Mlle. de
Scudéry, was the object of Moliere's satire, although he had
no intention of attacking any particular person among the
'Précieuses,' but confined himself to ridiculing the
eccentricities common to them all. It is with this last view
that the editor of the present work unhesitatingly agrees, for
reasons which he hopes some day to give in detail in an
edition of the two plays of Molière mentioned above
['Precieuses Ridicules,' and 'Les Femmes Savantes']. From
Paris the influence of the 'Précieuses' spread into the
provinces, doubtless with all the exaggerations of an
unskilful imitation."
_T. F. Crane,
Introduction to "La Société Française au
Dix-Septième Siècle."_
ALSO IN:
_A. G. Mason,
The Women of the French Salons,
chapters 2-7._
RAMBOUILLET DECREE, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.
RAMESES,
RAAMSES,
RAMSES,
Treasure-city of.
See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
RAMESSIDS, The.
The nineteenth dynasty of Egyptian kings, sprung from Rameses
I. [in the] fourteenth to twelfth centuries B. C.
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1400-1200.
RAMILLIES, Battle of (1706).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.
RAMIRO I.'
King of Aragon, A. D. 1035-1063.
Ramiro I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 842-850.
Ramiro II., King of Aragon, 1134-1137.
Ramiro II., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 930-950.
Ramiro III., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 967-982.
RAMNES.
RAMNIANS, The.
See ROME: BEGINNINGS AND NAME.
RAMOTH-GILEAD.
The strong fortress of Ramoth-Gilead, on the frontier of
Samaria and Syria, was the object and the scene of frequent
warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans of Damascus.
It was there that king Ahab of Samaria, in alliance with
Judah, was killed in battle, fighting against Ben-hadad of
Damascus.
_1 Kings, xxii._
ALSO IN:
_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 33._
RANAS OF UDAIPORE OR CHITTORE.
See RAJPOOTS.
RANDOLPH, Edmund,
and the framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; 1787-1789.
In the Cabinet of President Washington.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.
RANJIT SINGH,
RUNJIT SINGH,
The conquests of.
See SIKHS.
{2625}
RANTERS.
MUGGLETONIANS.
"'These [the Ranters] made it their business,' says Baxter,
'to set up the Light of Nature under the name of Christ in
Man, and to dishonour and cry down the Church, the Scripture,
and the present Ministry, and our worship and ordinances; and
called men to hearken to Christ within them. But withal they
conjoined a cursed doctrine of Libertinism, which brought them
to all abominable filthiness of life. They taught, as the
Familists, that God regardeth not the actions of the outward
man, but of the heart, and that to the pure all things are
pure.' … Of no sect do we hear more in the pamphlets and
newspapers between 1650 and 1655, though there are traces of
them of earlier date. … Sometimes confounded with the Ranters,
but really distinguishable, were some crazed men, whose crazes
had taken a religious turn, and whose extravagances became
contagious.—Such was a John Robins, first heard of about 1650,
when he went about, sometimes as God Almighty, sometimes as
Adam raised from the dead. … One heard next, in 1652, of two
associates, called John Reeve and Ludovick Muggleton, who
professed to be 'the two last Spiritual Witnesses (Revelation
xi.) and alone true Prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, God
alone blessed to all eternity,' They believed in a real
man-shaped God, existing from all eternity, who had come upon
earth as Jesus Christ, leaving Moses and Elijah to represent
him in Heaven." Muggleton died in 1698, "at the age of 90,
leaving a sect called The Muggletonians, who are perhaps not
extinct yet."
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 5, pages 17-20._
RAPALLO,
Battle of (1425).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
Massacre at (1494).
See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
RAPE OF THE SABINE WOMEN, The.
See ROME: B. C. 753-510.
RAPES OF SUSSEX.
"The singular division of Sussex [England] into six 'rapes'
[each of which is subdivided into hundreds] seems to have been
made for military purposes. The old Norse 'hreppr' denoted a
nearly similar territorial division."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 1, foot-note._
"The 'reebning,' or mensuration by the rope or line, supplied
the technical term of 'hrepp' to the glossary of Scandinavian
legislation: archæologists have therefore pronounced an
opinion that the 'Rapes' of Sussex, the divisions ranging from
the Channel shore to the Suthrige border, were, according to
Norwegian fashion, thus plotted out by the Conqueror."
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 5._
RAPHIA, Battle of (B. C. 217).
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
RAPID INDIANS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: RAPID INDIANS.
RAPIDAN, Campaign of Meade and Lee on the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
RAPPAHANNOCK STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).
RAPPAREES.
TORIES.
"Ejected proprietors [in Ireland, 17th and 18th centuries]
whose names might be traced in the annals of the Four Masters,
or around the sculptured crosses of Clonmacnoise, might be
found in abject poverty hanging around the land which had
lately been their own, shrinking from servile labour as from
an intolerable pollution, and still receiving a secret homage
from their old tenants. In a country where the clan spirit was
intensely strong, and where the new landlords were separated
from their tenants by race, by religion, and by custom, these
fallen and impoverished chiefs naturally found themselves at
the head of the discontented classes; and for many years after
the Commonwealth, and again after the Revolution, they and
their followers, under the names of tories and rapparees,
waged a kind of guerrilla war of depredations upon their
successors. After the first years of the 18th century,
however, this form of crime appears to have almost ceased; and
although we find the names of tories and rapparees on every
page of the judicial records, the old meaning was no longer
attached to them, and they had become the designations of
ordinary felons, at large in the country."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 7 (volume 2)._
"The distinction between the Irish foot soldier and the Irish
Rapparee had never been very strongly marked. It now
disappeared [during the war in Ireland between James II. and
William of Orange—A. D. 1691]. Great part of the army was
turned loose to live by marauding."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 17 (volume 4)._
"The Rapparee was the lowest of the low people. … The Rapparee
knew little difference between friend and foe; receiving no
mercy, they gave none."
_Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs or Great Britain and Ireland,
part 2, book 5 (volume 3)._
"Political disaffection in Ireland has been the work, on the
one hand, of the representatives of the old disinherited
families—the Kernes, and Gallowglasses of one age, the
Rapparees of the next, the houghers and ravishers of a third;
on the other, of the restless aspirations of the Catholic
clergy."
_J. A. Froude,
The English in Ireland,
book 9, chapter 1 (volume 3)._
RARITANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
RAS.
RASENNA.
See ETRUSCANS.
RASCIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).
RASCOL.
RASKOL.
RASKOLNIKS.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.
RASTA, The.
See LEUGA.
RASTADT, Congress of.
Murder of French envoys.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
RASTADT, The Treaty of (1714).
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
RATÆ,
RAGÆ.
A Roman town in Britain—"one of the largest and most important
of the midland cities, adorned with rich mansions and temples,
and other public buildings. Its site is now occupied by the
town of Leicester."
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
RATHMINES, Battle of (1649).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.
RATHS.
"Of those ancient Raths, or Hill-fortresses, which formed the
dwellings of the old Irish chiefs, and belonged evidently to a
period when cities were not yet in existence, there are to be
found numerous remains throughout the country. This species of
earthen work is distinguished from the artificial mounds, or
tumuli, by its being formed upon natural elevations, and
always surrounded by a rampart,"
_T. Moore,
History of Ireland,
chapter 9._
RATHSMANN,
RATHSMEISTER, etc.
See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.
{2626}
RATISBON:
Taken by the Swedish-German forces (1633).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
RATISBON, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
RATISBON, Catholic League of.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
RAUCOUX, Battle of (1746).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747.
RAUDINE PLAIN, Battle of the.
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
RAURACI, The.
An ancient tribe "whose origin is perhaps German, established
on both banks of the Rhine, towards the elbow which that river
forms at Bâle."
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot–note._
RAVENIKA, The Parliament of.
Henry, the second emperor of the Latin empire of Romania, or
empire of Constantinople, convened a general parliament or
high-court of all his vassals, at Ravenika, in 1209, for the
determining of the feudal relations of all the subjects of the
empire. Ravenika is in ancient Chalkidike, some fifty miles
from Thessalonica.
_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 4, section 4._
----------RAVENNA: Start--------
RAVENNA: B. C. 50.
Cæsar's advance on Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 52-50.
RAVENNA: A. D. 404.
Made the capital of the Western Empire.
"The houses of Ravenna, whose appearance may be compared to
that of Venice, were raised on the foundation of wooden piles.
The adjacent country, to the distance of many miles, was a
deep and impassable morass; and the artificial causeway which
connected Ravenna with the continent might be easily guarded,
or destroyed, on the approach of a hostile army. These
morasses were interspersed, however, with vineyards; and
though the soil was exhausted by four or five crops, the town
enjoyed a more plentiful supply of wine than of fresh water.
The air, instead of receiving the sickly and almost
pestilential exhalations of low and marshy grounds, was
distinguished, like the neighbourhood of Alexandria, as
uncommonly pure and salubrious; and this singular advantage
was ascribed to the regular tides of the Adriatic. … This
advantageous situation was fortified by art and labour; and,
in the twentieth year of his age, the Emperor of the West
[Honorius, A. D. 395-423] anxious only for his personal
safety, retired to the perpetual confinement of the walls and
morasses of Ravenna. The example of Honorius was imitated by
his feeble successors, the Gothic kings, and afterwards the
exarchs, who occupied the throne and palace of the emperors;
and till the middle of the eighth century Ravenna was
considered as the seat of government and the capital of
Italy."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 30._
ALSO IN:
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
chapter 9._
See, also, ROME: A. D. 404-408.
RAVENNA: A. D. 490-493.
Siege and capture by Theodoric.
Murder of Odoacer.
Capital of the Ostrogothic kingdom.
See ROME: A. D. 488-526.
RAVENNA: A. D. 493-525.
The capital of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.
"The usual residence of Theodoric was Ravenna, with which city
his name is linked as inseparably as those of Honorius or
Placidia. The letters of Cassiodorus show his zeal for the
architectural enrichment of this capital. Square blocks of
stone were to be brought from Faenza, marble pillars to be
transported from the palace on the Pincian Hill: the most
skilful artists in mosaic were invited from Rome, to execute
some of those very works which we still wonder at in the
basilicas and baptisteries of the city by the Ronco. The chief
memorials of his reign which Theodoric has left at Ravenna are
a church, a palace, and a tomb."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3)._
RAVENNA: A. D. 540.
Surrender to Belisarius.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
RAVENNA: A. D. 554-800.
The Exarchate.
See ROME: A. D. 554-800.
RAVENNA: A. D. 728-751.
Decline and fall of the Exarchate.
See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
RAVENNA: A. D. 1275.
The Papal sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
RAVENNA: A. D. 1512.
Taken by the French.
Battle before the city.
Defeat of the Spaniards.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
----------RAVENNA: End--------
RAVENSPUR.
The landing place of Henry of Lancaster, July 4, 1399, when he
came back from banishment to demand the crown of England from
Richard II. It is on the coast of Yorkshire.
RAYMOND, of Toulouse, The Crusade of.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099; and 1099-1144.
RAYMOND, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
REAL, Spanish.
See SPANISH COINS.
REAMS'S STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
REASON, The Worship of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (NOVEMBER).
REBECCAITES.
DAUGHTERS OF REBECCA.
Between 1839 and 1844, a general outbreak occurred in Wales
against what were thought to be the excessive tolls collected
on the turnpike roads. Finding that peaceful agitation was of
no avail the people determined to destroy the turnpike gates,
and did so very extensively, the movement spreading from
county to county. They applied to themselves the Bible promise
given to the descendants of Isaac's wife, that they should
possess the "gate" of their enemies, and were known as the
Daughters, or Children of Rebecca, or Rebeccaites. Their
proceedings assumed at last a generally riotous and lawless
character, and were repressed by severe measures. At the same
time Parliament removed the toll-gate grievance by an amended
law.
_W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 2, page 131._
RECESS.
Certain decrees of the Germanic diet were so called.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.
RECHABITES, The.
An ascetic religious association, or order, formed among the
Israelites, under the influence of the prophet Elijah, or
after his death. Like the monks of a later time, they mostly
withdrew into the desert. "The vow of their order was so
strict that they were not allowed to possess either vineyards
or corn-fields or houses, and they were consequently rigidly
confined for means of subsistence to the products of the
wilderness."
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 4, section 1 (volume 4)._
{2627}
RECIPROCITY TREATY, Canadian.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION, &C.
(UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.
RECOLLECTS,
RÉCOLLETS.
This name is borne by a branch of the Franciscan order of
friars, to indicate that the aim of their lives is the
recollection of God and the forgetfulness of worldly things.
RECONSTRUCTION:
President Lincoln's Louisiana plan.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).
President Johnson's plan.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
The question in Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-JUNE),
1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH), 1867 (MARCH).
See, also:
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876;
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866;
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1865-1867.
RECULVER, Roman origin of.
See REGULBIUM.
RED CAP OF LIBERTY, The.
See LIBERTY CAP.
RED CROSS, The.
"A confederation of relief societies in different countries,
acting under the Geneva Convention, carries on its work under
the sign of the Red Cross. The aim of these societies is to
ameliorate the condition of wounded soldiers in the armies in
campaign on land or sea. The societies had their rise in the
conviction of certain philanthropic men, that the official
sanitary service in wars is usually insufficient, and that the
charity of the people, which at such times exhibits itself
munificently, should be organized for the best possible
utilization. An international public conference was called at
Geneva, Switzerland, in 1863, which, though it had not an
official character, brought together representatives from a
number of Governments. At this conference a treaty was drawn
up, afterwards remodeled and improved, which twenty-five
Governments have signed. The treaty provides for the
neutrality of all sanitary supplies, ambulances, surgeons,
nurses, attendants, and sick or wounded men, and their safe
conduct, when they bear the sign of the organization, viz: the
Red Cross. Although the Convention which originated the
organization was necessarily international, the relief
societies themselves are entirely national and independent;
each one governing itself and making its own laws according to
the genius of its nationality and needs. It was necessary for
recognizance and safety, and for carrying out the general
provisions of the treaty, that a uniform badge should be
agreed upon. The Red Cross was chosen out of compliment to the
Swiss Republic, where the first convention was held, and in
which the Central Commission has its headquarters. The Swiss
colors being a white cross on a red ground, the badge chosen
was these colors reversed. There are no 'members of the Red
Cross,' but only members of societies whose sign it is. There
is no 'Order of the Red Cross.' The relief societies use, each
according to its convenience, whatever methods seem best
suited to prepare in times of peace for the necessities of
sanitary service in times of war. They gather and store gifts
of money and supplies; arrange hospitals, ambulances, methods
of transportation of wounded men, bureaus of information,
correspondence, &c. All that the most ingenious philanthropy
could devise and execute has been attempted in this direction.
In the Franco–Prussian war this was abundantly tested. … This
society had its inception in the mind of Monsieur Henri
Dunant, a Swiss gentleman, who was ably seconded in his views
by Monsieur Gustave Moynier and Dr. Louis Appia, of Geneva."
_History of the Red Cross
(Washington, 1883)._
RED FORTRESS, The.
The Alhambra.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
RED LAND, The.
See VEHMGERICHTS.
RED LEGS.
See JAYHAWKERS.
RED RIVER COMPANY AND SETTLEMENT.
RIEL'S REBELLION.
See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
RED RIVER EXPEDITION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
RED ROBE, Counsellors of the.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
RED TERROR, The.
The later period of the French Reign of Terror, when the
guillotine was busiest, is sometimes so called.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL,).
REDAN, Assaults on the (1855).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
REDEMPTIONERS.
"Redemptioners, or term slaves, as they were sometimes called,
constituted in the early part of the 18th century a peculiar
feature of colonial society. They were recruited from among
all manner of people in the old world, and through this
channel Europe emptied upon America, not only the virtuous
poor and oppressed of her population, but the vagrants,
felons, and the dregs of her communities. … There were two
kinds of redemptioners: 'indented servants,' who had bound
themselves to their masters for a term of years previous to
their leaving the old country; and 'free–willers,' who, being
without money and desirous of emigrating, agreed with the
captains of ships to allow themselves and their families to be
sold on arrival, for the captain's advantage, and thus repay
costs of passage and other expenses."
_A. D. Mellick, Jr.,
The Story of an Old Farm,
chapter 11._
REDEMPTORISTS, The.
The members of the congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer,
founded by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, in 1732, are
commonly known as Redemptorists. The congregation is
especially devoted to apostolic work among neglected classes
of people. It has monasteries in several parts of Europe.
REDONES, The.
See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.
REDSTICKS, The.
This name was given to the hostile Creek Indians of Florida.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
REDUCTIONS IN PARAGUAY, The Jesuit.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
REEVE.
See GEREFA; and MARGRAVE.
REFERENDARIUS.
See CHANCELLOR.
REFERENDUM AND INITIATIVE, The Swiss.
"A popular vote under the name Referendum was known in the
valleys of Graubunden and Wallis as early as the 16th century.
Here existed small federations of communities who regulated
certain matters of general concern by means of assemblies of
delegates from each village. These conventions were not
allowed to decide upon any important measure finally, but must
refer the matter to the various constituencies. If a majority
of these approved, the act might be passed at the next
assembly.
{2628}
This primitive system lasted till the French invasion of 1798,
and was again established in Graubünden in 1815. The word
Referendum was also used by the old federal diets, in which
there were likewise no comprehensive powers of legislation. If
not already instructed the delegates must vote 'ad referendum'
and carry all questions to the home government. The
institution as now known is a product of this century. It
originated in the canton of St. Gallen in 1830, where at the
time the constitution was undergoing revision. As a compromise
between the party which strove for pure democracy and that
desiring representative government, it was provided that all
laws should be submitted to popular vote if a respectable
number of voters so demanded. Known at first by the name Veto,
this system slowly found its way into several of the
German-speaking cantons, so that soon after the adoption of
the federal constitution five were employing the optional
Referendum. Other forms of popular legislation were destined
to find wider acceptance, but at present [1891] in eight
states, including three of the Romance tongue, laws must be
submitted on request. … The usual limit of time during which
the petition must be signed is 30 days. These requests are
directed to the Executive Council of the state, and that body
is obliged, within a similar period after receiving the same,
to appoint a day for the vote. The number of signers required
varies from 500 in the little canton Zug to 6,000 in St.
Gallen, or from one-tenth to one–fifth of all the voters. Some
states provide that in connection with the vote on the bill as
a whole, an expression may be taken on separate points. Custom
varies as to the number of votes required to veto a law. Some
fix the minimum at a majority of those taking part in the
election, and others at a majority of all citizens, whether
voting or not. In case the vote is against the bill, the
matter is referred by the Executive Council to the
legislature. This body, after examining into the correctness
of the returns, passes a resolution declaring its own act to
be void. By means of the Initiative or Imperative Petition,
the order of legislation just described is reversed, since the
impulse to make law is received from below instead of above.
The method of procedure is about as follows: Those who are
interested in the passage of a new law prepare either a full
draft of such a bill or a petition containing the points
desired to be covered, with the reasons for its enactment, and
then bring the matter before the public for the purpose of
obtaining signatures. Endorsement may be given either by
actually signing the petition or by verbal assent to it. The
latter form of consent is indicated either in the town
meetings of the communes or by appearing before the official
in charge of the petition and openly asking that his vote be
given for it. If, in the various town meetings of the canton
taken together, a stated number of affirmative votes are given
for the petition, the effect is the same as if the names of
voters had been signed. … The number of names required is
about the same in proportion to the whole body of voters as
for the Optional Referendum. The requisite number of
signatures having been procured, the petition is carried to
the legislature of the canton. This body must take the matter
into consideration within a specified time (Solothurn, two
months), and prepare a completed draft in accordance with the
request. It may also at the same time present an alternate
proposition which expresses its own ideas of the matter, so
that voters may take their choice. In any case the legislature
gives an opinion on the project, as to its desirability or
propriety, and the public has thus a report of its own select
committee for guidance. The bill is then submitted to the
voters, and on receiving the assent of a majority, and having
been promulgated by the executive authority, becomes a law of
the land."
_J. M. Vincent,
State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
chapter 13._
"Between 1874 and 1886, the federal legislature passed 113
laws and resolutions which were capable of being submitted to
the referendum. Of these only 19 were subjected to the popular
vote, and of these last 13 were rejected and 6 adopted. The
strong opposing views, which are held in Switzerland regarding
the expediency of the referendum, indicate that this is one of
the features of the government which is open to future
discussion."
_B. Moses,
The Federal Government of Switzerland,
page 119._
See, also, SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
"A plébiscite is a mass vote of the French people by which a
Revolutionary or Imperial Executive obtains for its policy, or
its crimes, the apparent sanction or condonation of France.
Frenchmen are asked at the moment, and in the form most
convenient to the statesmen or conspirators who rule in Paris,
to say 'Aye' or 'No' whether they will, or will not, accept a
given Constitution or a given policy. The crowd of voters are
expected to reply in accordance to the wishes or the orders of
the Executive, and the expectation always has met, and an
observer may confidently predict always will meet, with
fulfilment. The plébiscite is a revolutionary, or at least
abnormal, proceeding. It is not preceded by debate. The form
and nature of the question to be submitted to the nation is
chosen and settled by the men in power. Rarely, indeed, when a
plébiscite has been taken, has the voting itself been either
free or fair. Taine has a strange tale to tell of the methods
by which a Terrorist faction, when all but crushed by general
odium, extorted from the country by means of the plébiscite a
sham assent to the prolongation of revolutionary despotism.
The credulity of partisanship can nowadays hardly induce even
Imperialists to imagine that the plébiscites which sanctioned
the establishment of the Empire, which declared Louis Napoleon
President for life, which first re-established Imperialism,
and then approved more or less Liberal reforms, fatal at
bottom to the Imperial system, were the free, deliberate,
carefully considered votes of the French nation given after
the people had heard all that could be said for and against
the proposed innovation. … The essential characteristics,
however, the lack of which deprives a French plébiscite of all
moral significance, are the undoubted properties of the Swiss
Referendum. When a law revising the Constitution is placed
before the people of Switzerland, every citizen throughout the
land has enjoyed the opportunity of learning the merits and
demerits of the proposed alteration. The subject has been
'threshed out,' as the expression goes, in Parliament; the
scheme, whatever its worth, has received the deliberately
given approval of the elected Legislature; it comes before the
people with as much authority in its favour as a Bill which in
England has passed through both Houses."
_A. V. Dicey,
The Referendum,
(Contemporary Review, April, 1890)._
{2629}
"A judgment of the referendum must be based on the working of
the electoral machinery, on the interest shown by the voters,
and on the popular discrimination between good and bad
measures. The process of invoking and voting on a referendum
is simple and easily worked, if not used too often. Although
the Assembly has, in urgent cases, the constitutional right to
set a resolution in force at once, it always allows from three
to eight months' delay so as to permit the opponents of a
measure to lodge their protests against it. Voluntary
committees take charge of the movement, and, if a law is
unpopular, little difficulty is found in getting together the
necessary thirty thousand or fifty thousand signatures. Only
thrice has the effort failed when made. When, as in 1882, the
signatures run up to 180,000, the labor is severe, for every
signature is examined by the national executive to see whether
it is attested as the sign manual of a voter; sometimes, in an
interested canton, as many as 70 per cent. of the voters have
signed the demand. The system undoubtedly leads to public
discussion: newspapers criticise; addresses and counter
addresses are issued; cantonal councils publicly advise
voters; and of late the federal Assembly sends out manifestoes
against pending initiatives. The federal Executive Council
distributes to the cantons enough copies of the proposed
measure, so that one may be given to each voter. The count of
the votes is made by the Executive Council as a
returning-board. Inasmuch as the Swiss are unfamiliar with
election frauds, and there has been but one very close vote in
the national referenda, the count is not difficult, but there
are always irregularities, especially where more than one
question is presented to the voters at the same time. What is
the effect of the popular votes, thus carried out? The
following table, based on official documents, shows the
results for the twenty years, 1875-1894;
Passed Rejected Total
(a.) Constitutional amendments
proposed by the Assembly
(referendum obligatory) 1 6 7
(b.) Constitutional amendments
proposed by popular initiative 2 1 *4
(50,000 signatures)
(c.) Laws passed by the Assembly 14 6 20
(referendum demanded by 30,000).
Total 17 13 31
* One measure still pending.
Making allowances for cases where more than one question has
been submitted at the same time, there have been twenty-four
popular votes in twenty years. In addition, most of the
cantons have their own local referenda; in Zurich, for
example, in these twenty years, more than one hundred other
questions have been placed before the sovereign people. These
numbers are large in themselves, but surprising in proportion
to the total legislation. Out of 158 general acts passed by
the federal Assembly from 1874 to 1892, 27 were subjected to
the referendum; that is, about one-sixth are reviewed and
about one-tenth are reversed. Constitutional amendments
usually get through sooner or Inter, but more than two-thirds
of the statutes attacked are annulled. To apply the system on
such a scale in any State of our Union is plainly impossible;
thirty-nine–fortieths of the statute-book must still rest, as
now, on the character of the legislators. Nevertheless it may
be worth while to excise the other fortieth, if experience
shows that the people are more interested and wiser than their
representatives, when a question is put plainly and simply
before them. I must own to disappointment over the use made by
the Swiss of their envied opportunity. On the twenty referenda
between 1879 and 1891 the average vote in proportion to the
voters was but 58.5 per cent.; in only one case did it reach
67 per cent.; and in one case—the patent law of 1887—it fell
to about 40 per cent. in the Confederation, and to 9 per cent.
in Canton Schwyz. On the serious and dangerous question of
recognizing the right to employment, this present year, only
about 56 per cent. participated. In Zurich there is a
compulsory voting law, of which the curious result is that on
both national and cantonal referenda many thousands of blank
ballots are cast. The result of the small vote is that laws,
duly considered by the national legislature and passed by
considerable majorities, are often reversed by a minority of
the voters. The most probable reason for this apathy is that
there are too many elections—in some cantons as many as
fifteen a year. Whatever the cause, Swiss voters are less
interested in referenda than Swiss legislators in framing
bills. … 'I am a friend of the referendum,' says an eminent
member of the Executive Council, 'but I do not like the
initiative.' The experience of Switzerland seems to show four
things: that the Swiss voters are not deeply interested in the
referendum; that the referendum is as likely to kill good as
bad measures; that the initiative is more likely to suggest
bad measures than good; that the referendum leads straight to
the initiative. The referendum in the United States would
therefore probably be an attempt to govern great communities
by permanent town meeting."
_Prof. A. B. Hart,
Vox Populi in Switzerland
(Nation, September 13, 1894)._
ALSO IN:
_A. L. Lowell,
The Referendum in Switzerland and America
(Atlantic Monthly, April, 1894)._
_E. P. Oberholtzer,
The Referendum in America._
REFORM, Parliamentary.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830; 1830-1832; 1865-1868,
and 1884-1885.
----------REFORMATION: Start--------
REFORMATION:
Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415; and 1419-1434, and after.
REFORMATION:
England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, to 1558-1588.
REFORMATION:
France.
See PAPACY; A. D. 1521-1535;
and FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, and after.
REFORMATION:
Germany.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, 1517, 1517-1521, 1521-1522,
1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531, 1537-1563;
also GERMANY: A. D. 1517-1523, 1530-1532, 1533-1546,
1546-1552, 1552-1561;
also PALATINATE OF THE RHINE; A. D. 1518-1572.
REFORMATION:
Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567
REFORMATION:
Ireland; its failure.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.
REFORMATION:
Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1521-1555, and after.
REFORMATION:
Piedmont.
See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.
{2630}
REFORMATION:
Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557; 1557; 1558-1560;
and 1561-1568.
REFORMATION:
Sweden and Denmark.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
REFORMATION:
Switzerland.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524;
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531;
and GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535; and 1536-1564.
----------REFORMATION: End--------
REFORMATION, The Counter.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.
REGED.
See CUMBRIA.
REGENSBURG.
See RATISBON-under which name the town is more commonly
known to English readers.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY, New York.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.
REGICIDES AT NEW HAVEN, The.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.
REGILLUS, Lake, Battle at.
In the legendary history of the Roman kings it is told that
the last of the Tarquins strove long to regain his throne,
with the help of the Etruscans first, afterwards of the
Latins, and that the question was finally settled in a great
battle fought with the latter, near the Lake Regillus, in
which the Romans were helped by Castor and Pollux, in person.
_Livy,
History,
II. 19._
REGNI, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
REGULATORS OF NORTH CAROLINA.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
REGULBIUM.
One of the fortified Roman towns in Britain on the Kentish
coast,—modern Reculver.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
REGULUS, and the Carthaginians.
See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
REICHSTAG.
See DIET, THE GERMANIC.
REIGN OF TERROR, The.
See TERROR.
REIS EFFENDI.
See SUBLIME PORTE.
REMI, The.
See BELGÆ.
REMO, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
REMONSTRANTS AND COUNTER-REMONSTRANTS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.
REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
RENAISSANCE, The.
"The word Renaissance has of late years received a more
extended significance than that which is implied in our
English equivalent—the Revival of Learning. We use it to
denote the whole transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern
World; and though it is possible to assign certain limits to
the period during which this transition took place, we cannot
fix on any dates so positively as to say—between this year and
that the movement was accomplished. To do so would be like
trying to name the days on which spring in any particular
season began and ended. Yet we speak of spring as different
from winter and from summer. … By the term Renaissance, or new
birth, is indicated a natural movement, not to be explained by
this or that characteristic, but to be accepted as an effort
of humanity for which at length the time had come, and in the
onward progress of which we still participate. The history of
the Renaissance is not the history of arts, or of sciences, or
of literature, or even of nations. It is the history of the
attainment of self-conscious freedom by the human spirit
manifested in the European races. It is no mere political
mutation, no new fashion of art, no restoration of classical
standards of taste. The arts and the inventions, the knowledge
and the books which suddenly became vital at the time of the
Renaissance, had long lain neglected on the shores of the Dead
Sea which we call the Middle Ages. It was not their discovery
which caused the Renaissance. But it was the intellectual
energy, the spontaneous outburst of intelligence, which
enabled mankind at that moment to make use of them. The force
then generated still continues, vital and expansive, in the
spirit of the modern world. … The reason why Italy took the
lead in the Renaissance was, that Italy possessed a language,
a favourable climate, political freedom, and commercial
prosperity, at a time when other nations were still
semi-barbarous. … It was … at the beginning of the 14th
century, when Italy had lost indeed the heroic spirit which we
admire in her Communes of the 13th, but had gained instead
ease, wealth, magnificence, and that repose which springs from
long prosperity, that the new age at last began. … The great
achievements of the Renaissance were the discovery of the
world and the discovery of man. Under these two formulæ may be
classified all the phenomena which properly belong to this
period. The discovery of the world divides itself into two
branches—the exploration of the globe, and the systematic
exploration of the universe which is in fact what we call
Science. Columbus made known America in 1492; the Portuguese
rounded the Cape in 1497; Copernicus explained the solar
system in 1507. It is not necessary to add anything to this
plain statement. … In the discovery of man … it is possible to
trace a twofold process. Man in his temporal relations,
illustrated by Pagan antiquity, and man in his spiritual
relations, illustrated by Biblical antiquity: these are the
two regions, at first apparently distinct, afterwards found to
be interpenetrative, which the critical and inquisitive genius
of the Renaissance opened for investigation. In the former of
these regions we find two agencies at work, art and
scholarship. … Through the instrumentality of art, and of all
the ideas which art introduced into daily life, the
Renaissance wrought for the modern world a real resurrection
of the body. … It was scholarship which revealed to men the
wealth of their own minds, the dignity of human thought, the
value of human speculation, the importance of human life
regarded as a thing apart from religious rules and dogmas. …
The Renaissance opened to the whole reading public the
treasure-houses of Greek and Latin literature. At the same
time the Bible in its original tongues was rediscovered. Mines
of Oriental learning were laid bare for the students of the
Jewish and Arabic traditions. What we may call the Aryan and
the Semitic revelations were for the first time subjected to
something like a critical comparison. With unerring instinct
the men of the Renaissance named the voluminous subject-matter
of scholarship 'Litteræ Humaniores,' the more human
literature, the literature that humanises [hence the term
Humanism]. … Not only did scholarship restore the classics and
encourage literary criticism; it also restored the text of the
Bible, and encouraged theological criticism. In the wake of
theological freedom followed a free philosophy, no longer
subject to the dogmas of the Church. … On the one side
Descartes, and Bacon, and Spinoza, and Locke are sons of the
Renaissance, champions of new-found philosophical freedom; on
the other side, Luther is a son of the Renaissance, the herald
of new-found religious freedom."
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,
chapter 1._
{2631}
"The Renaissance, so far as painting is concerned, may be said
to have culminated between the years 1470 and 1550. These
dates, it must be frankly admitted, are arbitrary; nor is
there anything more unprofitable than the attempt to define by
strict chronology the moments of an intellectual growth so
complex, so unequally progressive, and so varied as that of
Italian art. All that the historian can hope to do, is to
strike a mean between his reckoning of years and his more
subtle calculations based on the emergence of decisive genius
in special men. An instance of such compromise is afforded by
Lionardo da Vinci, who belongs, as far as dates go, to the
last half of the fifteenth century, but who must on any
estimate of his achievement, be classed with Michael Angelo
among the final and supreme masters of the full Renaissance.
To violate the order of time, with a view to what may here be
called the morphology of Italian art, is, in his case, a plain
duty. Bearing this in mind, it is still possible to regard the
eighty years above mentioned as a period no longer of promise
and preparation but of fulfilment and accomplishment.
Furthermore, the thirty years at the close of the fifteenth
century may be taken as one epoch in this climax of the art,
while the first half of the sixteenth forms a second. Within
the former falls the best work of Mantegna, Perugino, Francia,
the Bellini, Signorelli, Fra Bartolommeo. To the latter we may
reckon Michael Angelo, Raphael, Giorgione, Correggio, Titian,
and Andrea del Sarto. Lionardo da Vinci, though belonging
chronologically to the former epoch, ranks first among the
masters of the latter; and to this also may be given
Tintoretto, though his life extended far beyond it to the last
years of the century."
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Fine Arts,
chapters 4-6._
"It would be difficult to find any period in the history of
modern Europe equal in importance with that distinguished in
history under the name of the Renaissance. Standing midway
between the decay of the Middle Ages and the growth of modern
institutions, we may say that it was already dawning in the
days of Dante Alighieri, in whose immortal works we find the
synthesis of a dying age and the announcement of the birth of
a new era. This new era—the Renaissance—began with Petrarch
and his learned contemporaries, and ended with Martin Luther
and the Reformation, which event not only produced signal
changes in the history of those nations which remained
Catholic, but transported beyond the Alps the centre of
gravity of European culture."
_P. Villari,
Niccolo Machiavelli and his Times,
volume 1, chapter 1._
_J. Burckhardt,
The Civilization of the Period of the Renaissance in Italy._
On the communication of the movement of the Renaissance to
France and Europe in general, as a notable consequence of the
invasion of Italy by Charles VIII.
See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
See, also,
ITALY: 14TH CENTURY, and 15-16TH CENTURIES;
FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492;
VENICE: 16TH CENTURY;
FRANCE: A. D. 1492-1515, and 16TH CENTURY;
EDUCATION: RENAISSANCE;
ENGLAND: 10-16TH CENTURIES.
[Transcriber's note: For additional commentary on the
Renaissance by James J. Walsh, see:
_The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries,_
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38680
_Medieval Medicine_
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43300
_The Century of Columbus_
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35095
_The Popes and Science_
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34019
_Catholic Churchmen in Science_
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34067
_Education: How Old The New_
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34938
]
RÉNE
(called The Good), Duke of Anjou and Lorraine and
Count of Provence, A. D. 1434-1480.
King of Naples, A. D. 1435-1442.
See ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
RENSSELAER, Van.
See VAN RENSSELAER.
RENSSELAERWICK, The Patroon colony and manor of.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646;
also, LIVINGSTON MANOR.
REPARTIMIENTOS.
ENCOMIENDAS.
Columbus, as governor of Hispaniola (Hayti), made an
arrangement "by which the caciques in their vicinity, instead
of paying tribute, should furnish parties of their subjects,
free Indians, to assist the colonists in the cultivation of
their lands: a kind of feudal service, which was the origin of
the repartimientos, or distributions of free Indians among the
colonists, afterwards generally adopted, and shamefully
abused, throughout the Spanish colonies; a source of
intolerable hardships and oppressions to the unhappy natives,
and which greatly contributed to exterminate them from the
island of Hispaniola. Columbus considered the island in the
light of a conquered country, and arrogated to himself all the
rights of a conqueror, in the name of the sovereigns for whom
he fought."
_W. Irving,
Life and Voyages of Columbus,
book 12, chapter 4 (volume 2)._
"The words 'repartimiento' and 'encomienda' are often used
indiscriminately by Spanish authors; but, speaking accurately,
'repartimiento' means the first apportionment of
Indians,—'encomienda' the apportionment of any Spaniard's
share which might become 'vacant' by his death or banishment."
_Sir A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest in America,
book 6, chapter 2, foot-note, (volume 1)._
"'Repartimiento,' a distribution; 'repartir,' to divide;
'encomienda,' a charge, a commandery; 'encomendar,' to give in
charge; 'encomendero,' he who holds an encomienda. In Spain an
encomienda, as here understood, was a dignity in the four
military orders, endowed with a rental, and held by certain
members of the order. It was acquired through the liberality
of the crown as a reward for services in the wars against the
Moors. The lands taken from the Infidels were divided among
Christian commanders; the inhabitants of those lands were
crown tenants, and life-rights to their services were given
these commanders. In the legislation of the Indies, encomienda
was the patronage conferred by royal favor over a portion of
the natives, coupled with the obligation to teach them the
doctrines of the Church, and to defend their persons and
property. … The system begun in the New World by Columbus,
Bobadilla, and Ovando was continued by Vasco Nuñez, Pedrarias,
Cortés, and Pizarro, and finally became general."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 262, foot-note._
See, also, SLAVERY, MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.
REPEAL OF THE UNION OF IRELAND WITH GREAT BRITAIN,
The Agitation for.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829, 1840-1841; and 1841-1848.
REPETUNDÆ.
See CALPURNIAN LAW.
REPHAIM, The.
See HORITES, THE.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
{2632}
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.
"This [representative government] is the great distinction
between free states of the modern type, whether kingly or
republican, and the city-commonwealths of old Greece. It is
the great political invention of Teutonic Europe, the one form
of political life to which neither Thucydides, Aristotle, nor
Polybios ever saw more than the faintest approach. In Greece
it was hardly needed, but in Italy a representative system
would have delivered Rome from the fearful choice which she
had to make between anarchy and despotism."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 2._
"Examples of nearly every form of government are to be found
in the varied history of Greece: but nowhere do we find a
distinct system of political representation. There is, indeed,
a passage in Aristotle which implies a knowledge of the
principles of representation. He speaks of 'a moderate
oligarchy, in which men of a certain census elect a council
entrusted with the deliberative power, but bound to exercise
this power agreeably to established laws.' There can be no
better definition of representation than this: but it appears
to express his theoretical conception of a government, rather
than to describe any example within his own experience. Such a
system was incompatible with the democratic constitutions of
the city republics: but in their international councils and
leagues, we may perceive a certain resemblance to it. There
was an approach to representation in the Amphictyonic Council,
and in the Achaian League; and the several cities of the
Lycian League had a number of votes in the assembly,
proportioned to their size—the first example of the kind—being
a still nearer approximation to the principles of
representation. But it was reserved for later ages to devise
the great scheme of representative government, under which
large States may enjoy as much liberty as the walled cities of
Greece, and individual citizens may exercise their political
rights as fully as the Athenians, without the disorders and
perils of pure democracy."
_Sir T. E. May,
Democracy in Europe,
volume 1, chapter 3._
"The most interesting, and on the whole the most successful,
experiments in popular government, are those which have
frankly recognised the difficulty under which it labours. At
the head of these we must place the virtually English
discovery of government by Representation, which caused
Parliamentary institutions to be preserved in these islands
from the destruction which overtook them everywhere else, and
to devolve as an inheritance upon the United States."
_Sir H. S. Maine,
Popular Government,
page 92._
"To find the real origin of the modern representative system
we must turn to the assemblies of the second grade in the
early German states. In these the freemen of the smaller
locality—the Hundred or Canton—came together in a public
meeting which possessed no doubt legislative power over
matters purely local, but whose most important function seems
to have been judicial—a local court, presided over by a chief
who suggested and announced the verdict, which, however,
derived its validity from the decision of the assembly, or, in
later times, of a number of their body appointed to act for
the whole. Those local courts, probably, as has been
suggested, because of the comparatively restricted character
of the powers which they possessed, were destined to a long
life. On the continent they lasted until the very end of the
middle ages, when they were generally overthrown by the
introduction of the Roman law, too highly scientific for their
simple methods. In England they lasted until they furnished
the model, and probably the suggestion, for a far more
important institution—the House of Commons. How many grades of
these local courts there were on the continent below the
national assembly is a matter of dispute. In England there was
clearly a series of three. The lowest was the township
assembly, concerned only with matters of very slight
importance and surviving still in the English vestry meeting
and the New England town-meeting. Above this was the hundred's
court formed upon a distinctly representative principle, the
assembly being composed, together with certain other men, of
four representatives sent from each township. Then, third, the
tribal assembly of the original little settlement, or, the
small kingdom of the early conquest, seems to have survived
when this kingdom was swallowed up in a larger one, and to
have originated a new grade in the hierarchy of assemblies,
the county assembly or shire court. At any rate, whatever may
have been its origin, and whatever may be the final decision
of the vigorously disputed question, whether in the Frankish
state there were any assemblies or courts for the counties
distinct from the courts of the hundreds, it is certain that
courts of this grade came into existence in England and were
of the utmost importance there. In them, too, the
representative principle was distinctly expressed, each
township of the shire being represented, as in the hundred's
court, by four chosen representatives. These courts, also,
pass essentially unchanged through the English feudal and
absolutist period, maintaining local self-government and
preserving more of the primitive freedom than survived
elsewhere. We shall see more in detail, at a later point, how
the representative principle originating in them is
transferred to the national legislature, creating our modern
national representative system—the most important single
contribution to the machinery of government made in historic
times, with the possible exception of federal government."
_G. B. Adams,
Civilization during the Middle Ages,
chapter 5._
For an account of the rise and development of the
representative system in the English Parliament.
See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH.
REPRESENTATIVES, House of.
See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES,
The earlier.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1789-1792; 1798; and 1825-1828.
The later.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.
Liberal and Radical wings.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1872.
REPUBLICANS, Independent.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884.
RESACA,
Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA).
Hood's attack on.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
RESACA DE LA PALMA, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
{2633}
RESAINA, Battle of.
A battle, fought A. D. 241, in which Sapor I. the Persian
king, was defeated by the Roman emperor Gordian, in
Mesopotamia.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 4._
RESCH-GLUTHA, The.
The "Prince of the Captivity."
See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
RESCISSORY, Act.
See SCOTLAND: A.D. 1660-1666.
RESCRIPTS, Roman Imperial.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
RESEN.
See ROTENNU, THE.
RESIDENCIA.
"Residencia was the examination or account taken of the
official acts of an executive or judicial officer [Spanish]
during the term of his residence within the province of his
jurisdiction, and while in the exercise of the functions of
his office. … While an official was undergoing his residencia
it was equivalent to his being under arrest, as he could
neither exercise office nor, except in certain cases
specified, leave the place."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 250, foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_F. W. Blackmar,
Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
page 69._
RESIDENT AT EASTERN COURTS, The English.
See INDIA. A. D. 1877.
RESTITUTION, The Edict of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
RETENNU, The.
See ROTENNU, THE.
RETHEL, Battle of (1650).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND, The.
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
RETZ, Cardinal De, and the Fronde.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1649, to 1051-1653.
REUDIGNI, The.
See AVIONES.
REUIL, Peace of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1649.
REVERE, Paul, The ride of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (APRIL).
REVIVAL OF LEARNING.
See RENAISSANCE.
REVOLUTION, The American.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765, and after.
REVOLUTION, The English, of 1688.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688.
REVOLUTION, The French, of 1789.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1787-1789, and after.
REVOLUTION, The French, of 1830.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.
REVOLUTION, The French, of 1848.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.
REVOLUTION, The Year of.
See
EUROPE (volume 2, pages 1098-1099):
ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849:
GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), to 1848-1850;
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848, to 1848-1850;
HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849;
FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848.
REVOLUTIONARY TRIBUNAL, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).
REYDANIYA, Battle of (1517).
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
REYNOSA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
----------RHÆTIA: Start--------
RHÆTIA.
Rhætians, Vindelicians, etc.
"The Alps from the Simplon pass to the sources of the Drave
were occupied by the Rhætians. Beyond the Inn and the Lake of
Constance, the plain which slopes gently towards the Danube
was known by the name of Vindelicia. Styria, the Kammergut of
Salzburg, and the southern half of the Austrian Archduchy,
belonged to the tribes of Noricum, while the passes between
that country and Italy were held by the Carnians." The Roman
conquest of this Alpine region was effected in the years 16
and 15 B. C. by the two stepsons of the Emperor Augustus,
Tiberius and Drusus. In addition to the people mentioned
above, the Camuni, the Vennones, the Brenni and the Genauni
were crushed. "The free tribes of the eastern Alps appear then
for the first time in history, only to disappear again for a
thousand years."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 35._
See, also, TYROL.
RHÆTIA:
Settlement of the Alemanni in.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
----------RHÆTIA: End--------
RHAGES.
See RAGA.
RHEGIUM, Siege of (B. C. 387).
Rhegium, an important Greek city, in the extreme south of
Italy, on the strait which separates the peninsula from
Sicily, incurred the hostility of the tyrant of Syracuse, the
elder Dionysius, by scornfully refusing him a bride whom he
solicited. The savage-tempered despot made several attempts
without success to surprise the town, and finally laid siege
to it with a powerful army and fleet. The inhabitants resisted
desperately for eleven months, at the end of which time (B. C.
387) they were starved into surrender. "Dionysius, on entering
Rhegium, found heaps of unburied corpses, besides 6,000
citizens in the last stage of emaciation. All these captives
were sent to Syracuse, where those who could provide a mina
(about £3. 17s.) were allowed to ransom themselves, while the
rest were sold as slaves. After such a period of suffering,
the number of those who retained the means of ransom was
probably very small."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 83._
RHEIMS:
Origin of the name.
See BELGÆ.
RHEIMS: A. D. 1429.
The crowning of Charles VII.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
RHEIMS: A. D. 1814.
Capture by the Allies and recovery by Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
RHEINFELDEN, Siege and Battle of (1638).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
RHETRÆ.
See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.
RHINE, The Circle of the.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
RHINE, The Confederation of the.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
and FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
RHINE, Roman passage of the.
See USIPETES AND TENCTHERI.
RHINE LEAGUE, The.
The Rhine League was one of several Bunds, or confederations
formed among the German trading towns in the middle ages, for
the common protection of their commerce. It comprised the
towns of southwest Germany and the Lower Rhine provinces.
Prominent among its members were Cologne, Wessel and Munster.
Cologne, already a large and flourishing city, the chief
market of the trade of the Rhine lands, was a member,
likewise, of the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
_J. Yeats,
Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,
page 158._
See, also, CITIES, IMPERIAL, AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
{2634}
----------RHODE ISLAND: Start--------
RHODE ISLAND:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1631-1636.
Roger Williams in Massachusetts.
His offenses against Boston Puritanism.
His banishment.
On the 5th of February, 1631, "the ship Lyon arrived at
Nantasket, with twenty passengers and a large store of
provisions. Her arrival was most timely, for the
[Massachusetts] colonists were reduced to the last exigencies
of famine. Many had already died of want, and many more were
rescued from imminent peril by this providential occurrence. A
public fast had been appointed for the day succeeding that on
which the ship reached Boston. It was changed to a general
thanksgiving. There was another incident connected with the
arrival of this ship, which made it an era, not only in the
affairs of Massachusetts, but in the history of America. She
brought to the shores of New England the founder of a new
State, the exponent of a new philosophy, the intellect that
was to harmonize religious differences, and soothe the
asperities of the New World; a man whose clearness of mind
enabled him to deduce, from the mass of crude speculations
which abounded in the 17th century, a proposition so
comprehensive, that it is difficult to say whether its
application has produced the most beneficial result upon
religion, or morals, or politics. This man was Roger Williams,
then about thirty-two years of age. He was a scholar, well
versed in the ancient and some of the modern tongues, an
earnest inquirer after truth, and an ardent friend of popular
liberty as well for the mind as for the body. As a 'godly
minister,' he was welcomed to the society of the Puritans, and
soon invited by the church in Salem to supply the place of the
lamented Higginson, as an assistant to their pastor Samuel
Skelton. The invitation was accepted, but the term of his
ministry was destined to be brief. The authorities at Boston
remonstrated with those at Salem against the reception of
Williams. The Court at its next session addressed a letter to
Mr. Endicott to this effect: 'That whereas Mr. Williams had
refused to join with the congregation at Boston, because they
would not make a public declaration of their repentance for
having communion with the churches of England, while they
lived there; and, besides, had declared his opinion that the
magistrate might not punish the breach of the Sabbath, nor any
other offence, as it was a breach of the first table;
therefore they marvelled that they would choose him without
advising with the council, and withal desiring him, that they
would forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.'
This attempt of the magistrates of Boston to control the
election of a church officer at Salem, met with the rebuke it
so richly merited. The people were not ignorant of the
hostility their invitation had excited; yet on the very day
the remonstrance was written, they settled Williams as their
minister. The ostensible reasons for this hostility are set
forth in the letter above cited. That they were to a great
extent the real ones cannot be questioned. The ecclesiastical
polity of the Puritans sanctioned this interference. Their
church platform approved it. Positive statute would seem to
require it. Nevertheless, we cannot but think that, underlying
all this, there was a secret stimulus of ambition on the part
of the Boston Court to strengthen its authority over the
prosperous and, in some respects, rival colony of Salem. … As
a political measure this interference failed of its object.
The people resented so great a stretch of authority, and the
church disregarded the remonstrance. … What could not as yet
be accomplished by direct intervention of the Court was
effected in a surer manner. The fearlessness of Williams in
denouncing the errors of the times, and especially the
doctrine of the magistrate's power in religion, gave rise to a
system of persecution which, before the close of the summer,
obliged him to seek refuge beyond the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts in the more liberal colony of the Pilgrims. At
Plymouth 'he was well accepted as an assistant in the ministry
to Mr. Ralph Smith, then pastor of the church there.' The
principal men of the colony treated him with marked attention.
… The opportunities there presented for cultivating an
intimate acquaintance with the chief Sachems of the
neighboring tribes were well improved, and exerted an
important influence, not only in creating the State of which
he was to be the founder, but also in protecting all New
England amid the horrors of savage warfare. Ousamequin, or
Massasoit, as he is usually called, was the Sachem of the
Wampanoags, called also the Pokanoket tribe, inhabiting the
Plymouth territory. His seat was at Mount Hope, in what is now
the town of Bristol, R. I. With this chief, the early and
steadfast friend of the English, Williams established a
friendship which proved of the greatest service at the time of
his exile."
_S. G. Arnold,
History of the State of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations,
volume 1, chapter 1._
Williams "remained at Plymouth, teaching in the church, but
supporting himself by manual labor, nearly two years. His
ministry was popular in the main and his person universally
liked. Finally, however, he advanced some opinions which did
not suit the steady-going Plymouth elders, and therefore,
departing 'something abruptly,' he returned to Salem. There he
acted as assistant to Mr. Skelton, the aged pastor of the
church, and when Mr. Skelton died, less than a year later,
became his successor. At Salem he was again under the
surveillance of the rulers and elders of the Bay, and they
were swift to make him sensible of it. He had written in
Plymouth, for the Plymouth Governor and Council a treatise on
the Massachusetts Patent, in which he had maintained his
doctrine that the King could not give the settlers a right to
take away from the natives their land without paying them for
it. He was not a lawyer but an ethical teacher, and it was
doubtless as such that he maintained this opinion. In our day
its ethical correctness is not disputed. It has always been
good Rhode Island doctrine. He also criticised the patent
because in it King James claimed to be the first Christian
prince who discovered New England, and because he called
Europe Christendom or the Christian World. Williams did not
scruple to denounce these formal fictions in downright Saxon
as lies. He does not appear to have been, at any period of his
life, a paragon of conventional propriety. A rumor of the
treatise got abroad, though it remained unpublished. The
patent happened to be a sensitive point with the magistrates.
{2635}
It had been granted in England to an English trading company,
and its transfer to Massachusetts was an act of questionable
legality. Moreover it was exceedingly doubtful whether the
rulers, in exercising the extensive civil jurisdiction which
they claimed under it, did not exceed their authority. They
were apprehensive of proceedings to forfeit it, and therefore
were easily alarmed at any turning of attention to it. When
they heard of the treatise they sent for it, and, having got
it, summoned the author 'to be censured.' He appeared in an
unexpectedly placable mood, and not only satisfied their minds
in regard to some of its obscurer passages, but offered it,
since it had served its purpose, to be burnt. The magistrates,
propitiated by his complaisance, appeared to have accepted the
offer as equivalent to a promise of silence, though it is
impossible that he, the uncompromising champion of aboriginal
rights, can ever have meant to give, or even appear to give,
such a promise. Accordingly when they heard soon afterwards
that he was discussing the patent they were deeply incensed,
though it was doubtless the popular curiosity excited by their
own indiscreet action which elicited the discussion. Their
anger was aggravated by another doctrine then put forth by
him, namely, that an oath ought not to be tendered to an
unregenerate, or, as we should say, an unreligious man,
because an oath is an act of worship, and cannot be taken by
such a man without profanation. … He also taught that an oath
being an act of worship, could not properly be exacted from
anyone against his will, and that even Christians ought not to
desecrate it by taking it for trivial causes. … The
magistrates again instituted proceedings against him, at first
subjecting him to the ordeal of clerical visitation, then
formally summoning him to answer for himself before the
General Court. At the same time the Salem church was arraigned
for contempt in choosing him as pastor while he was under
question. The court, however, did not proceed to judgment, but
allowed them both further time for repentance. It so happened
that the inhabitants of Salem had a petition before the court
for 'some land at Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge as
belonging to their town.' The court, when the petition came
up, refused to grant it until the Salem church should give
satisfaction for its contempt, thus virtually affirming that
the petitioners had no claim to justice even, so long as they
adhered to their recusant pastor. Williams was naturally
indignant. He induced his church—'enchanted his church,' says
Cotton Mather—to send letters to the sister churches,
appealing to them to admonish the magistrates and deputies of
their 'heinous sin.' He wrote the letters himself. His
Massachusetts contemporaries say he was 'unlamblike.'
Undoubtedly they heard no gentle bleating in those letters,
but rather the reverberating roar of the lion chafing in his
rage. The churches repelled the appeal; and then turning to
the Salem church, besieged it only the more assiduously,
laboring with it, nine with one, to alienate it from its
pastor. What could the one church do,—with the magistracy
against it, the clergy against it, the churches and the people
against it, muttering their vague anathemas, and Salem town
suffering unjustly on its account,—what could it do but
yield? It yielded virtually if not yet in form; and Williams
stood forth alone in his opposition to the united power of
Church and State. … The fateful court day came at last. The
court assembles, magistrates and deputies, with the clergy to
advise them. Williams appears, not to be tried, but to be
sentenced unless he will retract. He reaffirms his opinions.
Mr. Hooker, a famous clerical dialectician, is chosen to
dispute with him, and the solemn mockery of confutation
begins. … Hour after hour, he argues unsubdued, till the sun
sinks low and the weary court adjourns. On the morrow [Friday,
October 9, 1635], still persisting in his glorious
'contumacy,' he is sentenced, the clergy all save one
advising, to be banished, or, to adopt the apologetic but
felicitous euphemism of his great adversary, John Cotton,
'enlarged' out of Massachusetts. He was allowed at first six
weeks, afterwards until spring, to depart. But in January the
magistrates having heard that he was drawing others to his
opinion, and that his purpose was to erect a plantation about
Narragansett Bay, 'from whence the infection would easily
spread,' concluded to send him by ship, then ready, to England
[see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636]. The story is familiar how
Williams, advised of their intent, baffled it by plunging into
the wilderness, where, after being 'sorely tost for one
fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what
bread or bed did mean,' he settled with the opening spring, on
the east bank of the Seekonk, and there built and planted."
_T. Durfee,
Historical Discourse: Two hundred and fiftieth
Anniversary of the Settlement of Providence, 1886._
"The course pursued towards Roger Williams was not
exceptional. What was done to him had been done in repeated
instances before. Within the first year of its settlement the
colony had passed sentence of exclusion from its territory
upon no less than fourteen persons. It was the ordinary method
by which a corporate body would deal with those whose presence
no longer seemed desirable. Conceiving themselves to be by
patent the exclusive possessors of the soil,—soil which they
had purchased for the accomplishment of their personal and
private ends,—the colonists never doubted their competency to
fix the terms on which others should be allowed to share in
their undertaking. … While there is some discrepancy in the
contemporary accounts of this transaction, there is entire
agreement on one point, that the assertion by Roger Williams
of the doctrine of 'soul-liberty' was not the head and front
of his offending. Whatever was meant by the vague charge in
the final sentence that he had 'broached and divulged new and
dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates,' it
did not mean that he had made emphatic the broad doctrine of
the entire separation of church and state. We have his own
testimony on this point. In several allusions to the subject
in his later writings,—and it can hardly be supposed that in a
matter which he felt so sorely his memory would have betrayed
him,—he never assigns to his opinion respecting the power of
the civil magistrate more than a secondary place. He
repeatedly affirms that the chief causes of his banishment
were his extreme views regarding separation, and his
denouncing of the patent. Had he been himself conscious of
having incurred the hostility of the Massachusetts colony for
asserting the great principle with which he was afterwards
identified, he would surely have laid stress upon it. …
{2636}
It is … clear that in the long controversy it had become
covered up by other issues, and that his opponents, at least,
did not regard it as his most dangerous heresy. So far as it
was a mere speculative opinion it was not new. … To upbraid
the Puritans as unrelenting persecutors, or extol Roger
Williams as a martyr to the cause of Religious liberty, is
equally wide of the real fact. On the one hand, the
controversy had its origin in the passionate and precipitate
zeal of a young man whose relish for disputation made him
never unwilling to encounter opposition, and on the other, in
the exigencies of a unique community, where the instincts of a
private corporation had not yet expanded into the more liberal
policy of a body politic. If we cannot impute to the colony
any large statesmanship, so neither can we wholly acquit Roger
Williams of the charge of mixing great principles with some
whimsical conceits. The years which he passed in Massachusetts
were years of discipline and growth, when he doubtless already
cherished in his active brain the germs of the principles
which he afterwards developed; but the fruit was destined to
be ripened under another sky."
_J. L. Diman,
Orations and Essays,
pages 114-117._
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.
The wanderings of the exiled Roger Williams.
His followers.
The settlement at Providence.
The little that is known of the wanderings of Roger Williams
after his banishment from Salem, until his settlement at
Providence, is derived from a letter which he wrote more than
thirty years afterwards (June 22, 1670) to Major Mason, the
hero of the Pequot War. In that letter he says: "When I was
unkindly and unchristianly, as I believe, driven from my house
and land and wife and children, (in the midst of a New England
winter, now about thirty-five years past,) at Salem, that ever
honored Governor, Mr. Winthrop, privately wrote to me to steer
my course to Narragansett Bay and Indians, for many high and
heavenly and public ends, encouraging me, from the freeness of
the place from any English claims or patents. I took his
prudent motion as a hint and voice from God, and waving all
other thoughts and motions, I steered my course from Salem
(though in winter snow, which I feel yet) unto these parts,
wherein I may say Peniel, that is, I have seen the face of
God. … I first pitched, and began to build and plant at
Seekonk, now Rehoboth, but I received a letter from my ancient
friend, Mr. Winslow, then Governor of Plymouth, professing his
own and others love and respect to me, yet lovingly advising
me, since I was fallen into the edge of their bounds, and they
were loath to displease the Bay, to remove but to the other
side of the water, and then he said, I had the country free
before me, and might be as free as themselves, and we should
be loving neighbors together. These were the joint
understandings of these two eminently wise and Christian
Governors and others, in their day, together with their
counsel and advice as to the freedom and vacancy of this
place, which in this respect, and many other Providences of
the Most Holy and Only Wise, I called Providence. … Some time
after, the Plymouth great Sachem, (Oufamaquin,) upon occasion
affirming that Providence was his land, and therefore
Plymouth's land, and some resenting it, the then prudent and
godly Governor, Mr. Bradford, and others of his godly council,
answered, that if, after due examination, it should be found
true what the barbarian said, yet having to my loss of a
harvest that year, been now (though by their gentle advice) as
good as banished from Plymouth as from the Massachusetts, and
I had quietly and patiently departed from them, at their
motion to the place where now I was, I should not be molested
and tossed up and down again, while they had breath in their
bodies; and surely, between those, my friends of the Bay and
Plymouth, I was sorely tossed, for one fourteen weeks, in a
bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean,
beside the yearly loss of no small matter in my trading with
English and natives, being debarred from Boston, the chief
mart and port of New England."
_Letters of Roger Williams;
edited by J. R. Bartlett,
pages 335-336._
"According to the weight of authority, and the foregoing
extract, when Williams left Salem he made his way from there
by sea, coasting, probably, from place to place during the
'fourteen weeks' that 'he was sorely tossed,' and holding
intercourse with the native tribes, whose language he had
acquired, as we have before stated, during his residence at
Plymouth. Dr. Dexter and Professer Diman interpret this and
other references differently, and conclude that the journey
must have been by land. See Dexter, page 62, note; Nar. Club
Pub., Vol. II, page 87. Perhaps the true interpretation is
that the journey was partly by sea and partly by land; that
is, from the coast inward—to confer with the natives—was by
land, and the rest by sea."
_O. S. Straus,
Roger Williams,
chapter 5, and foot-note._
Mr. Hider, the well-known critical student of Rhode Island
history, has commented on the above passage in Mr. Straus's
work as follows: "The distance from Salem by sea to Seekonk
was across Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay, the Atlantic
Ocean, Vineyard Sound, Buzzard's Bay, the Atlantic Ocean
again, and Narragansett Bay,—a distance scarcely less than 500
miles, in and out, by the line of the coast; all of which had
to be covered either in a birch bark canoe or in a shallop; if
in a canoe, then to be paddled, but if in a shallop, where did
Williams get it, and what became of it? history does not
answer. If Williams was in a boat sailing into Narragansett
Bay, 'the pleasure of the Most High to direct my steps into
the Bay' would become a positive absurdity unless the Most
High meant that Williams should jump overboard! He certainly
could have taken no steps in a boat. But if Williams was in a
boat, what sense could there be in his saying 'I was sorely
tossed for one fourteen weeks, in a bitter (hyperbole again)
winter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.' Did
they not have beds in boats, nor bread? As to the expression
in the Cotton Letter, it was his soul and not his body, which
was exposed to poverties, &c.; observe the quotation. … When
Mr. Straus in his foot-note, speaks of Williams's journey,
'partly by sea and partly by land, that is from the coast
inward, to confer with the natives,' he is dealing solely with
the imagination. No such conference ever took place."
_S. S. Rider,
Roger Williams
(Book Notes, volume 11, page 148)._
{2637}
It was the opinion of Prof. Gammell that, when Roger Williams
fled from Salem, "he made his way through the forest to the
lodges of the Pokanokets, who occupied the country north from
Mount Hope as far as Charles River. Ousemaguin, or Massasoit,
the famous chief of this tribe, had known Mr. Williams when he
lived in Plymouth, and had often received presents and tokens
of kindness at his hands; and now, in the days of his
friendless exile, the aged chief welcomed him to his cabin at
Mount Hope, and extended to him the protection and aid he
required. He granted to him a tract of land on the Seekonk
River, to which, at the opening of spring, he repaired, and
where 'he pitched and began to build and plant ' [near the
beautiful bend in the river, now known as 'Manton's Cove,' a
short distance above the upper bridge, directly eastward of
Providence.—Foot-note]. At this place, also, at the same time,
he was joined by a number of his friends from Salem. … But
scarcely had the first dwelling been raised … when he was
again disturbed, and obliged to move still further from
Christian neighbors and the dwellings of civilized men," as
related in his letter quoted above. "He accordingly soon
abandoned the fields which he had planted, and the dwelling he
had begun to build, and embarked in a canoe upon the Seekonk
River, in quest of another spot where, unmolested, he might
rear a home and plant a separate colony. There were five
others, who, having joined him at Seekonk, bore him company."
Coasting along the stream and "round the headlands now known
as Fox Point and India Point, up the harbor, to the mouth of
the Mooshausic River," he landed, and, "upon the beautiful
slope of the hill that ascends from the river, he descried the
spring around which he commenced the first 'plantations of
Providence.' It was in the latter part of June, 1636, as well
as can be ascertained, that Roger Williams and his companions
began the settlement at the mouth of the Mooshausic River. A
little north of what is now the centre of the city, the spring
is still pointed out, which drew the attention of the humble
voyagers from Seekonk. Here, after so many wanderings, was the
weary exile to find a home, and to lay the foundations of a
city, which should be a perpetual memorial of pious gratitude
to the superintending Providence which had protected him and
guided him to the spot. … The spot at which he had landed …
was within the territory belonging to the Narragansetts.
Canonicus, the aged chief of the tribe, and Miantonomo, his
nephew, had visited the colonies of Plymouth and Massachusetts
Bay, while Williams resided there, and had learned to regard
him, in virtue of his being a minister, as one of the sachems
of the English. He had also taken special pains to conciliate
their good-will and gain their confidence. … Indeed, there is
reason to believe that, at an early period after his arrival
in New England, on finding himself so widely at variance with
his Puritan brethren, he conceived the design of withdrawing
from the colonies, and settling among the Indians, that he
might labor as a missionary. … In all his dealings with the
Indians, Mr. Williams was governed by a strict regard to the
rights which, he had always contended, belonged to them as the
sole proprietors of the soil. … It was by his influence, and
at his expense, that the purchase was procured from Canonicus
and Miantonomo, who partook largely of the shyness and
jealousy of the English so common to their tribe. He says, 'It
was not thousands nor tens of thousands of money that could
have bought of them an English entrance into this bay.'"
_W. Gammell,
Life of Roger Williams
(Library of American Biographies,
series 2, volume 4), chapters 6-7._
ALSO IN:
_S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
volume 1, chapters 1 and 4._
_W. R Staples,
Annals of Providence,
chapter 1._
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636-1661,
Sale and gift of lands by the Indians to Roger Williams.
His conveyance of the same to his associates.
"The first object of Mr. Williams would naturally be, to
obtain from the sachems a grant of land for his new colony. He
probably visited them, and received a verbal cession of the
territory, which, two years afterwards, was formally conveyed
to him by a deed, This instrument may properly be quoted here.
'At Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called
March, the second year of the plantation or planting at
Moshassuck, or Providence [1638]; Memorandum, that we,
Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of
Narraganset, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams
the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called
Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, do now, by these presents,
establish and confirm the bounds of these lands, from the
river and fields of Pawtucket, the great hill of
Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on
the west. We also in consideration of the many kindnesses and
services he hath continually done for us, both with our
friends of Massachusetts, as also at Connecticut, and Apaum,
or Plymouth, we do freely give unto him all that land from
those rivers reaching to Pawtuxet river; as also the grass and
meadows upon the said Pawtuxet river. In witness whereof, we
have hereunto set our hands. [The mark (a bow) of Canonicus.
The mark (an arrow) of Miantonomo]. In the presence of [The
mark of Sohash. The mark of Alsomunsit].' … The lands thus
ceded to Mr. Williams he conveyed to twelve men, who
accompanied, or soon joined, him, reserving for himself an
equal part only." Twenty-three years later, on the 20th of
December, 1661, he executed a more formal deed of conveyance
to his associates and their heirs of the lands which had
unquestionably been partly sold and partly given to himself
personally by the Indians. This latter instrument was in the
following words. "'Be it known unto all men by these presents,
that I, Roger Williams, of the town of Providence, in the
Narraganset Bay, in New England, having, in the year one
thousand six hundred thirty-four, and in the year one thousand
six hundred thirty-five had several treaties with Canonicus
and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, and
in the end purchased of them the lands and meadows upon the
two fresh rivers called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two
sachems having, by a deed under their hands, two years after
the sale thereof, established and confirmed the bounds of
these lands from the rivers and fields of Pawtucket, the great
hill of Notaquoncanot on the northwest, and the town of
Mashapaug on the west, notwithstanding I had the frequent
promise of Miantinomo, my kind friend, that it should not be
land that I should want about these bounds mentioned, provided
that I satisfied the Indians there inhabiting. I having made
covenant of peaceable neighborhood with all the sachems and
natives round about us, and having, of a sense of God's
merciful Providence unto me in my distress, called the place
Providence, I desired it might be for a shelter for persons
distressed for conscience.
{2638}
I then considering the condition of divers of my distressed
countrymen, I communicated my said purchase unto my loving
friends, John Throckmorton, William Arnold, William Harris,
Stukely Westcott, John Greene, Senior, Thomas Olney, Senior,
Richard Waterman, and others, who then desired to take shelter
here with me, and in succession unto so many others as we
should receive into the fellowship and society of enjoying and
disposing of the said purchase; and besides the first that
were admitted, our town records declare, that afterwards we
received Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, Senior,
William Wickenden, Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter, and
others, as our town book declares; and whereas, by God's
merciful assistance, I was the procurer of the purchase, not
by monies nor payment, the natives being so shy and jealous
that monies could not do it, but by that language,
acquaintance and favor with the natives, and other advantages,
which it pleased God to give me, and also bore the charges and
venture of all the gratuities, which I gave to the great
sachems and other sachems and natives round about us, and lay
engaged for a loving and peaceable neighborhood with them, to
my great charge and travel; it was therefore thought fit by
some loving friends, that I should receive some loving
consideration and gratuity, and it was agreed between us, that
every person, that should be admitted into the fellowship of
enjoying land and disposing of the purchase, should pay thirty
shillings unto the public stock; and first, about thirty
pounds should be paid unto myself, by thirty shillings a
person, as they were admitted; this sum I received, and in
love to my friends, and with respect to a town and place of
succor for the distressed as aforesaid, I do acknowledge the
said sum and payment as full satisfaction; and whereas in the
year one thousand six hundred and thirty-seven, so called, I
delivered the deed subscribed by the two aforesaid chief
sachems, so much thereof as concerneth the aforementioned
lands, from myself and from my heirs, unto the whole number of
the purchasers, with all my power, right and title therein,
reserving only unto myself one single share equal unto any of
the rest of that number; I now again, in a more formal way,
under my hand and seal, confirm my former resignation of that
deed of the lands aforesaid, and bind myself, my heirs, my
executors, my administrators and assigns, never to molest any
of the said persons already received, or hereafter to be
received, into the society of purchasers, as aforesaid; but
that they, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns,
shall at all times quietly and peaceably enjoy the premises
and every part thereof, and I do further by these presents
bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and
assigns never to lay any claim, nor cause any claim to be
laid, to any of the lands aforementioned, or unto any part or
parcel thereof, more than unto my own single share, by virtue
or pretence of any former bargain, sale or mortgage
whatsoever, or jointures, thirds or entails made by me, the
said Roger Williams, or of any other person, either for, by,
through or under me. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set
my hand and seal, the twentieth day of December, in the
present year one thousand six hundred sixty-one. Roger
Williams.' … From this document, it appears, that the twelve
persons to whom the lands, on the Moshassuck and
Wanasquatucket rivers, were conveyed by Mr. Williams, did not
pay him any part of the thirty pounds, which he received; but
that the sum of thirty shillings was exacted of every person
who was afterwards admitted, to form a common stock. From this
stock, thirty pounds were paid to Mr. Williams, for the
reasons mentioned in the instrument last quoted."
_J. D. Knowles,
Memoir of Roger Williams,
chapter 8._
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.
"Williams was banished in 1636 and settled at Providence. The
Pequot war took place the next year following. The Pequots
were a powerful tribe of Indians, dwelling … in the valley of
the Thames at the easterly end of Connecticut, and holding the
lands west to the river of that name. The parties to this war
were, the Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies,
assisted by the Narragansett and Mohegan tribes of Indians on
one side, against the Pequots, single-handed, on the other.
The Pequots undertook to make an alliance with the
Narragansetts and the Mohegans (Hubbard's Indian Wars, 1677,
page 118), and but for Williams would have succeeded, (Narr.
Club, volume 6, page 269). Williams had obtained a powerful
influence over Canonicus and Miantinomi, the great Sachems of
the Narragansetts, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page 17,) and
Massachusetts having just banished him, sent at once to him to
prevent if possible this alliance, (Narr. Club, volume 6, page
269). By his influence a treaty of alliance was made with
Miantinomi, Williams being employed by both sides as a friend,
the treaty was deposited with him and he was made interpreter
by Massachusetts for the Indians upon their motion,
(Winthrop's Hist. N. E., 1853, volume 1, page 237). The
Narragansetts, the Mohegans, the Niantics, the Nipmucs, and
the Cowesets, were by this treaty either neutrals or fought
actively for the English in the war."
_S. S. Rider,
Political results of the Banishment of Williams
(Book Notes, volume 8, number 17)._
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
The purchase, the settlement, and the naming of the island.
The founding of Newport.
Early in the spring of 1638, while Mrs. Anne Hutchinson was
undergoing imprisonment at Boston (see MASSACHUSETTS: A. D.
1636-1638), "Mr's. Hutchinson's husband, Coddington, John
Clarke, educated a physician, and other principal persons of
the Hutchinsonian party, were given to understand that, unless
they removed of their own accord, proceedings would be taken
to compel them to do so. They sent, therefore, to seck a place
of settlement, and found one in Plymouth patent; but, as the
magistrates of that colony declined to allow them an
independent organization, they presently purchased of the
Narragansets, by the recommendation of Williams, the beautiful
and fertile Is]and of Aquiday [or Aquetnet, or Aquidneck]. The
price was 40 fathoms of white wampum; for the additional
gratuity of ten coats and twenty hoes, the present inhabitants
agreed to remove. The purchasers called it the Isle of
Rhodes—a name presently changed by use to Rhode Island.
Nineteen persons, having signed a covenant 'to incorporate
themselves into a body politic,' and to submit to 'our Lord
Jesus Christ,' and to his 'most perfect and absolute laws,'
began a settlement at its northern end, with Coddington as
their judge or chief magistrate, and three elders to assist
him. They were soon joined by others from Boston; but those
who were 'of the rigid separation, and savored Anabaptism,'
removed to Providence, which now began to be well peopled."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 9._
{2639}
"This little colony increased rapidly, so that in the
following spring some of their number moved to the south-west
part of the island and began the settlement of Newport. The
northern part of the island which was first occupied was
called Portsmouth. Both towns, however, were considered, as
they were in fact, as belonging to the same colony. To this
settlement, also, came Anne Hutchinson with her husband and
family after they had been banished from Massachusetts. There
is no record that in this atmosphere of freedom she occasioned
any trouble or disturbance. Here she led a quiet and peaceable
life until the death of her husband in 1642, when she removed
to the neighborhood of New York, where she and all the members
of her family, sixteen in number, were murdered by the
Indians, with the exception of one daughter, who was taken
into captivity. In imitation of the form of government which
existed under the judges of Israel, during the period of the
Hebrew Commonwealth, the two settlements, Rhode Island and
Portsmouth, chose Coddington to be their magistrate, with the
title of Judge, and a few months afterward they elected three
elders to assist him. This form of government continued until
1640."
_O. S. Straus,
Roger Williams,
chapter 6._
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647.
The Constitution of Providence Plantation.
The charter and the Union.
Religious liberty as understood by Roger Williams.
"The colonists of Plymouth had formed their social compact in
the cabin of the Mayflower. The colonists of Providence formed
theirs on the banks of the Mooshausick. 'We, whose names are
hereunder,' it reads, 'desirous to inhabit in the town of
Providence, do promise to subject ourselves in active or
passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be
made for public good for the body, in an orderly way, by the
major assent of the present inhabitants, masters of families,
incorporated together into a town fellowship, and such others
as they shall admit unto them only in civil things.' Never
before, since the establishment of Christianity, has the
separation of Church from State been definitely marked out by
this limitation of the authority of the magistrate to civil
things; and never, perhaps, in the whole course of history,
was a fundamental principle so vigorously observed.
Massachusetts looked upon the experiment with jealousy and
distrust, and when ignorant or restless men confounded the
right of individual opinion in religious matters with a right
of independent action in civil matters, those who had
condemned Roger Williams to banishment, eagerly proclaimed
that no well ordered government could exist in connection with
liberty of conscience. … Questions of jurisdiction also arose.
Massachusetts could not bring herself to look upon her sister
with a friendly eye, and Plymouth was soon to be merged in
Massachusetts. It was easy to foresee that there would he
bickerings and jealousies, if not open contention between
them. Still the little Colony grew apace. The first church was
founded in 1639. To meet the wants of an increased population
the government was changed, and five disposers or selectmen
charged with the principal functions of administration,
subject, however, to the superior authority of monthly town
meetings; so early and so naturally did municipal institutions
take root in English colonies. A vital point was yet
untouched. Williams, indeed, held that the Indians, as
original occupants of the soil, were the only legal owners of
it, and carrying his principle into all his dealings with the
natives, bought of them the land on which he planted his
Colony. The Plymouth and Massachusetts colonists, also, bought
their land of the natives, but in their intercourse with the
whites founded their claim upon royal charter. They even went
so far as to apply for a charter covering all the territory of
the new Colony. Meanwhile two other colonies had been planted
on the shores of the Narragansett Bay: the Colony of
Aquidnick, on the Island of Rhode Island, and the colony of
Warwick. The sense of a common danger united them, and, in
1643, they appointed Roger Williams their agent to repair to
England and apply for a royal charter. It has been treasured
up as a bitter memory that he was compelled to seek a
conveyance in New York, for Massachusetts would not allow him
to pass through her territories. His negotiations were crowned
with full success. … He found the King at open war with the
Parliament, and the administration of the colonies entrusted
to the Earl of Warwick and a joint committee of the two
Houses. Of the details of the negotiation little is known, but
on the 14th of March of the following year [1644], a 'free and
absolute charter was granted as the Incorporation of
Providence Plantations in Narragansett Bay in New England.' …
Civil government and civil laws were the only government and
laws which it recognized; and the absence of any allusion to
religious freedom in it shows how firmly and wisely Williams
avoided every form of expression which might seem to recognize
the power to grant or to deny that inalienable right. … Yet
more than three years were allowed to pass before it went into
full force as a bond of union for the four towns. Then, in
May, 1647, the corporators met at Portsmouth in General Court
of Election, and, accepting the charter, proceeded to organize
a government in harmony with its provisions. Warwick, although
not named in the charter, was admitted to the same privileges
with her larger and more flourishing sisters. This new
government was in reality a government of the people, to whose
final decision in their General Assembly all questions were
submitted. 'And now,' says the preamble to the code, … 'it is
agreed by this present Assembly thus incorporate and by this
present act declared, that the form of government established
in Providence Plantations is Democratical.'"
_G. W. Greene,
Short History of Rhode Island,
chapters 3 and 5._
"The form of government being settled, they now prepared such
laws as were necessary to enforce the due administration of
it: but the popular approbation their laws must receive,
before they were valid, made this a work of time; however,
they were so industrious in it, that in the month of May,
1647, they completed a regular body of laws, taken chiefly
from the laws of England, adding a very few of their own
forming, which the circumstances and exigencies of their
present condition required.
{2640}
These laws, for securing of right, for determining
controversies, for preserving order, suppressing vice, and
punishing offenders, were, at least, equal to the laws of any
of the neighbouring colonies; and infinitely exceeded those of
all other Christian countries at that time in this
particular,—that they left the conscience free, and did not
punish men for worshipping God in the way, they were
persuaded, he required. … It was often objected to Mr.
Williams, that such great liberty in religious matters, tended
to licentiousness, and every kind of disorder: To such
objections I will give the answer he himself made, in his own
words [Letter to the Town of Providence, January, 1654-5].
'Loving Friends and Neighbours, It pleaseth God yet to
continue this great liberty of our town meetings, for which,
we ought to be humbly thankful, and to improve these liberties
to the praise of the Giver, and to the peace and welfare of
the town and colony, without our own private ends. I thought
it my duty, to present you with this my impartial testimony,
and answer to a paper sent you the other day from my
brother,—"That it is blood-guiltiness, and against the rule of
the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors, against
the private or public weal." That ever I should speak or write
a tittle that tends to such an infinite liberty of conscience,
is a mistake; and which I have ever disclaimed and abhorred.
To prevent such mistakes, I at present shall only propose this
case.—There goes many a ship to sea, with many a hundred souls
in one ship, whose weal and wo is common; and is a true
picture of a commonwealth, or an human combination, or
society. It hath fallen out sometimes, that both Papists and
Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked into one ship.
Upon which supposal, I do affirm, that all the liberty of
conscience that ever I pleaded for, turns upon these two
hinges, that none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews, or Turks,
be forced to come to the ship's prayers or worship; nor,
secondly, compelled from their own particular prayers or
worship, if they practise any. I further add, that I never
denied that, notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of
the ship ought to command the ship's course; yea, and also to
command that justice, peace, and sobriety, be kept and
practised, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If
any seamen refuse to perform their service, or passengers to
pay their freight;—if any refuse to help in person or purse,
towards the common charges, or defence;—if any refuse to obey
the common laws and orders of the ship, concerning their
common peace and preservation;—if any shall mutiny and rise up
against their commanders, and officers;—if any shall preach or
write, that there ought to be no commanders, nor officers,
because all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters, nor
officers, no laws, nor orders, no corrections nor
punishments—I say I never denied, but in such cases, whatever
is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist,
compel, and punish such transgressors, according to their
deserts and merits. This, if seriously and honestly minded,
may, if it so please the Father of lights, let in some light,
to such as willingly shut not their eyes. I remain, studious
of our common peace and liberty,—Roger Williams.' This
religious liberty was not only asserted in words, but
uniformly adhered to and practised; for in the year. 1656,
soon after the Quakers made their first appearance in New
England, and at which most of these colonies were greatly
alarmed and offended;. Those at that time called the four
united colonies, which were the Massachusetts, Plymouth,
Connecticut, and New Haven, wrote to this colony, to join with
them in taking effectual methods to suppress them, and prevent
their pernicious doctrines being spread and propagated in the
country.—To this request the Assembly of this colony gave the
following worthy answer; 'We shall strictly adhere to the
foundation principle on which this colony was first settled;.
to wit, that every man who submits peaceably to the civil
authority, may peaceably worship God according to the dictates
of his own conscience, without molestation.' And not to the
people of the neighbouring governments only, was this
principle owned; but it was asserted in their applications to
the ruling powers in the mother country; for in the year 1659,
in an address of this colony to Richard Cromwell, then lord
protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland, there is this
paragraph,—'May it please your highness to know, that this
poor colony of Providence Plantations, mostly consists of a
birth and breeding of the providence of the Most High.—We
being an outcast people, formerly from our mother nation, in
the bishops' days; and since from the rest of the New English
over-zealous colonies: Our frame being much like the present
frame and constitution of our dearest mother England; bearing
with the several judgments, and consciences, each of other, in
all the towns of our colony.—The which our neighbour colonies
do not; which is the only cause of their great offence against
us.' But as every human felicity has some attendant
misfortune, so the people's enjoyment of very great liberty,
hath ever been found to produce some disorders, factions, and
parties amongst them. … It must be confessed, the historians
and ministers of the neighbouring colonies, in all their
writings for a long time, represented the inhabitants of this
colony as a company of people who lived without any order, and
quite regardless of all religion; and this, principally,
because they allowed an unlimited liberty of conscience, which
was then interpreted to be profane licentiousness, as though
religion could not subsist without the support of human laws,
and Christians must cease to be so, if they suffered any of
different sentiments to live in the same country with them.
Nor is it to be wondered at, if many among them that first
came hither, being tinctured with the same bitter spirit,
should create much disturbance; nor that others, when got
clear of the fear of censure and punishment should relax too
much, and behave as though they were become indifferent about
religion itself. With people of both these characters, the
fathers of this colony had to contend. …In this age it seemed
to be doubted whether a civil government could be kept up and
supported without some particular mode of religion was
established by its laws, and guarded by penalties and tests:
And for determining this doubt, by an actual trial, appears to
have been the principal motive with King Charles the Second,
for granting free liberty of conscience to the people of this
colony, by his charter of 1663,—in which he makes use of these
words: 'That they might hold forth a lively experiment, that a
most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be
maintained, and that amongst our English subjects, with a full
liberty in religious concernments. And that true piety,
rightly grounded on gospel principles, will give the best and
greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts
of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty.'"
_Stephen Hopkins,
Historical Account of the Planting and Growth of Providence
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collections,
2d Series, volume 9)._
ALSO IN:
_S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
volume 1, chapter 4._
_Records of the Colony of Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations,
volume 1._
{2641}
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1639.
The first Baptist Church.
"There can be little doubt, as to what were the religious
tenets of the first settlers of Providence. At the time of
their removal here, they were members of Plymouth and
Massachusetts churches. Those churches, as it respects
government, were Independent or Congregational, in doctrine,
moderately Calvinistic and with regard to ceremonies,
Pedobaptists. The settlers of Providence, did not cease to be
members of those churches, by their removal, nor did the fact
of their being members, constitute them a church, after it.
They could not form themselves into a church of the faith and
order of the Plymouth and Massachusetts churches, until
dismissed from them; and after such dismissal, some covenant
or agreement among themselves was necessary in order to effect
it. That they met for public worship is beyond a doubt; but
such meetings, though frequent and regular, would not make
them a church. Among the first thirteen, were two ordained
ministers, Roger Williams and Thomas James. That they preached
to the settlers is quite probable, but there is no evidence of
any intent to form a church, previous to March 1689. When they
did attempt it, they had ceased to be Pedobaptists, for
Ezekiel Holyman, a layman, had baptized Roger Williams, by
immersion, and Mr. Williams afterwards had baptized Mr.
Holyman and several others of the company, in the same manner.
By this act they disowned the churches of which they had been
members, and for this, they were soon excommunicated, by those
churches. After being thus baptized, they formed a church and
called Mr. Williams to be their pastor. This was the first
church gathered in Providence. It has continued to the present
day, and is now known as The First Baptist Church. … Mr.
Williams held the pastoral office about four years, and then
resigned the same. Mr. Holyman was his colleague. … A letter
of Richard Scott, appended to 'A New England Fire-Brand
Quenched,' and published about 1678, states that Mr. Williams
left the Baptists and turned Seeker, a few months after he was
baptized. Mr. Scott was a member of the Baptist church for
some time, but at the date of this letter, had united with the
Friends. According to Mr. Williams' new views as a Seeker,
there was no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any
person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor
could there be, until new apostles should be sent by the Great
Head of the church, for whose coming he was seeking. He was
not alone in these opinions. Many in his day believed that the
ministry and ordinances of the christian church were
irretrievably lost, during the papal usurpation. It has been
supposed, by some, that Mr. Williams held these opinions while
in Massachusetts, and that this was the reason he denied the
church of England to be a true church, and withdrew from his
connexion with the Salem church. Aside from the statement of
Mr. Scott, above quoted, that Mr. Williams turned Seeker,
after he joined the Baptists and walked with them some months,
the supposition is shown to be groundless, by his
administering baptism in Providence, as before stated, and
joining with the first Baptist church there. These acts he
could not have performed, had he then been a Seeker."
_W. R. Staples,
Annals of the town of Providence,
chapter 7._
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647.
Samuel Gorton and the Warwick Plantation.
"Among the supporters of Mrs. Hutchinson, after her arrival at
Aquedneck, was a sincere and courageous, but incoherent and
crotchetty man named Samuel Gorton. In the denunciatory
language of that day he was called a 'proud and pestilent
seducer,' or, fas the modern newspaper would say, a 'crank.'
It is well to make due allowances for the prejudice so
conspicuous in the accounts given by his enemies, who felt
obliged to justify their harsh treatment of him. But we have
also his own writings from which to form an opinion as to his
character and views. … Himself a London clothier, and thanking
God that he had not been brought up in 'the schools of human
learning,' he set up as a preacher without ordination, and
styled himself 'professor of the mysteries of Christ.' He
seems to have cherished that doctrine of private inspiration
which the Puritans especially abhorred. … Gorton's temperament
was such as to keep him always in an atmosphere of strife.
Other heresiarchs suffered persecution in Massachusetts, but
Gorton was in hot water everywhere. His arrival in any
community was the signal for an immediate disturbance of the
peace. His troubles began in Plymouth, where the wife of the
pastor preferred his teachings to those of her husband. In
1638 he fled to Aquedneck, where his first achievement was a
schism among Mrs. Hutchinson's followers, which ended in some
staying to found the town of Portsmouth while others went away
to found Newport. Presently Portsmouth found him intolerable,
flogged and banished him, and after his departure was able to
make up its quarrel with Newport. He next made his way with a
few followers to Pawtuxet, within the jurisdiction of
Providence, and now it is the broad-minded and gentle Roger
Williams who complains of his 'bewitching and madding poor
Providence.' … Williams disapproved of Gorton, but was true to
his principles of toleration and would not take part in any
attempt to silence him. But in 1641 we find thirteen leading
citizens of Providence, headed by William Arnold, sending a
memorial to Boston, asking for assistance and counsel in
regard to this disturber of the peace. How was Massachusetts
to treat such an appeal? She could not presume to meddle with
the affair unless she could have permanent jurisdiction over
Pawtuxet; otherwise she was a mere intruder. … Whatever might
be the abstract merits of Gorton's opinions, his conduct was
politically dangerous; and accordingly the jurisdiction over
Pawtuxet was formally conceded to Massachusetts.
{2642}
Thereupon that colony, assuming jurisdiction, summoned Gorton
and his men to Boston, to prove their title to the lands they
occupied. They of course regarded the summons as a flagrant
usurpation of authority, and instead of obeying it they
withdrew to Shawomet [Warwick], on the western shore of
Narragansett bay, where they bought a tract of land from the
principal sachem of the Narragansetts, Miantonomo."
_J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
pages 163-168._
"Soon afterward, by the surrender to Massachusetts of a
subordinate Indian chief, who claimed the territory …
purchased by Gorton of Miantonomi [or Miantonomo], that
Government made a demand of jurisdiction there also; and as
Gorton refused their summons to appear at Boston,
Massachusetts sent soldiers, and captured the inhabitants in
their homes, took them to Boston, tried them, and sentenced
the greater part of them to imprisonment for blasphemous
language to the Massachusetts authorities. They were finally
liberated, and banished; and as Warwick was included in the
forbidden territory, they went to Rhode Island. Gorton and two
of his friends soon afterward went to England." Subsequently,
when, in 1647, the government of Providence Plantations was
organized under the charter which Roger Williams had procured
in England in 1644, "Warwick, whither Gorton and his followers
had now returned, though not named in the charter, was
admitted to its privileges."
_C. Deane,
New England
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 9)._
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.
Coddington's usurpation.
Second mission of Roger Williams to England.
Restoration of the Charter.
First enactment against Slavery.
In 1651, William Coddington, who had been chosen President
some time before, but who had gone to England without legally
entering the office, succeeded by some means in obtaining from
the Council of State a commission which appointed him governor
of Rhode Island and Connecticut for life, with a council of
six to assist him in the government. This apparently annulled
the charter of the colony. Again the colony appealed to Roger
Williams to plead its cause in England and again he crossed
the ocean, "obtaining a hard-wrung leave to embark at Boston.
… In the same ship went John Clarke, as agent for the Island
towns, to ask for the revocation of Coddington's commission.
On the success of their application hung the fate of the
Colony. Meanwhile the Island towns submitted silently to
Coddington's usurpation, and the main-land towns continued to
govern themselves by their old laws, and meet and deliberate
as they had done before in their General Assembly. It was in
the midst of these dangers and dissensions that on the 19th of
May, in the session of 1652, it was 'enacted and ordered …
that no black mankind or white being forced by covenant, bond
or otherwise shall be held to service longer than ten years,'
and that 'that man that will not let them go free, or shall
sell them any else where to that end that they may be enslaved
to others for a longer time, hee or they shall forfeit to the
Colonie forty pounds.' This was the first legislation
concerning slavery on this continent. If forty pounds should
seem a small penalty, let us remember that the price of a
slave was but twenty. If it should be objected that the act
was imperfectly enforced, let us remember how honorable a
thing it is to have been the first to solemn]y recognize a
great principle. Soul liberty had borne her first fruits. …
Welcome tidings came in September, and still more welcome in
October. Williams and Clarke … had obtained, first, permission
for the colony to act under the charter until the final
decision of the controversy, and a few weeks later the
revocation of Coddington's commission. The charter was fully
restored."
_G. W. Greene,
Short History of Rhode Island,
chapter 6._
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1656.
Refusal to join in the persecution of Quakers.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.
The Charter from Charles II,
and the boundary conflicts with Connecticut.
"At its first meeting after the King [Charles II.] came to
enjoy his own again, the government of Rhode Island caused him
to be proclaimed, and commissioned Clarke [agent of the colony
in England] to prosecute its interests at court, which he
accordingly proceeded to do. … He was intrusted with his suit
about a year before Winthrop's arrival in England; but
Winthrop [the younger, who went to England on behalf of
Connecticut] had been there several months, attending to his
business, before he heard anything of the designs of Clarke.
His charter of Connecticut had passed through the preliminary
forms, and was awaiting the great seal, when it was arrested
in consequence of representations made by the agent from Rhode
Island. … Winthrop, in his new charter, had used the words
'bounded on the east by the Narrogancett River, commonly
called Narrogancett Bay, where the said river falleth into the
sea.' To this identity between Narragansett River and
Narragansett Bay Clarke objected, as will be presently
explained. A third party was interested in the settlement of
the eastern boundary of Connecticut. This was the Atherton
Company, so called from Humphrey Atherton of Dorchester, one
of the partners. They had bought of the natives a tract of
land on the western side of Narragansett Bay; and when they
heard that Connecticut was soliciting a charter, they
naturally desired that their property should be placed under
the government of that colony, rather than under the unstable
government of Rhode Island. Winthrop, who was himself one of
the associates, wrote from London that the arrangement he had
made accorded with their wish. Rhode Island, however,
maintained that the lands of the Atherton purchase belonged to
her jurisdiction. … When Winthrop thought that he had secured
for Connecticut a territory extending eastward to Narragansett
Bay, Clarke had obtained for Rhode Island the promise of a
charter which pushed its boundary westward to the Paucatuck
River, so as to include in the latter colony a tract 25 miles
wide, and extending in length from the southern border of
Massachusetts to the sea. The interference of the charters
with each other endangered both. The agents entered into a
negotiation which issued, after several months, in a
composition effected by the award of four arbiters. Two
articles of it were material. One was that Paucatuck River
should 'be the certain bounds between the two colonies, which
said river should, for the future, be also called, alias,
Narrogansett, or Narrogansett River.' The other allowed the
Atherton Company to choose 'to which of those colonies they
would belong.' The undesirable consequences of a dispute were
thus averted; though to say that 'Paucatuck River' meant
Narragansett Bay was much the same as to give to the Thames
the name of the British Channel; and if the agreement between
the agents should stand, Connecticut would be sadly curtailed
of her domain."
{2643}
On the 8th of July, 1663, "Clarke's charter, which the King
probably did not know that he had been contradicting, passed
the seals. It created 'a body corporate and politic, in fact
and name, by the name of the Governor and Company of the
English Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in
New England in America.' Similar to the charter of Connecticut
in grants marked by a liberality hitherto unexampled, it added
to them the extraordinary provision that 'no person within the
said colony, at any time thereafter, should be anywise
molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any
difference of opinion in matters of religion which did not
actually disturb the civil peace of the said colony.' …
Matters were now all ripe for a conflict of jurisdiction
between Rhode Island and Connecticut. Using the privilege of
choice secured by the compact between the agents, the Atherton
Company elected to place their lands, including a settlement
known by the name of Wickford, under the government of the
latter colony. Rhode Island enacted that all persons presuming
to settle there without her leave should be 'taken and
imprisoned for such their contempt.' … This proved to be the
beginning of a series of provocations and reprisals between
the inharmonious neighbors."
_J. G. Palfrey,
Compendious History of New England,
book 2, chapter 12 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_S. S. Rider,
Book Notes,
volume 10, pages 109-110. _
_S. G. Arnold,
History of Rhode Island,
chapter 8 (volume 1)._
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1683.
Death of Roger Williams.
Estimates of his character.
Roger Williams, having given all to his colony, seems to have
died without property, dependent upon his children. His son,
Daniel, in a letter written in 1710, says: "He never gave me
but about three acres of land, and but a little afore he
deceased. It looked hard, that out of so much at his
disposing, that I should have so little, and he so little. …
If a covetous man had that opportunity as he had, most of this
town would have been his tenants." "Of the immediate cause and
exact time of Mr. Williams' death we are not informed. It is
certain, however, that he died at some time between January
16, 1682-3, and May 10, 1683. … He was in the 84th year of his
age."
_J. D. Knowles,
Memoir of Roger Williams,
pages 111 and 354._
"We call those great who have devoted their lives to some
noble cause, and have thereby influenced for the better the
course of events. Measured by that standard, Roger Williams
deserves a high niche in the temple of fame, alongside of the
greatest reformers who mark epochs in the world's history. He
was not the first to discover the principles of religious
liberty, but he was the first to proclaim them in all their
plenitude, and to found and build up a political community
with those principles as the basis of its organization. The
influence and effect of his 'lively experiment' of religious
liberty and democratic government upon the political system of
our country, and throughout the civilized world, are admirably
stated by Professor Gervinus in his 'Introduction to the
History of the Nineteenth Century.' He says: 'Roger Williams
founded in 1636 a small new society in Rhode Island, upon the
principles of entire liberty of conscience, and the
uncontrolled power of the majority in secular affairs. The
theories of freedom in Church and State, taught in the schools
of philosophy in Europe, were here brought into practice in
the government of a small community. It was prophesied that
the democratic attempts to obtain universal suffrage, a
general elective franchise, annual parliaments, entire
religious freedom, and the Miltonian right of schism would be
of short duration. But these institutions have not only
maintained themselves here, but have spread over the whole
union. They have superseded the aristocratic commencements of
Carolina and of New York, the high-church party in Virginia,
the theocracy in Massachusetts, and the monarchy throughout
America; they have given laws to one quarter of the globe,
and, dreaded for their moral influence, they stand in the
background of every democratic struggle in Europe.'"
_O. S. Straus,
Roger Williams,
page 233._
"Roger Williams, as all know, was the prophet of complete
religious toleration in America. … That as no man he was
'conscientiously contentious' I should naturally be among the
last to deny; most men who contribute materially towards
bringing about great changes, religious or moral, are
'conscientiously contentious.' Were they not so they would not
accomplish the work they are here to do."
_C. F. Adams,
Massachusetts: its Historians and its History,
page 25._
"The world, having at last nearly caught up with him, seems
ready to vote—though with a peculiarly respectable minority in
opposition—that Roger Williams was after all a great man, one
of the true heroes, seers, world–movers, of these latter ages.
Perhaps one explanation of the pleasure which we take in now
looking upon him, as he looms up among his contemporaries in
New England, may be that the eye of the observer, rather
fatigued by the monotony of so vast a throng of sages and
saints, all quite immaculate, all equally prim and still in
their Puritan starch and uniform, all equally automatic and
freezing, finds a relief in the easy swing of this man's gait,
the limberness of his personal movement, his escape from the
pasteboard proprieties, his spontaneity, his impetuosity, his
indiscretions, his frank acknowledgments that he really had a
few things yet to learn. Somehow, too, though he sorely vexed
the souls of the judicious in his time, and evoked from them
words of dreadful reprehension, the best of them loved him;
for indeed this headstrong, measureless man, with his flashes
of Welsh fire, was in the grain of him a noble fellow; 'a
man,' as Edward Winslow said, 'lovely in his carriage.' … From
his early manhood even down to his late old age. Roger
Williams stands in New England a mighty and benignant form,
always pleading for some magnanimous idea, some tender
charity, the rectification of some wrong, the exercise of some
sort of forbearance toward men's bodies or souls. It was one
of his vexatious peculiarities, that he could do nothing by
halves—even in logic. Having established his major and his
minor premises, he utterly lacked the accommodating judgment
which would have enabled him to stop there and go no further
whenever it seemed that the concluding member of his syllogism
was likely to annoy the brethren. To this frailty in his
organization is due the fact that he often seemed to his
contemporaries an impracticable person, presumptuous,
turbulent, even seditious."
_M. C. Tyler,
History of American Literature,
chapter 9, section 4._
{2644}
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1686.
The consolidation of New England
under Governor-general Andros.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1689-1701.
The charter government reinstated and confirmed.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1690.
King William's War.
The first Colonial Congress.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1747.
The founding of the Redwood Library.
See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany,
and Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1764.
The founding of Brown University.
Brown University was founded in 1764, especially in the
interest of the Baptist Church, and with aid from that
denomination in other parts of the country. It was placed
first at Warren, but soon removed to Providence, where it was
named in honor of its chief benefactor, John Brown.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1766-1768.
The Townshend Duties.
The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767; and 1767-1768.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston.
The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on Tea.
Committees of Correspondence instituted.
The Tea Ships and the Boston Tea-party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1772.
The destruction of the Gaspe.
The first overt act of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
and the Quebec Act.-
The First Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1774.
The further introduction of Slaves prohibited.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1774.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.-
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The country in arms and Boston beleaguered.-
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1775.
Early naval enterprises in the war.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776
BEGINNING OF THE AMERICAN NAVY.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776.
Allegiance to the king renounced.
State independence declared.
The British occupation.
"The last Colonial Assembly of Rhode Island met on the 1st of
May. On the 4th, two months before the Congressional
Declaration of Independence, it solemnly renounced its
allegiance to the British crown, no longer closing its session
with 'God save the King,' but taking in its stead as
expressive of their new relations, 'God save the United
Colonies.' … The Declaration of Independence by Congress was
received with general satisfaction, and proclaimed with a
national salute and military display. At Providence the King's
arms were burned, and the Legislature assumed its legal title,
'The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.' … From
the 4th of May, 1776, the Declaration of Independence of Rhode
Island, to the battle of Tiverton Heights, on the 29th of
August, 1778, she lived with the enemy at her door, constantly
subject to invasion by land and by water, and seldom giving
her watch-worn inhabitants the luxury of a quiet pillow. … In
November … a British fleet took possession of her waters, a
British army of her principal island. The seat of government
was removed to Providence."
_G. W. Greene,
Short History of Rhode Island,
chapters 24-25._
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence to the end.
Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1778.
Failure of attempts to drive the British from Newport.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1783-1790.
After the War of Independence.
Paper-money.
Opposition to the Federal Constitution.
Tardy entrance into the Union.
Rhode Island emerged from the war of independence bankrupt.
"The first question was how to replenish the exhausted
treasury. The first answer was that money should be created by
the fiat of Rhode Island authorities. Intercourse with others
was not much thought of. Fiat money would be good at home. So
the paper was issued by order of the Legislature which had
been chosen for that purpose. A 'respectable minority' opposed
the insane measure, but that did not serve to moderate the
insanity. When the credit of the paper began to fall, and
traders would not receive it, laws were passed to enforce its
reception at par. Fines and punishments were enacted for
failure to receive the worthless promises. Starvation, stared
many in the face. Now it was the agricultural class against
the commercial class; and the former party had a large
majority in the state and General Assembly. When dealers
arranged to secure trade outside the state, that they might
not be compelled to handle the local paper currency, it was
prohibited by act. When three judges decided that the law
compelling men to receive this 'money' was unconstitutional,
they were brought before that august General Assembly, and
tried and censured for presuming to say that constitutional
authority was higher than legislative authority. At last,
however, that lesson was learned, and the law was repealed.
Before this excitement had subsided the movement for a new
national Constitution began. But what did Rhode Island want of
a closer bond of union with other states? … She feared the
'bondage' of a centralized government. She had fought for the
respective liberties of the other colonies, as an assistant in
the struggle. She had fought for her own special, individual
liberty as a matter of her own interest.
{2645}
Further her needs were comparatively small as to governmental
machinery, and taxation must be small in proportion; and she
did not wish to be taxed to support a general government. … So
when the call was made for each state to hold a convention to
elect delegates to a Constitutional Convention, Rhode Island
paid not the slightest attention to it. All the other states
sent delegates, but Rhode Island sent none; and the work of
that convention, grand and glorious as it was, was not shared
by her. … The same party that favored inflation, or paper
money, opposed the Constitution; and that party was in the
majority and in power. The General Assembly had been elected
with this very thing in view. Meanwhile the loyal party, which
was found mostly in the cities and commercial centres, did all
in its power to induce the General Assembly to call a
convention; but that body persistently refused. Once it
suggested a vote of the people in their own precincts; but
that method was a failure. As state after state came into the
Union, the Union party, by bonfire, parade, and loud
demonstration, celebrated the event."
_G. L. Harney,
How Rhode Island received the Constitution
(New England Magazine, May, 1890)._
"The country party was in power, and we have seen that
elsewhere as well as in Rhode Island, it was the rural
population that hated change. The action of the other states
had been closely watched and their objections noted. One thing
strikes a Rhode Islander very peculiarly in regard to the
adoption of the federal constitution. The people were not to
vote directly upon it, but only second-hand through delegates
to a state convention. No amendment to our state constitution,
even at this day, can be adopted without a majority of
three-fifths of all the votes cast, the voting being directly
on the proposition, and a hundred years ago no state was more
democratic in its notions than Rhode Island. Although the
Philadelphia Convention had provided that the federal
constitution should be ratified in the different states by
conventions of delegates elected by the people for that
purpose, upon the call of the General Assembly, yet this did
not accord with the Rhode Island idea, so in February, 1788,
the General Assembly voted to submit the question whether the
constitution of the United States should be adopted, to the
voice of the people to be expressed at the polls on the fourth
Monday in March. The federalists fearing they would be
out-voted, largely abstained from voting, so the vote stood
two hundred and thirty-seven for the constitution, and two
thousand seven hundred and eight against it, there being about
four thousand voters in the state at that time. Governor
Collins, in a letter to the president of Congress written a
few days after the vote was taken, gives the feeling then
existing in Rhode Island, in this wise:—'Although this state
has been singular from her sister states in the mode of
collecting the sentiments of the people upon the constitution,
it was not done with the least design to give any offence to
the respectable body who composed the convention, or a
disregard to the recommendation of Congress, but upon pure
republican principles, founded upon that basis of all
governments originally derived from the body of the people at
large. And although, sir, the majority has been so great
against adopting the Constitution, yet the people, in general,
conceive that it may contain some necessary articles which
could well be added and adapted to the present confederation.
They are sensible that the present powers invested with
Congress are incompetent for the great national government of
the Union, and would heartily acquiesce in granting sufficient
authority to that body to make, exercise and enforce laws
throughout the states, which would tend to regulate commerce
and impose duties and excise, whereby Congress might establish
funds for discharging the public debt.' A majority of the
voters of the country was undoubtedly against the
constitution, but convention after convention was carried by
the superior address and management of its friends. Rhode
Island lacked great men, who favored the constitution, to lead
her. … The requisite number of states having ratified the
constitution, a government was formed under it April 30, 1789.
Our General Assembly, at its September session in that year,
sent a long letter to Congress explanatory of the situation in
Rhode Island, and its importance warrants my quoting a part of
it. 'The people of this state from its first settlement,' ran
the letter, 'have been accustomed and strongly attached to a
democratical form of government. They have viewed in the new
constitution an approach, though perhaps but small, toward
that form of government from which we have lately dissolved
our connection at so much hazard and expense of life and
treasure,—they have seen with pleasure the administration
thereof from the most important trusts downward, committed to
men who have highly merited and in whom the people of the
United States place unbounded confidence. Yet, even on this
circumstance, in itself so fortunate, they have apprehended
danger by way of precedent. Can it be thought strange, then,
that with these impressions, they should wait to see the
proposed system organized and in operation, to see what
further checks and securities would be agreed to and
established by way of amendments, before they would adopt it
as a constitution of government for themselves and their
posterity? … Rhode Island never supposed she could stand
alone. In the words of her General Assembly in the letter just
referred to:—'They know themselves to be a handful,
comparatively viewed.' This letter, as well as a former one I
have quoted from, showed that she, like New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina, hoped
to see the constitution amended. Like the latter state she
believed in getting the amendments before ratification, and so
strong was the pressure for amendments that at the very first
session of Congress a series of amendments was introduced and
passed for ratification by the states, and Rhode Island,
though the last to adopt the constitution, was the ninth state
to ratify the first ten amendments to that instrument now in
force; ratifying both constitution and amendments at
practically the same time. One can hardly wonder at the
pressure for amendments to the original constitution when the
amendments have to be resorted to for provisions that Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free use thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances; that excessive bail should not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted; for right of trial by jury in civil cases; and for
other highly important provisions."
_H. Rogers,
Rhode Island's Adoption of the Federal Constitution
(Rhode Island Historical Society, 1890)._
{2646}
The convention which finally accepted for Rhode Island and
ratified the federal constitution met at South Kingston, in
March, 1790, then adjourned to meet at Newport in May, and
there completed its work.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1814.
The Hartford Convention.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER) THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.
The Dorr Rebellion.
The old Charter replaced by a State Constitution.
The old colonial charter of Rhode Island remained unchanged
until 1843. Its property qualification of the right of
suffrage, and the inequality of representation in the
legislature which became more flagrant as the state and its
cities increased in population, became causes of great popular
discontent. The legislature turned a deaf ear to all demands
for a democratic basis of government, and in 1841 a serious
attempt was made by a resolute party to initiate and carry
through a revision of the constitution independently of
legislative action. A convention was held in October of that
year which framed a constitution and submitted it to the vote
of the people. It was adopted by a majority of the votes cast,
and, in accordance with its provisions, an election was held
the following April. Thomas Wilson Dorr was chosen Governor,
and on the 3d of May, 1842, the new government was formally
inaugurated by its supporters at Providence, where they were
in the majority. "If Mr. Dorr and his officers, supported by
the armed men then at their command, had taken possession of
the State House, Arsenal, and other state property, and acted
as if they had confidence in themselves and their cause, the
result might have been different. This was the course desired
and advocated by Mr. Dorr, but he was overruled by more timid
men, who dared go just far enough to commit themselves,
disturb the peace of the state, and provoke the Law and Order
government, but not far enough to give themselves a chance of
success. While the People's government was being organized in
Providence, the regularly elected General Assembly met on the
same day at Newport, inaugurated the officers as usual, and
passed resolutions declaring that an insurrection existed in
the state and calling on the President for aid, which was …
declined with good advice as to amnesty and concession, which
was not heeded. On the following day a member of the People's
legislature was arrested under the Algerine law, and this
arrest was followed by others, which in turn produced a
plentiful crop of resignations from that body. … At the
request of his legislature, Mr. Dorr now went to Washington
and unsuccessfully tried to secure the aid and countenance of
President Tyler. … During Mr. Dorr's absence, both parties
were pushing on military preparations. … The excitement at
this time was naturally great, though many were still inclined
to ridicule the popular fears, and the wildest rumors filled
the air." On the 18th, the Dorr party made an attempt to gain
possession of the state arsenal, but it failed rather
ignominiously, and Dorr himself fled to Connecticut. One more
abortive effort was made, by others less sagacious than
himself, to rally the supporters of the Constitution, in an
armed camp, formed at Chepachet; but the party in power
confronted it with a much stronger force, and it dispersed
without firing a gun. This was the end of the "rebellion." "In
June, 1842, while the excitement was still at its height, the
General Assembly had called still another convention, which
met in September and … framed the present constitution, making
an extension of the suffrage nearly equivalent to that
demanded by the suffrage party previous to 1841. In November
this constitution was adopted, and in May, 1843, went into
effect with a set of officers chosen from the leaders of the
Landholders' party, the same men who had always ruled the
state. … Early in August, Governor Dorr, who had remained
beyond the reach of the authorities, against his own will and
in deference to the wishes of his friends who still hoped,
issued an address explaining and justifying his course and
announcing that he should soon return to Rhode Island.
Accordingly, on October 31, he returned to Providence, without
concealment, and registered himself at the principal hotel.
Soon afterwards, he was arrested and committed to jail,
without bail, to await trial for treason. … The spirit in
which this trial was conducted does no credit to the fairness
or magnanimity of the court or of the Law and Order party.
Under an unusual provision of the act, although all Dorr's
acts had been done in Providence County, he was tried in
Newport, the most unfriendly county in the state. … Every
point was ruled against Mr. Dorr, and the charge to the jury,
while sound in law, plainly showed the opinion and wishes of
the court. It was promptly followed by a verdict of guilty,
and on this verdict Mr. Dorr, on June 25, just two years from
his joining the camp at Chepachet, was sentenced to
imprisonment for life. … Declining an offer of liberation if
he would take the oath to support the new constitution, Mr.
Dorr went to prison and remained in close confinement until
June, 1845, when an act of amnesty was passed, and he was
released. A great concourse greeted him with cheers at the
prison gates, and escorted him with music and banners to his
father's house, which he had not entered since he began his
contest for the establishment of the People's constitution.
The newspapers all over the country, which favored his cause,
congratulated him and spoke of the event as an act of tardy
justice to a martyr in the cause of freedom and popular
rights. … But Mr. Dorr's active life was over. He had left the
prison broken in health and visibly declining to his end. The
close confinement, dampness, and bad air had shattered his
constitution, and fixed upon him a disease from which he never
recovered. He lived nine years longer but in feeble health and
much suffering."
_C. H. Payne,
The Great Dorr War
(New England Magazine, June, 1890)._
ALSO IN:
_D. King,
Life and Times of Thomas Wilson Dorr._
{2647}
RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888.
Constitutional Amendment.
The qualification of the Suffrage.
"The adoption of the Amendment to the Constitution of Rhode
Island, at the recent election, relating to the elective
franchise, brings to a close a political struggle which began
in earnest in 1819. Hence it has been in progress about 80
years. It makes, or will ultimately make, great political
changes here. … It may not be inopportune, upon the
consummation of so great a political change, to note briefly
some of the steps by which the change came to pass. … The
qualifications of electors was not defined by the charter.
That power was given to the General Assembly. A property
qualification was first introduced into the laws in 1665, and
has ever since been and now is in part retained. It was not at
first specified to be land, but men of competent estates,
without regard to the species of property, 'may be admitted to
be freemen.' Even so accurate a scholar as the late Judge
Potter, has erred in his statement of the case. He says that
by the act of March, 1663-4, all persons were required to be
of 'competent estate.' This is not correct. The proposition
was made two years subsequent to the establishment of the
charter, and was made by the King of England, and sent by him
by commissioners to Rhode Island and was then adopted and
enacted by the General Assembly. … This qualification was made
to depend only on land, by the act of the General Assembly of
February 1723-4, and was a purely Rhode Island measure
(Digest. of Rhode Island, 1730, p. 110). From that time until
the present, covering a period of nearly 165 years, this
qualification has in some measure remained. The value was then
(in 1723) fixed at £100, and practically, it was never
changed. It was raised or lowered from time to time to meet
the fluctuation of paper money. Sometimes it was in 'old
tenor' and sometimes in 'lawful money,' both of which were in
paper, and reckoned usually in pounds, shillings and pence. In
1760, the amount was £40 lawful money. In 1763 'lawful money'
was defined to be gold or silver. After the decimal system
came into use, the mode of reckoning was changed into dollars.
Thus in £40 are 800 shillings, which at six shillings to the
dollar, which was then New England currency, is equal to
$133.33; by the law of 1798 the sum was made $134, and so it
has always since remained, and so under the recent amendment
it remains as a qualification of an elector, who can vote on a
question of expenditure, or the levying of a tax. … There was
practically no change in the qualifications required of a man
to become an elector from the earliest times down to 1842. In
1819 a serious attempt was made to obtain a constitution. A
convention was called and a constitution was framed and
submitted to the people, that is, to the Freemen, for
adoption; but the General Assembly enacted that a majority of
three-fifths should be required for its adoption. This was the
origin of the three-fifth restriction in the present
constitution. It did not enlarge the suffrage; a proposition
to that end received only 3 votes against 61, nor was it of
any general benefit, and it was as well that it failed. The
political disabilities of men were confined to two classes, to
wit: The second son, and other younger sons of freemen, and
those other native American citizens of other states who had
moved into Rhode Island, and therein acquired a residence. To
these two classes, although possessed of abundant personal
property, and upon which the state levied and collected taxes,
and from whom the state exacted military service, the right to
vote was denied, because among their possessions there was no
land. It was taxation without representation, the very
principle upon which the Revolution had been fought. In 1828
more than one-half the taxes paid in Providence were paid by
men who could not vote upon any question. In 1830, in North
Providence, there were 200 freemen and 579 native men, over
twenty-one years, who were disfranchised. … There were in 1832
five men in Pawtucket who had fought the battles for Rhode
Island through the Revolution, but who, possessing no land,
had never been able to vote upon any question. … In another
respect a great wrong was done. It was in the representation
of the towns in the General Assembly. Jamestown had a
representative for every eighteen freemen. Providence,one to
every 275. Smithfield, one in every 206. Fifty dollars in
taxes, in Burrington, had the same power in the representation
that $750 had in Providence. The minority of legal voters
actually controlled the majority. … Such then was the
political condition of men in Rhode Island in 1830. There were
about 8,000 Freemen and about 13,000 unenfranchised Americans
with comparatively no naturalized foreigners among them. The
agitation of the question did not cease. In 1829 it was so
violent that the General Assembly referred the question to a
committee, of which Benjamin Hazard was the head, and which
committee made a report, always since known as Hazard's
Report, which it was supposed would quiet forever the
agitation. But it did not; for five years later a convention
was called and a portion of a constitution framed. The
question of foreigners was first seriously raised by Mr.
Hazard in this report. By this term Mr. Hazard intended not
only citizens of countries outside of the United States, but
he intended American citizens of other American States. He
would deny political rights to a man born in Massachusetts,
who came to dwell in Rhode Island, in the same way that he
would deny them to a Spaniard. A Massachusetts man must live
here one year, the Spaniard three, but both must own land.
These ideas were formulated in the constitution of 1834 as far
as it went. … Fortunately it fell through and by the most
disgraceful of actions; and its history when written will form
one of the darkest chapters in Rhode Island history. This
discrimination against foreign born citizens, that is, men
born in countries outside of the United States, became more
pointed in the proposed Landholders' Constitution of November
1841. A native of the United States could vote on a land
qualification, or if he paid taxes upon other species of
property. A foreigner must own land and he could not vote
otherwise. This Constitution was defeated. Then came the
People's Constitution, (otherwise known as the Dorr
Constitution). It made no restrictions upon foreigners; it
admitted all citizens of the United States upon an equal
footing; negroes were excluded in both documents. This
Constitution never went into effect. Then came the present
Constitution, adopted in September, 1842, by which all the
disabilities complained of were swept away with the exception
of the discrimination in the case of foreigners. By it negroes
were admitted, but foreigners were required to hold lands, as
all the various propositions had provided with the single
exception of the People's Constitution. Now comes the
amendment recently adopted, and parallel with it I have
reproduced the section relating to the same matter from the
People's Constitution:
{2648}
Qualification of Electors under Amendment
(Bourn) to Constitution, adopted April, 1888.
Section 1.
Every male citizen of the United States of the age of 21
years, who has had his residence and home in this State for
two years, and in the town or city in which he may offer to
vote six months next preceding the time of his voting, and
whose name shall be registered in the town or city where he
resides on or before the last day of December, in the year
next preceding to the time of his voting, shall have a right
to vote in the election of all civil officers and on all
questions in all legally organized town or ward meetings:
Provided, that no person shall at any time be allowed to vote
in that election of the City Council of any city, or upon any
proposition to impose a tax, or for the expenditure of money
in any town or city, unless he shall within the year next
preceding have paid a tax assessed upon his property therein,
valued at least at one hundred and thirty-four dollars.
Qualification of Electors under the People's
(Dorr) Constitution, 1842.
Section 1.
Every white male citizen of the United States of the age of
twenty-one years, who has resided in this State for one year,
and in any town, city or district of the same for six months
next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, shall
be an elector of all officers, who are elected, or may
hereafter be made eligible by the people. **
Section 4.
No elector who is not possessed of, and assessed for ratable
property in his own right to the amount of one hundred and
fifty dollars, or, who shall have neglected, or refused to pay
any tax assessed upon him in any town or city or district, for
one year preceding the * * meeting at which he shall offer to
vote, shall be entitled to vote on any question of taxation,
or the expenditure of any public moneys. * *
Section 7.
There shall be a strict registration of all qualified voters *
* * and no person shall be permitted to vote whose name has
not been entered upon the list of voters before the polls are
opened.
It thus appears that the people of Rhode Island have at last
adopted an amendment to the Constitution, more liberal in its
qualifications of electors, than the terms asked by Mr. Dorr,
in 1842. … All that was asked by Mr. Dorr, and even by those
of his party, more radical than himself, has been granted, and
even more. And yet they were denounced with every species of
vile epithet as Free Suffrage Men."
_S. S. Rider,
The End of a great Political Struggle in Rhode Island
(Book Notes, volume 5, paged 53-57)._
----------RHODE ISLAND: End--------
----------RHODES: Start--------
RHODES.
The island of Rhodes, with its picturesque capital city
identical in name, lying in the Ægean Sea, near the
southwestern corner of Asia Minor, has a place alike notable
in the history of ancient and mediæval times; hardly less of a
place, too, in prehistoric legends and myths. It has been
famed in every age for a climate almost without defect. Among
the ancients its Doric people [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
COLONIES] were distinguished for their enterprise in commerce,
their rare probity, their courage, their refinement, their
wealth, their liberality to literature and the arts. In the
middle ages all this had disappeared, but the island and the
city had become the seat of the power of the Knights of St.
John—the last outpost of European civilization in the east,
held stoutly against the Turks until 1522. The unsuccessful
siege of Rhodes, B. C. 305 or 304, by Demetrius, the son of
Antigonus, was one of the great events of ancient military
history. It "showed not only the power but the virtues of this
merchant aristocracy. They rebuilt their shattered city with
great magnificence. They used the metal of Demetrius's
abandoned engines for the famous Colossus [see below], a
bronze figure of the sun about 100 feet high, which, however,
was thrown down and broken by the earthquake of B. C. 227, and
lay for centuries near the quays, the wonder of all visitors.
… It is said that the Saracens sold the remnants of this
statue for old metal when they captured Rhodes. … It was
doubtless during the same period that Rhodes perfected that
system of marine mercantile law which was accepted not only by
all Hellenistic states, but acknowledged by the Romans down to
the days of the empire. … We do not know what the detail of
their mercantile system was, except that it was worked by
means of an active police squadron, which put down piracy, or
confined it to shipping outside their confederacy, and also
that their persistent neutrality was only abandoned when their
commercial interests were directly attacked. In every war they
appear as mediators and peace-makers. There is an allusion in
the 'Mercator' of Plautus to young men being sent to learn
business there, as they are now sent to Hamburg or Genoa. The
wealth and culture of the people, together with the stately
plan of their city, gave much incitement and scope to artists
in bronze and marble, as well as to painters, and the names of
a large number of Rhodian artists have survived on the
pedestals of statues long since destroyed. But two famous
works—whether originals or copies seems uncertain—still
attest the genius of the school, the 'Laocoon,' now in the
Vatican, and the 'Toro Farnese.'"
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 20, with foot-note._
RHODES: B. C. 412.
Revolt from Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
RHODES: B. C. 378-357.
In the new Athenian Confederacy.
Revolt and secession.
The Social War.
See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.
RHODES: B. C. 305-304.
Siege by Demetrius Poliorcetes.
One of the memorable sieges of antiquity was that in which the
brave, free citizens of Rhodes held their splendid town (B. C.
305) for one whole year against the utmost efforts of
Demetrius, called Poliorcetes, or "the Besieger," son of
Antigonus, the would-be successor of Alexander (see MACEDONIA:
B. C. 310-301). Demetrius was a remarkable engineer, for his
age, and constructed machinery for the siege which was the
wonder of the Grecian world. His masterpiece was the
Helepolis, or "city-taker," —a wooden tower, 150 feet high,
sheathed with iron, travelling on wheels and moved by the
united strength of 3,400 men. He also assailed the walls of
Rhodes with battering rams, 150 feet long, each driven by
1,000 men. But all his ingenious appliances failed and he was
forced in the end to recognize the independence of the valiant
Rhodians.
_C. Torr,
Rhodes in Ancient Times,
pages 13-14, 44._
ALSO IN:
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 59._
{2649}
RHODES: B. C. 191.
Alliance with Rome.
War with Antiochus the Great.
Acquisition of territory in Caria and Lycia.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
RHODES: B. C. 88.
Besieged by Mithridates.
At the beginning of his first war with the Romans, B. C. 88,
Mithridates made a desperate attempt to reduce the city of
Rhodes, which was the faithful ally of Rome. But the Rhodians
repelled all his assaults, by sea and by land, and he was
forced to abandon the siege.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapter 20._
RHODES: A. D. 1310.
Conquest and occupation by the
Knights Hospitallers of St. John.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1310.
RHODES: A. D. 1480.
Repulse of the Turks.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.
RHODES: A. D. 1522.
Siege and conquest by the Turks.
Surrender and withdrawal of the Knights of St. John.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1522.
----------RHODES: End--------
RHODES, The Colossus of.
"In the elementary works for the instruction of young people,
we find frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue
is always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on
the enormous rocks which face the entrance to the principal
port of the Island of Rhodes; and ships in full sail passed
easily, it is said, between its legs; for, according to Pliny
the ancient, its height was 70 cubits. This Colossus was
reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the six others
being, as is well known, the hanging gardens of Babylon,
devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of
Egypt; the statue of Jupiter Olympus; the Mausoleum of
Halicarnassus; the temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the Pharos
of Alexandria, completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1303.
Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that
the Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the harbour of
the island and admitted the passage of vessels in full sail
between its wide-stretched limbs. … The following is the real
truth concerning the Colossus." After the abandonment of the
siege of Rhodes, in 305, by Demetrius Poliorcetes, "the
Rhodians, inspired by a sentiment of piety, and excited by
fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favour,
commanded Charès to erect a statue to the honour of their
deity [the sun-god Helios]. An inscription explained that the
expenses of its construction were defrayed out of the sale of
the materials of war left by Demetrius on his retreat from the
island of Rhodes. This statue was erected on an open space of
ground near the great harbour, and near the spot where the
pacha's seraglio now stands; and its fragments, for many years
after its destruction, were seen and admired by travellers."
_O. Delepierre,
Historical Difficulties,
chapter 1._
RHODES, Knights of.
During their occupation of the island, the Knights
Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem were commonly called
Knights of Rhodes, as they were afterwards called Knights of
Malta.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.
RI, The.
"The Ri or king, who was at the head of the tribe [the
'tuath,' or tribe, in ancient Ireland], held that position not
merely by election, but as the representative in the senior
line of the common ancestor, and had a hereditary claim to
their obedience. As the supreme authority and judge of the
tribe he was the Ri or king. This was his primary function. …
As the leader in war he was the 'Toisech' or Captain."
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 3, page 140._
See, also, TUATH, THE.
RIALTO: Made the seat of Venetian government.
See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.
RIBBON SOCIETIES.
RIBBONISM.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1820-1826.
RIBCHESTER, Origin of.
See COCCIUM.
RICH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JUNE-JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).
RICHARD
(of Cornwall), King of Germany, A. D. 1256-1271.
Richard I. (called Cœur de Leon), King of England, 1189-1199.
Richard II. King of England, 1377-1399.
Richard III. King of England, 1483-1485.
RICHBOROUGH, England, Roman origin of.
See RUTUPIÆ.
RICHELIEU, The Ministry of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619, to 1642-1643.
----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Start--------
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: Powhatan's residence.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: POWHATAN CONFEDERACY.
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1781.
Lafayette's defense of the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861.
Made the capital of the Southern Confederacy.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1861 (JULY).
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862.
McClellan's Peninsular Campaign against the Confederate capital.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA);
(MAY: VIRGINIA);
(JUNE: VIRGINIA);
(JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA);
and (JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (March).
Kilpatrick's and Dahlgren's Raid.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1864 (May).
Sheridan's Raid to the city lines.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA) SHERIDAN'S RAID.
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL).
Abandonment by the Confederate army and government.
Destructive conflagration.
President Lincoln in the city.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).
----------RICHMOND, VIRGINIA: End--------
RICIMER, Count, and his Roman imperial puppets.
See ROME: A. D. 455-476.
RICOS HOMBRES, of Aragon.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH
RIDGEWAY, Battle of.
See CANADA: A.D. 1866-1871.
RIDINGS OF YORKSHIRE.
The name Ridings is a corruption of the word Trithings, or
'Thirds,' which was applied to the large divisions of
Yorkshire and Lincolnshire (England) in the time of the
Angles.
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 1, note._
RIEL'S REBELLION.
See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
RIENZI'S REVOLUTION.
See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.
{2650}
RIGA: A. D. 1621.
Siege and capture by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.
RIGA: A. D. 1700. Unsuccessful siege by the King of Poland.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.
"RIGHT," "LEFT," AND "CENTER," The.
In France, and several other continental European countries,
political parties in the legislative bodies are named
according to the positions of the seats which they occupy in
their respective chambers. The extreme conservatives gather at
the right of the chair of the presiding officer, and are
known, accordingly, as "The Right." The extreme radicals
similarly collected on the opposite side of the chamber, are
called "The Left." Usually, there is a moderate wing of each
of these parties which partially detaches itself and is
designated, in one case, "The Right Center," and in the other,
"The Left Center"; while, midway between all these divisions,
there is a party of independents who take the name of "The
Center."
RIGHT OF SEARCH, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.
RIGHTS, Declaration and Bill of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY),
and (OCTOBER).
RIGSDAG, The.
The legislative assembly of Denmark and Sweden.
See
SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.
RIGSRET.
See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
RIGVEDA, The.
See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND
CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.
RIMINI,
Origin of the city.
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
RIMINI,
The Malatesta family.
See MALATESTA FAMILY.
RIMINI, A. D. 1275.
Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
RIMMON.
"The name of Rimmon, which means pomegranate,' occurs
frequently in the topography of Palestine, and was probably
derived from the culture of this beautiful tree."
_J. Kenrick,
Phœnicia,
chapter 2._
RIMNIK, Battle of (1789).
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
RINGGOLD, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
RINGS OF THE AVARS.
See AVARS, RINGS OF THE.
RIOTS, Draft.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863.
RIPON, Lord, The Indian administration of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.
RIPON, Treaty of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
RIPUARIAN FRANKS, The.
See FRANKS.
RIPUARIANS, Law of the.
"On the death of Clovis, his son, Theodoric, was king of the
eastern Franks; that is to say, of the Ripuarian Franks; he
resided at Metz. To him is generally attributed the
compilation of their law. … According to this tradition, then,
the law of the Ripuarians should be placed between the years
511 and 534. It could not have, like the Salic, the pretension
of ascending to the right-hand bank of the Rhine, and to
ancient Germany. … I am inclined to believe that it was only
under Dagobert I., between the years 628 and 638, that it took
the definite form under which it has reached us."
_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 10._
RIVOLI, Battle of (1797).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
ROAD OF THE SWANS, The.
See NORMANS: NAME AND ORIGIN.
ROANOKE: A. D. 1585-1590.
The first attempts at English settlement in America.
The lost colony.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586; and 1587-1590.
ROANOKE: A. D. 1862.
Capture by Burnside's Expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).
ROBE, La Noblesse de la.
See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
ROBERT,
Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1221-1228.
Robert, King of Naples, 1309-1343.
Robert I., King of France, 922-923.
Robert I. (Bruce), King of Scotland, 1306-1329.
Robert II., King of France, 996-1031.
Robert II. (first of the Stuarts), King of Scotland, 1370-1390.
Robert III., King of Scotland, 1390-1406.
ROBERTSON, James, and the early settlement of Tennessee.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.
ROBESPIERRE, and the French Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER),
to 1794 (JULY).
ROBINSON, John, and his Congregation.
See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617;
and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
ROBOGDII, The.
See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.
ROCCA SECCA, Battle of (1411).
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.
ROCHAMBEAU,
Count de, and the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY);
1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).
ROCHE-ABEILLE, La, Battle of (1569).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
----------ROCHELLE: Start--------
ROCHELLE:
Early Importance.
Expulsion of the English.
Grant of Municipal independence.
"Rochelle had always been one of the first commercial places
of France; it was well known to the English under the name of
the White Town, as they called it, from its appearance when
the sun shone and was reflected from its rocky coasts. It was
also much frequented by the Netherlanders. … The town had …
enjoyed extraordinary municipal franchises ever since the
period of the English wars.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360, and 1360-1380.
It had by its own unaided power revolted from the English
dominion [1372], for which Charles V., in his customary
manner, conferred upon the townsfolk valuable
privileges,—among others, that of independent jurisdiction in
the town and its liberties. The design of Henry II. to erect a
citadel within their walls they had been enabled fortunately
to prevent, through the favour of the Chatillons and the
Moutmorencies. Rochelle exhibited Protestant sympathies at an
early period."
_L. von Ranke,
Civil Wars and Monarchy if France,
in the 16th and 17th Centuries,
chapter 14._
{2651}
ALSO IN:
_H. M. Baird,
History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France,
volume 2, page 270-273._
ROCHELLE: A. D. 1568.
Becomes the headquarters of the Huguenots.
Arrival of the Queen of Navarre.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
ROCHELLE: A. D. 1573.
Siege and successful defense.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572-1573.
ROCHELLE: A. D. 1620-1622.
Huguenot revolt in support of Navarre and Bearn.
The unfavorable Peace of Montpelier.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.
ROCHELLE: A. D. 1625-1626.
Renewed revolt.
Second treaty of Montpelier.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
ROCHELLE: A. D. 1627-1628.
Revolt in alliance with England.
Siege and surrender.
Richelieu's dyke.
The decay of the city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1627-1628.
----------ROCHELLE: End--------
ROCHESTER, England:
Origin.
One of two Roman towns in Britain called Durobrivæ is
identified in site with the modern city of Rochester. It
derived its Saxon name—originally "Hrofescester"—"according to
Bede, from one of its early rulers or prefects named Hrof,
who, for some circumstance or other, had probably gained
greater notoriety than most persons of his class and rank."
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapters 5 and 16._
ROCKINGHAM MINISTRIES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768: and 1782-1783.
ROCROI: A. D. 1643.
Siege and Battle.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
ROCROI: A. D. 1653.
Siege by Condé in the Spanish service.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
ROCROI: A. D. 1659.
Recovered by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
RODNEY'S NAVAL VICTORY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
RODOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 654-659.
RODOLPH.
See RUDOLPH.
ROESKILDE, Treaty of (1658).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
ROGATION.
With reference to the legislation of the Romans, "he word
Rogatio is frequently used to denote a Bill proposed to the
people. … After a Rogatio was passed it became a Lex; but in
practice Rogatio and Lex were used as convertible terms, just
as Bill and Law are by ourselves."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 4._
ROGER I.,
Count of Sicily, A. D. 1072-1101.
ROGER II.,
Count of Sicily, 1106-1129;
King of Naples and Sicily, 1129-1154.
ROGUE RIVER INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.
ROHAN, Cardinal-Prince de, and the Diamond Necklace.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.
ROHILLA WAR, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
ROIS FAINÉANS.
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
ROLAND, Madame, and the Girondists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),
to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
ROLAND, The great Bell.
See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.
ROLICA, Battle of (1808).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
ROLLO, Duke,
The conquest of Normandy by.
See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911;
and NORMANDY: A. D. 911-1000.
ROLLS OF THE PIPE.
ROLLS OF THE CHANCERY.
See EXCHEQUER.
ROMA QUADRATA.
See PALATINE HILL.
ROMAGNA.
The old exarchate of Ravenna, "as having been the chief seat
of the later Imperial power in Italy, got the name of Romania,
Romandiola, or Romagna."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
pages 234 and 238._
ROMAGNANO, Battle of (1524).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.
ROMAN AUGURS.
See AUGURS.
ROMAN CALENDAR.
ROMAN YEAR.
See CALENDAR, JULIAN.
ROMAN CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.
See CAMPAGNA.
ROMAN CATACOMBS, The.
See CATACOMBS.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
See PAPACY,
and CATHOLICS.
----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: Start--------
ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
Under the Republic.
See CIVES ROMANI;
also, QUIRITES.
ROMAN CITIZENSHIP:
Under the Empire.
"While Pompeius, Cæsar, Augustus and others extended the Latin
rights to many provincial communities, they were careful to
give the full Roman qualification [the 'privileges of
Quiritary proprietorship, which gave not merely the empty
title of the suffrage, but the precious immunity from tribute
or land-tax'] to persons only. Of such persons, indeed, large
numbers were admitted to citizenship by the emperors. The full
rights of Rome were conferred on the Transalpine Gauls by
Claudius, and the Latin rights on the Spaniards by Vespasian;
but it was with much reserve that any portions of territory
beyond Italy were enfranchised, and rendered Italic or
Quiritary soil, and thus endowed with a special immunity. …
The earlier emperors had, indeed, exercised a jealous reserve
in popularizing the Roman privileges; but from Claudius
downwards they seem to have vied with one another in the
facility with which they conferred them as a boon, or imposed
them as a burden. … The practice of purchasing Civitas was
undoubtedly common under Claudius. … Neither Hadrian, as
hastily affirmed by St. Chrysostom, nor his next successor, as
has been inferred from a confusion of names, was the author of
the decree by which the Roman franchise was finally
communicated to all the subjects of the empire. Whatever the
progress of enfranchisement may have been, this famous
consummation was not effected till fifty years after our
present date, by the act of Autoninus Caracalla [A. D.
211-217]."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 67, with foot-note._
----------ROMAN CITIZENSHIP: End--------
ROMAN CITY FESTIVAL.
The "Roman chief festival or festival of the city (ludi
maximi, Romani) … was an extraordinary thanksgiving festival
celebrated in honour of the Capitoline Jupiter and the gods
dwelling along with him, ordinarily in pursuance of a vow made
by the general before battle, and therefore usually observed
on the return home of the burgess-force in autumn. A festal
procession proceeded toward the Circus staked off between the
Palatine and Aventine. … In each species of contest there was
but one competition, and that between not more that two
competitors."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 15. _
{2652}
ROMAN COINAGE AND MONEY.
See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME.
ROMAN COMITIA.
See COMITIA CENTURIATA,
AND COMITIA CURIATA.
ROMAN CONSULS.
See CONSUL.
ROMAN CONTIONES.
See CONTIONES.
ROMAN DECEMVIRS.
See DECEMVIRS.
ROMAN EDUCATION.
See EDUCATION, ROMAN.
----------ROMAN EMPIRE: Start--------
ROMAN EMPIRE: B. C. 31.
Its beginning, and after.
See ROME: B. C. 31, and after.
ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 476.
Interruption of the line of Emperors in the West.
See ROME: A. D. 455-476.
ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800.
Charlemagne's restoration of the Western Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 800.
ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 843-951.
Dissolution of the Carolingian fabric.
See ITALY: A. D. 843-951.
----------ROMAN EMPIRE: End--------
----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: Start--------
ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 963.
Founded by Otto the Great.
Later Origin of the Name.
"The Holy Roman Empire, taking the name in the sense which it
commonly bore in later centuries, as denoting the sovereignty
of Germany and Italy vested in a Germanic prince, is the
creation of Otto the Great. Substantially, it is true, as well
as technically, it was a prolongation of the Empire of Charles
[Charlemagne]; and it rested (as will be shewn in the sequel)
upon ideas essentially the same as those which brought about
the coronation of A. D. 800. … This restored Empire, which
professed itself a continuation of the Carolingian, was in
many respects different. It was less wide, including, if we
reckon strictly, only Germany proper and two-thirds of Italy;
or counting in subject but separate kingdoms, Burgundy,
Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Denmark, perhaps Hungary. Its
character was less ecclesiastical. Otto exalted indeed the
spiritual potentates of his realm, and was earnest in
spreading Christianity among the heathen: he was master of the
Pope and De·fender of the Holy Roman Church. But religion held
a less important place in his mind and his administration. …
It was also less Roman. … Under him the Germans became not
only a united nation, but were at once raised on a pinnacle
among European peoples as the imperial race, the possessors of
Rome and Rome's authority. While the political connection with
Italy stirred their spirit, it brought with it a knowledge and
culture hitherto unknown." It was not until the reign of
Frederick Barbarossa that the epithet "Holy" was prefixed to
the title of the revived Roman Empire. "Of its earlier origin,
under Conrad II (the Salic), which some have supposed, there
is no documentary trace, though there is also no proof to the
contrary. So far as is known it occurs first in the famous
Privilege of Austria, granted by Frederick in the fourth year
of his reign, the second of his empire. … Used occasionally by
Henry VI and Frederick II, it is more frequent under their
successors. William, Richard, Rudolf, till after Charles IV's
time it becomes habitual, for the last few centuries
indispensable. Regarding the origin of so singular a title
many theories have been advanced. … We need not, however, be
in any great doubt as to its true meaning and purport. … Ever
since Hildebrand had claimed for the priesthood exclusive
sanctity and supreme jurisdiction, the papal party had not
ceased to speak of the civil power as being, compared with
that of their own chief, merely secular, earthly, profane. It
may be conjectured that, to meet this reproach, no less
injurious than insulting, Frederick or his advisers began to
use in public documents the expression 'Holy Empire'; thereby
wishing to assert the divine institution and religious duties
of the office he held. … It is almost superfluous to observe
that the beginning of the title 'Holy' has nothing to do with
the beginning of the Empire itself. Essentially and
substantially, the Holy Roman Empire was, as has been shewn
already, the creation of Charles the Great. Looking at it more
technically, as the monarchy, not of the whole West, like that
of Charles, but of Germany and Italy, with a claim, which was
never more than a claim, to universal sovereignty, its
beginning is fixed by most of the German writers, whose
practice has been followed in the text, at the coronation of
Otto the Great. But the title was at least one, and probably
two centuries later."
_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapters 6, 9 and 12, with foot-note._
Otto, or Otho, the Great, the second of the Saxon line of
Germanic kings, crossed the Alps and made himself master of
the distracted kingdom of Italy in 951, on the invitation of
John XII, who desired his assistance against the reigning king
of Italy, Berengar II, and who offered him the imperial
coronation (there had been no acknowledged emperor for forty
years) as his reward. He easily reduced Berengar to vassalage,
and, after receiving the imperial crown from Pope John, he did
not scruple to depose that licentious and turbulent pontiff,
by the voice of a synod which he convoked in St. Peter's, and
to seat another in his place. Three revolts in the city of
Rome, which were stirred up by the deposed pope, the emperor
suppressed with a heavy hand, and he took away from the city
all its forms of republican liberty, entrusting the government
to the pope as his viceroy.
_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 3, part 1._
See, also,
ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
GERMANY: A. D. 936-973;
and ROMANS: KING OF THE.
ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 12th Century.
Rise of the College of Electors.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 13th Century.
Its degradation after the fall of the Hohenstaufen.
The Great Interregnum.
Election of Rudolf of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.
ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: 15th Century.
Its character.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.
ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: A. D. 1806.
Its end.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.
----------ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY: End--------
ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER.
See EQUESTRIAN ORDER.
ROMAN FAMILY AND PERSONAL NAMES.
See GENS.
ROMAN FETIALES.
See FETIALES.
ROMAN INDICTION.
See INDICTIONS.
{2653}
ROMAN LAW, and its lasting influence.
"Roman Law as taught in the writings of the Roman jurists is a
science, a science of great perfection, a science so perfect as
to almost approach the harmonious finish of art. But Roman Law
is not only a marvellous system of the legal customs and
concepts of the Romans; its value is not restricted to
students of Roman Law; it has an absolute value for students
of any law whatever. In other words the Romans outstripped all
other nations, both ancient and modern, in the scientific
construction of legal problems. They alone offer that curious
example of one nation's totally eclipsing the scientific
achievements of all other nations. By law, however, we here
understand not all branches of law, as constitutional,
criminal, pontifical, and private law, together with
jurisprudence. By Roman Law we mean exclusively Roman Private
Law. The writings of Roman jurists on constitutional and
criminal law have been superseded and surpassed by the
writings of more modern jurists. Their writings on questions
of Private Law, on the other hand, occupy a unique place; they
are, to the present day, considered as the inexhaustible
fountain-head, and the inimitable pattern of the science of
Private Law. … A Roman lawyer, and even a modern French or
German lawyer—French and German Private Law being essentially
Roman Law—were, and are, never obliged to ransack whole
libraries of precedents to find the law covering a given case.
They approach a case in the manner of a physician: carefully
informing themselves of the facts underlying the case, and
then eliciting the legal spark by means of close meditation on
the given data according to the general principles of their
science. The Corpus juris civilis is one stout volume. This
one volume has sufficed to cover billions of cases during more
than thirteen centuries. The principles laid down in this
volume will afford ready help in almost every case of Private
Law, because they emanate from Private Law alone, and have no
tincture of non–legal elements."
_E. Reich,
Graeco-Roman Institutions,
pages 3-13._
"'The Responsa prudentum,' or answers of the learned in the
law, consisted of explanations of authoritative written
documents. It was assumed that the written law was binding,
but the responses practically modified and even overruled it.
A great variety of rules was thus supposed to be educed from
the Twelve Tables [see ROME: B. C. 451-449], which were not in
fact to be found there. They could be announced by any
jurisconsult whose opinions might, if he were distinguished,
have a binding force nearly equal to enactments of the
legislature. The responses were not published by their author,
but were recorded and edited by his pupils, and to this fact
the world is indebted for the educational treatises, called
Institutes or Commentaries, which are among the most
remarkable features of the Roman system. The distinction
between the 'responses' and the 'case law' of England should
be noticed. The one consists of expositions by the bar, and
the other by the bench. It might have been expected that such
a system would have popularized the law. This was not the
fact. Weight was only attached to the responses of conspicuous
men who were masters of the principles as well as details of
jurisprudence. The great development of legal principles at
Rome was due to this method of producing law. Under the
English system no judge can enunciate a principle until an
actual controversy arises to which the rule can be applied;
under the Roman theory, there was no limit to the question to
which a response might be given, except the skill and
ingenuity of the questioner. Every possible phase of a legal
principle could thus be examined, and the result would show
the symmetrical product of a single master mind. This method
of developing law nearly ceased at the fall of the republic.
The Responses were systematized and reduced into compendia.
The right to make responses was limited by Augustus to a few
jurisconsults. The edict of the Prætor became a source of law,
and a great school of jurists, containing such men as Ulpian,
Paulus, Gaius, and Papinian, arose, who were authors of
treatises rather than of responses."
_T. W. Dwight,
Introduction to Maine's "Ancient Law."_
"Apart from the more general political conditions on which
jurisprudence also, and indeed jurisprudence especially
depends, the causes of the excellence of the Roman civil law
lie mainly in two features: first, that the plaintiff and
defendant were specially obliged to explain and embody in due
and binding form the grounds of the demand and of the
objection to comply with it; and secondly, that the Romans
appointed a permanent machinery for the edictal development of
their law, and associated it immediately with practice. By the
former the Romans precluded the pettifogging practices of
advocates, by the latter they obviated incapable law-making,
so far as such things can be prevented at all; and by means of
both in conjunction they satisfied, as far as is possible, the
two conflicting requirements, that law shall constantly be
fixed, and that it shall constantly be in accordance with the
spirit of the age. … This state [Rome], which made the highest
demands on its burgesses and carried the idea of subordinating
the individual to the interest of the whole further than any
state before or since has done, only did and only could do so
by itself removing the barriers to intercourse and unshackling
liberty quite as much as it subjected it to restriction. In
permission or in prohibition the law was always absolute. … A
contract did not ordinarily furnish a ground of action, but
where the right of the creditor was acknowledged, it was so
all-powerful that there was no deliverance for the poor
debtor, and no humane or equitable consideration was shown
towards him. It seemed as if the law found a pleasure in
presenting on all sides its sharpest spikes, in drawing the
most extreme consequences, in forcibly obtruding on the
bluntest understanding the tyrannic nature of the idea of
right. The poetical form and the genial symbolism, which so
pleasingly prevail in the Germanic legal ordinances, were
foreign to the Roman; in his law all was clear and precise; no
symbol was employed, no institution was superfluous. It was
not cruel; everything necessary was performed without tedious
ceremony, even the punishment of death; that a free man could
not be tortured was a primitive maxim of Roman law, to obtain
which other peoples have had to struggle for thousands of
years. Yet this law was frightful in its inexorable severity,
which we cannot suppose to have been very greatly mitigated by
humanity in practice, for it was really the law of the people;
more terrible than Venetian piombi and chambers of torture was
that series of living entombments which the poor man saw
yawning before him in the debtors' towers of the rich. But the
greatness of Rome was involved in, and was based upon, the
fact that the Roman people ordained for itself and endured a
system of law, in which the eternal principles of freedom and
of subordination, of property and of legal redress, reigned
and still at the present day reign unadulterated and
unmodified."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1)._
{2654}
"Though hard to realise, and especially so for Englishmen, it
is true that modern Europe owes to the Romans its ancient
inherited sense of the sacredness of a free man's person and
property, and its knowledge of the simplest and most rational
methods by which person and property may be secured with least
inconvenience to the whole community. The nations to come
after Rome were saved the trouble of finding out all this for
themselves; and it may be doubted whether any of them had the
requisite genius. We in England, for example, owe the peculiar
cumbrousness of our legal system to the absence of those
direct Roman influences, which, on the continent, have
simplified and illuminated the native legal material."
_W. W. Fowler,
The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
page 209._
"In all the lands which had obeyed Rome, and were included in
the nominal supremacy of the revived Western Empire, it [Roman
Law] acquired a prevalence and power not derived from the
sanction of any distinct human authority. No such authority
was for the time being strong enough to compete in men's
esteem and reverence with the shadow of majesty that still
clung to the relics of Roman dominion. Thus the Roman law was
not merely taken as (what for many purposes and in many states
it really was) a common groundwork of institutions, ideas, and
method, standing towards the actual rules of a given community
somewhat in the same relation as in the Roman doctrine ius
gentium to ius civile; but it was conceived as having, by its
intrinsic reasonableness, a kind of supreme and eminent
virtue, and as claiming the universal allegiance of civilised
mankind. If I may use a German term for which I cannot find a
good English equivalent, its principles were accepted not as
ordained by Cæsar, but as in themselves binding on the
Rechtsbewusstsein of Christendom. They were part of the
dispensation of Roman authority to which the champions of the
Empire in their secular controversy with the Papacy did not
hesitate to attribute an origin no less divine than that of
the Church itself. Even in England (though not in English
practice, for anything I know) this feeling left its mark. In
the middle of the thirteenth century, just when our legal and
judicial system was settling into its typical form, Bracton
copied whole pages of the Bolognese glossator Azo. On the
Continent, where there was no centralised and countervailing
local authority, the Roman law dwarfed everything else. Yet
the law of the Corpus Juris and the glossators was not the
existing positive law of this or that place: the Roman law was
said to be the common law of the Empire, but its effect was
always taken as modified by the custom of the country or city.
'Stadtrecht bricht Landrecht, Landrecht bricht gemein Recht.'
Thus the main object of study was not a system of actually
enforced rules, but a type assumed by actual systems as their
exemplar without corresponding in detail to any of them. Under
such conditions it was inevitable that positive authority
should be depreciated, and the method of reasoning, even for
practical purposes, from an ideal fitness of things, should be
exalted, so that the distinction between laws actually
administered and rules elaborated by the learned as in
accordance with their assumed principles was almost lost sight
of."
_Sir F. Pollock,
Oxford Lectures,
pages 30-32._
"In some of the nations of modern Continental Europe (as, for
example, in France), the actual system of law is mainly of
Roman descent; and in others of the same nations (as, for
example in the States of Germany), the actual system of law,
though not descended from the Roman, has been closely
assimilated to the Roman by large importations from it.
Accordingly, in most of the nations of modern Continental
Europe, much of the substance of the actual system, and much
of the technical language in which it is clothed, is derived
from the Roman Law, and without some knowledge of the Roman
Law, the technical language is unintelligible; whilst the
order or arrangement commonly given to the system, imitates
the exemplar of a scientific arrangement which is presented by
the Institutes of Justinian. Even in our own country, a large
portion of the Ecclesiastical and Equity, and some (though a
smaller) portion of the Common, Law, is derived immediately
from the Roman Law, or from the Roman through the Canon. Nor
has the influence of the Roman Law been limited to the
positive law of the modern European nations. For the technical
language of this all-reaching system has deeply tinctured the
language of the international law or morality which those
nations affect to observe. … Much has been talked of the
philosophy of the Roman Institutional writers. Of familiarity
with Grecian philosophy there are few traces in their
writings, and the little that they have borrowed from that
source is the veriest foolishness: for example, their account
of Jus naturale, in which they confound law with animal
instincts; law, with all those wants and necessities of
mankind which are causes of its institution. Nor is the Roman
law to be resorted to as a magazine of legislative wisdom. The
great Roman Lawyers are, in truth, expositors of a positive or
technical system. Not Lord Coke himself is more purely
technical. Their real merits lie in their thorough mastery of
that system; in their command of its principles; in the
readiness with which they recall, and the facility and
certainty with which they apply them. In support of my own
opinion of these great writers I shall quote the authority of
two of the most eminent Jurists of modern times. 'The
permanent value of the Corpus Juris Civilis,' says Falck,
'does not lie in the Decrees of the Emperors, but in the
remains of juristical literature which have been preserved in
the Pandects. Nor is it so much the matter of these juristical
writings, as the scientific method employed by the authors in
explicating the notions and maxims with which they have to
deal, that has rendered them models to all succeeding ages,
and pre-eminently fitted them to produce and to develope those
qualities of the mind which are requisite to form a Jurist.'
And Savigny says, 'It has been shown above, that, in our
science, all results depend on the possession of leading
principles; and it is exactly this possession upon which the
greatness of the Roman jurists rests. The notions and maxims
of their science do not appear to them to be the creatures of
their own will; they are actual beings, with whose existence
and genealogy they have become familiar from long and intimate
intercourse.
{2655}
Hence their whole method of proceeding has a certainty which
is found nowhere else except in mathematics, and it may be
said without exaggeration that they calculate with their
ideas. If they have a case to decide, they begin by acquiring
the most vivid and distinct perception of it, and we see
before our eyes the rise and progress of the whole affair, and
all the changes it undergoes. It is as if this particular case
were the germ whence the whole science was to be developed.
Hence, with them, theory and practice are not in fact
distinct; their theory is so thoroughly worked out as to be
fit for immediate application, and their practice is uniformly
ennobled by scientific treatment. In every principle they see
a case to which it may be applied; in every case, the rule by
which it is determined; and in the facility with which they
pass from the general to the particular and the particular to
the general, their mastery is indisputable.' In consequence of
this mastery of principles, of their perfect consistency
('elegantia') and of the clearness of the method in which they
are arranged, there is no positive system of law which it is
so easy to seize as a whole. The smallness of its volume tends
to the same end."
_J. Austin,
Lectures on Jurisprudence,
volume 3, pages 358-361._
"A glance at the history of those countries in Europe that did
not adopt Roman Law will prove and illustrate the political
origin of the 'reception' of this law in Germany and France
still more forcibly. The Kingdom of Hungary never adopted the
theory or practice of Roman Law. This seems all the more
strange since Hungary used Latin as the official language of
her legislature, laws, and law–courts down to the first
quarter of this century. A country so intensely imbued with
the idiom of Rome would seem to be quite likely to adopt also
the law of Rome. This, however, the Hungarians never did.
Their law is essentially similar to the common law of England,
in that it is derived mainly from precedents and usage. The
unwillingness of the Hungarians to adopt Roman Law was based
on a political consideration. Roman Law, they noticed,
requires a professional and privileged class of jurists who
administer law to the exclusion of all other classes. In
German territories the privileged class of civilians were in
the service of the rulers. But it so happened that ever since
1526 the ruler, or at least the nominal head of Hungary, was a
foreigner: the Archduke of Austria, or Emperor of Germany.
Hence to introduce Roman Law in Hungary would have been
tantamount to surrendering the law of the country to the
administration of foreigners, or of professors, who had a
vital interest to work in the interest of their foreign
employer, the Archduke of Austria. Consequently the Hungarians
prudently abstained from the establishment of numerous
Universities, and persistently refused to adopt Roman Law, the
scientific excellence of which they otherwise fully
acknowledged. For, the Hungarians always were, and to the
present moment still are, the only nation on the continent who
maintained an amount of political liberty and self·government
quite unknown to the rest of continental Europe, particularly
in the last two centuries. The same reason applies to England.
England never adopted Roman Law, because it was against the
interests of English liberty to confide the making and
interpretation of law to the hands of a privileged class of
jurists. As said before, Roman Law cannot be adopted unless
you adopt a privileged class of professional jurists into the
bargain. The hatred of the English was not so much a hatred of
civil law, but of the civilians. These jurists develop law on
the strength of theoretical principles, and actual cases are
not decided according to former judgments given in similar
cases, but by principles obtained through theoretico-practical
speculation. Hence there is no division of questions of law
and fact in civil cases; nor is there, in a system of Roman
Private Law, any room for juries, and thus law is taken
completely out of the hands of the people. This, however, the
English would not endure, and thus they naturally fell to
confiding their law to their judges. English common law is
judge-made law."
_E. Reich,
Graeco-Roman Institutions,
pages 62-63._
See, also, CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS;
and EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: ITALY.
ROMAN LEGION.
See LEGION, ROMAN.
ROMAN LIBRARIES.
See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ROME.
ROMAN MEDICAL SCIENCE.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 1ST CENTURY, and 2D CENTURY.
ROMAN PEACE.
The benefits conferred upon the world by the universal
dominion of Rome were of quite inestimable value. First of
these benefits, … was the prolonged peace that was enforced
throughout large portions of the world where chronic warfare
had hitherto prevailed. The 'pax romana' has perhaps been
sometimes depicted in exaggerated colours; but as compared
with all that had preceded, and with all that followed, down
to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it deserved the
encomiums it has received."
_J. Fiske,
American Political Ideas viewed from the
Standpoint of Universal History,
lecture 2._
ROMAN PONTIFICES.
See AUGURS.
ROMAN PRÆTORS.
See CONSUL.
ROMAN PROCONSUL AND PROPRÆTOR.
See PROCONSUL.
ROMAN QUESTION, The.
See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.
ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.
"Four principal lines of road have been popularly known as
'the four Roman ways.' In the time of Edward the Confessor,
and probably much earlier, there were four roads in England
protected by the king's peace. These were called
Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hickenilde-strete, and Ermine-strete.
Watling-street runs from London to Wroxeter. The Fosse from
the sea coast near Seaton in Devonshire to Lincoln. The
Ikenild·street from Iclingham near Bury St. Edmund's in
Suffolk, to Wantage in Berkshire, and on to Cirencester and
Gloucester. The Erming-street ran through the Fenny district
of the east of England. These streets seem to have represented
a combination of those portions of the Roman roads which in
later times were adopted and kept in repair for the sake of
traffic. … The name of 'Watling-street' became attached to
other roads, as the Roman road beyond the Northumbrian wall,
which crossed the Tyne at Corbridge and ran to the Frith of
Forth at Cramond, bears that name; and the Roman road beyond
Uriconium (Wroxeter) to Bravinium (Leintwarden) Salop, is also
called Watling-street. The street in Canterbury through which
the road from London to Dover passes is known as
Watling-street, and a street in London also bears that name. …
Two lines of road also bear the name of the Icknield-street,
or Hikenilde-street; but there is some reason to believe that
the Icknield-street was only a British trackway and never
became a true Roman road."
_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 13._
{2656}
"In the fifth year after the Conquest, inquisition was made
throughout the kingdom into the ancient laws and customs of
England. … From this source we learn, that there were, at that
time in England four great roads protected by the King's
Peace, of which two ran lengthways through the island, and two
crossed it, and that the names of the four were respectively,
Watlinge-strete, Fosse, Hikenilde-strete and Erming-strete.
These are the roads which are popularly but incorrectly known
as 'the four Roman ways.' … The King's Peace was a high
privilege. Any offence committed on these high ways was tried,
not in the local court, where local influence might interfere
with the administration of justice, but before the king's own
officers."
_E. Guest,
Origines Celticae,
volume 2: The Four Roman Ways._
See, also, WATLING STREET.
ROMAN ROADS IN ITALY.
See
ÆMILIAN WAY;
APPIAN WAY;
AURELIAN ROAD:
CASSIAN ROAD;
POSTUMIAN ROAD;
and ROME: B. C. 295-191.
ROMAN SENATE.
See SENATE, ROMAN.
ROMAN VESTALS.
See VESTAL VIRGINS.
ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.
There were two great fortified walls constructed by the Romans
in Britain, but the name is most often applied to the first
one, which was built under the orders of the Emperor Hadrian,
from the Solway to the Tyne, 70 miles long and from 18 to 19
feet high, of solid masonry, with towers at intervals and with
ditches throughout. In the reign of Antoninus Pius a second
fortified line, farther to the north, extending from the Forth
to the Clyde, was constructed. This latter was a rampart of
earth connecting numerous forts. Hadrian's wall was
strengthened at a later time by Severus and is sometimes
called by his name. Popularly it is called "Graham's Dike."
Both walls were for the protection of Roman Britain from the
wild tribes of Caledonia.
_E. Guest,
Origines Celticae,
volume 2, page 88-94._
ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 66-67._
ROMANCE LANGUAGE, Earliest Monument of.
See STRASBURG: A. D. 842.
ROMANIA, The Empire of.
The new feudal empire, constituted by the Crusaders and the
Venetians, after their conquest of Constantinople, and having
the great and venerable but half ruined capital of the
Byzantines for its seat, received the name of the Empire of
Romania. The reign of its first emperor, the excellent Baldwin
of Flanders, was brought to a tragical end in little more than
a year from his coronation. Summoned to quell a revolt at
Adrianople, he was attacked by the king of Bulgaria, defeated,
taken prisoner and murdered within a year by his savage
captor. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother Henry, a
capable, energetic and valiant prince; but all the ability and
all the vigor of Henry could not give cohesion and strength to
an empire which was false in its constitution and predestined
to decay. On Henry's death, without children (A. D. 1216), his
sister Yoland's husband, Peter of Courtenay, a French baron,
was elected emperor; but that unfortunate prince, on
attempting to reach Constantinople by a forced march through
the hostile Greek territory of Epirus, was taken captive and
perished in an Epirot prison. His eldest son, Philip of Namur,
wisely refused the imperial dignity; a younger son, Robert,
accepted it, and reigned feebly until 1228, when he died. Then
the venerable John de Brienne, ex-king of Jerusalem, was
elected emperor-regent for life, the crown to pass on his
death to Baldwin of Courtenay, a young brother of Robert.
"John de Brienne died in 1237, after living to witness his
empire confined to a narrow circuit round the walls of
Constantinople. Baldwin II. prolonged the existence of the
empire by begging assistance from the Pope and the king of
France; and he collected the money necessary for maintaining
his household and enjoying his precarious position, by selling
the holy relics preserved by the Eastern Church [such, for
example, as the crown of thorns, the bonds, the sponge and the
cup of the crucifixion, the rod of Moses, etc.]. He was
fortunate in finding a liberal purchaser in St. Louis. … At
length, in the year 1261, a division of the Greek army [of the
empire of Nicæa] surprised Constantinople, expelled Baldwin,
and put an end to the Latin power, without the change
appearing to be a revolution of much importance beyond the
walls of the city."
See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D. 1204-1261
_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 4._
In the last days of the sham empire, Baldwin II. maintained
his court "by tearing the copper from the domes of the public
buildings erected by the Byzantine emperors, which he coined
into money, and by borrowing gold from Venetian bankers, in
whose hands he placed his eldest son Philip as a pledge."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
book 4, chapter 1, section 3 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 61._
For an account of the creation of the Empire of Romania.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
ROMANOFFS, Origin of the dynasty of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
ROMANS, King of the.
Henry II.,—St. Henry by canonization—the last of the German
emperors of the House of Saxony (A. D. 1002-1024), abstained
from styling himself "Emperor," for some years, until he had
gone to Rome and received the imperial crown from the hands of
the Pope. Meantime he invented and assumed the title of King
of the Romans. His example was followed by his successors. The
King of the Romans in later history was Emperor of the Holy
Roman Empire in embryo.
_S. A. Dunham,
History of the Germanic Empire,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
"It was not till the reign of Maximilian that the actual
coronation at Rome was dispensed with, and the title of
Emperor taken immediately after the election."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 3, part 1._
ROMANUS, Pope, A. D. 897-898.
Romanus I. (colleague of Constantine VII.),
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 919-944.
Romanus II., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 959-963.
Romanus III., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), 1028-1034.
Romanus IV., Emperor in the East
(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1067-1071.
{2656a}
{2656b}
A Logical Outline of Roman History
IN WHICH THE DOMINANT CONDITIONS AND
INFLUENCES ARE DISTINGUISHED BY COLORS.
Physical or material. (orange)
Social and political. (green)
Intellectual, moral and religious. (brown)
Geographical position. (Orange)
Three Latin and Sabine tribes of an early day established
their settlements on neighboring hills, by the banks of the
Tiber, in the midland of Italy, which is the midland of the
Mediterranean or midland sea. They were throned, as it were,
at the center of the only wide dominion in which a virile and
energetic civilization could rise in ancient times.
Patricians and Plebeians. (Green)
The union of these three tribes formed the patrician nucleus
of Rome. Around them gathered another population of kindred
blood, which acquired a certain footing of association with
them, but not immediately on equal terms. The precedence and
superiority of the primal families, in rank and in rights, was
jealously maintained, and the later-coming plebs were received
into a pseudo-citizenship which carried more burdens than
privileges with it.
By what impulse of character, or through what favor of
circumstance, at the beginning, this infant city-state grew
masterful in war, over all its neighbors, none can tell. But
as it did so, the sturdy plebeian populace which fought its
battles resented more and more the greedy monopoly of offices
and of conquered lands to which the patricians clung, and a
struggle between classes occurred which shaped the domestic
politics of Rome for more than two centuries.
B. C. 509, Founding of the Republic.
B. C. 492, Tribunes o£ the Plebs.
Before that contest came to the surface of history, the
oligarchy of the city had cast out the kings which were its
early chiefs, and had put two yearly-chosen consuls in their
place, thus founding the great Roman Republic, with a purely
aristocratic constitution. Then the battle of the plebs for
equality of rights and powers was promptly opened, and the
long, significant process of the democratizing of the state
began. By their first victory the commons seemed, for their
own leadership and defense, a remarkable magistracy, protected
by sanctities and armed with powers which never have been used
in government elsewhere, before or since. With that great
tribunician authority, invincible when capably and boldly
wielded, they won their way, step by step, to equality in the
high offices and sacred colleges of the state; to legislative
equality in their assembly; to legality of intermarriage with
the patrician class; and to participation in the public lands.
B. C. 480-275. Conquest of Italy.
B. C. 264-202. Punic wars
B. C. 214-146. Expanding Dominion.
But while plebs and patricians thus strove with each other at
home, they were united against their neighbors in many wars,
which seldom turned to their disadvantage. Æquians, Volscians,
Etruscans, Latin allies, Samnites, Gauls, Greeks of south
Italy, yielded in turn to their arms, until the whole Italian
peninsula had been brought under Roman rule. Then followed
intrusion in Sicily, collision with Carthage in that island,
and the half century of Punic wars, which tried the Republic
to the extremity of its powers, but which left it with no
rival in the Mediterranean world, From that time the career of
Roman conquest was rapidly pursued in widening fields. Sicily,
Spain, Greece, Macedonia, Asia Minor, Southern Gaul, Northern
Africa, submitted as provinces to the proconsuls of Rome.
Corruption. (brown)
But the health of the commonwealth waned as its greatness
waxed. It was corrupted by the spoils of conquest and the
streams of tribute money that flowed from three continents
into its hands. It was leprous in its whole system with the
infection of slavery.
Social and Political Degeneration. (green)
A middle class had practically disappeared. Freemen had been
driven from industrial callings by servile competition; the
small farms of rural Rome had been swallowed up in great slave
worked estates; public lands had been drawn by one trick of
law or another, into private hands. The greater mass of the
common people had degenerated to a worthless mob. The
democratic power which their ancestors won still belonged to
them, but they had lost the sense and the spirit to exercise
it, except fitfully and threateningly, for purposes that were
generally base. A new nobility had risen out of the plebeian
ranks; the senate, reinforced by it, and helped by the
exigencies of the long period of war, had recovered control of
government, keeping ascendancy over the mob by political arts
and bribes.
B. C. 133-121. The Gracchi.
B. C. 90-88. The Social War,
B. C. 88-45. Civil Wars.
Thus came the fatal time when demagogues played with the
passions of that fickle mob which bore the awful sovereignty
of Rome in its keeping; and when patriots were forced to be as
demagogues, if they sought to lift Roman citizenship from its
muddy degradation. In the undertakings of the Gracchi, perhaps
something of both demagogue and patriot was combined; but what
they did only shook the decaying political fabric and
unsettled it more. The extension of Roman citizenship to the
Italian allies, which Caius Gracchus contended for, and which
might have grounded the Republic on broad bases of
nationality, was yielded in the next generation, but too late,
and after a ruinous war. From the embers of that fiery Social
War broke the flames of civil strife in which the old
constitution was finally consumed. Marius, Sulla, Pompeius,
Cæsar, were distinguished among its destroyers; Cicero and
Cato earned their immortality in its defense.
B. C. 45-A. D. 486, The Empire.
By the genius of Cæsar a new sovereignty—an imperial
autocracy—was founded, on the ruins of the shattered Republic.
By the shrewdness of his wise nephew, Octavius, its enduring
organization was shaped. The mighty fabric of the Roman Empire
which then arose, to dominate the world for centuries, and to
dominate the history of the world perhaps forever, owed its
greatness altogether to the effective organization of
government which it embodied. It inherited all the corruptions
and diseases in society which had sickened and destroyed the
Republic; but it extinguished factions at the seat of power,
established authority there, and perfected a radiating
mechanism of provincial administration such as had not been
known in human experience before. Hence, emperors might be
madmen or fiends or fools, as many among them were, and Rome
might be a sink of all vices and miseries, as it commonly was,
and the whole Empire might be grievously oppressed, as it
seldom failed to be; but the working of the administrative
system went on, with little disturbance or change,—so mighty
and irresistible in its machinery that it seemed to mankind
like a part of the natural world, and they lost the ability to
think of any different political state.
Christianity. (brown)
Christianity, springing up in Judæa within the first century
of the Empire, spread through and around it like an
interlacing vine,—sweet and wholesome in its early fruits,
strong as a bond, powerful as a regenerating influence. But
when the ecclesiasticism of a politically fashioned Church had
been grafted on the Christian vine, it bore then the evil
seeds of new corruption, new discord, new maladies for the
Roman world.
A. D. 476. Fall of the Empire in the West. (green)
So there came, at last, a time when the long-enduring frame of
Roman government could no longer bear the increasing
dead-weight of social paralysis within and the increasing
pressure of barbaric enemies from without. Of real vitality in
the Empire there had been little for half-a-century before its
fall in the West.
A. D. 476-1453. Survival of the Eastern Empire.
It survived in the East, because its Greek capital was more
impregnable, and more commandingly placed for the continued
centralization of a waning power; and because habit and
routine have more potency in the Eastern than in the Western
world.
A. D. 800. Revival of the Western Empire.
Even Western Europe obeyed again, after more than four
centuries, the obstinate habit of homage to Rome, when it
restored the Empire of the Cæsars, though less in fact than in
name.
{2657}
----------ROME: Start--------
ROME:
The beginning of the City-State and the origin of its name.
The three tribes of original Romans who formed
the Patrician order.-
The Plebs and their inferior citizenship.
"About fourteen miles up from the mouth of the river Tiber,
hills of moderate elevation rise on both banks of the stream,
higher on the right, lower on the left bank. With the latter
group there has been closely associated for at least two
thousand five hundred years the name of the Romans. We are
unable, of course, to tell how or when that name arose; this
much only is certain, that in the oldest form of it known to
us the inhabitants of the canton are called not Romans, but
(by a shifting of sound that frequently occurs in the earlier
period of a language, but fell very early in abeyance in
Latin) Ramnians (Ramnes), a fact which constitutes an
expressive testimony to the immemorial antiquity of the name.
Its derivation cannot be given with certainty; possibly Ramnes
may mean 'foresters,' or 'bushmen.' But they were not the only
dwellers on the hills by the bank of the Tiber. In the
earliest division of the burgesses of Rome a trace has been
preserved of the fact that that body arose out of the
amalgamation of three cantons once probably independent, the
Ramnians, Tities, and Luceres, into a single commonwealth—in
other words, out of such a 'synoikismos' as that from which
Athens arose in Attica. The great antiquity of this threefold
division of the community is perhaps best evinced by the fact
that the Romans, in matters especially of constitutional law,
regularly used the forms tribuere ('to divide into three') and
tribus ('a third') in the general sense of 'to divide' and 'a
part,' and the latter expression (tribus) like our 'quarter,'
early lost its original signification of number. … That the
Ramnians were a Latin stock cannot be doubted, for they gave
their name to the new Roman commonwealth, and therefore must
have substantially determined the nationality of the united
community. Respecting the origin of the Luceres nothing can be
affirmed, except that there is no difficulty in the way of our
assigning them, like the Ramnians, to the Latin stock. The
second of these communities, on the other hand, is with one
consent derived from Sabina. … And, as in the older and more
credible traditions, without exception, the Tities take
precedence of the Ramnians, it is probable that the intruding
Tities compelled the older Ramnians to accept the
'synoikismos.' … Long, in all probability, before an urban
settlement arose on the Tiber, these Ramnians, Tities, and
Luceres, at first separate, afterwards united, had their
stronghold on the Roman hills, and tilled their fields from
the surrounding villages. The 'wolf festival' (Lupercalia),
which the gens of the Quinctii celebrated on the Palatine
hill, was probably a tradition from these primitive ages—a
festival of husbandmen and shepherds, which more than any
other preserved the homely pastimes of patriarchal simplicity,
and, singularly enough, maintained itself longer than all the
other heathen festivals in Christian Rome. From these
settlements the later Rome arose."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 4._
"Rome did not seem to be a single city; it appeared like a
confederation of several cities, each one of which was
attached by its origin to another confederation. It was the
centre where the Latins, Etruscans, Sabellians, and Greeks
met. Its first king was a Latin; the second, a Sabine; the
fifth was, we are told, the son of a Greek; the sixth was an
Etruscan. Its language was composed of the most diverse
elements. The Latin predominated, but Sabellian roots were
numerous, and more Greek radicals were found in it than in any
other of the dialects of Central Italy. As to its name, no one
knew to what language that belonged. According to some, Rome
was a Trojan word; according to others, a Greek word. There
are reasons for believing it to be Latin, but some of the
ancients thought it to be Etruscan. The names of Roman
families also attest a great diversity of origin. … The effect
of this mixing of the most diverse nations was, that from the
beginning Rome was related to all the peoples that it knew. It
could call itself Latin with the Latins, Sabine with the
Sabines, Etruscan with the Etruscans, and Greek with the
Greeks. Its national worship was also an assemblage of several
quite different worships, each one of which attached it to one
of these nations."
_Fustel de Coulanges,
The Ancient City,
book 5, chapter 2._
"The whole history of the world has been determined by the
geological fact that at a point a little below the junction of
the Tiber and the Anio the isolated hills stand nearer to one
another than most of the other hills of Latium. On a site
marked out above all other sites for dominion, the centre of
Italy, the centre of Europe, as Europe then was, a site at the
junction of three of the great nations of Italy, and which had
the great river as its highway to lands beyond the bounds of
Italy, stood two low hills, the hill which bore the name of
Latin Saturn, and the hill at the meaning of whose name of
Palatine scholars will perhaps guess for ever. These two
hills, occupied by men of two of the nations of Italy, stood
so near to one another that a strait choice indeed was laid on
those who dwelled on them. They must either join together on
terms closer than those which commonly united Italian leagues,
or they must live a life of border warfare more ceaseless,
more bitter, than the ordinary warfare of Italian enemies.
Legend, with all likelihood, tells us that warfare was tried;
history, with all certainty, tells us that the final choice
was union. The two hills were fenced with a single wall; the
men who dwelled on them changed from wholly separate
communities into tribes of a single city. Changes of the same
kind took place on not a few spots of Greece and Italy; not a
few of the most famous cities of both lands grew on this wise
out of the union of earlier detached settlements. But no other
union of the kind, not even that which called Sparta into
being out of five villages of an older day, could compare in
its effects on all later time with the union of those two
small hill-fortresses into a single city. For that city was
Rome; the hill of Saturn became the site of Rome's capitol.
the scene of her triumphs, the home of her patron gods. The
hill on the other side of the swampy dale became the
dwelling-place of Rome's Cæsars, and handed on its name of
Palatium as the name for the homes of all the kings of the
earth.
{2658}
Around those hills as a centre, Latium, Italy, Mediterranean
Europe, were gathered in, till the world was Roman, or rather
till the world was Rome. … Three tribes, settlers on three
hills, were the elements of which the original commonwealth
was made. Whether there was anything like a nobility within
the tribes themselves, whether certain houses had any
precedence, any preferences in the disposal of offices, we
have no means of judging. That certain houses are far more
prominent in legend and history than others may suggest such a
thought, but does not prove it. But one thing is certain;
these three tribes, these older settlers, were the original
Roman people, which for a while numbered no members but
themselves. They were the patres, the fathers, a name which in
its origin meant no more than such plain names as goodman,
housefather, and the like. In the Roman polity the father only
could be looked on as a citizen in the highest sense; his
children, his grand-children, were in his power, from which,
just like slaves, they could be released only by his own
special act. Such was the origin of the name fathers, patres,
patricians, a name round which such proud associations
gathered, as the three tribes who had once been the whole
Roman people shrank up into a special noble class in the midst
of a new Roman people which grew up around them, but which
they did not admit to the same rights as themselves. The
incorporation of a third tribe marks the end of the first
period of Roman history. These were the Luceres of the Cœlian,
admitted perhaps at first with rights not quite on a level
with those of the two earlier tribes, the Ramnes of the
Palatine, the oldest Romans of all, and the Tities of the
Capitoline or hill of Saturn. The oldest Roman people was now
formed. No fourth tribe was ever admitted; the later tribes of
Rome, it must be remembered, are a separate division which
have nothing to do with these old patrician tribes. And it
must have been a most rare favour for either individuals or
whole houses to be received into any of the three original
tribes. … Now, if the privileged body of citizens is small,
and if circumstances tend to make the settlement of
non-privileged residents large, here is one of the means by
which a privileged order in the narrower sense, a nobility in
the midst of a nation or people may arise. An order which
takes in few or no new members tends to extinction; if it does
not die out, it will at least sensibly lessen. But there is no
limit to the growth of the non-privileged class outside. Thus
the number of the old burghers will be daily getting smaller,
the number of the new residents will be daily getting larger,
till those who once formed the whole people put on step by
step the character of an exclusive nobility in the midst of
the extended nation which has grown up around them. By this
time they have acquired all the attributes of nobility,
smallness of numbers, antiquity, privilege. And their
possession of the common land—a possession shared constantly
by a smaller number—is likely to give them a fourth attribute
which, vulgarly at least, goes to swell the conception of
nobility, the attribute of wealth. … Thus around the original
people of Rome, the populus, the patres, the three ancient
tribes, the settlers on the three earliest hills of Rome,
arose a second people, the plebs. The whole history of Rome is
a history of incorporation. The first union between the
Capitoline and Palatine hills was the first stage of the
process which at last made Romans of all the nations round the
Mediterranean sea. But the equal incorporation of which that
union was the type had now ceased, not to begin again for
ages. Whatever amount of belief we give to the legends of
Roman wars and conquests under the kings, we can hardly doubt
that the territory of several neighbouring towns was
incorporated with the Roman state, and that their people,
whether they removed to Rome or went on occupying their own
lands elsewhere, became Romans, but not as yet full Romans.
They were Romans in so far as they ceased to be members of any
other state, in so far as they obeyed the laws of Rome, and
served in the Roman armies. But they were not Romans in the
sense of being admitted into the original Roman body; they had
no votes in the original Roman assembly; they had no share in
its public land; they were not admissible to the high offices
of the state. They had an organization of their own; they had
their own assemblies, their own magistrates, their own sacred
rights, different in many things from those of the older Roman
People. And we must remember that, throughout the Roman
history, when any town or district was admitted to any stage,
perfect or imperfect, of Roman citizenship, its people were
admitted without regard to any distinctions which had existed
among them in their elder homes. The patricians of a Latin
town admitted to the Roman franchise became plebeians at Rome.
Thus from the beginning, the Roman plebs contained families
which, if the word 'noble' has any real meaning, were fully as
noble as any house of the three elder tribes. Not a few too of
the plebeians were rich; rich and poor, they were the more
part land-owners; no mistake can be greater than that which
looks on the Roman plebs as the low multitude of a town. As we
first see them, the truest aspect of them is that of a second
nation within the Roman state, an inferior, a subject, nation,
shut out from all political power, subject in many things to
practical oppression, but which, by its very organization as a
subject nation, was the more stirred up to seek, and the
better enabled to obtain, full equality with the elder nation
to which it stood side by side as a subject neighbour."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Practical Bearings of European History
(Lectures to American Audiences),
page 278-278, and 285-292._
See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; LATIUM; ALBA; and SABINES.
ROME:
Early character and civilization of the Romans.
Opposing theories.
"That the central position of Rome, in the long and narrow
peninsula of Italy, was highly favourable to her Italian
dominion, and that the situation of Italy was favourable to
her dominion over the countries surrounding the Mediterranean,
has been often pointed out. But we have yet to ask what
launched Rome in her career of conquest, and, still more, what
rendered that career so different from those of ordinary
conquerors? … About the only answer that we get to these
questions is race. The Romans, we are told, were by nature a
peculiarly warlike race. 'They were the wolves of Italy,' says
Mr. Merivale, who may be taken to represent fairly the state
of opinion on this subject. …
{2659}
But the further we inquire, the more reason there appears to
be for believing that peculiarities of race are themselves
originally formed by the influence of external circumstances
on the primitive tribe; that, however marked and ingrained
they may be, they are not congenital and perhaps not
indelible. … Thus, by ascribing the achievements of the Romans
to the special qualities of their race, we should not be
solving the problem, but only stating it again in other terms.
… What if the very opposite theory to that of the she-wolf and
her foster-children should be true? What if the Romans should
have owed their peculiar and unparalleled success to their
having been at first not more warlike, but less warlike than
their neighbours? It may seem a paradox, but we suspect that
in their imperial ascendency is seen one of the earliest and
not least important steps in that gradual triumph of intellect
over force, even in war, which has been an essential part of
the progress of civilization. The happy day may come when
Science in the form of a benign old gentleman with a bald head
and spectacles on nose, holding some beneficent compound in
his hand, will confront a standing army, and the standing army
will cease to exist. That will be the final victory of
intellect. But in the meantime, our acknowledgements are due
to the primitive inventors of military organization and
military discipline. They shivered Goliath's spear. A mass of
comparatively unwarlike burghers, unorganized and
undisciplined, though they may be the hope of civilization
from their mental and industrial qualities, have as little of
collective as they have of individual strength in war; they
only get in each other's way, and fall singly victims to the
prowess of a gigantic barbarian. He who first thought of
combining their force by organization, so as to make their
numbers tell, and who taught them to obey officers, to form
regularly for action, and to execute united movements at the
word of command, was, perhaps, as great a benefactor of the
species as he who grew the first corn, or built the first
canoe. What is the special character of the Roman legends, so
far as they relate to war? Their special character is that
they are legends not of personal prowess but of discipline.
Rome has no Achilles. The great national heroes, Camillus,
Cincinnatus, Papirius Cursor, Fabius Maximus, Manlius, are not
prodigies of personal strength and valour, but commanders and
disciplinarians. The most striking incidents are incidents of
discipline. The most striking incident of all is the execution
by a commander of his own son for having gained a victory
against orders. 'Disciplinam militarem,' Manlius is made to
say, 'qua stetit ad hanc diem Romana res.' Discipline was the
great secret of Roman ascendency in war. … But how came
military discipline to be so specially cultivated by the
Romans? … Dismissing the notion of occult qualities of race,
we look for a rational explanation in the circumstances of the
plain which was the cradle of the Roman Empire. It is evident
that in the period designated as that of the kings, when Rome
commenced her career of conquest, she was, for that time and
country, a great and wealthy city. This is proved by the works
of the kings, the Capitoline Temple, the excavation for the
Circus Maximus, the Servian Wall, and above all the Cloaca
Maxima. Historians have indeed undertaken to give us a very
disparaging picture of the ancient Rome. … But the Cloaca
Maxima is in itself conclusive evidence of a large population,
of wealth, and of a not inconsiderable degree of civilization.
Taking our stand upon this monument, and clearing our vision
entirely of Romulus and his asylum, we seem dimly to perceive
the existence of a deep prehistoric background, richer than is
commonly supposed in the germs of civilization,—a remark which
may in all likelihood be extended to the background of history
in general. Nothing surely can be more grotesque than the idea
of a set of wolves, like the Norse pirates before their
conversion to Christianity, constructing in their den the
Cloaca Maxima. That Rome was comparatively great and wealthy
is certain. We can hardly doubt that she was a seat of
industry and commerce, and that the theory which represents
her industry and commerce as having been developed
subsequently to her conquests is the reverse of the fact.
Whence, but from industry and commerce, could the population
and the wealth have come? Peasant farmers do not live in
cities, and plunderers do not accumulate. Rome had around her
what was then a rich and peopled plain; she stood at a
meeting-place of nationalities; she was on a navigable river,
yet out of the reach of pirates; the sea near her was full of
commerce, Etruscan, Greek, and Carthaginian. … Her patricians
were financiers and money-lenders. … Even more decisive is the
proof afforded by the early political history of Rome. … The
institutions which we find existing in historic times must
have been evolved by some such struggle between the orders of
patricians and plebeians as that which Livy presents to us.
And these politics, with their parties and sections of
parties, their shades of political character, the sustained
interest which they imply in political objects, their various
devices and compromises, are not the politics of a community
of peasant farmers, living apart each on his own farm and
thinking of his own crops: they are the politics of the
quick-witted and gregarious population of an industrial and
commercial city. … Of course when Rome had once been drawn
into the career of conquest, the ascendency of the military
spirit would be complete; war, and the organization of
territories acquired in war, would then become the great
occupation of her leading citizens; industry and commerce
would fall into disesteem, and be deemed unworthy of the
members of the imperial race. … Even when the Roman nobles had
become a caste of conquerors and pro-consuls, they retained
certain mercantile habits; unlike the French aristocracy, and
aristocracies generally, they were careful keepers of their
accounts, and they showed a mercantile talent for business, as
well as a more than mercantile hardness, in their financial
exploitation of the conquered world. Brutus and his
contemporaries were usurers like the patricians of the early
times. No one, we venture to think, who has been accustomed to
study national character, will believe that the Roman
character was formed by war alone: it was manifestly formed by
war combined with business."
_Goldwin Smith,
The Greatness of the Romans
(Contemporary Review, May, 1878)._
A distinctly contrary theory of the primary character and
early social state of the Romans is presented in the
following: "The Italians were much more backward than the
Greeks, for their land is turned to the west, to Spain, to
Gaul, to Africa, which could teach them nothing, while Greece
is turned to the east, to the coasts along which the
civilisations of the Nile and the Tigris spread through so
many channels.
{2660}
Besides, the country itself is far less stimulating to its
inhabitants: compared to Greece, Italy is a continental
country whose inhabitants communicate more easily by land than
by sea, except in the two extreme southern peninsulas, which
characteristically were occupied by Greek colonies whose
earlier development was more brilliant than that of the mother
country. … The equable fertility of the land was itself a
hindrance. As far back as we can form any conjecture, the bulk
of the people were shepherds or husbandmen; we cannot trace a
time like that reflected in the Homeric poems, when high-born
men of spirit went roving in their youth by land and sea, and
settled down in their prime with a large stock of cattle and a
fair stud of horses, to act as referees in peace and leaders
in war to the cottars around. … Other differences less
intelligible to us were not less weighty: the volcanic
character of the western plain of central Italy, the want of a
fall to the coast (which caused some of the watercourses to
form marshes, and made the Tiber a terror to the Romans for
its floods), told in ways as yet untraced ou the character of
the inhabitants. For one thing the ancient worship of Febris
and Mefitis indicates a constant liability to fever; then the
air of Greece is lighter than the air of Italy, and this may
be the reason that it was more inspiring. … Italian indigenous
literature was of the very scantiest; its oldest element was
to be found in hymns, barely metrical, and so full of
repetitions as to dispense with metre. The hymns were more
like spells than psalms, the singers had an object to gain
rather than feelings to express. The public hymns were prayers
for blessing: there were private chants to charm crops out of
a neighbour's field, and bring other mischief to pass against
him. Such 'evil songs' were a capital offence, though there
was little, perhaps, in their form to suggest a distinction
whether the victim was being bewitched or satirised. The
deliberate articulate expression of spite seemed a guilt and
power of itself. Besides these there were dirges at funerals,
ranging between commemoration of the deceased and his
ancestors, propitiation of the departed spirit, and simple
lamentation. There were songs at banquets in praise of ancient
worthies. … We find no trace of any poet who composed what
free-born youths recited at feasts; probably they extemporised
without training and attained no mastery. If a nation has
strong military instincts, we find legendary or historical
heroes in its very oldest traditions; if a nation has strong
poetical instincts, we find the names of historical or
legendary poets. In Italy we only meet with nameless fauns and
prophets, whose inspired verses were perhaps on the level of
Mother Shipton."
_G. A. Simcox,
A History of Latin Literature,
volume 1, introduction._
ROME:
Struggle with the Etruscans.
See ETRUSCANS.
ROME: B. C. 753.
Era of the foundation of the city.
"Great doubts have been entertained, as well by ancient
historians as by modern chronologists, respecting this era.
Polybius fixes it to the year B. C. 751; Cato, who has been
followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, and Eusebius,
to B. C. 752; Fabius Pictor, to B. C. 747; Archbishop Usher,
to B. C, 748; and Newton, to B. C. 627: Terentius Varro,
however, refers it to B. C. 753; which computation was adopted
by the Roman emperors, and by Plutarch, Tacitus, Dion, Aulus
Gellius, Censorinus, Onuphrius, Baroius, bishop Beveridge,
Stranchius, Dr. Playfair, and by most modern chronologists:
Livy, Cicero, Pliny, and Velleius Paterculus occasionally
adopted both the Varronian and Catonian computations. Dr.
Hales has, however, determined, from history and astronomy,
that the Varronian computation is correct, viz. B. C. 753."
_Sir H. Nicolas,
Chronology of History,
page 2._
ROME: B. C. 753-510.
The legendary period of the kings.
Credibility of the Roman annals.
Probable Etruscan domination.
"It may … be stated, as the result of this inquiry, that the
narrative of Roman affairs, from the foundation of the city to
the expulsion of the Tarquins, is formed out of traditionary
materials. At what time the oral traditions were reduced into
writing, and how much of the existing narrative was the
arbitrary supplement of the historians who first framed the
account which has descended to us, it is now impossible to
ascertain, … The records of them, which were made before the
burning of Rome, 300 B. C., were doubtless rare and meagre in
the extreme; and such as there were at this time chiefly
perished in the conflagration and ruin of the city. It was
probably not till after this period—that is to say, about 120
years after the expulsion of the kings—and above 350 years
after the era assigned for the foundation of the city, that
these oral reports—these hearsay stories of many
generations—began to be entered in the registers of the
pontifices. … The history of the entire regal period, as
respects both its external attestation and its internal
probability, is tolerably uniform in its character. … Niebuhr,
indeed, has drawn a broad line between the reigns of Romulus
and Numa on the one hand, and those of the five last kings on
the other. The former he considers to be purely fabulous and
poetical; the latter he regards as belonging to the
mythico-historical period, when there is a narrative resting
on a historical basis, and most of the persons mentioned are
real. But it is impossible to discover any ground, either in
the contents of the narrative; or in its external evidence, to
support this distinction. Romulus, indeed, from the form of
his name, appears to be a mere personification of the city of
Rome, and to have no better claim to a real existence than
Hellen, Danaus, Ægyptus, Tyrrhenus, or Italus. But Numa
Pompilius stands on the same ground as the remaining kings,
except that he is more ancient; and the narrative of all the
reigns, from the first to the last, seems to be constructed on
the same principles. That the names of the kings after Romulus
are real, is highly probable; during the latter reigns, much
of the history seems to be in the form of legendary
explanations of proper names. … Even with respect to the
Tarquinian family, it may be doubted whether the similarity of
their name to that of the city of Tarquinii was not the origin
of the story of Demaratus and the Etruscan origin. The
circumstance that the two king Tarquins were both named
Lucius, and that it was necessary to distinguish them by the
epithets of Priscus and Superbus, raises a presumption that
the names were real.
{2661}
Müller indeed regards the names of the two Tarquins as merely
representing the influence exercised by the Etruscan city of
Tarquinii in Rome at the periods known as their reigns. … The
leading feature of the government during this period is that
its chief was a king, who obtained his office by the election
of the people, and the confirmation of the Senate, in the same
manner in which consuls and other high magistrates were
appointed after the abolition of royalty; but that, when once
fully elected, he retained his power for life. In the mode of
succession, the Roman differed from the early Greek kings,
whose office was hereditary. The Alban kings, likewise, to
whom the Roman kings traced their origin, are described as
succeeding by inheritance and not by election. … The
predominant belief of the Romans concerning their regal
government was, that the power of the kings was limited by
constitutional checks; that the chief institutions of the
Republic, namely, the Senate and the Popular Assembly, existed
in combination with the royalty, and were only suspended by
the lawless despotism of the second Tarquin. Occasionally,
however, we meet with the idea that the kings were absolute."
_Sir G. C. Lewis,
Inquiry into the Credibility of Early Roman History,
chapter 11, sections 39-40 (volume 1)._
"Of the kings of Rome we have no direct contemporary evidence;
we know them only from tradition, and from the traces they
left behind them in the Republican constitution which
followed. But the 'method of survivals' has here been applied
by a master-hand [Mommsen]; and we can be fairly sure, not
only of the fact that monarchy actually existed at Rome, but
even of some at least of its leading characteristics. Here we
have kingship no longer denoting, as in Homer, a social
position of chieftaincy which bears with it certain
vaguely-conceived prerogatives, but a clearly defined
magistracy within the fully realised State. The rights and
duties of the Rex are indeed defined by no documents, and the
spirit of the age still seems to be obedience and trust; but
we also find the marks of a formal customary procedure, which
is already hardening into constitutional practice, and will in
time further harden into constitutional law. The monarchy has
ceased to be hereditary, if it ever was so; and the method of
appointment, though we are uncertain as to its exact nature,
is beyond doubt regulated with precision, and expressed in
technical terms."
_W. W. Fowler,
The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
pages 74-75._
"The analogy of other states, no less than the subsequent
constitution of Rome, which always retained the marks of its
first monarchical complexion, leaves us in no doubt that kings
once reigned in Rome, and that by a determined uprising of the
people they were expelled, leaving in the Roman mind an
ineradicable hatred of the very name. We have to be content
with these hard facts, extracted from those thrilling stories
with which Livy adorns the reign and the expulsion of
Tarquinius Superbus."
_R. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
chapter 2._
The names of the kings, with the dates assigned to them, are
as follows:
Romulus, B. C. 753-717;
Numa Pompilius, B. C. 715-673;
Tullus Hostilius, B. C. 673-642;
Ancus Martius, B. C. 641-617;
Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, B. C. 616-579;
Servius Tullius, B. C. 578-535;
Tarquinius Superbus, B. C. 534-510.
According to the legend of early Rome, Romulus attracted
inhabitants to the city he had founded by establishing within
its walls a sanctuary or refuge, for escaped slaves, outlaws
and the like. But he could not in a fair way procure wives for
these rough settlers, because marriage with them was disdained
by the reputable people of neighboring cities. Therefore he
arranged for an imposing celebration of games at Rome, in
honor of the god Consus, and invited his neighbors, the
Sabines, to witness them. These came unsuspectingly with their
wives and daughters, and, when they were absorbed in the show,
the Romans, at a given signal, rushed on them and carried off
such women as they chose to make captive. A long and obstinate
war ensued, which was ended by the interposition of the women
concerned, who had become reconciled to their Roman husbands
and satisfied to remain with them.
_Livy,
History,
chapter 9._
"We cannot … agree with Niebuhr, who thinks he can discover
some historical facts through this legendary mist. As he
supposes, the inhabitants of the Palatine had not the right of
intermarriage ('connubium') with their Sabine neighbours on
the Capitoline and the Quirinal. This inferiority of the
Palatine Romans to the Sabines of the Capitoline and Quirinal
hills caused discontent and war. The right of intermarriage
was obtained by force of arms, and this historical fact lies
at the bottom of the tale of the rape of the Sabines. Such a
method of changing legends into history is of very doubtful
utility. It seems more natural to explain the legend from the
customs at the Roman marriage ceremonies"—in which the
pretence of forcible abduction was enacted.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 2._
"With the reign of the fifth king, Tarquinius Priscus, a
marked change takes place. The traditional accounts of the
last three kings not only wear a more historical air than
those of the first four, but they describe something like a
transformation of the Roman city and state. Under the rule of
these latter kings the separate settlements were for the first
time enclosed with a rampart of colossal size and extent. The
low grounds were drained, and a forum and circus elaborately
laid out; on the Capitoline Mount a temple was erected, the
massive foundations of which were an object of wonder even to
Pliny. … The kings increase in power and surround themselves
with new splendour. Abroad, Rome suddenly appears as a
powerful state ruling far and wide over southern Etruria and
Latium. These startling changes are, moreover, ascribed to
kings of alien descent, who one and all ascend the throne in
the teeth of established constitutional forms. Finally, with
the expulsion of the last of them—the younger Tarquin—comes a
sudden shrinkage of power. At the commencement of the republic
Rome is once more a comparatively small state, with hostile
and independent neighbours at her very doors. It is difficult
to avoid the conviction that the true explanation of this
phenomenon is to be found in the supposition that Rome during
this period passed under the rule of powerful Etruscan lords.
Who the people were whom the Romans knew as Etruscans and the
Greeks as Tyrrhenians is a question, which, after centuries of
discussion, still remains unanswered; nor in all probability
will the answer be found until the lost key to their language
has been discovered. That they were regarded by the Italic
tribes, by Umbrians, Sabellians, and Latins, as intruders is
certain. Entering Italy, as they probably did from the north
or northeast, they seem to have first of all made themselves
masters of the rich valley of the Po and of the Umbrians who
dwelt there.
{2662}
Then crossing the Apennines, they overran Etruria proper as
far south as the banks of the Tiber, here too reducing to
subjection the Umbrian owners of the soil. In Etruria they
made themselves dreaded, like the Northmen of a later time, by
sea as well as by land. … We find the Etruscan power
encircling Rome on all sides, and in Rome itself a tradition
of the rule of princes of Etruscan origin. The Tarquinii come
from South Etruria; their name can hardly be anything else
than the Latin equivalent of the Etruscan Tarchon, and is
therefore possibly a title (='lord' or 'prince') rather than a
proper name. … That Etruria had, under the sway of Etruscan
lords, forged ahead of the country south of the Tiber in
wealth and civilisation is a fact which the evidence of
remains has placed beyond doubt. It is therefore significant
that the rule of the Tarquins in Rome is marked by an outward
splendour which stands in strong contrast to the primitive
simplicity of the native kings. … These Etruscan princes are
represented, not only as having raised Rome for the time to a
commanding position in Latium, and lavished upon the city
itself the resources of Etruscan civilisation, but also the
authors of important internal changes. They are represented as
favouring new men at the expense of the old patrician
families, and as reorganising the Roman army on a new footing,
a policy natural enough in military princes of alien birth."
_H. F. Pelham,
Outlines of Roman History,
book 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_F. W. Newman,
Regal Rome._
_T. H. Dyer,
History of the Kings of Rome._
ROME: B. C. 510.
Expulsion of Tarquin the Proud.
The story from Livy.
Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, or Tarquin the Proud, son of
Tarquinius Priscus and son-in-law of Servius Tullius, brought
about the assassination of the latter, and mounted the throne.
"Lucius Tarquin, having thus seized the kingdom (for he had
not the consent either of the Senators or of the Commons to
his deed), bare himself very haughtily, so that men called him
Tarquin the Proud. First, lest some other, taking example by
him, should deal with him as he had dealt with Tullius, he had
about him a company of armed men for guards. And because he
knew that none loved him, he would have them fear him. To this
end he caused men to be accused before him. And when they were
so accused, he judged them by himself, none sitting with him
to see that right was done. Some he slew unjustly, and some he
banished, and some he spoiled of their goods. And when the
number of the Senators was greatly diminished by these means
(for he laid his plots mostly against the Senators, as being
rich men and the chief of the State), he would not choose any
into their place, thinking that the people would lightly
esteem them if there were but a few of them. Nor did he call
them together to ask their counsel, but ruled according to his
own pleasure, making peace and war, and binding treaties or
unbinding, with none to gainsay him. Nevertheless, for a while
he increased greatly in power and glory. He made alliance with
Octavius Mamilius, prince of Tusculum, giving him his daughter
in marriage; nor was there any man greater than Mamilius in
all the cities of the Latins; and Suessa Pometia, that was a
city of the Volsei, he took by force, and finding that the
spoil was very rich (for there were in it forty talents of
gold and silver), he built with the money a temple to Jupiter
on the Capitol, very great and splendid, and worthy not only
of his present kingdom but also of that great Empire that
should be thereafter. Also he took the city of Gabii by fraud.
… By such means did King Tarquin increase his power. Now there
was at Rome in the days of Tarquin a noble youth, by name
Lucius Junius, who was akin to the house of Tarquin, seeing
that his mother was sister to the King. This man, seeing how
the King sought to destroy all the chief men in the State
(and, indeed, the brother of Lucius had been so slain), judged
it well so to bear himself that there should be nothing in him
which the King should either covet or desire. Wherefore he
feigned foolishness, suffering all that he had to be made a
prey; for which reason men gave him the name of Brutus, or the
Foolish. Then he bided his time, waiting till the occasion
should come when he might win freedom for the people." In a
little time "there came to Brutus an occasion of showing what
manner of man he was. Sextus, the King's son, did so grievous
a wrong to Lucretia, that was the wife of Collatinus, that the
woman could not endure to live, but slew herself with her own
hand. But before she died she called to her her husband and
her father and Brutus, and bade them avenge her upon the evil
house of Tarquin. And when her father and her husband sat
silent for grief and fear, Brutus drew the knife wherewith she
slew herself from the wound, and held it before him dripping
with blood, and cried aloud, 'By this blood I swear, calling
the Gods to witness, that I will pursue with fire and sword
and with all other means of destruction Tarquin the Proud,
with his accursed wife and all his race; and that I will
suffer no man hereafter to be king in this city of Rome.' And
when he had ended he bade the others swear after the same form
of words. This they did and, forgetting their grief, thought
only how they might best avenge this great wrong that had been
done. First they carried the body of Lucretia, all covered
with blood, into the marketplace of Collatia (for these things
happened at Collatia), and roused all the people that saw a
thing so shameful and pitiful, till all that were of an age
for war assembled themselves carrying arms. Some of them
stayed behind to keep the gates of Collatia, that no one
should carry tidings of the matter to the King, and the rest
Brutus took with him with all the speed that he might to Rome.
There also was stirred up a like commotion, Brutus calling the
people together and telling them what a shameful wrong the
young Tarquin had done. Also he spake to them of the labours
with which the King wore them out in the building of temples
and palaces and the like, so that they who had been in time
past the conquerors of all the nations round about were now
come to be but his hewers of wood and drawers of water. Also
he set before them in what shameful sort King Tullius had been
slain, and how his daughter had driven her chariot over the
dead body of her father. With suchlike words he stirred up the
people to great wrath, so that they passed a decree that there
should be no more kings in Rome, and that Lucius Tarquin with
his wife and his children should be banished.
{2663}
After this Brutus made haste to the camp and stirred up the
army against the King. And in the meanwhile Queen Tullia fled
from her palace, all that saw her cursing her as she went. As
for King Tarquin, when he came to the city he found the gates
shut against him; thereupon he returned and dwelt at Cære that
is in the land of Etruria, and two of his sons with him; but
Sextus going to Gabii, as to a city which he had made his own,
was slain by the inhabitants. The King and his house being
thus driven out, Brutus was made consul with one Collatinus
for his colleague."
_A. J. Church,
Stories from Livy;
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lectures 8-9 (volume 1)._
_T. H. Dyer,
History of the Kings of Rome,
chapter 10._
ROME: B. C. 509.
The establishment of the Republic.
The Valerian Laws.
"However much the history of the expulsion of the last
Tarquinius, 'the proud,' may have been interwoven with
anecdotes and spun out into a romance, it is not in its
leading outlines to be called in question. … The royal power
was by no means abolished, as is shown by the fact that, when
a vacancy occurred, a 'temporary king' (interrex) was
nominated as before. The one life-king was simply replaced by
two year-kings, who called themselves generals (prætores), or
judges (iudices), or merely colleagues (consules) [consules
are those who 'leap or dance together.' Foot-note]. The
collegiate principle, from which this last—and subsequently
most current—name of the annual kings was derived, assumed in
their case an altogether peculiar form. The supreme power was
not entrusted to the two magistrates conjointly, but each
consul possessed and exercised it for himself as fully and
wholly as it had been possessed and exercised by the king;
and, although a partition of functions doubtless took place
from the first—the one consul for instance undertaking the
command of the army, and the other the administration of
justice—that partition was by no means binding, and each of
the colleagues was legally at liberty to interfere at any time
in the province of the other.
See CONSUL, ROMAN.
… This peculiarly Latin, if not peculiarly Roman, institution
of co-ordinate supreme authorities … manifestly sprang out of
the endeavour to retain the regal power in legally
undiminished fulness. … A similar course was followed in
reference to the termination of their tenure of office. … They
ceased to be magistrates, not upon the expiry of the set term,
but only upon their publicly and solemnly demitting their
office: so that, in the event of their daring to disregard the
term and to continue their magistracy beyond the year, their
official acts were nevertheless valid, and in the earlier
times they scarcely even incurred any other than a moral
responsibility."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 1._
"No revolution can be undertaken and completed with success if
the mass of the people is not led on by some superior
intellect. At the dissolution of an existing legal authority
the only authority remaining is personal and de facto, which
in proportion to the danger of the position is more or less
military and dictatorial. The Romans especially acknowledged
the necessity, when circumstances required it, of submitting
to the unlimited power of a dictator. Such a chief they found,
at the time of the revolution, in Brutus. Collatinus also may,
during a certain time, have stood in a similar manner at the
head of the state, probably from less pure motives than
Brutus, in consequence of which he succumbed to the movement
which he in part may have evoked. After Brutus, Valerius
Publicola was the recognised supreme head and the arbiter of
events in Rome with dictatorial power, until his legislation
made an end of the interregnum, and with all legal forms
founded the true and genuine republic with two annual consuls.
The dictatorship is found in the Latin cities as a state of
transition between monarchy and the yearly prætorship; and we
may conjecture that also in Rome the similar change in the
constitution was effected in a similar way. In important
historical crises the Romans always availed themselves of the
absolute power of a dictator, as in Greece, with similar
objects, Aesymnetae were chosen. … How long the dictatorial
constitution lasted must remain undecided; for we must
renounce the idea of a chronology of that time. It appears to
me not impossible that the period between the expulsion of the
kings and the Valerian laws, which is our authorities is
represented as a year, may have embraced ten years, or much
more."-
_W. Ihne,
Researches into the History of the Roman Constitution,
page 61._
"The republic seems to have been first regularly established
by the Valerian laws, of which, unfortunately, we can discover
little more than half obliterated traces in the oldest
traditions of the Romans. According to the story, P. Valerius
was chosen as consul after the banishment of Tarquinius
Collatinus, and remained alone in office after the death of
his colleague, Brutus, without assembling the people for the
election of a second consul. This proceeding excited a
suspicion in the minds of the people, that he intended to take
sole possession of the state, and to re-establish royal power.
But these fears proved groundless. Valerius remained in office
with the sole design of introducing a number of laws intended
to establish the republic on a legal foundation, without the
danger of any interference on the part of a colleague. The
first of these Valerian laws threatened with the curse of the
gods anyone who, without the consent of the people, should
dare to assume the highest magistracy. … The second law of
Valerius … prescribe that in criminal trials, where the life
of a citizen was at stake, the sentence of the consul should
be subject to an appeal to the general assembly of the people.
This Valerian law of appeal was the Roman Habeas Corpus Act."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
See, also,
CONSUL, ROMAN;
COMITIA CURIATA;
COMITIA CENTURIATA;
CENSORS;
QUÆSTORS, ROMAN;
SENATE, ROMAN.
ROME: B. C. 494-492.
The first secession of the Plebs.
Origin of the Tribunes of the Plebs, and the Ædiles.
Original and acquired power of the Tribunes.
The two Roman peoples and their antagonism.
"The struggle [of plebeians against patricians in early Rome]
opens with the debt question. We must realize all along how
the internal history is affected by the wars without. The
debtors fall into their difficulties through serving in the
field during the summer; for of course the army is a citizen
army and the citizens are agriculturists. Two patrician
families take the side of the poor, the Horatii and the
Valerii.
{2664}
Manius Valerius Publicola, created dictator, promises the
distressed farmers that, if they will follow him in his
campaign against the Sabines, he will procure the relaxation
of their burdens. They go and return victorious. But Appius
Claudius (whose family had but recently migrated to Rome, a
proud and overbearing Sabine stock) opposed the redemption of
the dictator's promise. The victorious host, forming a seventh
of the arm-bearing population, instantly marched out of the
gate of the city, crossed the river Anio, and took up a
station on the Sacred Mount [Mons Sacer]. They did not mean to
go back again; they were weary of their haughty masters. … At
last a peace is made—a formal peace concluded by the fetiales:
they will come back if they may have magistrates of their own.
This is the origin of the tribunes of the plebs [B. C. 492]. …
The plebs who marched back that day from the Sacred Mount had
done a deed which was to have a wonderful issue in the history
of the world; they had dropped a seed into the soil which
would one day spring up into the imperial government of the
Cæsars. The 'tribunicia potestas,' with which they were
clothing their new magistrates, was to become a more important
element in the claims of the emperors than the purple robe of
the consuls."
_R. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
chapter 3._
"The tribunes of the people were so essentially different from
all the other magistrates that, strictly speaking, they could
hardly be called magistrates at all. They were originally
nothing but the official counsel of the plebs—but counsel who
possessed a veto on the execution of any command or any
sentence of the patrician authorities. The tribune of the
people had no military force at his disposal with which to
inforce his veto. … There is no more striking proof of the
high respect for law which was inherent in the Roman people,
than that it was possible for such a magistracy to exercise
functions specially directed against the governing class. … To
strengthen an official authority which was so much wanting in
physical strength, the Romans availed themselves of the
terrors of religion. … The tribunes were accordingly placed
under the special protection of the Deity. They were declared
to be consecrated and inviolable ('sacrosancti'), and whoever
attacked them, or hindered them in the exercise of their
functions, fell a victim to the avenging Deity, and might be
killed by anyone without fear of punishment."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 2, and book 6, chapter 8._
"The tribune had no political authority. Not being a
magistrate, he could not convoke the curies or the centuries
[see COMITIA CURIATA and COMITIA CENTURIATA]. He could make no
proposition in the senate; it was not supposed, in the
beginning, that he could appear there. He had nothing in
common with the real city—that is to say, with the patrician
city, where men did not recognize any authority of his. He was
not the tribune of the people; he was the tribune of the
plebs. There were then, as previously, two societies in
Rome—the city and the plebs; the one strongly organized,
having laws, magistrates, and a senate; the other a multitude,
which remained without rights and laws, but which found in its
inviolable tribunes protectors and judges. In succeeding years
we can see how the tribunes took courage, and what unexpected
powers they assumed. They had no authority to convoke the
people, but they convoked them. Nothing called them to the
senate; they sat at first at the door of the chamber; later
they sat within. They had no power to judge the patricians;
they judged them and condemned them. This was the result of
the inviolability attached to them as sacrosancti. Every other
power gave way before them. The patricians were disarmed the
day they had pronounced, with solemn rites, that whoever
touched a tribune should be impure. The law said, 'Nothing
shall be done against a tribune.' If, then, this tribune
convoked the plebs, the plebs assembled, and no one could
dissolve this assembly, which the presence of the tribune
placed beyond the power of the patricians and the laws. If the
tribune entered the senate, no one could compel him to retire.
If he seized a consul, no one could take the consul from his
hand. Nothing could resist the boldness of a tribune. Against
a tribune no one had any power, except another tribune. As
soon as the plebs thus had their chiefs, they did not wait
long before they had deliberative assemblies. These did not in
any manner resemble those of the patricians. The plebs, in
their comitia, were distributed into tribes; the domicile, not
religion or wealth, regulated the place of each one. The
assembly did not commence with a sacrifice; religion did not
appear there. They knew nothing of presages, and the voice of
an augur, or a pontiff, could not compel men to separate. It
was really the comitia of the plebs, and they had nothing of
the old rules, or of the religion of the patricians. True,
these assemblies did not at first occupy themselves with the
general interests of the city; they named no magistrates, and
passed no laws. They deliberated only on the interests of
their own order, named the plebeian chiefs, and carried
plebiscita. There was at Rome, for a long time, a double
series of decrees—senatusconsulta for the patricians,
plebiscita for the plebs. The plebs did not obey the
senatusconsulta, nor the patricians the plebiscita. There were
two peoples at Rome. These two peoples, always in presence of
each other, and living within the same walls, still had almost
nothing in common. A plebeian could not be consul of the city,
nor a patrician tribune of the plebs. The plebeian dill not
enter the assembly by curies, nor the patrician the assembly
of the tribes. They were two peoples that did not even
understand each other, not having—so to speak—common ideas. …
The patricians persisted in keeping the plebs without the body
politic, and the plebs established institutions of their own.
The duality of the Roman population became from day to day
more manifest. And yet there was something which formed a tie
between these two peoples: this was war. The patricians were
careful not to deprive themselves of soldiers. They had left
to the plebeians the title of citizens, if only to incorporate
them into the legions. They had taken care, too, that the
inviolability of the tribunes should not extend outside of
Rome, and for this purpose had decided that a tribune should
never go out of the city. In the army, therefore, the plebs
were under control; there was no longer a double power; in
presence of the enemy Rome became one."
_N. D. Fustel de Coulanges,
The Ancient City,
book 4, chapter 7._
{2665}
It is supposed that the tribunes were originally two in
number; but later there were five, and, finally, ten. The law
which created their office was "deposited in a temple, under
the charge of two plebeian magistrates specially appointed for
the purpose and called Aediles or 'housemasters.' These
aediles were attached to the tribunes as assistants, and their
jurisdiction chiefly concerned such minor cases as were
settled by fines."
_T. Mommsen,
History of the Roman Republic
(abridged by Bryant and Hendy),
chapter 7._
"Besides the tribunes, who stood over against the consuls, two
plebeian ædiles were appointed, who might balance the
patrician quæstors. Their name seems borrowed from the temple
(Ædes Cereris) which is now built on the cattle market between
the Palatine and the river to form a religious centre for the
plebeian interest, as the ancient temple of Saturn was already
a centre for the patrician interest. The goddess of bread is
to preside over the growth of the democracy. The duty of
ædiles is, in the first instance, to keep the public buildings
in repair; but they acquire a position not unlike that of
police-officers."
_R. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
chapter 3._
The office of the curule ædiles (two in number, who were
elected in "comitia tributa") was instituted in 366 B. C.
These were patricians at first; but in 304 B. C. the office
was thrown open in alternate years to the plebeians, and in 91
B. C. all restrictions were removed. The curule ædiles had
certain judicial functions, and formed with the plebeian
ædiles a board of police and market administration, having
oversight also of the religious games.
_R. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
Appendix A._
ALSO IN:
_Sir G. C. Lewis,
Credibility of Early Roman History,
chapter 12, part 1._
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lecture 16._
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
ROME: B. C. 493.
League with the Latins.
See ROME: B. C. 339-338.
ROME: B. C. 489-450.
Volscian Wars.
The wars of the Romans with the neighboring Volscians
stretched over a period of some forty years (B. C. 489-450)
and ended in the disappearance of the latter from history. The
legend of Coriolanus (Caius Marcius, on whom the added name
was bestowed because of his valiant capture of the Volscian
town of Corioli) is connected with these wars; but modern
critics have stripped it of all historic credit and left it
only a beautiful romance.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 4 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_A. J. Church,
Stories from Livy,
chapter 7. _
ROME: B. C. 472-471.-
The Publilian Law of Volero.
Exclusion of Patricians from the Comitia Tributa.
"Volero Publilius was chosen one of the Tribunes for … [B. C.
472]; and he straightway proposed a law, by which it was
provided that the Tribunes and Ædiles of the plebs should be
elected by the plebeians themselves at the Assembly of the
Tribes in the Forum, not at the Assembly of the Centuries in
the Field of Mars. This is usually called the Publilian Law of
Volero. For a whole year the patricians succeeded in putting
off the law. But the plebeians were determined to have it."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 8 (volume 1)._
"The immediate consequence of the tribuneship of the people
was the organisation of the assembly of tribes, the 'comitia
tributa,' whereby they lost their former character as
factional or party meetings and were raised to the·dignity and
functions of assemblies of the Roman people. … The
circumstances which, in 471 B. C., led to the passing of the
Publilian law, seem to indicate that even at that time the
attempt was made by the patricians to change the original
character of the tribuneship of the people, and to open it to
the patrician class. The patricians intruded themselves in the
assembly of the plebeians, surely not for the purpose of
making a disturbance as it is represented, but to enforce a
contested right, by which they claimed to take part in the
comitia of tribes. … This question was decided by the
Publilian law, which excluded the patricians from the comitia
tributa and specified the privileges of these comitia, now
admitted to be purely plebeian. … These were the right of
meeting together unmolested in separate purely plebeian
comitia, the right of freely and independently electing their
representatives, the right of discussing and settling their
own affairs, and in certain matters of passing resolutions
[plebiscita] which affected the whole community. These
resolutions were, of course, not binding on the state, they
had more the character of petitions than enactments, but still
they were the formal expression of the will of a great
majority of the Roman people, and as such they could not
easily be set aside or ignored by the patrician government."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 8, and book 6, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on History of Rome,
lecture 20._
ROME: B. C. 466-463.
The Plague.
In the war of the Romans with the Volscians, the former were
so hard pressed that "it became necessary to receive men and
cattle within the walls or Rome, just as at Athens in the
Peloponnesian war; and this crowding together of men and
beasts produced a plague [B. C. 466-403]. … It is probable
that the great pestilence which, thirty years later, broke out
in Greece and Carthage, began in Italy as early as that time.
The rate of mortality was fearful; it was a real pestilence,
and not a mere fever. … Both consuls fell victims to the
disease, two of the four augurs, the curio maximus, the fourth
part of the senators, and an immense number of citizens of all
classes."
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lecture 21._
ALSO IN:
_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapter 11._
ROME: B. C. 458.
Conquest of the Æqui.
"Alternating with the raids [of the Romans] against the Volsci
are the almost yearly campaigns with the Æqui, who would pour
down their valleys and occupy Mount Algidus, threatening
Tusculum and the Latin Way which led to Rome. It was on one of
these occasions, when the republic too was engaged with
Sabines to the north, and Volscians to the south, that the
Consul Minucius [B. C. 458] found himself hemmed in on the
mountainside by the Æqui. Very beautiful and very
characteristic is the legend which veils the issue of the
danger. L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, ruined by a fine imposed
upon his son, is tilling his little farm across the Tiber,
when the messengers of the Senate come to announce that he is
made dictator. With great simplicity he leaves his plough,
conquers the Æqui, and returns to his furrows again."
_R. F. Horton.
History of the Romans,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_A. J. Church,
Stories from Livy,
chapter 9._
{2666}
ROME: B. C. 456.
The Icilian Law.
The early process of legislation illustrated.
Persuasiveness of Plebeian Petitions.
"The process of legislation in early times has been preserved
to us in a single instance in which Dionysius has followed the
account derived by him from an ancient document. The case is
that of the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando (B. C. 456), an
interlude in the long struggle over the Terentilian law.
See ROME: B. C. 451-449.
This Lex Icilia was preserved, as Dionysius tells us, on a
brazen column in the temple of Diana on the Aventine. It seems
unlikely that the original tablet in such a situation should
have survived the burning of the city by the Gauls. Yet a
record so important to the plebs would doubtless be at once
restored, and the restoration would show at least the belief
prevalent at this very early period (B. C. 389) as to the
proper procedure in case of such a law. 'Icilius,' says
Dionysius (X. 31), 'approached the consuls then in office and
the senate, and requested them to pass the preliminary decree
for the law that he proposed, and to bring it before the
people.' By threatening to arrest the consuls he compelled
them to assemble the senate, and Icilius addressed the senate
on behalf of his bill. Finally the senate consented … (Dionys.
X. 32). Then, after auspices and sacrifices, 'the law was
passed by the comitia centuriata, which were convened by the
consuls.' … Now here we have an order of proceeding under
which the plebs have a practical initiative in legislation,
and in which, nevertheless, each of the powers of the state
acts in a perfectly natural and constitutional manner. … The
formal legislative power lies solely with the populus Romanus.
The vote of the corporation of the plebs is not then in early
times strictly a legislative process at all. It is merely a
strong and formal petition; an appeal to the sovereign
assembly to grant their request. But this sovereign assembly
can only be convened and the question put to it by a consul.
If the consuls are unfavourable to the bill, they can refuse
to put it to the vote at all. In any case, unless, like Sp.
Cassius, they were themselves revolutionists, they would not
think of doing so save on the recommendation of their
authorised advisers. … The senate is assembled and freely
dis·cusses the law. An adverse vote justifies the consuls in
their resistance. Then follow tedious manœuvres. The senate
treat with members of the college of tribunes to procure their
veto; they urge the necessity of a military expedition, or, as
a last resource, advise the appointment of a dictator. Such is
the general picture we get from Livy's story. If by these
means they can tide over the tribune's year of office, the
whole process has to be gone through again. The senate have
the chance of a lucky accident in getting one of the new
tribunes subservient to them; or sometimes (as in the case of
the proposal to remove to Veii) they may persuade the plebs
itself to throw out the tribunician rogatio when again
introduced (Livy, v. 30). On the other hand the tribunes may
bring to bear their reserved power of impeding all public
business; and the ultima ratio lies with the plebeians, who
have the power of secession in their hands. In practice,
however, the senate is nearly always wise enough to yield
before the plebs is driven to play this its last card. Their
yielding is expressed by their backing the petition of the
plebs and recommending the consuls to put the question of its
acceptance to the populus. With this recommendation on the
part of the senate the struggle is generally at an end. It is
still in the strict right of the consuls to refuse to put the
question to the comitia. Livy (iii. 19) gives us one instance
in the matter of the Terentilian law, when the senate is
disposed to yield, and the consul 'non in plebe coercendâ quam
senatu castigando vehementior fuit.' But a consul so insisting
on his right would incur enormous personal responsibility, and
expose himself, unsheltered by public opinion, to the
vengeance of the plebs when he went out of office. When the
consul too has yielded, and the question is actually put to
the vote of the sovereign (generally in its comitia
centuriata), the controversy has been long ago thoroughly
threshed out. Though it is only at this stage that legislation
in the strict sense of the word commences, yet no instance is
recorded of a refusal on the part of the sovereign people to
assent to the petition of the plebs backed by the
recommendation of the senate."
_J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
Plebeian Privilege at Rome
(English Historical Review, April, 1886)._
On the bearings of this proceeding on the subsequently adopted
Valerio-Horatian, Publilian, and Hortensian laws.
See ROME: B. C. 286.
ROME: B. C. 451-449.
The Terentilian Law.
The Decemvirs and the Twelve Tables.
Not long after the establishment of the tribuneship, "the
plebeians felt the necessity of putting an end to the
exclusive possession of the laws which the patricians enjoyed,
and to make them the common property of the whole nation. This
could only be done by writing them down and making them
public. A proposal was accordingly made in the assembly of the
tribes by the tribune C. Terentilius Arsa (462 B. C.) to
appoint a commission for the purpose of committing to writing
the whole of the laws. … It is not wonderful that the
patricians opposed with all their strength a measure which
would wrest a most powerful weapon out of their hands. … The
contest for the passing of the bill of Terentilius lasted,
according to tradition, not less than ten years, and all means
of open and secret opposition and of partial concession were
made use of to elude the claims of the popular party. … After
a ten years' struggle it [the motion for a commission] was
passed into law. It proposed that a commission of ten men,
being partly patricians and partly plebeians, should be
appointed, for the purpose of arranging the existing law into
a code. At the same time the consular constitution was to be
suspended, and the ten men to be intrusted with the government
and administration of the commonwealth during the time that
they acted as legislators. By the same law the plebeian
magistracy of the tribunes of the people ceased likewise, and
the ten men became a body of magistrates intrusted with
unlimited authority. … The patricians did not act entirely in
good faith. … They carried the election of ten patricians. …
Having, however, obtained this advantage over the credulity of
their opponents, the patricians made no attempt to use it
insolently as a party victory. The decemvirs proceeded with
wisdom and moderation. Their administration, as well as their
legislation, met with universal approval. They published on
ten tables the greater part of the Roman law, and after these
laws had met with the approbation of the people, they were
declared by a decision of the people to be binding. Thus the
first year of the decemvirate passed, and so far the
traditional story is simple and intelligible."
{2667}
The part of the tradition which follows is largely rejected by
modern critical historians. It relates that when decemvirs
were chosen for another year, to complete their work, Appius
Claudius brought about the election, with himself, of men whom
he could control, and then established a reign of terror which
surpassed the worst tyranny of the kings, refusing to abdicate
when the year expired. The tragic story of Virginia connects
itself with this terrible oppression, and with the legend of
its downfall. In the end, the Roman people delivered
themselves, and secured the permanent authority of the code of
laws, which had been enlarged from ten to twelve Tables.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 9 and 10._
"The Twelve Tables were considered as the foundation of all
law, and Cicero always mentions them with the utmost
reverence. But only fragments remain."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 11._
"The most celebrated system of jurisprudence known to the
world begins, as it ends, with a code. From the commencement
to the close of its history, the expositors of Roman Law
consistently employed language which implied that the body of
their system rested on the Twelve Decemviral [Tables, and
therefore on a basis of written law. Except in one
particular, no institutions anterior to the Twelve Tables
were recognised at Rome. The theoretical descent of Roman
jurisprudence from a code, the theoretical ascription of
English law to immemorial unwritten tradition, were the chief
reasons why the development of their system differed from the
development of ours. Neither theory corresponded exactly with
the facts, but each produced consequences of the utmost
importance. … The ancient Roman code belongs to a class of
which almost every civilised nation in the world can show a
sample, and which, so far as the Roman and Hellenic worlds
were concerned, were largely diffused over them at epochs not
widely distant from one another. They appeared under
exceedingly similar circumstances, and were produced, to our
knowledge, by very similar causes. … In Greece, in Italy, on
the Hellenised sea-board of Western Asia, these codes all
made their appearance at periods much the same everywhere,
not, I mean, at periods identical in point of time, but
similar in point of the relative progress of each community.
Everywhere, in the countries I have named, laws engraven on
tablets and published to the people take the place of usages
deposited with the recollection of a privileged oligarchy. …
The ancient codes were doubtless originally suggested by the
discovery and diffusion of the art of writing. It is true
that the aristocracies seem to have abused their monopoly of
legal knowledge; and at all events their exclusive possession
of the law was a formidable impediment to the success of
those popular movements which began to be universal in the
western world. But, though democratic sentiment may have
added to their popularity, the codes were certainly in the
main a direct result of the invention of writing. Inscribed
tablets were seen to be a better depositary of law, and a
better security for its accurate preservation, than the
memory of a number of persons however strengthened by
habitual exercise. … Among the chief advantages which the
Twelve Tables and similar codes conferred on the societies
which obtained them, was the protection which they afforded
against the frauds of the privileged oligarchy and also
against the spontaneous depravation and debasement of the
national institutions. The Roman Code was merely an
enunciation in words of the existing customs of the Roman
people. Relatively to the progress of the Romans in
civilization, it was a remarkably early code, and it was
published at a time when Roman society had barely emerged
from that intellectual condition in which civil obligation
and religious duty are inevitably confounded."
_H. S. Maine,
Ancient Law,
chapter 1._
ROME: B. C. 449.
The Valerio-Horatian Laws.
On the overthrow of the tyranny of the Decemvirs, at Rome, B.
C. 449, L. Valerius Potitus and M. Horatius Barbatus, being
elected consuls, brought about the passage of certain laws,
known as the Valerio-Horatian Laws. These renewed an old law
(the Valerian Law) which gave to every Roman citizen an appeal
from the supreme magistrate to the people, and they also made
the plebiscita, or resolutions of the assembly of the tribes,
authoritative laws, binding on the whole body politic.
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 10._
See a discussion of the importance of the last mentioned of
these laws, in its relations to the subsequent Publilian and
Hortensian laws.
See, ROME: B. C. 286.
ROME: B. C. 445-400.
The Canuleian Law.
Creation of the Consular Tribunes.
Progress of the Plebs toward Political Equality.
"The year 449 had not taken from the patricians all their
privileges. Rome has still two classes, but only one people,
and the chiefs of the plebs, sitting in the senate, are
meditating, after the struggle to obtain civil equality, to
commence another to gain political equality. … Two things
maintained the insulting distinction between the two orders:
the prohibition of marriage between patricians and plebeians,
and the tenure of all the magisterial officers by those who
formed since the origin of Rome the sovereign people of the
'patres.' In 445 B. C. the tribune Canuleius demanded the
abolition of the prohibition relative to marriages, and his
colleagues, a share in the consulate. This was a demand for
political equality." The Canuleian law legalizing marriages
between patricians and plebeians was conceded, but not until a
third "secession" of the plebeians had taken place. The
plebeian demand for a share in the consulate was pacified for
the time by a constitutional change which formed out of the
consulate three offices: "the quæstorship, the censorship and
the consular tribunate. The two former are exclusively
patrician. The military [or consular] tribunes, in reality
proconsuls confined, with one exception, to the command of the
legions, could now be chosen without distinction, from the two
orders. But the law, in not requiring that every year a fixed
number of them be plebeians, allowed them to be all
patricians; and they remained so for nearly fifty years. In
spite of such skilful precautions, the senate did not give up
the consulate. It held in reserve and pure from all taint the
patrician magistracy, hoping for better days. … The
constitution of 444 B. C. authorized the nomination of
plebeians to the consular tribunate; down to 400 B. C. none
obtained it; and during the seventy-eight years that this
office continued, the senate twenty-four times nominated
consuls, that is to say, it attempted, and succeeded, one year
in three, in re-establishing the ancient form of government.
{2668}
These perpetual oscillations encouraged the ambitious hopes of
a rich knight, Spurius Mælius (439 B. C.). He thought that the
Romans would willingly resign into his hands their unquiet
liberty, and during a famine he gave very liberally to the
poor. The senate became alarmed at this alms-giving which was
not at all in accordance with the manners of that time, and
raised to the dictatorship Cincinnatus, who, on taking office,
prayed the gods not to grant that his old age should prove a
cause of hurt or damage to the republic. Summoned before the
tribunal of the dictator, Mælius refused to appear, and sought
protection against the lictors amongst the crowd which filled
the Forum. But the master of the horse, Serv. Ahala, managed
to reach him, and ran him through with his sword. In spite of
the indignation of the people, Cincinnatus sanctioned the act
of his lieutenant, caused the house of the traitor to be
demolished, and the 'præfectus annonæ,' Minucius Augurinus,
sold, for an 'as' per 'modius,' the corn amassed by Mælius.
Such is the story of the partisan of the nobles [Livy]; but at
that epoch to have dreamt of reestablishing royalty would have
been a foolish dream in which Spurius could not have indulged.
Without doubt he had wished to obtain, by popular favour, the
military tribunate, and in order to intimidate the plebeian
candidates, the patricians overthrew him by imputing to him
the accusation which Livy complacently details by the mouth of
Cincinnatus, of having aimed at royalty. The crowd always can
be cajoled by words, and the senate had the art of
concentrating on this word 'royalty' all the phases of popular
hatred. The move succeeded; during the eleven years following
the people nine times allowed consuls to be nominated. There
was, however, in 433 B. C. a plebeian dictator, Mamercus
Æmilius, who reduced the tenure of censorship to 18 months.
These nine consulships gave such confidence to the nobles that
the senate itself had to suffer from the proud want of
discipline shown by the consuls of the year 428 B. C. Though
conquered by the Æquians, they refused to nominate a dictator.
To overcome their resistance the senate had recourse to the
tribunes of the people, who threatened to drag the consuls to
prison. To see the tribunitian authority protecting the
majesty of the senate was quite a new phenomenon. From this
day the reputation of the tribunate equalled its power, and
few years passed without the plebeians obtaining some new
advantage. Three years earlier the tribunes, jealous of seeing
the votes always given to the nobles, had proscribed the white
robes, which marked out from a distance, to all eyes, the
patrician candidate: This was the first law against undue
canvassing. In 430 a law put an end to arbitrary valuations of
penalties payable in kind. In 427 the tribunes, by opposing
the levies, obliged the senate to carry to the comitia
centuriata the question of the war against Veii. In 423 they
revived the agrarian law, and demanded that the tithe should
be more punctually paid in the future by the occupiers of
domain land, and applied to the pay of the troops. They
miscarried this time: but in 421 it seemed necessary to raise
the number of quæstors from two to four; the people consented
to it only on the condition that the quæstorship be accessible
to the plebeians. Three years later 3,000 acres of the lands
of Labicum were distributed to fifteen hundred plebeian
families. It was very little: so the people laid claim in 414
to the division of the lands of Bola, taken from the Æquians.
A military tribune, Postumius, being violently opposed to it,
was slain in an outbreak of the soldiery. This crime, unheard
of in the history of Roman armies, did harm to the popular
cause; there was no distribution of lands, and for five years
the senate was able to nominate the consuls. The patrician
reaction produced another against it which ended in the
thorough execution of the constitution of the year 444. An
Icilius in 412, a Mænius in 410 B. C. took up again the
agrarian law, and opposed the levy. The year following three
of the Icilian family were named as tribunes. It was a menace
to the other order. The patricians understood it, and in 410
three plebeians obtained the quæstorship. In 405 pay was
established for the troops, and the rich undertook to pay the
larger portion of it. Finally, in 400, four military tribunes
out of six were plebeians. The chiefs of the people thus
obtained the public offices and even places in the senate, and
the poor obtained an indemnity which supported their families
while they served with the colours. All ambitions, all
desires, are at present satisfied. Calm and union returned to
Rome; we can see it in the vigour of the attacks on external
foes."
_V. Duruy,
History of Rome,
volume 1, pages 231-239._
ROME: B. C. 406-396.
The Veientine wars.
Proposed removal to Veii.
"Veii lay about ten miles from Rome, between two small streams
which meet a little below the city and run down into the
Tiber, falling into it nearly opposite to Castel Giubileo, the
ancient Fidenæ. Insignificant in point of size, these little
streams, however, like those of the Campagna generally, are
edged by precipitous rocky cliffs, and thus are capable of
affording a natural defence to a town built on the table-land
above and between them. The space enclosed by the walls of
Veii was equal to the extent of Rome itself, so long as the
walls of Servius Tullius were the boundary of the city. … In
the magnificence of its public and private buildings Veii is
said to have been preferred by the Roman commons to Rome: and
we know enough of the great works of the Etruscans to render
this not impossible."
_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapter 12 (volume 1)._
"Rome and Veii, equals in strength and size, had engaged in
periodical conflicts from time immemorial. … But the time had
come for the final struggle with Veii. … How the siege lasted
for ten years [B. C. 406-396]; how, at the bidding of a
captured Tuscan seer, the Alban Lake was drained (and is not
the tunnel which drained it visible to-day?); how Camillus,
the dictator, by a tunnel underground took the city, and
fore·stalled the sacrifice; how Juno came from Veii, and took
up her abode upon the Aventine; how Camillus triumphed; and
how the nemesis fell upon him, and he was banished—all this
and more is told by Livy in his matchless way. It is an epic,
and a beautiful epic."
_R. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
chapter 4._
{2669}
At the time of the conquest of Veii, there was a proposal that
half the inhabitants of Rome should remove to the empty city,
and found a new state. It was defeated with difficulty. A
little later, when the Gauls had destroyed Rome, its citizens,
having found Veii a strong and comfortable place of refuge,
were nearly persuaded to remain there and not rebuild their
former home. Thus narrowly was the "Eternal City" saved to
history.
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapters 13 and 15._
ROME: B. C. 390-347.
Invasions by the Gauls.
Destruction of the city.
"Before the time we are now speaking of, there had been a
great movement in these Celtic nations [of Gael and Cymri].
Two great swarms went out from Gaul. Of these, one crossed the
Alps into Italy; the other, moving eastward, in the course of
time penetrated into Greece. … It is supposed that the Gael
who dwelt in the eastern parts of Gaul, being oppressed by
Cymric tribes of the west and north, went forth to seck new
homes in distant lands. … At all events, it is certain that
large bodies of Celts passed over the Alps before and after
this time, and having once tasted the wines and eaten the
fruits of Italy, were in no hurry to return from that fair
land into their own less hospitable regions. We read of one
swarm after another pressing into the land of promise; parties
of Lingones, whose fathers lived about Langres in Champagne;
Boians, whose name is traced in French Bourbon and Italian
Bologna; Senones, whose old country was about Sens, and who
have left record of themselves in the name of Senigaglia (Sena
Gallica) on the coast of the Adriatic. … They overran the rich
plains of Northern Italy, and so occupied the territory which
lies between the Alps, the Apennines and the Adriatic [except
Liguria] that the Romans called this territory Gallia
Cisalpina, or Hither Gaul. The northern Etruscans gave way
before these fierce barbarians, and their name is heard of no
more in those parts. Thence the Gauls crossed the Apennines
into southern Etruria, and while they were ravaging that
country they first came in contact with the sons of Rome. The
common date for this event is 300 B. C. … The tribe which took
this course were of the Senones, as an authors say, and
therefore we may suppose they were Gaelic; but it has been
thought they were mixed with Cymri, since the name of their
king or chief was Brennus, and Brenhin is Cymric for a king."
The Romans met the invaders on the banks of the Alia, a little
stream from the Sabine Hills which flows into the Tiber, and
were terribly defeated there. The Gauls entered Rome and
found, as the ancient story is, only a few venerable senators,
sitting in their chairs and robes of state, whom they slew,
because one of the senators resented the stroking of his beard
by an insolent barbarian. The remaining inhabitants had
withdrawn into the Capitol, or taken refuge at Veii and Cære.
After pillaging and burning the city, the Gauls laid siege to
the Capitol, and strove desperately for seven months to
overcome its defenders by arms or famine. In the end they
retreated, without success, but whether bribed, or driven, or
weakened by sickness, is matter of uncertainty. The Romans
cherished many legends connected with the siege of the
Capitol,—like that, for example, of the sentinel and the
sacred geese. "Thirty years after the first irruption (361 B.
C.), we hear that another host of Senonian Gauls burst into
Latium from the north, and, in alliance with the people of
Tibur, ravaged the lands of Rome, Latium and Campania. For
four years they continued their ravages, and then we hear of
them no more. A third irruption followed, ten years later [B.
C. 347], of still more formidable character. At that time, the
Gauls formed a stationary camp on the Alban Hills and kept
Rome in perpetual terror. … After some months they poured
southwards, and disappear from history."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 14 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 4._
_A. J. Church,
Stories from Livy,
chapters 13-14._
ROME: B. C. 376-367.
The Licinian Laws.
"C. Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius … being Tribunes of the
Plebs together in the year 376 B. C. promulgated the three
bills which have ever since borne the name of the Licinian
Rogations. These were:
I. That of all debts on which interest had been paid, the sum
of the interest paid should be deducted from the principal,
and the remainder paid off in three successive years.
II. That no citizen should hold more than 500 jugera (nearly
320 acres) of the Public Land, nor should feed on the public
pastures more than 100 head of larger cattle and 500 of
smaller, under penalty of a heavy fine.
III. That henceforth Consuls, not Consular Tribunes, should
always be elected, and that one of the two Consuls must be a
Plebeian."
The patricians made a desperate resistance to the adoption of
these proposed enactments for ten years, during most of which
long period the operations of government were nearly paralyzed
by the obstinate tribunes, who inflexibly employed their
formidable power of veto to compel submission to the popular
demand. In the end they prevailed, and the Licinian rogations
became Laws.
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1)._
"Licinius evidently designed reuniting the divided members of
the plebeian body. Not one of them, whether rich or poor, but
seems called back by these bills to stand with his own order
from that time on. If this supposition was true, then Licinius
was the greatest leader whom the plebeians ever had up to the
time of Cæsar. But from the first he was disappointed. The
plebeians who most wanted relief cared so little for having
the consulship opened to the richer men of their estate that
they would readily have dropped the bill concerning it, lest a
demand should endanger their own desires. In the same temper
the more eminent men of the order, themselves among the
creditors of the poor and the tenants of the domain, would
have quashed the proceedings of the tribunes respecting the
discharge of debt and the distribution of land, so that they
carried the third bill only, which would make them consuls
without disturbing their possessions. While the plebeians
continued severed from one another, the patricians drew
together in resistance to the bills. Licinius stood forth
demanding, at once, all that it had cost his predecessors
their utmost energy to demand, singly and at long intervals,
from the patricians. … The very comprehensiveness of his
measures proved the safeguard of Licinius. Had he preferred
but one of these demands, he would have been unhesitatingly
opposed by the great majority of the patricians. On the other
hand he would have had comparatively doubtful support from the
plebs." In the end, after a struggle of ten years duration,
Licinius and Sextius carried their three bills, together with
a fourth, brought forward later, which opened to the plebeians
the office of the duumvirs, who consulted the Sibyline books.
{2670}
"It takes all the subsequent history of Rome to measure the
consequences of the Revolution achieved by Licinius and
Sextius; but the immediate working of their laws could have
been nothing but a disappointment to their originators and
upholders. … For some ten years the law regarding the
consulship was observed, after which it was occasionally
violated, but can still be called a success. The laws of
relief, as may be supposed of all such sumptuary enactments,
were violated from the first. No general recovery of the
public land from those occupying more than five hundred jugera
ever took place. Consequently there was no general division of
land among the lack-land class. Conflicting claims and
jealousy on the part of the poor must have done much to
embarrass and prevent the execution of the law. No system of
land survey to distinguish between 'ager publicus' and 'ager
privatus' existed. Licinius Stolo himself was afterwards
convicted of violating his own law. The law respecting debts
met with much the same obstacles. The causes of embarrassment
and poverty being much the same and undisturbed, soon
reproduced the effects which no reduction of interest or
installment of principal could effectually remove. … These
laws, then, had little or no effect upon the domain question
or the re-distribution of land. They did not fulfil the
evident expectation of their author in uniting the plebeians
into one political body. This was impossible. What they did do
was to break up and practically abolish the patriciate.
Henceforth were the Roman people divided into rich and poor
on]y."
_A. Stephenson,
Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 9th series, numbers 7-8)._
ALSO IN:
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
_S. Eliot,
The Liberty of Rome,
book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._
ROME: B. C. 366.
Institution of the Prætorship.
"By the establishment of the prætorship (366 B. C.) the office
of chief judge was separated as a distinct magistracy from the
consulship. … The prætor was always looked upon as the
colleague of the consuls. He was elected in the same manner as
the consuls by centuriate comitia, and, moreover, under the
same auspices. He was furnished with the imperium, had lictors
and fasces. He represented the consuls in town by assembling
the senate, conducting its proceedings, executing its decrees.
… Up to the time of the first Punic war one prætor only was
annually elected. Then a second was added to conduct the
jurisdiction between citizens and foreigners. A distinction
was now made between the city prætor (prætor urbanus), who was
always looked upon as having a higher dignity, and the foreign
prætor (prætor peregrinus). On the final establishment of the
two provinces of Sicily and Sardinia, probably 227 B. C., two
new prætors were appointed to superintend the regular
government of those provinces, and still later on two more
were added for the two provinces of Spain. The number of
annual prætors now amounted to six, and so it remained until
the legislation of Sulla."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 5._
See, also, CONSUL, ROMAN.
ROME: B. C. 343-290.
The Samnite Wars.
When the Romans had made themselves dominant in middle Italy,
and the Samnites [see SAMNITES] in southern Italy, the
question which of the two peoples should be masters of the
peninsula at large was sure to demand settlement. About the
middle of the fourth century, B. C., it began to urge the two
rivals into collision, and the next two generations of Romans
were busied chiefly with Samnite Wars, of which they fought
three, with brief intervals to divide them, and at the end of
which the Samnite name had been practically erased from
history. The first hostilities grew out of a quarrel between
the Samnites of the mountains and their degenerate countrymen
of Capua and Campania. The latter sought help from the Romans,
and, according to the Romans, surrendered their city to them
in order to secure it; but this is obviously untrue. The First
Samnite War, which followed this (B. C. 343-341), had no
definite result, and seems to have been brought to an end
rather abruptly by a mutiny in the Roman army and by trouble
between Rome and her Latin allies. According to the Roman
annals there were three great battles fought in this war, one
on Mount Gaurus, and two elsewhere; but Mommsen and other
historians entirely distrust the historic details as handed
down. The Second or Great Samnite War occurred after an
interval of fifteen years, during which time the Romans had
conquered all Latium, reducing their Latin kinsmen from
confederates to subjects. That accomplished, the Romans were
quite ready to measure swords again with their more important
rivals in the south. The long, desperate and doubtful war
which ensued was of twenty-two years duration (B. C. 326-304).
In the first years of this war victory was with the Romans and
the Samnites sued for peace; but the terms offered were too
hard fur them and they fought on. Then Fortune smiled on them
and gave them an opportunity to inflict on their haughty enemy
one of the greatest humiliations that Rome in all her history
ever suffered. The entire Roman army, commanded by the two
consuls of the year, was caught in a mountain defile (B. C.
321), at a place called the Caudine Forks, and compelled to
surrender to the Samnite genera], C. Pontius. The consuls and
other officers of the Romans signed a treaty of peace with
Pontius, and all were then set free, after giving up their
armor and their cloaks and passing "under the yoke." But the
Roman senate refused to ratify the treaty, and gave up those
who had signed it to the Samnites. The latter refused to
receive the offered prisoners and vainly demanded a fulfilment
of the treaty. Their great victory had been thrown away, and,
although they won another important success at Lautulæ, the
final result of the war which they were forced to resume was
disastrous to them. After twenty-two years of obstinate
fighting they accepted terms (B. C. 304) which stripped them
of all their territory on the sea-coast, and required them to
acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. The peace so purchased
lasted less than six years. The Samnites were tempted (B. C.
298) while the Romans had a war with Etruscans and Gauls on
their hands, to attempt the avenging of their humiliations.
Their fate was decided at the battle of Sentinum (B. C. 295),
won by the old consul, Q. Fabius Maximus, against the allied
Samnites and Gauls, through the heroic self-sacrifice of his
colleague, P. Decius Mus [imitating his father, of the same
name.]
See ROME: B. C. 339-338.
{2671}
The Samnites struggled hopelessly on some five years longer
and submitted finally in 290 B. C. Their great leader,
Pontius, was put to death in the dungeons of the state prison
under the Capitoline.
_J. Michelet,
History of the Roman Republic,
book 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapters 19, and 21-24._
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 6._
ROME: B. C. 340.
The Publilian Laws.
"In the second year of the Latin war (340 B. C.) the Plebeian
Consul, Q. Publilius Philo, being named Dictator by his
Patrician colleague for some purpose now unknown, proposed and
carried three laws still further abridging the few remaining
privileges of the Patrician Lords. The first Publilian law
enacted that one of the Censors, as one of the Consuls, must
be a Plebeian. … The second gave fuller sanction to the
principle already established, that the Resolutions of the
Plebeian Assembly should have the force of law. The third
provided that all laws passed at the Comitia of the Centuries
or of the Tribes should receive beforehand the sanction of the
Curies."
_G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 20 (volume 1)._
See a discussion of these laws in their relation to the
preceding Valerio-Horatian law, and the subsequent Hortensian
laws.
ROME: B. C. 286.
ROME: B. C. 339-338.
Subjugation of the Latins.
Grant of pseudo-citizenship.
The real concession of the next century and its effects.
A league between the Romans and their kinsmen and neighbors,
the Latins, of Tibur, Præneste, Lanuvium, Aricia, Velitræ, and
other towns, as well as with the Hernicans, existed during a
century and a half, from the treaty of Sp. Cassius, B. C. 493,
according to the Roman annals. At first, the members of the
league stood together on fairly equal terms fighting
successful wars with the Volscians, the Æquians and the
Etruscans. But all the time the Romans contrived to be the
greater gainers by the alliance, and as their power grew their
arrogance increased, until the Latin allies were denied almost
all share in the conquests and the spoils which they helped to
win. The discontent which this caused fermented to an outbreak
after the first of the Samnite wars. The Latins demanded to be
admitted to Roman citizenship and to a share in the government
of the state. Their demand was haughtily and even insultingly
refused, and a fierce, deadly war between the kindred peoples
ensued (B. C. 339-338). The decisive battle of the war was
fought under Mount Vesuvius, and the Romans were said to have
owed their victory to the self-sacrifice of the plebeian
consul, P. Decius Mus, who, by a solemn ceremony, devoted
himself and the army of the enemy to the infernal gods, and
then threw himself into the thick of the fight, to be slain.
The Latin towns were all reduced to dependence upon Rome,—some
with a certain autonomy left to them, some with none. "Thus,
isolated, politically powerless, socially dependent on Rome,
the old towns of the Latins, once so proud and so free, became
gradually provincial towns of the Roman territory. … The old
Latium disappeared and a new Latium took its place, which, by
means of Latin colonies, carried the Roman institutions, in
the course of two centuries, over the whole peninsula."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 6 (volume 1)._
"The Latins, being conquered, surrendered,—that is to say,
they gave up to the Romans their cities, their worships, their
laws, and their lands. Their position was cruel. A consul said
in the senate that, if they did not wish Rome to be surrounded
by a vast desert, the fate of the Latins should be settled
with some regard to clemency. Livy does not clearly explain
what was done. If we are to trust him, the Latins obtained the
right of Roman citizenship without including in the political
privileges the right of suffrage, or in the civil the right of
marriage. We may also note, that these new citizens were not
counted in the census. It is clear that the senate deceived
the Latins in giving them the name of Roman citizens. This
title disguised a real subjection, since the men who bore it
had the obligations of citizens without the rights. So true is
this, that several Latin cities revolted, in order that this
pretended citizenship might be withdrawn. A century passed,
and, without Livy's notice of the fact, we might easily
discover that Rome had changed her policy. The condition of
the Latins having the rights of citizens, without suffrage and
without connubium, no longer existed. Rome had withdrawn from
them the title of citizens, or, rather, had done away with
this falsehood, and had decided to restore to the different
cities their municipal governments, their laws, and their
magistracies. But by a skilful device Rome opened a door
which, narrow as it was, permitted subjects to enter the Roman
city. It granted to every Latin who had been a magistrate in
his native city the right to become a Roman citizen at the
expiration of his term of office. This time the gift of this
right was complete and without reserve; suffrage,
magistracies, census, marriage, private law, all were
included. … By being a citizen of Rome, a man gained honor,
wealth, and security. The Latins, therefore, became eager to
obtain this title, and used all sorts of means to acquire it.
One day, when Rome wished to appear a little severe, she found
that 12,000 of them had obtained it through fraud. Ordinarily,
Rome shut her eyes, knowing that by this means her population
increased, and that the losses of war were thus repaired. But
the Latin cities suffered; their richest inhabitants became
Roman citizens, and Latium was impoverished. The taxes, from
which the richest were exempt as Roman citizens, became more
and more burdensome, and the contingent of soldiers that had
to be furnished to Rome was every year more difficult to fill
up."
_N. D. Fustel de Coulanges,
The Ancient City,
book 5, chapter 2._
ROME: B. C. 326-304?
Abolition of personal slavery for debt.
See DEBT, ROMAN LAW CONCERNING.
ROME: B. C. 312.
The censorship of Appius Claudius.
His admission of the freedmen to the Tribes.
The building of the Appian Way.
"Appius Claudius, … afterwards known as Appius the Blind, …
was elected Censor [B. C. 312], … and, as was usual, entered,
with his colleague, Plautius Decianus, upon the charge of
filling the vacancies which had occurred within the Senate
since the last nominations to that body by the preceding
Censors. The new elections were always made, it appears, from
certain lists of citizens who had either borne great offices
or possessed high rank; but Appius, determined from the
beginning to secure his authority, either for his own sake or
for that of his faction, through any support he could command,
now named several of the lowest men in Rome as Senators,
amongst whom he even admitted some sons of freedmen, who, as
such, were scarcely to be considered to be absolutely free,
much less to be worthy of any political advancement.
{2672}
The nomination, backed by a powerful party, out of rather than
in the Senate, and vainly, if not feebly, opposed by Plautius
Decianus, who resigned his office in disgust at his colleague,
was carried, but was set aside in the following year by the
Consuls, who could call such Senators as they pleased, and
those only, as it seems, to their sessions. Appius, still
keeping his place, was soon after assailed by some of the
Tribunes, now the representatives, as must be remembered, of
the moderate party, rather than of the Plebeian estate. At
this the Censor admitted all the freedmen in Rome to the
Tribes, amongst which he distributed them in such a manner as
promised him the most effectual support. Appius, however, was
not wholly absorbed in mere political intrigues. A large
portion of his energy and his ambition was spent upon the Way
[Appian Way] and the Aqueduct which have borne his name to our
day, and which, in his own time, were undertakings so vast as
to obtain for him the name of 'the Hundred-handed.' He was an
author, a jurist, a philosopher, and a poet, besides. … Cneius
Flavius, the son of a freedman, one, therefore, of the
partisans on whom the Censor and his faction were willing to
lavish pretended favor in return for unstinted support, was
employed by Appius near his person, in the capacity of private
secretary. Appius, who, as already mentioned, was a jurist and
an author, appears to have compiled a sort of manual
concerning the business-days of the Calendar and the forms of
instituting or conducting a suit before the courts; both these
subjects being kept in profound concealment from the mass of
the people, who were therefore obliged, in case of any legal
proceeding, to resort first to the Pontiff to learn on what
day, and next to the Patrician jurist to inquire in what form,
they could lawfully manage their affairs before the judicial
tribunals. This manual was very likely given to Flavius to
copy; but it could scarcely have been with the knowledge, much
less with the desire, of his employer, that it was published.
… But Flavius stood in a position which tempted him, whether
he were generous or designing, to divulge the secrets of the
manual he had obtained; and it may very well have been from a
desire to conciliate the real party of the Plebeians, which
ranked above him, as a freedman, that he published his
discoveries. He did not go unrewarded, but was raised to
various offices, amongst them to the tribuneship of the
Plebeians, and finally to the curule ædileship, in which his
disclosures are sometimes represented as having been made. …
The predominance of the popular party is plainly attested in
the same year by the censorship of Fabius Rullianus and Decius
Mus, the two great generals, who, succeeding to Appius
Claudius, removed the freedmen he had enrolled amongst all the
Tribes into four Tribes by themselves."
_S. Eliot,
The Liberty of Rome: Rome,
book 2, chapter 8 (volume 2)._
ROME: B. C. 300.
The Ogulnian Law.
In the year 300 B. C., "Quintus and Cneius Ogulnius appear in
the tribuneship, as zealous champions of the popular party
against the combination of the highest and the lowest classes.
Instead, however, of making any wild attack upon their
adversaries, the Tribunes seem to have exerted themselves in
the wiser view of detaching the populace from its Patrician
leaders, in order to unite the severed forces of the Plebeians
upon a common ground. … A bill to increase the number of the
Pontiffs by four, and that of the Augurs by five new
incumbents, who should then, and, as was probably added,
thenceforward, be chosen from the Plebeians, was proposed by
the Tribunes. … Though some strenuous opposition was made to
its passage, it became a law. The highest places of the
priesthood, as well as of the civil magistracies, were opened
to the Plebeians, whose name will no longer serve us as it has
done, so entirely have the old distinctions of their estate
from that of the Patricians been obliterated. The Ogulnii did
not follow up the success they had gained, and the alliance
between the lower Plebeians and the higher Patricians was
rather cemented than loosened by a law professedly devised to
the advantage of the upper classes of the Plebeians."
_S. Eliot,
Liberty of Rome: Rome,
book 2, chapter 9 (volume 2). _
ROME: B. C. 295-191.
Conquest of the Cisalpine Gauls.
Early in the 3d century B. C. the Gauls on the southern side
of the Alps, being reinforced from Transalpine Gaul, again
entered Roman territory, encouraged and assisted by the
Samnites, who were then just engaging in their third war with
Rome. A Roman legion which first encountered them in Etruria,
under Scipio Barbatus, was annihilated, B. C. 295. But the
vengeance of Rome overtook them before that year closed, at
Sentinum, where the consuls Fabius and Decius ended the war at
one blow. The Gauls were quiet after this for ten years; but
in 285 B. C. the Senonian tribes invaded Etruria again and
inflicted an alarming defeat on the Romans at Arretium. They
also put to death some Roman ambassadors who were sent to
negotiate an exchange of prisoners; after which the war of
Rome against them was pushed to extermination. The whole race
was destroyed or reduced to slavery and Roman colonies were
established on its lands. The Boian Gauls, between the
Apennines and the Po, now resented this intrusion on Gallic
territory, but were terribly defeated at the Vadimonian Lake
and sued for peace. This peace was maintained for nearly sixty
years, during which time the Romans were strengthening
themselves beyond the Apennines, with a strong colony at
Ariminum (modern Rimini) on the Adriatic Sea, with thick
settlements in the Senonian country, and with a great road—the
Via Flaminia—in process of construction from Rome northwards
across the Apennines, through Umbria and along the Adriatic
coast to Ariminum. The Boians saw that the yoke was being
prepared for them, and in 225 B. C. they made a great effort
to break it. In the first encounter with them the Romans were
beaten, as in previous wars, but at the great battle of
Telamon, fought soon afterwards, the Gallic hosts were almost
totally destroyed. The next year the Boians were completely
subjugated, and in 223 and 222 B. C. the Insubrians were
likewise conquered, their capital Mediolanum (Milan) occupied,
and all north Italy to the Alps brought under Roman rule,
except as the Ligurians in the mountains were still unsubdued
and the Cenomanians and the Veneti retained a nominal
independence as allies of Rome.
{2673}
But Hannibal's invasion of Italy, occurring soon after,
interrupted the settlement and pacification of the Gallic
country and made a reconquest necessary after the war with the
Carthaginians had been ended. The new Roman fortified colony
of Placentia was taken by the Gauls and most of the
inhabitants slain. The sister colony of Cremona was besieged,
but resisted until relieved. Among the battles fought, that of
Comum, B. C. 196, appears to have been the most important. The
war was prolonged until 191 B. C., after which there appears
to have been no more resistance to Roman rule among the
Cisalpine Gauls.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapters 12-13;
book 4. chapter 5;
book 5, chapter 7._
ROME: B. C. 286.
The last Secession of the Plebs.
The Hortensian Laws.
"About the year 286 B. C. the mass of the poorer citizens [of
Rome], consisting (as may be guessed) chiefly of those who had
lately been enfranchised by Appius, left the city and encamped
in an oak-wood upon the Janiculum. To appease this last
Secession, Q. Hortensius was named Dictator, and he succeeded
in bringing back the people by allowing them to enact several
laws upon the spot. One of these Hortensian laws was probably
an extension of the Agrarian law of Curius, granting not seven
but fourteen jugera (about 9 acres) to each of the poorer
citizens. Another provided for the reduction of debt. But that
which is best known as the Hortensian law was one enacting
that all Resolutions of the Tribes should be law for the whole
Roman people. This was nearly in the same terms as the law
passed by Valerius and Horatius at the close of the
Decemvirate, and that passed by Publilius Philo the Dictator,
after the conquest of Latium. Hortensius died in his
Dictatorship,—an unparalleled event, which was considered
ominous. Yet with his death ended the last Secession of the
People."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1)._
"It is impossible to suppose that the assembly of the plebs
advanced at a single step from the meeting of a private
corporation to be the delegated alter ego of the sovereign
populus Romanus. We may be sure that the right of the plebs to
legislate for the nation was accorded under checks and
qualifications, long before they were invested with this
absolute authority. We find, in fact, two occasions prior to
the Hortensian law, on which the legislative competency of the
plebs is said to have been recognised. The first of these is
the Valerio-Horatian Law of B. C. 449 [see ROME: B. C. 449],
the year after the decemvirate, the second the law of the
dictator Publilius Philo, B. C. 339 [see ROME: B. C. 340].
Unfortunately the historians describe these laws in words
which merely repeat the contents of the Hortensian law. … Some
modern writers have been disposed to get over the difficulty
by the conjecture that the laws of Publilius Philo and
Hortensius were only re-enactments of that of Valerius and
Horatius, and that the full powers of the plebs date back to
the year B. C. 449. Mommsen's arguments against this view
appear to me conclusive. Why should the jurists universally
refer the powers exercised by the plebs to a mere
re-enactment, rather than to the original source of their
authority? … Niebuhr believes that the law of Valerius and
Horatius gave the plebs legislative authority, subject to the
consent of a sort of upper house, the general assembly of the
patrician body; he identifies this assembly with the 'comitia
curiata.' … Mommsen's method of dealing with the question" is
to strike out the Valerio-Horatian law and that of Publilius
Philo from the series of enactments relating to the plebs. "He
believes that both these laws regulated the proceedings of the
'comitia populi tributa,' and are transferred by a mere
blunder of our authorities to the 'concilium plebis tributum.'
… But the supposition of a possible blunder is too small a
foundation on which to establish such an explanation. … I
believe that, for the purpose of showing how the legislative
power of the plebs may gradually have established itself, the
known powers of the sovereign 'populus,' of the magistrates of
the Roman people, and of the senate, will supply us with
sufficient material; and that the assumptions of the German
historians are therefore unnecessary. … I imagine … that the
law of Valerius and Horatius simply recognised de jure the
power which Icilius [see ROME: B. C. 456] had exercised de
facto: that is to say, it ordered the consul to bring any
petition of the plebs at once to the notice of the senate, and
empowered the tribune to plead his cause before the senate;
perhaps it went further and deprived the consul of his right
of arbitrarily refusing to accede to the recommendation of the
senate, if such were given, and directed that he should in
such case convene the comitia and submit the proposal to its
vote. If this restriction of the power of the consul removed
the first obstacle in the way of tribunician bills supported
by the vote of the plebs, another facility still remained to
be given. The consul might be deprived of the opportunity of
sheltering himself behind the moral responsibility of the
senate. Does it not suggest itself as a plausible conjecture
that the law of Publilius Philo struck out the intervening
senatorial deliberation and compelled the consul to bring the
petition of the plebs immediately before the 'comitia populi
Romani'? If such were the tenor of the Publilian law, it would
be only a very slight inaccuracy to describe it as conferring
legislative power on the plebs. … The Hortensian law which
formally transferred the sovereign power to the plebs would
thus be a change greater de jure than de facto. … This power,
if the theory put forward in these pages be correct, was
placed within the reach of the plebeians by the law of
Valerius and Horatius, and was fully secured to them by the
law of Publilius Philo."
_J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
The Growth of Plebeian Privilege at Rome
(English Historical Review, April, 1886)._
"With the passing of the Lex Hortensia the long struggle
between the orders came to an end. The ancient patrician
gentes remained, but the exclusive privileges of the
patriciate as a ruling order were gone. For the great offices
of state and for seats in the senate the plebeians were by law
equally eligible with patricians. The assemblies, whether of
people or plebs, were independent of patrician control. In
private life inter-marriages between patricians and plebeians
were recognised as lawful, and entailed no disabilities on the
children. Finally, great as continued to be the prestige
attaching to patrician birth, and prominent as was the part
played in the subsequent history by individual patricians and
by some of the patrician houses, the plebs were now in numbers
and even in wealth the preponderant section of the people.
{2674}
Whatever struggles might arise in the future, a second
struggle between patricians and plebeians was an
impossibility. Such being the case, it might have been
expected that the separate organisation, to which the victory
of the plebs was largely due, would, now that the reason for
its existence was gone, have disappeared. Had this happened,
the history of the republic might have been different. As it
was, this plebeian machinery—the plebeian tribunes,
assemblies, and resolutions—survived untouched, and lived to
play a decisive part in a new conflict, not between patricians
and plebeians, but between a governing class, itself mainly
plebeian, and the mass of the people, and finally to place at
the head of the state a patrician Cæsar. Nor was the promise
of a genuine democracy, offered by the opening of the
magistracies and the Hortensian law, fulfilled. For one
hundred and fifty years afterwards the drift of events was in
the opposite direction, and when the popular leaders of the
first century B. C. endeavoured to make government by the
people a reality, it was already too late."
_H. F. Pelham,
Outlines of Roman History,
book 2, chapter 1._
ROME: B. C. 282-275.
War with Tarentum and Pyrrhus.
The conquest of the Samnites by the Romans, which was
completed in 290 B. C., extended the power of the latter to
the very gates of the Greek cities on the Tarentine gulf, of
which Tarentum was the chief. At once there arose a party in
Tarentum which foresaw the hopelessness of resistance to Roman
aggression and favored a spontaneous submission to the
supremacy of the formidable city on the Tiber. The patriotic
party which opposed this humiliation looked abroad for aid,
and found an eager ally in the Molossian king of Epirus, the
adventurous and warlike Pyrrhus (see EPIRUS), who sprang from
the family of Olympias, mother of Alexander the Great. In the
autumn of 282 B. C., the inevitable war between Rome and
Tarentum broke out, and early in 280 B. C. Pyrrhus landed a
powerful army in Italy, comprising 20,000 heavy-armed
foot-soldiers, 3,000 horse, 2,000 archers and 20 elephants.
The Romans met him soon after at Heraclea, on the coast. It
was the first collision of the Roman legion and the Macedonian
phalanx, and the first encounter of the Latin soldier with the
huge war-beast of the Asiatics. Pyrrhus won a bloody victory,
but won it at such cost that it terrified him. He tried at
once to arrange a peace, but the proud Romans made no terms
with an invader. Next year he inflicted another great defeat
upon them near Asculum, in Apulia; but nothing seemed to come
of it, and the indomitable Romans were as little conquered as
ever. Then the restless Epirot king took his much shaken army
over to Sicily and joined the Greeks there in their war with
the Carthaginians. The latter were driven out of all parts of
the island except Lilybæum; but failing, after a long siege,
to reduce Lilybæum, Pyrrhus lost the whole fruits of his
success. The autumn of 276 B. C. found him back again in
Italy, where the Romans, during his absence of three years,
had recovered much ground. Next year, in the valley of
Beneventum, they had their revenge upon him for Heraclea and
Asculum, and he was glad to take the shattered remains of his
army back to Greece. His career of ambition and adventure was
ended three years afterwards, under the walls of Argos, by a
tile which a woman flung down upon his head.
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.
In due time all Magna Græcia succumbed to the dominion of
Rome, and the commerce and wealth of Tarentum passed over
under Roman auspices to the new port of Brundisium, on the
Adriatic side of the same promontory.
_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapters 36-37 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapters 14-17._
ROME: B. C. 275.
Union of Italy under the sovereignty of the republic.
Differing relations of the subject communities to the
sovereign state.
Roman citizenship as variously qualified.
"For the first time Italy was united into one state under the
sovereignty of the Roman community. What political privileges
the Roman community on this occasion withdrew from the various
other Italian communities and took into its own sole keeping,
or in other words, what conception of political power is to be
associated with this sovereignty of Rome, we are nowhere
expressly informed. … The only privileges that demonstrably
belonged to it were the right of making war, of concluding
treaties, and of coining money. No Italian community could
declare war against any foreign state, or even negotiate with
it, or coin money for circulation. On the other hand, every
war and every state-treaty resolved upon by the Roman people
were binding in law on all the other Italian communities, and
the silver money of Rome was legally current throughout all
Italy. It is probable that formerly the general rights of the
leading community extended no further. But to these rights
there was necessarily attached a prerogative of sovereignty
that practically went far beyond them. The relations, which
the Italians sustained to the leading community, exhibited in
detail great inequalities. In this point of view, in addition
to the full burgesses of Rome, there were three different
classes of subjects to be distinguished. The full franchise
itself, in the first place, was extended as far as was
possible, without wholly abandoning the idea of an urban
commonwealth in the case of the Roman commune. Not only was
the old burgess-domain extended by individual assignation far
into Etruria on the one hand and into Campania on the other,
but, after the example was first set in the case of Tusculum,
a great number of communities more or less remote were
gradually incorporated with the Roman state and merged in it
completely. … Accordingly the Roman burgess-body probably
extended northward as far as the neighbourhood of Caere,
eastward to the Apennines, and southward as far as, or beyond,
Formiae. In its case, however, we cannot use the term
'boundaries' in a strict sense. Isolated communities within
this region, such as Tibur, Praeneste, Signia, and Norba, had
not the Roman franchise; others beyond its bounds, such as
Sena, possessed it; and it is probable that families of Roman
farmers were already dispersed throughout all Italy, either
altogether isolated or associated in villages. Among the
subject communities the most privileged and most important
class was that of the Latin towns, which now embraced but few
of the original participants in the Alban festival (and these,
with the exception of Tibur and Praeneste, altogether
insignificant communities), but on the other hand obtained
accessions equally numerous and important in the autonomous
communities founded by Rome in and even beyond Italy —the
Latin colonies, as they were called—and was always increasing
in consequence of new settlements of the same nature.
{2675}
These new urban communities of Roman origin, but with Latin
rights, became more and more the real buttresses of the Roman
rule. These Latins, however, were by no means those with whom
the battles of the lake Regillus and Trifanum had been fought.
… The Latins of the later times of the republic, on the
contrary, consisted almost exclusively of communities, which
from the beginning had honoured Rome as their capital and
parent city; which, settled amidst peoples of alien language
and of alien habits, were attached to Rome by community of
language, of law, and of manners; which, as the petty tyrants
of the surrounding districts, were obliged doubtless to lean
on Rome for their very existence, like advanced posts leaning
upon the main army. … The main advantage enjoyed by them, as
compared with other subjects, consisted in their equalization
with burgesses of the Roman community so far as regarded
private rights—those of traffic and barter as well as those of
inheritance. The Roman franchise was in future conferred only
on such citizens of these townships as had filled a public
magistracy in them: in that case, however, it was, apparently
from the first, conferred without any limitation of rights. …
The two other classes of Roman subjects, the subject Roman
burgesses and the non-Latin allied communities, were in a far
inferior position. The communities having the Roman franchise
without the privilege of electing or being elected (civitas
sine suffragio), approached nearer in form to the full Roman
burgesses than the Latin communities that were legally
autonomous. Their members were, as Roman burgesses, liable to
all the burdens of citizenship, especially to the levy and
taxation, and were subject to the Roman census; whereas, as
their very designation indicates, they had no claim to its
honorary rights. They lived under Roman laws, and had justice
administered by Roman judges; but the hardship was lessened by
the fact that their former common law was, after undergoing
revision by Rome, restored to them as Roman local law, and a
'deputy' (praefectus) annually nominated by the Roman praetor
was sent to them to conduct its administration. In other
respects these communities retained their own administration,
and chose for that purpose their own chief magistrates. …
Lastly, the relations of the non-Latin allied communities were
subject, as a matter of course, to very various rules, just as
each particular treaty of alliance had defined them. Many of
these perpetual treaties of alliance, such as that with the
Hernican communities and those with Neapolis, Nola, and
Heraclea, granted rights comparatively comprehensive, while
others, such as the Tarentine and Samnite treaties, probably
approximated to despotism. … The central administration at
Rome solved the difficult problem of preserving its
supervision and control over the mass of the Italian
communities liable to furnish contingents, partly by means of
the four Italian quaestors, partly by the extension of the
Roman censorship over the whole of the dependent communities.
The quaestors of the fleet, along with their more immediate
duty, had to raise the revenues from the newly acquired
domains and to control the contingents of the new allies; they
were the first Roman functionaries to whom a residence and
district out of Rome were assigned by law, and they formed the
necessary intermediate authority between the Roman senate and
the Italian communities. … Lastly, with this military
administrative union of the whole peoples dwelling to the
south of the Apennines, as far as the Iapygian promontory and
the straits of Rhegium, was connected the rise of a new name
common to them all—that of 'the men of the toga' (togati),
which was their oldest designation in Roman state law, or that
of the 'Italians,' which was the appellation originally in use
among the Greeks and thence became universally current. … As
the Gallic territory down to a late period stood contrasted in
law with the Italian, so the 'men of the toga' were thus named
in contrast to the Celtic 'men of the hose' (braccati); and it
is probable that the repelling of the Celtic invasions played
an important diplomatic part as a reason or pretext for
centralizing the military resources of Italy in the hands of
the Romans. … The name Italia, which originally and even in
the Greek authors of the 5th century—in Aristotle for
instance—pertained only to the modern Calabria, was
transferred to the whole land of these wearers of the toga.
The earliest boundaries of this great armed confederacy led by
Rome, or of the new Italy, reached on the western coast as far
as the district of Leghorn south of the Arnus, on the east as
far as the Aesis north of Ancona. …The new Italy had thus
become a political unity; it was also in the course of
becoming a national unity."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1)._
ROME: B. C. 264-241.
The first Punic War.
Conquest of Sicily.
"The ten years preceding the First Punic War were probably a
time of the greatest physical prosperity which the mass of the
Roman people ever knew. Within twenty years two agrarian laws
had been passed on a most extensive scale, and the poorer
citizens had received besides what may be called a large
dividend in money out of the lands which the state had
conquered. In addition to this, the farming of the state
domains, or of their produce, furnished those who had money
with abundant opportunities of profitable adventure. … No
wonder, then, that war was at this time popular. … But our
'pleasant vices' are ever made instruments to scourge us; and
the First Punic War, into which the Roman people forced the
senate to enter, not only in its long course bore most heavily
upon the poorer citizens, but, from the feelings of enmity
which it excited in the breast of Hamilcar, led most surely to
that fearful visitation of Hannibal's sixteen years' invasion
of Italy, which destroyed for ever, not indeed the pride of
the Roman dominion, but the well-being of the Roman people."
_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
pages 538-540._
"The occasion of the First Punic War was dishonourable to
Rome. Certain mercenary soldiers had seized Messana in Sicily,
destroyed the citizens, and held possession against the
Syracusans, 284 B. C. They were beaten in the field, and
blockaded in Messana by Hiero, king of Syracuse, and then,
driven to extremity, sent a deputation to Rome, praying that
'the Romans, the sovereigns of Italy, would not suffer an
Italian people to be destroyed by Greeks and Carthaginians,'
264 B. C. It was singular that such a request should be made
to the Romans, who only six years before had chastised the
military revolt of their brethren Mamertines in Rhegium,
taking the city by storm, scourging and beheading the
defenders, and then restoring the old inhabitants (270 B. C.).
{2676}
The senate was opposed to the request of the Messana
deputation; but the consuls and the people of Rome, already
jealous of Carthaginian influence in Sicily and the
Mediterranean, resolved to protect the Mamertine buccaneers
and to receive them as their friends and allies. Thus
dishonestly and disgracefully did the Romans depart from their
purely Italian and continental policy, which had so well
succeeded, to enter upon another system, the results of which
no one then could foresee. Some excuse may be found in the
fact that the Carthaginians had been placed by their partisans
in Messana in possession of the citadel, and this great rival
power of Carthage was thus brought unpleasantly near to the
recent conquered territory of Rome. The fear of Carthaginian
influence overcame the natural reluctance to an alliance with
traitors false to their military oath, the murderers and
plunderers of a city which they were bound to protect. Thus
began 'the First Punic War, which lasted, without
intermission, 22 years, a longer space of time than the whole
period occupied by the wars of the French Revolution.' In this
war Duilius won the first naval battle near Mylæ (Melarro).
Regulus invaded Africa proper, the territory of Carthage, with
great success, until beaten and taken prisoner at Zama,
256-255 B. C. The war was carried on in Sicily and on the sea
until 241 B. C., when peace was made on conditions that the
Carthaginians should evacuate Sicily and make no war upon
Hiero, king of Sicily (the ally of the Romans), that they
should pay 3,200 Euboic talents (about £110,000) within ten
years, 241 B. C. The effects of an exhausting war were soon
overcome by ancient nations, so that both Rome and Carthage
rapidly recovered, 'because wars in those days were not
maintained at the expense of posterity.' Rome had to check the
Illyrian pirates and to complete the conquest of Cisalpine
Gaul and the Ligurians 238-221 B. C. Meanwhile the
Carthaginians, hampered by a three years' rebellion of its
mercenary troops, quietly permitted the Romans to take
possession of Corsica and Sardinia, and agreed to pay 1,200
talents as compensation to Roman merchants. On the other hand,
measures were in process to re-establish the Carthaginian
power; the patriotic party, the Barcine family, under
Hamilcar, commenced the carrying out of the extensions and
consolidations of the territories in Spain."
_W. B. Boyce,
Introduction to the Study of History,
period 4, section 4._
ALSO IN:
_Polybius,
Histories,
book 1._
_R. B. Smith,
Carthage,
chapters 4-7._
_A. J. Church,
The Story of Carthage,
part 4, chapters 1-3._
See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.
ROME: B. C. 218-211.
The Second Punic War; Hannibal in Italy.
Cannæ.
"Twenty-three years passed between the end of the first Punic
War and the beginning of the second. But in the meanwhile the
Romans got possession, rather unfairly, of the islands of
Sardinia and Corsica, which Carthage had kept by the peace. On
the other hand a Carthaginian dominion was growing up in Spain
under Hamilcar Barkas, one of the greatest men that Carthage
ever reared, his son-in-law Hasdrubal, and his son Hannibal,
the greatest man of all, and probably the greatest general
that the world ever saw. Another quarrel arose between
Carthage and Rome, when Hannibal took the Spanish town of
Saguntum, which the Romans claimed as an ally. War began in
218, and Hannibal carried it on by invading Italy by land.
This was one of the most famous enterprises in all history.
Never was Rome so near destruction as in the war with
Hannibal. He crossed the Alps and defeated the Romans in four
battles, the greatest of which was that of Cannae in B. C.
216."
_E. A. Freeman,
Outlines of History
(or General Sketch of European History),
chapter 3._
"The first battle was fought (218) on the river Ticinus, which
runs into the Padus from the north. The Romans were driven
back, and Hannibal passed the Padus. Meanwhile another Roman
army had come up, and its general, the consul, Tiberius
Sempronius Longus, wanted to fight at once. The little river
of the Trebbia lay between the two armies, and on a cold
morning the Roman general marched his soldiers through the
water against Hannibal. The Romans were entirely beaten, and
driven out of Gaul. All northern Italy had thus passed under
Hannibal's power, and its people were his friends; so next
year, 217, Hannibal went into Etruria, and marched south
towards Rome itself, plundering as he went. The Roman consul,
Caius Flaminius Nepos, went to meet him, and a battle was
fought on the shores of the Lake Trasimenus. It was a misty
day, and the Romans, who were marching after Hannibal, were
surrounded by him and taken by surprise: they were entirely
beaten, and the consul was killed in battle. Then the Romans
were in great distress, and elected a dictator, Quintus Fabius
Maximus. He saw that it was no use to fight battles with
Hannibal, so he followed him about, and watched him, and did
little things against him when he could; so he was called
'Cunctator,' or 'the Delayer.' But, although this plan of
waiting was very useful, the Romans did not like it, for
Hannibal was left to plunder as he thought fit, and there was
always danger that the other Italians would join him against
Rome. So next year, 216, the Romans made a great attempt to
get rid of him. They sent both the consuls with an army twice
as large as Hannibal's, but again they were defeated at Cannæ.
They lost 70,000 men, while Hannibal only lost 6,000; all
their best soldiers were killed, and it seemed as though they
had no hope left. But nations are not conquered only by the
loss of battles. Hannibal hoped, after the battle of Cannæ,
that the Italians would all come to his side, and leave Rome.
Some did so, but all the Latin cities, and all the Roman
colonies held by Rome. So long as this was the case, Rome was
not yet conquered. Hannibal could win battles very quickly,
but it would take him a long time to besiege all the cities
that still held to Rome, and for that he must have a larger
army. But he could not get more soldiers,—the Romans had sent
an army into Spain, and Hannibal's brother, Hasdrubal, was
busy fighting the Romans there, and could not send any troops
to Italy. The Carthaginians also would not send any, for they
were becoming afraid of Hannibal, and they did not know
anything about Italy. So they answered his letters, asking for
more men, by saying, that if he had won such great battles, he
ought not to want any more troops.
{2677}
At Cannæ, then, Hannibal had struck his greatest blow: he
could do no more. The Romans had learned to wait, and be
careful: so they fought no more great battles, but every year
they grew stronger and Hannibal grew weaker. The chief town
that had gone over to Hannibal's side was Capua, but in 211
the Romans took it again, and Hannibal was not strong enough
to prevent them. The chief men of Capua were so afraid of
falling into the hands of the Romans that they all poisoned
themselves. After this all the Italian cities that had joined
Hannibal began to leave him again."
_M. Creighton,
History of Rome,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_T. A. Dodge,
Hannibal,
chapters 11-39._
_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapters 43-47._
See, also, PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
ROME: B. C. 214-146.
The Macedonian Wars.
Conquest of Greece.
See GREECE: B. C. 214-146; also 280-146.
ROME: B. C. 211.
The Second Punic War: Hannibal at the gates.
In the eighth year of the Second Punic War (B. C. 211), when
fortune had begun to desert the arms of Hannibal—when Capua,
his ally and mainstay in Italy was under siege by the Romans
and he was powerless to relieve the doomed senators and
citizens—the Carthaginian commander made a sudden march upon
Rome. He moved his army to the gates of his great enemy, "not
with any hope of taking the city, but with the hope that the
Romans, panic-stricken at the realization of a fear they had
felt for five years past, would summon the consuls from the
walls of Capua. But the cool head of Fabius, who was in Rome,
guessed the meaning of that manœuvre, and would only permit
one of the consuls, Flaccus, to be recalled. Thus the leaguer
of the rebel city was not broken. Hannibal failed in his
purpose, but he left an indelible impression of his terrible
presence upon the Roman mind. Looming through a mist of
romantic fable, unconquerable, pitiless, he was actually seen
touching the walls of Rome, hurling with his own hand a spear
into the sacred Pomoerium. He had marched along the Via
Latina, driving crowds of fugitives before him, who sought
refuge in the city. … He had fixed his camp on the Anio,
within three miles of the Esquiline. To realize the state of
feeling in Rome during those days of panic would be to get at
the very heart of the Hannibalic war. The Senate left the
Curia and sat in the Forum, to reassure, by their calm
composure, the excited crowds. Fabius noticed from the
battlements that the ravagers spared his property. It was a
cunning attempt on the part of Hannibal to bring suspicion on
him; but he forthwith offered the property for sale; and such
was the effect of his quiet confidence that the market price
even of the land on which the camp of the enemy was drawn
never fell an 'as.' … Hannibal marched away into the Sabine
country, and made his way back to Tarentum, Rome unsacked,
Capua unrelieved."
_R. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapter 44._
_T. A. Dodge,
Hannibal,
chapter 34._
ROME: B. C. 211-202.
The Second Punic War:
Defeat of Hasdrubal at the Metaurus.
The war in Africa.
The end at Zama.
Acquisition of Spain.
"The conquest of Capua was the turning point in the war.
Hannibal lost his stronghold in Campania and was obliged to
retire to the southern part of Italy. Rome was gaining
everywhere. The Italians who had joined Hannibal began to lose
confidence. Salapia and many towns in Samnium were betrayed to
the Romans. But when Fulvius, the proconsul who commanded in
Apulia, appeared before Herdonea, which he hoped to gain
possession of by treachery, Hannibal marched from Bruttium,
attacked the Roman army, and gained a brilliant victory. In
the following year the Romans recovered several places in
Lucania and Bruttium, and Fabius Maximus crowned his long
military career with the recapture of Tarentum (B. C. 209).
The inhabitants were sold as slaves; the town was plundered
and the works of art were sent to Rome. The next year
Marcellus, for the fifth time elected to the consulship, was
surprised near Venusia and killed. … The war had lasted ten
years, yet its favorable conclusion seemed far off. There were
increasing symptoms of discontent among the allies, while the
news from Spain left little doubt that the long prepared
expedition of Hasdrubal over the Alps to join his brother in
Italy was at last to be realized. Rome strained every nerve to
meet the impending danger. The number of legions was increased
from twenty-one to twenty-three. The preparations were
incomplete, when the news came that Hasdrubal was crossing the
Alps by the same route which his brother had taken eleven
years before. The consuls for the new year were M. Livius
Salinator and G. Claudius Nero. Hannibal, at the beginning of
spring, after reorganizing his force in Bruttium, advanced
northward, encountered the consul Nero at Grumentum, whence,
after a bloody but indecisive battle, he continued his march
to Canusium. Here he waited for news from his brother. The
expected despatch was intercepted by Nero, who formed the bold
resolution of joining his colleague in the north, and with
their united armies crushing Hasdrubal while Hannibal was
waiting for the expected despatch. Hasdrubal had appointed a
rendezvous with his brother in Umbria, whence with their
united armies they were both to advance on Narnia and Rome.
Nero, selecting from his army 7,000 of the best soldiers and
1,000 cavalry, left his camp so quietly that Hannibal knew
nothing of his departure. Near Sena he found his colleague
Livius, and in the night entered his camp that his arrival
might not be known to the Carthaginians. Hasdrubal, when he
heard the trumpet sound twice from the Roman camp and saw the
increased numbers, was no longer ignorant that both consuls
were in front of him. Thinking that his brother had been
defeated, he resolved to retire across the Metaurus and wait
for accurate information. Missing his way, wandering up and
down the river to find a ford, pursued and attacked by the
Romans, he was compelled to accept battle. Although in an
unfavorable position, a deep river in his rear, his troops
exhausted by marching all night, still the victory long hung
in suspense. Hasdrubal displayed all the qualities of a great
general, and when he saw that all was lost, he plunged into
the thickest of the battle and was slain. The consul returned
to Apulia with the same rapidity with which he had come. He
announced to Hannibal the defeat and death of his brother by
casting Hasdrubal's head within the outposts and by sending
two Carthaginian captives to give him an account of the
disastrous battle.
{2678}
'I foresee the doom of Carthage,' said Hannibal sadly, when he
recognized the bloody head of his brother. This battle decided
the war in Italy. Hannibal withdrew his garrisons from the
towns in southern Italy, retired to the peninsula of Bruttium,
where for four long years, in that wild and mountainous
country, with unabated courage and astounding tenacity, the
dying lion clung to the land that had been so long the theatre
of his glory. … The time had come to carry into execution that
expedition to Africa which Sempronius had attempted in the
beginning of the war. Publius Scipio, on his return from
Spain, offered himself for the consulship and was unanimously
elected. His design was to carry the war into Africa and in
this way compel Carthage to recall Hannibal. … The senate
finally consented that he should cross from his province of
Sicily to Africa, but they voted no adequate means for such an
expedition. Scipio called for volunteers. The whole of the
year B. C. 205 passed away before he completed his
preparations. Meanwhile the Carthaginians made one last effort
to help Hannibal. Mago, Hannibal's youngest brother, was sent
to Liguria with 14,000 men to rouse the Ligurians and Gauls to
renew the war on Rome; but having met a Roman army under
Quintilius Varus, and being wounded in the engagement which
followed, his movements were so crippled that nothing of
importance was accomplished. In the spring of B. C. 204 Scipio
had completed his preparations. He embarked his army from
Lilybæum, and after three days landed at the Fair Promontory
near Utica. After laying siege to Utica all summer, he was
compelled to fall back and entrench himself on the promontory.
Masinissa had joined him immediately on his arrival. By his
advice Scipio planned a night attack on Hasdrubal, the son of
Gisgo, and Syphax, who were encamped near Utica. This
enterprise was completely successful. A short time afterwards
Hasdrubal and Syphax were again defeated. Syphax fled to
Numidia, where he was followed by Lælius and Masinissa and
compelled to surrender. These successes convinced the
Carthaginians that with the existing forces the Roman invasion
could not long be resisted. Therefore they opened negotiations
for peace with Scipio, in order probably to gain time to
recall their generals from Italy. The desire of Scipio to
bring the war to a conclusion induced him to agree upon
preliminaries of peace, subject to the approval of the Roman
senate and people. … Meanwhile the arrival of Hannibal at
Hadrumetum had so encouraged the Carthaginians that the
armistice had been broken before the return of the ambassadors
from Rome. All hopes of peace by negotiation vanished, and
Scipio prepared to renew the war, which, since the arrival of
Hannibal, had assumed a more serious character. The details of
the operations which ended in the battle of Zama are but
imperfectly known. The decisive battle was fought on the river
Bagradas, near Zama, on the 19th of October, B. C. 202.
Hannibal managed the battle with his usual skill. His veterans
fought like the men who had so often conquered in Italy, but
his army was annihilated. The elephants were rendered
unavailing by Scipio's skillful management. Instead of the
three lines of battle, with the usual intervals, Scipio
arranged his companies behind each other like the rounds of a
ladder. Through these openings the elephants could pass
without breaking the line. This battle terminated the long
struggle. … Hannibal himself advised peace."
_R. F. Leighton,
History of Rome,
chapters 23-24._
"Scipio prepared as though he would besiege the city, but his
heart also inclined to peace. … The terms which he offered
were severe enough, and had the Carthaginians only realised
what they involved, they would surely have asked to be allowed
to meet their fate at once. They were to retain indeed their
own laws and their home domain in Africa; but they were to
give up all the deserters and prisoners of war, all their
elephants, and all their ships of the line but ten. They were
not to wage war, either in Africa or outside of it, without
the sanction of the Roman Senate. They were to recognise
Massinissa as the king of Numidia, and, with it, the
prescriptive right which he would enjoy of plundering and
annoying them at his pleasure, while they looked on with their
hands tied, not daring to make reprisals. Finally, they were
to give up all claim to the rich islands of the Mediterranean
and to the Spanish kingdom, the creation of the Barcides, of
which the fortune of war had already robbed them; and thus
shorn of the sources of their wealth, they were to pay within
a given term of seven years a crushing war contribution!
Henceforward, in fact, they would exist on sufferance only,
and that the sufferance of the Romans. … The conclusion of the
peace was celebrated at Carthage by a cruel sight, the most
cruel which the citizens could have beheld, except the
destruction of the city itself—the destruction of their fleet.
Five hundred vessels, the pride and glory of the Phœnician
race, the symbol and the seal of the commerce, the
colonisation, and the conquests of this most imperial of
Phœnician cities, were towed out of the harbour and were
deliberately burned in the sight of the citizens."
_R. B. Smith,
Rome and Carthage: the Punic Wars,
chapter 17._
ALSO IN:
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
chapters 31-34._
See, also.
PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.
ROME: B. C. 2d Century.
Greek influences.
See HELLENIC GENIUS AND INFLUENCE.
ROME: B. C. 191.
War with Antiochus the Great of Syria.
First conquests in Asia Minor bestowed on the
king of Pergamum and the Republic of Rhodes.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. U. 224-187.
ROME: B. C. 189-139.
Wars with the Lusitanians.
See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY; and LUSITANIA.
ROME: B. C. 184-149.
The Spoils of Conquest and the Corruption they wrought.
"The victories of the last half-century seemed to promise ease
and wealth to Rome. She was to live on the spoils and revenue
from the conquered countries. Not only did they pay a fixed
tax to her exchequer, but the rich lands of Capua, the royal
domain lands of the kings of Syracuse and of Macedonia, became
public property, and produced a large annual rent. It was
found possible in 167 to relieve citizens from the property
tax or tributum, which was not collected again until the year
after the death of Julius Caesar. But the sudden influx of
wealth had the usual effect of raising the standard of
expense; and new tastes and desires required increased means
for their gratification. All manner of luxuries were finding
their way into the city from the East.
{2679}
Splendid furniture, costly ornaments, wanton dances and music
for their banquets, became the fashion among the Roman nobles;
and the younger men went to lengths of debauchery and
extravagance hitherto unknown. The result to many was
financial embarrassment, from which relief was sought in
malversation and extortion. The old standard of honour in
regard to public money was distinctly lowered, and cases of
misconduct and oppression were becoming more common and less
reprobated. … The fashionable taste for Greek works of art, in
the adornment of private houses, was another incentive to
plunder, and in 149 it was for the first time found necessary
to establish a permanent court or 'quaestio' for cases of
malversation in the provinces. Attempts were indeed made to
restrain the extravagance which was at the root of the evil.
In 184 Cato, as censor, had imposed a tax on the sale of
slaves under twenty above a certain price, and on personal
ornaments above a certain value; and though the 'lex Oppia,'
limiting the amount of women's jewelry, had been repealed in
spite of him in 195, other sumptuary laws were passed. A 'lex
Orchia' in 182 limited the number of guests, a 'lex Fannia' in
161 the amount to be spent on banquets; while a 'lex Didia' in
143 extended the operation of the law to all Italy. And though
such laws, even if enforced, could not really remedy the evil,
they perhaps had a certain effect in producing a sentiment;
for long afterwards we find overcrowded dinners regarded as
indecorous and vulgar. Another cause, believed by some to be
unfavourably affecting Roman character, was the growing
influence of Greek culture and Greek teachers. For many years
the education of the young, once regarded as the special
business of the parents, had been passing into the hands of
Greek slaves or freedmen. … On the superiority of Greek
culture there was a division of opinion. The Scipios and their
party patronised Greek philosophy and literature. … This
tendency, which went far beyond a mere question of literary
taste, was opposed by a party of which M. Porcius Cato was the
most striking member. … In Cato's view the reform needed was a
return to the old ways, before Rome was infected by Greece."
_E. S. Shuckburgh,
History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,
chapter 32._
ROME: B. C. 159-133.
Decline of the Republic.
Social and economic causes.
The growing system of Slavery and its effects.
Monopoly of land by capitalists.
Extinction of small cultivators.
Rapid decrease of citizens.
"In the Rome of this epoch the two evils of a degenerate
oligarchy and a democracy not yet developed but already
cankered in the bud were interwoven in a manner pregnant with
fatal results. According to their party names, which were
first heard during this period, the ' Optimates' wished to
give effect to the will of the best, the 'Populares' to that
of the community; but in fact there was in the Rome of that
day neither a true aristocracy nor a truly self-determining
community. Both parties contended alike for shadows. … Both
were equally affected by political corruption, and both were
in fact equally worthless. … The commonwealth was politically
and morally more and more unhinged, and was verging towards
its total dissolution. The crisis with which the Roman
revolution was opened arose not out of this paltry political
conflict, but out of the economic and social relations which
the Roman government allowed, like everything else, simply to
take their course"; and which had brought about "the
depreciation of the Italian farms; the supplanting of the
petty husbandry, first in a part of the provinces and then in
Italy, by the farming of large estates; the prevailing
tendency to devote the latter in Italy to the rearing of
cattle and the culture of the olive and vine; finally, the
replacing of the free labourers in the provinces as in Italy
by slaves. … Before we attempt to describe the course of this
second great conflict between labour and capital, it is
necessary to give here some indication of the nature and
extent of the system of slavery. We have not now to do with
the old, in some measure innocent, rural slavery, under which
the farmer either tilled the field along with his slave, or,
if he possessed more land than he could manage, placed the
slave … over a detached farm. … What we now refer to is the
system of slavery on a great scale, which in the Roman state,
as formerly in the Carthaginian, grew out of the ascendancy of
capital. While the captives taken in war and the hereditary
transmission of slavery sufficed to keep up the stock of
slaves during the earlier period, this system of slavery was,
just like that of America, based on the methodically
prosecuted hunting of man. … No country where this species of
game could be hunted remained exempt from visitation; even in
Italy it was a thing by no means unheard of, that the poor
free man was placed by his employer among the slaves. But the
Negroland of that period was western Asia, where the Cretan
and Cilician corsairs, the real professional slave-hunters and
slave-dealers, robbed the coasts of Syria and the Greek
islands; and where, emulating their feats, the Roman
revenue-farmers instituted human hunts in the client states
and incorporated those whom they captured among their slaves.
… At the great slave market in Delos, where the slave-dealers
of Asia Minor disposed of their wares to Italian speculators,
on one day as many as 10,000 slaves are said to have been
disembarked in the morning and to have heen all sold before
evening. … In whatever direction speculation applied itself,
its instrument was invariably man reduced in the eye of the
law to a brute. Trades were in great part carried on by
slaves, so that the proceeds belonged to the master. The
levying of the public revenues in the lower departments was
regularly conducted by the slaves of the associations that
leased them. Servile hands performed the operations of mining,
making pitch, and others of a similar kind; it became early
the custom to send herds of slaves to the Spanish mines. … The
tending of cattle was universally performed by slaves. … But
far worse in every respect was the plantation system
proper—the cultivation of the fields by a band of slaves not
unfrequent]y branded with iron, who with shackles on their
legs performed the labours of the field under overseers during
the day, and were locked up together by night in the common,
frequently subterranean, labourers' prison. This plantation
system had migrated from the East to Carthage, … and seems to
have been brought by the Carthaginians to Sicily. …
{2680}
The abyss of misery and woe which opens before our eyes in
this most miserable of all proletariates, we leave to be
fathomed by those who venture to gaze into such depths; It is
very possible that, compared with the sufferings of the Roman
slaves, the sum of all Negro suffering is but a drop. Here we
are not so much concerned with the distress of the slaves
themselves as with the perils which it brought upon the Roman
state. …
See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.
The capitalists continued to buy out the small landholders, or
indeed, if they remained obstinate, to seize their fields
without title of purchase. … The landlords continued mainly to
employ slaves instead of free labourers, because the former
could not like the latter be called away to military service;
and thus reduced the free proletariate to the same level of
misery with the slaves. They continued to supersede Italian
grain in the market of the capital, and to lessen its value
over the whole peninsula, by selling Sicilian slave-corn at a
mere nominal price. … After 595 [B. C. 159], … when the census
yielded 328,000 citizens capable of bearing arms, there
appears a regular falling off, for the list in 600 [B. C. 154]
stood at 324,000, that in 607 [B. C. 147] at 322,000, that in
623 [B. C. 131] at 319,000 burgesses fit for service—an
alarming result for a period of profound peace at home and
abroad. If matters were to go on at this rate, the
burgess-body would resolve itself into planters and slaves;
and the Roman state might at length, as was the case with the
Parthians, purchase its soldiers in the slave-market. Such was
the external and internal condition of Rome, when the state
entered on the 7th century of its existence. Wherever the eye
turned, it encountered abuses and decay; the question could
not but force itself on every sagacious and well disposed man,
whether this state of things were not capable of remedy or
amendment."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_T. Arnold,
History of the Roman Commonwealth,
chapter 2._
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapters 10-12._
_W. R. Brownlow,
Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
lectures 1-2._
ROME: B. C. 151-146.
The Third Punic War: Destruction of Carthage.
"Carthage, bound hand and foot by the treaty of 201 B. C., was
placed under the jealous watch of the loyal prince of Numidia,
who himself willingly acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome. But
it was impossible for this arrangement to be permanent. Every
symptom of reviving prosperity at Carthage was regarded at
Rome with feverish anxiety, and neither the expulsion of
Hannibal in 195 B. C. nor his death in 183 B. C. did much to
check the growing conviction that Rome would never be secure
while her rival existed. It was therefore with grim
satisfaction that many in the Roman senate watched the
increasing irritation of the Carthaginians under the harassing
raids and encroachments of their favoured neighbour,
Masinissa, and waited for the moment when Carthage should, by
some breach of the conditions imposed upon her, supply Rome
with a pretext for interference. At last in 151 B. C. came the
news that Carthage, in defiance of treaty obligations, was
actually at war with Masinissa. The anti-Carthaginian party in
the senate, headed by M. Porcius Cato, eagerly seized the
opportunity; in spite of the protests of Scipio Nasica and
others, war was declared, and nothing short of the destruction
of their city itself was demanded from the despairing
Carthaginians. This demand, as the senate, no doubt, foresaw,
was refused, and in 149 B. C. the siege of Carthage began.
During the next two years little progress was made, but in 147
P. Cornelius Scipio Æmilianus, son of L. Æmilius Paulus,
conqueror of Macedonia, and grandson by adoption of the
conqueror of Hannibal, was, at the age of 37, and though only
a candidate for the ædileship, elected consul and given the
command in Africa. In the next year (146 B. C.) Carthage was
taken and razed to the ground. Its territory became the Roman
province of Africa, while Numidia, now ruled by the three sons
of Masinissa, remained as an allied state under Roman
suzerainty, and served to protect the new province against the
raids of the desert tribes. Within little more than a century
from the commencement of the first Punic war, the whole of the
former dominions of Carthage had been brought under the direct
rule of Roman magistrates, and were regularly organised as
Roman provinces."
_H. F. Pelham,
Outlines of Roman History,
book 3, chapter 1._
See, also, CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.
ROME: B. C. 146.
Supremacy of the Senate.
"At the close of a century first of deadly struggle and then
of rapid and dazzling success, Rome found herself the supreme
power in the civilised world. … We have now to consider how
this period of conflict and conquest had affected the
victorious state. Outwardly the constitution underwent but
little change. It continued to be in form a moderate
democracy. The sovereignty of the people finally established
by the Hortensian law remained untouched in theory. It was by
the people in assembly that the magistrates of the year were
elected, and that laws were passed; only by 'order of the
people' could capital punishment be inflicted upon a Roman
citizen. For election to a magistracy, or for a seat in the
senate, patrician and plebeian were equally eligible. But
between the theory and the practice of the constitution there
was a wide difference. Throughout this period the actually
sovereign authority in Rome was that of the senate, and behind
the senate stood an order of nobles (nobiles), who claimed and
enjoyed privileges as wide as those which immemorial custom
had formerly conceded to the patriciate. The ascendency of the
senate, which thus arrested the march of democracy in Rome,
was not, to any appreciable extent, the result of legislation.
It was the direct outcome of the practical necessities of the
time, and when these no longer existed, it was at once and
successfully challenged in the name and on the behalf of the
constitutional rights of the people. Nevertheless, from the
commencement of the Punic wars down to the moment when with
the destruction of Carthage in 146 B. C. Rome's only rival
disappeared, this ascendency was complete and almost
unquestioned. It was within the walls of the senate-house, and
by decrees of the senate, that the foreign and the domestic
policy of the state were alike determined. … Though the
ascendency of the senate was mainly due to the fact that
without it the government of the state could scarcely have
been carried on, it was strengthened and confirmed by the
close and intimate connection which existed between the senate
and the nobility. This 'nobility' was in its nature and origin
widely different from the old patriciate.
{2681}
Though every patrician was of course 'noble,' the majority of
the families which in this period styled themselves noble were
not patrician but plebeian, and the typical nobles of the time
of the elder Cato, of the Gracchi, or of Cicero, the Metelli,
Livii, or Licinii were plebeians. The title nobilis was
apparently conceded by custom to those plebeian families one
or more of whose members had, after the opening of the
magistracies, been elected to a curule office, and which in
consequence were entitled to place in their halls, and to
display at their funeral processions the 'imagines' of these
distinguished ancestors. The man who, by his election to a
curule office thus ennobled his descendants, was said to be
the 'founder of his family,' though himself only a new man. …
Office brought wealth and prestige, and both wealth and
prestige were freely employed to exclude 'new men' and to
secure for the 'noble families' a monopoly of office. The
ennobled plebeians not only united with the patricians to form
a distinct order, but outdid them in pride and arrogance. …
The establishment of senatorial ascendency was not the only
result of this period of growth and expansion. During the same
time the foundations were laid of the provincial system, and
with this of the new and dangerous powers of the proconsuls."
_H. F. Pelham,
Outlines of Roman History,
book 3, chapter 3._
"The great struggle against Hannibal left the Senate the all
but undisputed government of Rome. Originally a mere
consulting board, assessors of the king or consul, the Senate
had become the supreme executive body. That the government
solely by the comitia and the magistrates should by experience
be found wanting was as inevitable at Rome as at Athens. Rome
was more fortunate than Athens in that she could develop a new
organism to meet the need. The growth of the power of the
Senate was all the more natural and legitimate the less it
possessed strict legal standing-ground. But the fatal dualism
thus introduced into the constitution—the Assembly governing
de jure, and the Senate governing de facto—made all government
after a time impossible. The position of the Senate being,
strictly speaking, an unconstitutional one, it was open to any
demagogue to bring matters of foreign policy or administration
before an Assembly which was without continuity, without
special knowledge, and in which there was no debate. Now, if
the Senate governed badly, the Assembly 'could not govern at
all;' and there could be, in the long run, but one end to the
constant struggle between the two sources of authority."
_W. T. Arnold,
The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
chapter 2. _
See, also, SENATE, ROMAN.
ROME: B. C. 133-121.
The attempted reforms of the Gracchi.
"The first systematic attack upon the senatorial government is
connected with the names of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, and
its immediate occasion was an attempt to deal with no less a
danger than the threatened disappearance of the class to which
of all others Rome had owed most in the past. For, while Rome
had been extending her sway westward and eastward, and while
her nobles and merchants were amassing colossal fortunes
abroad, the small landholders throughout the greater part of
Italy were sinking deeper into ruin under the pressure of
accumulated difficulties. The Hannibalic war had laid waste
their fields and thinned their numbers, nor when peace
returned to Italy did it bring with it any revival of
prosperity. The heavy burden of military service still pressed
ruinously upon them, and in addition they were called upon to
compete with the foreign corn imported from beyond the sea,
and with the foreign slave-labour purchased by the capital of
the wealthier men. … The small holders went off to follow the
eagles or swell the proletariate of the cities, and their
holdings were left to run waste or merged in the vineyards,
oliveyards, and above all in the great cattle-farms of the
rich, while their own place was taken by slaves. The evil was
not equally serious in all parts of Italy. It was least felt
in the central highlands, in Campania, and in the newly
settled fertile valley of the Po. It was worst in Etruria and
in southern Italy; but everywhere it was serious enough to
demand the earnest attention of Roman statesmen. Of its
existence the government had received plenty of warning in the
declining numbers of able-bodied males returned at the census,
in the increasing difficulties of recruiting for the legions,
in servile out-breaks in Etruria and Apulia."
_H. F. Pelham,
Outlines of Roman History,
book 4, chapter 1._
The earlier agrarian laws which the Roman plebeians had wrung
from the patricians (the Licinian Law and similar ones—see
ROME: B. C. 376-367; also AGRARIAN LAWS) had not availed to
prevent the absorption, by one means and another, of the
public domain—the "ager publicus," the conquered land which
the state had neither sold nor given away—into the possession
of great families and capitalists, who held it in vast blocks,
to be cultivated by slaves. Time had almost sanctioned this
condition of things, when Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, elder
of the two famous brothers called "The Gracchi," undertook in
133 B. C. a reformation of it. As one of the tribunes of the
people that year, he brought forward a law which was intended
to enforce the provisions of the Licinian Law of 367 B. C., by
taking away from the holders of public land what they held in
excess of 500 jugera (about 320 acres) each. Three
commissioners, called Triumviri, were to be appointed to
superintend the execution of the law and to redistribute the
land recovered, among needy citizens. Naturally the proposal
of this act aroused a fierce opposition in the wealthy class
whose ill-gotten estates were threatened by it. One of the
fellow-tribunes of Tiberius was gained over by the opposition
and used the power of his veto to prevent the taking of a vote
upon the bill. Then Gracchus, to overcome the obstacle, had
recourse to an unconstitutional measure. The obstinate tribune
was deposed from his office by a vote of the people, and the
law was then enacted. For the carrying out of his measure, and
for his own protection, no less, Tiberius sought a re-election
to the tribunate, which was contrary to usage, if not against
positive law. His enemies raised a tumult against him on the
day of election and he was slain, with three hundred of his
party, and their corpses were flung into the Tiber. Nine years
later, his younger brother, Caius Gracchus, obtained election
to the tribune's office and took up the work of democratic
political reform which Tiberius had sacrificed his life in
attempting. His measures were radical, attacking the powers
and privileges of the ruling orders. But mixed with them were
schemes of demagoguery which did infinite mischief to the
Roman people and state.
{2682}
He carried the first frumentarian law (lex frumentaria) as it
was called, by which corn was bought with public money, and
stored, for sale to Roman citizens at a nominal price. After
three years of power, through the favor of the people, he,
too, in 121 B. C. was deserted by them and the party of the
patricians was permitted to put him to death, with a great
number of his supporters.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapters 10-13, 18-19._
"Caius, it is said, was the first Roman statesman who
appointed a regular distribution of corn among the poorer
citizens, requiring the state to buy up large consignments of
grain from the provinces, and to sell it again at a fixed rate
below the natural price. The nobles themselves seem to have
acquiesced without alarm in this measure, by which they hoped
to secure the city from seditious movements in time of
scarcity; but they failed to foresee the discouragement it
would give to industry, the crowds of idle and dissipated
citizens it would entice into the forum, the appetite it would
create for shows, entertainments and largesses, and the power
it would thus throw into the hands of unprincipled demagogues.
Caius next established customs duties upon various articles of
luxury imported into the city for the use of the rich: he
decreed the gratuitous supply of clothing to the soldiers, who
had hitherto been required to provide themselves out of their
pay; he founded colonies for the immediate gratification of
the poorer citizens, who were waiting in vain for the promised
distribution of lands: he caused the construction of public
granaries, bridges and roads, to furnish objects of useful
labour to those who were not unwilling to work. Caius himself,
it is said, directed the course and superintended the making
of the roads, some of which we may still trace traversing
Italy in straight lines from point to point, filling up
depressions and hollowing excrescences in the face of the
country, and built upon huge substructions of solid masonry.
Those who most feared and hated him confessed their amazement
at the magnificence of his projects and the energy of his
proceedings; the people, in whose interests he toiled, were
filled with admiration and delight, when they saw him attended
from morning to night by crowds of contractors, artificers,
ambassadors, magistrates, soldiers, and men of learning, to
all of whom he was easy of access, adapting his behaviour to
the condition of each in turn: thus proving, as they declared,
the falsehood of those who presumed to call him violent and
tyrannical. … By these innovations Caius laid a wide basis of
popularity. Thereupon he commenced his meditated attack upon
the privileged classes. We possess at least one obscure
intimation of a change he effected or proposed in the manner
of voting by centuries, which struck at the influence of the
wealthier classes. He confirmed and extended the Porcian law,
for the protection of citizens against the aggression of the
magistrates without a formal appeal to the people. Even the
powers of the dictatorship, to which the senate had been wont
to resort for the coercion of its refractory opponents, were
crippled by these provisions; and we shall see that no
recourse was again had to this extraordinary and odious
appointment till the oligarchy had gained for a time a
complete victory over their adversaries. Another change, even
more important, was that by which the knights were admitted to
the greater share, if not, as some suppose, to the whole, of
the judicial appointments. … As long as the senators were the
judges, the provincial governors, who were themselves
senators, were secure from the consequence of impeachment. If
the knights were to fill the same office, it might be expected
that the publicani, the farmers of the revenues abroad would
be not less assured of impunity, whatever were the enormity of
their exactions. … It was vain, indeed, to expect greater
purity from the second order of citizens than from the first.
If the senators openly denied justice to complainants, the
knights almost as openly sold it. This was in itself a
grievous degradation of the tone of public morality; but this
was not all the evil of the tribune's reform. It arrayed the
two privileged classes of citizens in direct hostility to one
another. 'Caius made the republic double-headed,' was the
profound remark of antiquity. He sowed the seeds of a war of
an hundred years. Tiberius had attempted to raise up a class
of small proprietors, who, by the simplicity of their manners
and moderation of their tastes, might form, as he hoped, a
strong conservative barrier between the tyranny of the nobles
and the envy of the people; but Caius, on the failure of this
attempt, was content to elevate a class to power, who should
touch upon both extremes of the social scale,—the rich by
their wealth, and the poor by their origin. Unfortunately this
was to create not a new class, but a new party. … One direct
advantage, at all events, Caius expected to derive, besides
the humiliation of his brother's murderers, from this
elevation of the knights: he hoped to secure their grateful
co-operation towards the important object he next had in view:
this was no less than the full admission of the Latins and
Italians to the right of suffrage."
_C. Merivale,
The Fall of the Roman Republic,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_Plutarch,
Tiberius Gracchus;
Caius Gracchus._
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapters 2-3 (volume 3)._
_S. Eliot,
Liberty of Rome: Rome,
book 3, chapter 1._
See, also, AGER PUBLICUS.
ROME: B. C. 125-121.
Conquest of the Salyes and Allobroges in Gaul.
Treaty of friendship with the Ædui.
See SALYES; ALLOBROGES; and ÆDUI.
ROME: B. C. 118-99.
Increasing corruption of government.
The Jugurthine War.
Invasion and defeat of the Cimbri and Teutones.
The power of Marius.
"After the death of Caius Gracchus, the nobles did what they
pleased in Rome. They paid no more attention to the Agrarian
Law, and the state of Italy grew worse and worse. … The nobles
cared nothing for Rome's honour, but only for their own
pockets. They governed badly, and took bribes from foreign
kings, who were allowed to do what they liked if they could
pay enough. This was especially seen in a war that took place
in Africa. After Carthage had been destroyed, the greatest
state in Africa was Numidia. The king of Numidia was a friend
of the Roman people, and had fought with them against
Carthage. So Rome had a good deal to do with Numidia, and the
Numidians often helped Rome in her wars. In 118 a king of
Numidia died, and left the kingdom to his two sons and an
adopted son named Jugurtha. Jugurtha determined to have the
kingdom all to himself, so he murdered one of the sons and
made war upon the other, who applied to Rome for help.
See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.
{2683}
The Senate was bribed by Jugurtha, and did all it could to
please him; at last, however, Jugurtha besieged his brother in
Cirta, and when he took the city put him and all his army to
death (112). After this the Romans thought they must
interfere, but the Senate for more money were willing to let
Jugurtha off very easily. He came to Rome to excuse himself
before the people, and whilst he was there he had a Numidian
prince, of whom he was afraid, murdered in Rome itself. But
his bribes were stronger than the laws. … The Romans declared
war against Jugurtha, but he bribed the generals, and for
three years very little was done against him. At last, in 108,
a good general, who would not take bribes, Quintus Metellus,
went against him and defeated him. Metellus would have
finished the war, but in 106 the command was taken from him by
Caius Marius the consul. This Caius Marius was a man of low
birth, but a good soldier. He had risen in war by his bravery,
and had held magistracies in Rome. He was an officer in the
army of Metellus, and was very much liked by the common
soldiers, for he was a rough man like themselves, and talked
with them, and lived as they did. … Marius left Africa and
went to Rome to try and be made consul in 106. He found fault
with Metellus before the people, and said that he could carry
on the war better himself. So the people made him consul, and
more than that, they said that he should be general in Africa
instead of Metellus. … Marius finished the war in Africa, and
brought Jugurtha in triumph to Italy in 104. … When it was
over, Marius was the most powerful man in Rome. He was the
leader of the popular party, and also the general of the army.
The army had greatly changed since the time of Hannibal. The
Roman soldiers were no longer citizens who fought when their
country wanted them, and then went back to their work. But as
wars were now constantly going on, and going on too in distant
countries, this could no longer be the case, and the army was
full of men who took to a soldier's life as a trade. Marius
was the favourite of these soldiers: he was a soldier by trade
himself, and had risen in consequence to power in the state.
Notice, then, that when Marius was made consul, it was a sign
that the government for the future was to be carried on by the
army, as well as by the people and the nobles. Marius was soon
wanted to carry on another war. Two great tribes of barbarians
from the north had entered Gaul west of the Alps, and
threatened to drive out the Romans, and even attack Italy.
They came with their wives and children, like a wandering
people looking for a home. … At first these Cimbri defeated
the Roman generals in southern Gaul, where the Romans had
conquered the country along the Rhone, and made it a province,
which is still called the province, or Provence. The Romans,
after this defeat, were afraid of another burning of their
city by barbarians, so Marius was made consul again, and for
the next five years he was elected again and again. … In the
year 102 the Teutones and the Cimbri marched to attack Italy,
but Marius defeated them in two great battles.
See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.
Afterwards when he went back to Rome in triumph he was so
powerful that he could have done what he chose in the state.
The people were very grateful to him, the soldiers were very
fond of him, and the nobles were very much afraid of him. But
Marius did not think much of the good of the state: he thought
much more of his own greatness, and how he might become a
still greater man. So, first, he joined the party of the
people, and one of the tribunes. Lucius Appuleius Saturninus,
brought forward some laws like those of Caius Gracchus, and
Marius helped him. But there were riots in consequence, and
the Senate begged Marius to help them in putting down the
riots. For a time Marius doubted what to do, but at last he
armed the people, and Saturninus was killed (99). But now
neither side liked Marius, for he was true to neither, and did
only what he thought would make himself most powerful. So for
the future Marius was not likely to be of much use in the
troubles of the Roman state."
_M. Creighton.
History of Rome (Primer).
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
chapters 54-56 (volume 2)._
_V. Duruy,
History of Rome,
chapters 39-41 (volume 2)._
_Plutarch,
Marius._
ROME: B. C. 90-88.
Demands of the Italian Socii for Roman citizenship.
The Marsian or Social War.
Rise of Sulla.
"It is a most erroneous though widely prevalent opinion that
the whole of Italy was conquered by the force of Roman arms,
and joined to the empire [of the Republic] against its will.
Roman valour and the admirable organization of the legions, it
is true, contributed to extend the dominion of Rome, but they
were not nearly so effective as the political wisdom of the
Roman senate. … The subjects of Rome were called by the
honourable name of allies (Socii). But the manner in which
they had become allies was not always the same. It differed
widely according to circumstances. Some had joined Rome on an
equal footing by a free alliance ('fœdus æquum'). which
implied nothing like subjection. … Others sought the alliance
of Rome as a protection from pressing enemies or troublesome
neighbours. … On the whole, the condition of the allies, Latin
colonies as well as confederated Italians, seems to have been
satisfactory, at least in the earlier period. … But even the
right of self-government which Rome had left to the Italian
communities proved an illusion in all cases where the
interests of the ruling town seemed to require it. A law
passed in Rome, nay, a simple senatorial decree, or a
magisterial order, could at pleasure be applied to the whole
of Italy. Roman law gradually took the place of local laws,
though the Italians had no part in the legislation of the
Roman people, or any influence on the decrees of the Roman
senate and magistrates. … All public works in Italy, such as
roads, aqueducts, and temples, were carried out solely for the
benefit of Rome. … Not in peace only, but also in the time of
war, the allies were gradually made to feel how heavily the
hand of Rome weighed upon them. … In proportion as with the
increase of their power the Romans felt more and more secure
and independent of the allies, they showed them less
consideration and tenderness, and made them feel that they had
gradually sunk from their former position of friends to be no
more than subjects." There was increasing discontent among the
Italian allies, or Socii, with this state of things,
especially after the time of the Gracchi, when a proposal to
extend the Roman citizenship and franchise to them was
strongly pressed.
{2684}
In the next generation after the murder of Caius Gracchus,
there arose another political reformer, Marcus Livius Drusus,
who likewise sought to have justice done to the Italians, by
giving them a voice in the state which owed its conquests to
their arms. He, too, was killed by the political enemies he
provoked; and then the allies determined to enforce their
claims by war. The tribes of the Sabellian race—Marsians,
Samnites, Hirpenians, Lucanians, and their fellows—organized a
league, with the town of Corfinium (its name changed to
Italica) for its capital, and broke into open revolt. The
prominence of the Marsians in the struggle caused the war
which ensued to be sometimes called the Marsian War; it was
also called the Italian War, but, more commonly, the Social
War. It was opened, B. C. 90, by a horrible massacre of Roman
citizens residing at Asculum, Picenum,—a tragedy for the guilt
of which that town paid piteously the next year, when it was
taken at the end of a long siege and after a great battle
fought under its walls. But the Romans had suffered many
defeats before that achievement was reached. At the end of the
first year of the war they had made no headway against the
revolt, and it is the opinion of Ihne and other historians
that "Rome never was so near her destruction," and that "her
downfall was averted, not by the heroism of her citizens, as
in the war of Hannibal, but by a reversal" of her "policy of
selfish exclusion and haughty disdain." A law called the
Julian Law, because proposed by the consul L. Julius Cæsar,
was adopted B. C. 90, which gave the Roman franchise to the
Latins, and to all the other Italian communities which had so
far remained faithful. Soon afterward two of the new tribunes
carried a further measure, the Plautio-Papirian Law, which
offered the same privilege to any Italian who, within two
months, should present himself before a Roman magistrate to
claim it. These concessions broke the spirit of the revolt and
the Roman armies began to be victorious. Sulla, who was in the
field, added greatly to his reputation by successes at Nola
(where his army honored him by acclaim with the title of
Imperator) and at Bovianum, which he took. The last important
battle of the war was fought on the old blood-drenched plain
of Cannæ, and this time the victory was for Rome. After that,
for another year, some desperate towns and remnants of the
revolted Socii held out, but their resistance was no more than
the death throes of a lost cause.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 9, with foot-note,
and book 7, chapters 13-14._
ALSO IN:
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapters 15-16._
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lectures 83-84 (volume 2)._
ROME: B. C. 88-78.
Rivalry of Marius and Sulla.
War with Mithridates.
Civil war.
Successive proscriptions and reigns of terror.
Sulla's dictatorship.
The political diseases of which the Roman Republic was dying
made quick progress in the generation that passed between the
murder of Caius Gracchus and the Social War. The Roman rabble
which was nominally sovereign and the oligarchy which ruled
actually, by combined bribery and brow-beating of the
populace, had both been worse corrupted and debased by the
increasing flow of tribute and plunder from provinces and
subject states. Rome had familiarized itself with mob
violence, and the old respect for authority and for law was
dead. The soldier with an army at his back need not stand any
longer in awe of the fasces of a tribune or a consul. It was a
natural consequence of that state of things that the two
foremost soldiers of the time, Caius Marius and L. Cornelius
Sulla (or Sylla, as often written,) should become the
recognized chiefs of the two opposing factions of the day.
Marius was old, his military glory was waning, he had enjoyed
six consulships and coveted a seventh; Sulla was in the prime
of life, just fairly beginning to show his surpassing
capabilities and entering on his real career. Marius was a
plebeian of plebeians and rude in all his tastes; Sulla came
from the great Cornelian gens, and refined a little the
dissoluteness of his life by studies of Greek letters and
philosophy. Marius was sullenly jealous; Sulla was resolutely
ambitious. A new war, which promised great prizes to ambition
and cupidity, alike, was breaking out in the east,—the war
with Mithridates. Both Marius and Sulla aspired to the command
in it; but Sulla had been elected one of the consuls for the
year 88 B. C. and, by custom and law, would have the conduct
of the war assigned to him. Marius, however, intrigued with
the demagogues and leaders of the mob, and brought about a
turbulent demonstration and popular vote, by which he could
claim to be appointed to lead the forces of the state against
Mithridates. Sulla fled to his army, in camp at Nola, and laid
his case before the officers and men. The former, for the most
part, shrank from opposing themselves to Rome; the latter had
no scruples and demanded to be led against the Roman mob.
Sulla took them at their word, and marched them straight to
the city. For the first time in its history (by no means the
last) the great capital was forcibly entered by one of its own
armies. There was some resistance, but not much. Sulla
paralyzed his opponents by his energy, and by a threat to burn
the city if it did not submit. Marius and his chief partisans
fled. Sulla contented himself with outlawing twelve, some of
whom were taken and put to death. Marius, himself, escaped to
Africa, after many strange adventures, in the story of which
there is romance unquestionably mixed. Sulla (with his
colleague in harmony with him) fulfilled the year of his
consulate at Rome and then departed for Greece to conduct the
war against Mithridates. In doing so, he certainly knew that
he was giving up the government to his enemies; but he trusted
his future in a remarkable way, and the necessity, for Rome,
of confronting Mithridates was imperative. The departure of
Sulla was the signal for fresh disorders at Rome. Cinna, one
of the new consuls, was driven from the city, and became the
head of a movement which appealed to the "new citizens," as
they were called, or the "Italian party"—the allies who had
been enfranchised as the result of the Social War. Marius came
back from exile to join it. Sertorius and Carbo were other
leaders who played important parts. Presently there were four
armies beleaguering Rome, and after some unsuccessful
resistance the gates were opened to them, by order of the
Roman senate. Cinna, the consul, was nominally restored to
authority, but Marius was really supreme, and Marius was
implacable in his sullen rage.
{2685}
Rome was treated like a conquered city. The public and private
enemies of Marius and of all who chose to call themselves
Marians, were hunted down and slain. To stop the massacre, at
last, Sertorius—the best of the new masters of Rome—was
forced to turn his soldiers against the bands of the assassins
and to slaughter several thousands of them. Then some degree
of order was restored and there was the quiet in Rome of a
city of the dead. The next year Marius realized his ambition
for a seventh consulship, but died before the end of the first
month of it. Meantime, Sulla devoted himself steadily to the
war against Mithridates [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], watching from
afar the sinister course of events at Rome, and making no
sign. It was not until the spring of 83 B. C., four years
after his departure from Italy and three years after the death
of Marius, that he was ready to return and settle accounts
with his enemies. On landing with his army in Italy he was
joined speedily by Pompey, Crassus, and other important
chiefs. Cinna had been killed by mutinous soldiers; Carbo and
young Marius were the leaders of the "Italian party." There
was a fierce battle at Sacriportus, near Præneste, with young
Marius, and a second with Carbo at Clusium. Later, there was
another furious fight with the Samnites, under the walls of
Rome, at the Colline Gate, where 50,000 of the combatants
fell. Then Sulla was master of Rome. Every one of his
suspected friends in the senate had been butchered by the last
orders of young Marius. His retaliation was not slow; but he
pursued it with a horrible deliberation. He made lists, to be
posted in public, of men who were marked for death and whom
anybody might slay. There are differing accounts of the number
doomed by this proscription; according to one annalist the
death-roll was swelled to 4,700 before the reign of terror
ceased. Sulla ruled as a conqueror until it pleased him to
take an official title, when he commanded the people to elect
him Dictator, for such term as he might judge to be fit. They
obeyed. As Dictator, he proceeded to remodel the Roman
constitution by a series of laws which were adopted at his
command. One of these laws enfranchised 10,000 slaves and made
them citizens. Another took a way from the tribunes a great
part of their powers; allowed none but members of the senate
to be candidates for the office, and no person once a tribune
to hold a curule office. Others reconstructed the senate,
adding 300 new members to its depleted ranks, and restored to
it the judicial function which C. Gracchus had transferred to
the knights; they also restored to it the initiative in
legislation. Having remodeled the Roman government to his
liking, Sulla astounded his friends and enemies by suddenly
laying down his dictatorial powers and retiring to private
life at his villa, near Puteoli, on the Bay of Naples. There
he wrote his memoirs, which have been lost, and gave himself
up to the life of pleasure which was even dearer to him than
the life of power. But he enjoyed it scarcely a year, when he
died, B. C. 78. His body, taken to Rome, was burned with pomp.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapters 17-29._
ALSO IN:
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapters 15-23._
_Plutarch,
Marius and Sulla._
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapters 9-10._
_C. Merivale,
The Fall of the Roman Republic,
chapters 4-5._
ROME: B. C. 80.
The throne of Egypt bequeathed to the Republic
by Ptolemy Alexander.
See EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.
ROME: B. C. 78-68.
Danger from the legionaries.
Rising power of Pompeius.
Attempt of Lepidus.
Pompeius against Sertorius in Spain.
Insurrection of Spartacus and the Gladiators.
The second Mithridatic War, and war in Armenia.
"The Roman legionary, … drawn from the dregs of the populace,
and quartered through the best years of his life in Greece and
Asia, in Spain and Gaul, lived solely upon his pay, enhanced
by extortion or plunder. His thirst of rapine grew upon him.
He required his chiefs to indulge him with the spoil of cities
and provinces; and when a foreign enemy was not at hand, he
was tempted to turn against the subjects of the state, or, if
need be, against the state itself. … Marius and Sulla, Cinna
and Carbo had led the forces of Rome against Rome herself. …
The problem which thus presented itself to the minds of
patriots—how, namely, to avert the impending dissolution of
their polity under the blows of their own defenders—was indeed
an anxious and might well appear a hopeless one. It was to the
legions only that they could trust, and the legions were
notoriously devoted to their chiefs. … The triumph of Sulla
had been secured by the accession to his side of Pompeius
Strabo, the commander of a large force quartered in Italy.
These troops had transferred their obedience to a younger
Pompeius, the son of their late leader. Under his auspices
they had gained many victories; they had put down the Marian
faction, headed by Carbo, in Sicily, and had finally secured
the ascendency of the senate on the shores of Africa. Sulla
had evinced some jealousy of their captain, who was young in
years, and as yet had not risen above the rank of Eques; but
when Pompeius led his victorious legions back to Italy, the
people rose in the greatest enthusiasm to welcome him, and the
dictator, yielding to their impetuosity, had granted him a
triumph and hailed him with the title of 'Magnus.' Young as he
was, he became at once, on the abdication of Sulla, the
greatest power in the commonwealth. This he soon caused to be
known and felt. The lead of the senatorial party had now
fallen to Q. Lutatius Catulus and M. Æmilius Lepidus, the
heads of two of the oldest and noblest families of Rome. The
election of these chiefs to the consulship for the year 676 of
the city (B. C. 78) seemed to secure for the time the
ascendency of the nobles, and the maintenance of Sulla's
oligarchical constitution bequeathed to their care. … But
there were divisions within the party itself which seemed to
seize the opportunity for breaking forth. Lepidus was inflamed
with ambition to create a faction of his own, and imitate the
career of the usurpers before him. … But he had miscalculated
his strength. Pompeius disavowed him, and lent the weight of
his popularity and power to the support of Catulus; and the
senate hoped to avert an outbreak by engaging both the consuls
by an oath to abstain from assailing each other. During the
remainder of his term of office Lepidus refrained from action;
but as soon as he reached his province, the Narbonensis in
Gaul, he developed his plans, summoned to his standard the
Marians, who had taken refuge in great numbers in that region,
and invoked the aid of
the Italians, with the promise of restoring to them the lands
of which they had been dispossessed by Sulla's veterans.
{2686}
With the aid of M. Junius Brutus, who commanded in the
Cisalpine, he made an inroad into Etruria, and called upon the
remnant of its people, who had been decimated by Sulla, to
rise against the faction of their oppressors. The senate, now
thoroughly alarmed, charged Catulus with its defence; the
veterans, restless and dissatisfied with their fields and
farms, crowded to the standard of Pompeius. Two Roman armies
met near the Milvian bridge, a few miles to the north of the
city, and Lepidus received a check, which was again and again
repeated, till he was driven to flee into Sardinia, and there
perished shortly afterwards of fever. Pompeius pursued Brutus
into the Cisalpine. … The remnant of [Lepidus'] troops was
carried over to Spain by Perperna, and there swelled the
forces of an abler leader of the same party, Q. Sertorius."
Sertorius had established himself strongly in Spain, and
aspired to the founding of an independent state; but after a
prolonged struggle he was overcome by Pompeius and
assassinated by traitors in his own ranks.
See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.
"Pompeius had thus recovered a great province for the republic
at the moment when it seemed on the point of being lost
through the inefficiency of one of the senatorial chiefs.
Another leader of the dominant party was about to yield him
another victory. A war was raging in the heart of Italy. A
body of gladiators had broken away from their confinement at
Capua under the lead of Spartacus, a Thracian captive, had
seized a large quantity of arms, and had made themselves a
retreat or place of defence in the crater of Mount Vesuvius. …
See SPARTACUS, THE RISING OF.
The consuls were directed to lead the legions against them,
but were ignominiously defeated [B. C. 72]. In the absence of
Pompeius in Spain and of Lucullus in the East, M. Crassus was
the most prominent among the chiefs of the party in power.
This illustrious noble was a man of great influence, acquired
more by his wealth, for which he obtained the surname of
Dives, than for any marked ability in the field or in the
forum; but he had a large following of clients and dependents,
who … now swelled the cry for placing a powerful force under
his orders, and entrusting to his hands the deliverance of
Italy. The brigands themselves were becoming demoralized by
lack of discipline. Crassus drove them before him to the
extremity of the peninsula. … Spartacus could only save a
remnant of them by furiously breaking through the lines of his
assailants. This brave gladiator was still formidable, and it
was feared that Rome itself might be exposed to his desperate
attack. The senate sent importunate messages to recall both
Pompeius and Lucullus to its defence. … Spartacus had now
become an easy prey, and the laurels were quickly won with
which Pompeius was honoured by his partial countrymen. Crassus
was deeply mortified, and the senate itself might feel some
alarm at the redoubled triumphs of a champion of whose loyalty
it was not secure. But the senatorial party had yet another
leader, and a man of more ability than Crassus, at the head of
another army. The authority of Pompeius in the western
provinces was balanced in the East by that of L. Licinius
Lucullus, who commanded the forces of the republic in the
struggle which she was still maintaining against Mithridates.
… The military successes of Lucullus fully justified the
choice of the government." He expelled Mithridates from all
the dominions which he claimed and drove him to take refuge
with the king of Armenia. "The kingdom of Armenia under
Tigranes III. was at the height of its power when Clodius, the
brother-in-law of Lucullus, then serving under him, was
despatched to the royal residence at Tigranocerta to demand
the surrender of Mithridates. … The capital of Armenia was
well defended by its position among the mountains and the
length and severity of its winter season. It was necessary to
strike once for all [B. C. 61)]. Lucullus had a small but
well-trained and well-appointed army of veterans. Tigranes
surrounded and encumbered himself with a vast cloud of
undisciplined barbarians, the flower of whom, consisting of
17,000 mailed cavalry, however formidable in appearance, made
but a feeble resistance to the dint of the Roman spear and
broadsword. When their ranks were broken they fell back upon
the inert masses behind them, and threw them into hopeless
confusion. Tigranes made his escape with dastardly
precipitation. A bloody massacre ensued. … In the following
year Lucullus advanced his posts still further eastward. …
But a spirit of discontent or lassitude had crept over his own
soldiers. … He was constrained to withdraw from the siege of
Artaxata, the furthest stronghold of Tigranes, on the banks of
the Araxes, and after crowning his victories with a successful
assault upon Nisibis, he gave the signal for retreat, leaving
the destruction of Mithridates still unaccomplished. Meanwhile
the brave proconsul's enemies were making head against him at
Rome."
_C. Merivale,
The Roman Triumvirates,
chapter 1._
Lucullus "wished to consummate the ruin of Tigranes, and
afterwards to carry his arms to Parthia. He had not this
perilous glory. Hitherto, his principal means of success had
been to conciliate the people, by restraining the avidity both
of his soldiers and of the Italian publicans. The first
refused to pursue a war which only enriched the general; the
second wrote to Rome, where the party of knights was every day
regaining its ancient ascendancy. They accused of rapacity him
who had repressed theirs. All were inclined to believe, in
short, that Lucullus had drawn enormous sums from the towns
which he preserved from the soldiers and publicans. They
obtained the appointment of a successor, and by this change
the fruit of this conquest was in a great measure lost. Even
before Lucullus had quitted Asia, Mithridates re-entered
Pontus, invaded Cappadocia, and leagued himself more closely
with the pirates."
_J. Michelet,
History of the Roman Republic,
page 308._
"It was imagined at Rome that Mithridates was as good as
conquered, and that a new province of Bithynia and Pontus was
awaiting organisation. … Ten commissioners as usual had been
despatched to assist. … Lucullus had hoped before their
arrival to strike some blow to recover his losses; but Marcius
Rex had refused his appeal for help from Cilicia, and his own
troops had … declined to march … when they learnt that the
command was about to pass from Lucullus to Glabrio."
_E. S. Shuckburgh,
History of Rome to the Battle of Actium,
page 677._
ALSO IN:
_Plutarch,
Pompeius Magnus._
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapters 30-33,
and volume 3, chapters 1-5._
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 10._
{2687}
ROME: B. C. 69-63.
The drift towards revolution.
Pompeius in the East.
His extraordinary commission.
His enlargement of the Roman dominions.
His power.
Ambitions and projects of Cæsar.
Consulship of Cicero.
"To a superficial observer, at the close of the year 70 B. C.,
it might possibly have seemed that the Republic had been given
a new lease of life. … And, indeed, for two or three years
this promising condition of things continued. The years 69 and
68 B. C. must have been tolerably quiet ones, for our
authorities have very little to tell us of them. … Had a
single real statesman appeared on the scene at this moment, or
even if the average senator or citizen had been possessed of
some honesty and insight, it was not impossible that the
government might have been carried on fairly well even under
republican forms. But there was no leading statesman of a
character suited to raise the whole tone of politics; and
there was no general disposition on the part of either Senate
or people to make the best of the lull in the storm, to repair
damages, or to set the ship on her only true course. So the
next few years show her fast drifting in the direction of
revolution; and the current that bore her was not a local one,
or visible to the eye of the ordinary Roman, but one of
world-wide force, whose origin and direction could only be
perceived by the highest political intelligence. It was during
these years that Cæsar was quietly learning the business of
government, both at home and in the provinces. … Cæsar was
elected quæstor in 69 B. C., and served the office in the
following year. It fell to him to begin his acquaintance with
government in the province of Further Spain, and thus began
his lifelong connection with the peoples of the West. … On his
return to Rome, which must have taken place about the
beginning of 67 B. C., Cæsar was drawn at once into closer
connection with the man who, during the next twenty years, was
to be his friend, his rival, and his enemy. Pompeius was by
this time tired of a quiet life. … Both to him and his
friends, it seemed impossible to be idle any longer. There was
real and abundant reason for the employment of the ablest
soldier of the day. The audacity of the pirates was greater
than ever.
See CILICIA, PIRATES OF.
Lucullus, too, in Asia, had begun to meet with disasters, and
was unable, with his troops in a mutinous temper, to cope with
the combined forces of the kings of Armenia and Pontus. … In
this year, 67 B. C., a bill was proposed by a tribune,
Gabinius, in the assembly of the plebs, in spite of opposition
in the Senate, giving Pompeius exactly that extensive power
against the pirates which he himself desired, and which was
really necessary if the work was to be done swiftly and
completely. He was to have exclusive command for three years
over the whole Mediterranean, and over the resources of the
provinces and dependent states. For fifty miles inland in
every province bordering on these seas—i. e., in the whole
Empire—he was to exercise an authority equal to that of the
existing provincial governor. He was to have almost unlimited
means of raising both fleets and armies, and was to nominate
his own staff of twenty·five 'legati' (lieutenant-generals),
who were all to have the rank of prætor. Nor was this all; for
it was quite understood that this was only part of a plan
which was to place him at the head of the armies in Asia
Minor, superseding the able but now discredited Lucullus. In
fact, by another law of Gabinius, Lucullus was recalled, and
his command given to one of the consuls of the year, neither
of whom, as was well known, was likely to wield it with the
requisite ability. whichever consul it might be, he would only
be recognised as keeping the place warm for Pompeius. …
Pompeius left Rome in the spring of 67 B. C., rapidly cleared
the seas of piracy, and in the following year superseded
Lucullus in the command of the war against Mithridates [with
the powers given him by the Gabinian Law prolonged and
extended by another, known as the Manilian Law]. He did not
return till the beginning of 61 B. C. At first sight it might
seem as though his absence should have cleared the air, and
left the political leaders at Rome a freer hand. But the power
and the resources voted him, and the unprecedented success
with which he used them, made him in reality as formidable to
the parties at home as he was to the peoples of the East. He
put an end at last to the power of Mithridates, received the
submission of Tigranes of Armenia, and added to the Roman
dominion the greater part of the possessions of both these
kings. The sphere of Roman influence now for the first time
reached the river Euphrates, and the Empire was brought into
contact with the great Parthian kingdom beyond it. Asia Minor
became wholly Roman, with the exception of some part of the
interior, which obedient kinglets were allowed to retain.
Syria was made a Roman province. Pompeius took Jerusalem, and
added Judæa to Syria. …
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40].
The man to whom all this was due became at once the leading
figure in the world. It became clear that when his career of
conquest was over yet another task would devolve on him, if he
chose to accept it—the re-organisation of the central
government at Rome. … His gathered power overhung the state
like an avalanche ready to fall; and in the possible path of
an avalanche it is waste of time and labour to build any solid
work. So these years, for Cæsar as for the rest, are years of
plotting and intrigue on one side, and of half-hearted
government on the other. … He was elected to the
curule-ædileship—the next above the quæstorship in the series
of magistracies—and entered on his office on January 1, 65 B.
C. … Cæsar's political connection with Crassus at this time is
by no means clear. The two were sailing the same course, and
watching Pompeius with the same anxiety; but there could not
have been much in common between them, and they were in fact
rapidly getting in each other's way. The great money-lender,
however, must have been in the main responsible for the
enormous expenditure which Cæsar risked in this ædileship and
the next three years. … At the close of the year 64 B. C., on
the accession to office of a new board of tribunes, … an
agrarian bill on a vast scale was promulgated by the tribune
Servilius Rullus.
{2688}
The two most startling features of this were: first, the
creation of a board of ten to carry out its provisions, each
member of which was to be invested with military and judicial
powers like those of the consuls and prætors; and secondly,
the clauses which entrusted this board with enormous financial
resources, to be raised by the public sale of all the
territories and property acquired since the year 88 B. C.,
together with the booty and revenues now in the hands of
Pompeius. The bill included, as its immediate object, a huge
scheme of colonisation for Italy, on the lines of the Gracchan
agrarian bills. … But it was really an attack on the weak
fortress of senatorial government, in order to turn out its
garrison, and occupy and fortify it in the name of the
democratic or Marian party, against the return of the new
Sulla, which was now thought to be imminent. The bill may also
have had another and secondary object—namely, to force the
hand of the able and ambitious consul [Cicero] who would come
into office on January 1, 63; at any rate it succeeded in
doing this, though it succeeded in nothing else. Cicero's
great talents, and the courage and skill with which he had so
far for the most part used them, had made him already a
considerable power in Rome; but no one knew for certain to
which party he would finally attach himself. … On the very
first day of his office he attacked the bill in the Senate and
exposed its real intention, and showed plainly that his policy
was to convert Pompeius into a pillar of the constitution, and
to counteract all democratic plots directed against him. …
Whether it was his eloquence, or the people's indifference,
that caused the bill to be dropped, can only be matter of
conjecture; but it was withdrawn at once by its proposer, and
the whole scheme fell through. This was Cicero's first and
only real victory over Cæsar. … It was about this time, in the
spring of 63 B. C., that the office of Pontifex Maximus became
vacant by the death of old Metellus Pius, and Cæsar at once
took steps to secure it for himself. The chances in his favour
were small, but the prize was a tempting one. Success would
place him at the head of the whole Roman religious system. …
He was eligible, for he had already been for several years one
of the college of pontifices, but as the law of election
stood, a man so young and so democratic would have no chance
against candidates like the venerable conservative leader
Catulus, and Cæsar's own old commander in the East, Servilius
Isauricus, both of whom were standing. Sulla's law, which
placed the election in the hands of the college itself—a law
framed expressly to exclude persons of Cæsar's stamp—must be
repealed, and the choice vested once more in the people. The
useful tribune Labienus was again set to work, the law was
passed, and on March 6th Cæsar was elected by a large
majority. … The latter part of this memorable year was
occupied with a last and desperate attempt of the democratic
party to possess themselves of the state power while there was
yet time to forestall Pompeius. This is the famous conspiracy
of Catilina; it was an attack of the left wing on the
senatorial position, and the real leaders of the democracy
took no open or active part in it."
_W. W. Fowler,
Julius Cæsar,
chapters 4-5._
ALSO IN
_J. A. Froude,
Cæsar,
chapter 10._
_Suetonius,
Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Julius,
sections 7-13._
_C. Middleton,
Life of Cicero,
section 2._
ROME: B. C. 63.
The conspiracy of Catiline.
The conspiracy organized against the senatorial government of
Rome by L. Sergius Catilina, B. C. 63, owes much of its
prominence in Roman history to the preservation of the great
speeches in which Cicero exposed it, and by which he rallied
the Roman people to support him in putting it down. Cicero was
consul that year, and the official responsibility of the
government was on his shoulders. The central conspirators were
a desperate, disreputable clique of men, who had everything to
gain and nothing to lose by revolution. Behind them were all
the discontents and malignant tempers of demoralized and
disorganized Rome; and still behind these were suspected to
be, darkly hidden, the secret intrigues of men like Cæsar and
Crassus, who watched and waited for the expiring breath of the
dying republic. Cicero, having made a timely discovery of the
plot, managed the disclosure of it with great adroitness and
won the support of the people to his proceedings against the
conspirators. Catiline made his escape from Rome and placed
himself' at the head of a small army which his supporters had
raised in Etruria; but he and it were both destroyed in the
single battle fought. Five of his fellow-conspirators were
hastily put to death without trial, by being strangled in the
Tullianum.
_W. Forsyth,
Life of Cicero,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN
_A. Trollope,
Life of c,
chapter 9._
_A. J. Church,
Roman Life in the Days of Cicero,
chapter 7._
_Cicero,
Orations
(translated by (J. D. Yonge),
volume 2._
ROME: B. C. 63-58.
Increasing disorders in the capital.
The wasted opportunities of Pompeius.
His alliance with Cæsar and Crassus.
The First Triumvirate.
Cæsar's consulship.
His appointment to the command in Cisalpine Gaul.
Exile of Cicero.
"Recent events had fully demonstrated the impotence of both
the Senate and the democratic party; neither was strong enough
to defeat the other or to govern the State. There was no third
party—no class remaining out of which a government might be
erected; the only alternative was monarchy—the rule of a
single person. Who the monarch would be was still uncertain;
though, at the present moment, Pompeius was clearly the only
man in whose power it lay to take up the crown that offered
itself. … For the moment the question which agitated all minds
was whether Pompeius would accept the gift offered him by
fortune, or would retire and leave the throne vacant. … In the
autumn of 63 B. C. Quintus Metellus Nepos arrived in the
capital from the camp of Pompeius, and got himself elected
tribune with the avowed purpose of procuring for Pompeius the
command against Catilina by special decree, and afterwards the
consulship for 61 B. C. … The aristocracy at once showed their
hostility to the proposals of Metellus, and Cato had himself
elected tribune expressly for the purpose of thwarting him.
But the democrats were more pliant, and it was soon evident
that they had come to a cordial understanding with the
general's emissary. Metellus and his master both adopted the
democratic view of the illegal executions [of the
Catilinarians]; and the first act of Cæsar's prætorship was to
call Catulus to account for the moneys alleged to have been
embezzled by him in rebuilding the Capitoline temple and to
transfer the superintendence of the works to Pompeius. … On
the day of voting, Cato and another of the tribunes put their
veto upon the proposals of Metellus, who disregarded it.
{2689}
There were conflicts of the armed bands of both sides, which
terminated in favour of the government. The Senate followed up
the victory by suspending Metellus and Cæsar from their
offices. Metellus immediately departed for the camp of
Pompeius; and when Cæsar disregarded the decree of suspension
against himself, the Senate had ultimately to revoke it.
Nothing could have been more favourable to the interests of
Pompeius than these late events. After the illegal executions
of the Catilinarians, and the acts of violence against
Metellus, he 'could appear at once as the defender of the two
palladia of Roman liberty'—the right of appeal, and the
inviolability of the tribunate,—and as the champion of the
party of order against the Catilinarian band. But his courage
was unequal to the emergency; he lingered in Asia during the
winter of 63-62 B. C., and thus gave the Senate time to crush
the insurrection in Italy, and deprived himself of a valid
pretext for keeping his legions together. In the autumn of 62
B. C. he landed at Brundisium, and, disbanding his army,
proceeded to Rome with a small escort. On his arrival in the
city in 61 B. C. he found himself in a position of complete
isolation; he was feared by the democrats, hated by the
aristocracy, and distrusted by the wealthy class. He at once
demanded for himself a second consulship, the confirmation of
all his acts in the East, and the fulfilment of the promise he
had made to his soldiers to furnish them with lands. But each
of these demands was met with the most determined opposition.
… His promise of lands to his soldiers was indeed ratified,
but not executed, and no steps were taken to provide the
necessary funds and lands. … From this disagreeable position,
Pompeius was rescued by the sagacity and address of Cæsar, who
saw in the necessities of Pompeius the opportunity of the
democratic party. Ever since the return of Pompeius, Cæsar had
grown rapidly in influence and weight. He had been prætor in
62 B. C., and, in 61, governor in Farther Spain, where he
utilized his position to free himself from his debts, and to
lay the foundation of the military position he desired for
himself. Returning in 60 B. C., he readily relinquished his
claim to a triumph, in order to enter the city in time to
stand for the consulship. … It was quite possible that the
aristocracy might be strong enough to defeat the candidature
of Cæsar, as it had defeated that of Catilina; and again, the
consulship was not enough; an extraordinary command, secured
to him for several years, was necessary for the fulfilment of
his purpose. Without allies such a command could not be hoped
for; and allies were found where they had been found ten years
before, in Pompeius and Crassus, and in the rich equestrian
class. Such a treaty was suicide on the part of Pompeius; …
but he had drifted into a situation so awkward that he was
glad to be released from it on any terms. … The bargain was
struck in the summer of 60 B. C. [forming what became known in
Roman history as the First Triumvirate]. Cæsar was promised
the consulship and a governorship afterwards; Pompeius, the
ratification of his arrangements in the East, and land for his
soldiers; Crassus received no definite equivalent, but the
capitalists were promised a remission of part of the money
they had undertaken to pay for the lease of the Asiatic taxes.
… Cæsar was easily elected consul for 59 B. C. All that the
exertions of the Senate could do was to give him an
aristocratic colleague in Marcus Bibulus. Cæsar at once
proceeded to fulfil his obligations to Pompeius by proposing
an agrarian law. All remaining Italian domain land, which
meant practically the territory of Capua, was to be given up
to allotments, and other estates in Italy were to be purchased
out of the revenues of the new Eastern provinces. The soldiers
were simply recommended to the commission, and thus the
principle of giving rewards of land for military service was
not asserted. The execution of the bill was to be entrusted to
a commission of twenty. … At length all these proposals were
passed by the assembly [after rejection by the Senate], and
the commission of twenty, with Pompeius and Crassus at their
head, began the execution of the agrarian law. Now that the
first victory was won, the coalition was able to carry out the
rest of its programme without much difficulty. … It was
determined by the confederates that Cæsar should be invested
by decree of the people with a special command resembling that
lately held by Pompeius. Accordingly the tribune Vatinius
submitted to the tribes a proposal which was at once adopted.
By it Cæsar obtained the governorship of Cisalpine Gaul, and
the supreme command of the three legions stationed there, for
five years, with the rank of proprætor for his adjutants. His
jurisdiction extended southwards as far as the Rubicon, and
included Luca and Ravenna. Subsequently the province of Narbo
was added by the Senate, on the motion of Pompeius. … Cæsar
had hardly laid down his consulship when it was proposed, in
the Senate, to annul the Julian laws. …
See JULIAN LAWS.
The regents determined to make examples of some of the most
determined of their opponents." Cicero was accordingly sent
into exile, by a resolution of the tribes, and Cato was
appointed to an odious public mission, which carried him out
of the way, to Cyprus.
_T. Mommsen,
History of the Roman Republic,
(abridged by Bryan and Hendy),
chapter 33._
ALSO IN
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapters 17-20._
_C. Middleton,
Life of Cicero,
section 4_.
_Napoleon III.,
History of Julius Cæsar,
chapters 3-4._
ROME: B. C. 58-51.
Cæsar's conquest of Gaul.
See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.
ROME: B. C. 57-52.
Effect of Cæsar's Gallic victories.
Return of Cicero from exile.
New arrangements of the Triumvirs.
Cæsar's Proconsulship extended.
The Trebonian Law.
Disaster and death of Crassus at Carrhæ.
Increasing anarchy in the city.
"In Rome the enemies of Cæsar … were awed into silence [by his
victorious career in Gaul], and the Senate granted the
unprecedented honour of fifteen days' 'supplicatio' to the
gods for the brilliant successes in Gaul. Among the supporters
of this motion was, as Cæsar learnt in the winter from the
magistrates and senators who came to pay court to him at
Ravenna, M. Tullius Cicero. From the day of his exile the
efforts to secure his return had begun, but it was not until
the 4th of August that the Senate, led by the consul, P.
Lentulus Spinther, carried the motion for his return, in spite
of the violence of the armed gang of Clodius, and summoned all
the country tribes to crowd the comitia on Campus Martius, and
ratify the senatus consultum.
{2690}
The return of the great orator to the country which he had
saved in the terrible days of 63 B. C. was more like a triumph
than the entrance of a pardoned criminal. … But he had come
back on sufferance; the great Three must be conciliated. …
Cicero, like many other optimates in Rome, was looking for the
beginnings of a breach between Pompeius, Crassus and Cæsar,
and was anxious to nourish any germs of opposition to the
triple-headed monarchy. He pleaded against Cæsar's friend
Vatinius, and he gave notice of a motion for checking the
action of the agrarian law in Campania. But these signs of an
independent opposition were suddenly terminated by a
humiliating recantation; for before entering upon his third
campaign Cæsar crossed the Apennines, and appeared at the
Roman colony of Lucca. … Two hundred senators crowded to the
rendezvous, but arrangements were made by the Three very
independently of Senate in Rome or Senate in Lucca. It was
agreed that Pompeius and Crassus should hold a joint
consulship again next year, and before the expiration of
Cæsar's five years they were to secure his reappointment for
another five. … Unfortunate Cicero was awed, and in his other
speeches of this year tried to win the favor of the great men
by supporting their proposed provincial arrangements, and
pleading in defence of Cæsar's friend and protege, L. Balbus."
In the year 55 B. C. the Trebonian Law was passed, "which gave
to Crassus and Pompeius, as proconsular provinces, Syria and
Spain, for the extraordinary term of five years. In this
repeated creation of extraordinary powers in favor of the
coalition of dynasts, Cato rightly saw an end of republican
institutions. … Crassus … started in 54 B. C., at the head of
seven legions, in face of the combined opposition of tribunes
and augurs, to secure the eastern frontier of Roman dominion
by vanquishing the Parthian power, which, reared on the ruins
of the kingdom of the Seleucids, was now supreme in Ctesiphon
and Seleucia. Led into the desert by the Arab Sheikh Abgarus,
acting as a traitor, the Roman army was surrounded by the
fleet Parthian horsemen, who could attack and retreat,
shooting their showers of missiles all the time. In the
blinding sand and sun of the desert near Carrhæ [on the river
Belik, one of the branches of the Euphrates, the supposed site
of the Haran of Biblical history], Crassus experienced a
defeat which took its rank with Cannæ and the Arausio. A few
days afterwards (June 9th, 53 B. C.) he was murdered in a
conference to which the commander of the Parthian forces
invited him. … The shock of this event went through the Roman
world, and though Cassius, the lieutenant of Crassus,
retrieved the honour of the Roman arms against the Parthians
in the following year, that agile people remained to the last
unconquered, and the Roman boundary was never to advance
further to the east. Crassus, then, was dead, and Pompeius,
though he lent Cæsar a legion at the beginning of the year,
was more ready to assume the natural antagonism to Cæsar,
since the death of his wife Julia in September, 54 B. C., had
broken a strong tie with his father-in-law. Further, the
condition of the capital seemed reaching a point of anarchy at
which Pompeius, as the only strong man on the spot, would have
to be appointed absolute dictator. In 53 B. C. no consuls
could, in the violence and turmoil of the comitia, be elected
until July, and the year closed without any elections having
taken place for 52 B. C. T. Annius Milo, who was a candidate
for the consulship, and P. Clodius, who was seeking the
prætorship, turned every street of Rome into a gladiatorial
arena." In January Clodius was killed. "Pompeius was waiting
in his new gardens near the Porta Carmentalis, until a
despairing government should invest him with dictatorial
power; he was altogether too timid and too constitutional to
seize it. But with Cato in Rome no one dared mention the word
dictator. Pompeius, disappointed, was named sole consul on the
4th of February [B. C. 52], and by July he had got as his
colleague his new father-in-law, Metellus."
_R. F. Horton,
History of the Romans,
chapter 29._
ALSO IN
_W. Forsyth,
Life of Cicero,
chapters 13-16 (volumes 1-2)._
_C. Merivale,
The Roman Triumvirates,
chapter 5._
_G. Rawlinson,
The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 11._
ROME: B. C. 55-54.
Cæsar's invasions of Britain.
See BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.
ROME: B. C. 52-50.
Rivalry of Pompeius and Cæsar.
Approach of the crisis.
Cæsar's legions in motion towards the capital.
"Cæsar had long ago resolved upon the overthrow of Pompey, as
had Pompey, for that matter, upon his. For Crassus, the fear
of whom had hitherto kept them in peace, having now been
killed in Parthia, if the one of them wished to make himself
the greatest man in Rome, he had only to overthrow the other;
and if he again wished to prevent his own fall, he had nothing
for it but to be beforehand with him whom he feared. Pompey
had not been long under any such apprehensions, having till
lately despised Cæsar, as thinking it no difficult matter to
put down him whom he himself had advanced. But Cæsar had
entertained this design from the beginning against his rivals,
and had retired, like an expert wrestler, to prepare himself
apart for the combat. Making the Gallic wars his
exercise-ground, he had at once improved the strength of his
soldiery, and had heightened his own glory by his great
actions, so that he was looked on as one who might challenge
comparison with Pompey. Nor did he let go any of those
advantages which were now given him, both by Pompey himself
and the times, and the ill government of Rome, where all who
were candidates for office publicly gave money, and without
any shame bribed the people, who, having received their pay,
did not contend for their benefactors with their bare
suffrages, but with bows, swords and slings. So that after
having many times stained the place of election with the blood
of men killed upon the spot, they left the city at last
without a government at all, to be carried about like a ship
without a pilot to steer her; while all who had any wisdom
could only be thankful if a course of such wild and stormy
disorder and madness might end no worse than in a monarchy.
Some were so bold as to declare openly that the government was
incurable but by a monarchy, and that they ought to take that
remedy from the hands of the gentlest physician, meaning
Pompey, who, though in words he pretended to decline it, yet
in reality made his utmost efforts to be declared dictator.
{2691}
Cato, perceiving his design, prevailed with the Senate to make
him sole consul [B. C. 52], that with the offer of a more
legal sort of monarchy he might be withheld from demanding the
dictatorship. They over and above voted him the continuance of
his provinces, for he had two, Spain and all Africa, which he
governed by his lieutenants, and maintained armies under him,
at the yearly charge of a thousand talents out of the public
treasury. Upon this Cæsar also sent and petitioned for the
consulship, and the continuance of his provinces. Pompey at
first did not stir in it, but Marcellus and Lentulus opposed
it, who had always hated Cæsar, and now did everything,
whether fit or unfit, which might disgrace and affront him.
For they took away the privilege of Roman citizens from the
people of New Comum, who were a colony that Cæsar had lately
planted in Gaul; and Marcellus, who was then consul, ordered
one of the senators of that town, then at Rome, to be whipped
[B. C. 51], and told him he laid that mark upon him to signify
he was no citizen of Rome, bidding him, when he went back
again, to show it to Cæsar. After Marcellus's consulship,
Cæsar began to lavish gifts upon all the public men out of the
riches he had taken from the Gauls; discharged Curio, the
tribune, from his great debts; gave Paulus, then consul, 1,500
talents, with which he built the noble court of justice
adjoining the forum, to supply the place of that called the
Fulvian. Pompey, alarmed at these preparations, now openly
took steps, both by himself and his friends, to have a
successor appointed in Cæsar's room, and sent to demand back
the soldiers whom he had lent him to carry on the wars in
Gaul. Cæsar returned them, and made each soldier a present of
250 drachmas. The officer who brought them home to Pompey,
spread amongst the people no very fair or favorable report of
Cæsar, and flattered Pompey himself with false suggestions
that he was wished for by Cæsar's army; and though his affairs
here were in some embarrassment through the envy of some, and
the ill state of the government, yet there the army was at his
command, and if they once crossed into Italy, would presently
declare for him; so weary were they of Cæsar's endless
expeditions, and so suspicious of his designs for a monarchy.
Upon this Pompey grew presumptuous, and neglected all warlike
preparations, as fearing no danger. … Yet the demands which
Cæsar made had the fairest colors of equity imaginable. For he
proposed to lay down his arms, and that Pompey should do the
same, and both together should become private men, and each
expect a reward of his services from the public. For that
those who proposed to disarm him, and at the same time to
confirm Pompey in all the power he held, were simply
establishing the one in the tyranny which they accused the
other of aiming at. When Curio made these proposals to the
people in Cæsar's name, he was loudly applauded, and some
threw garlands towards him, and dismissed him as they do
successful wrestlers, crowned with flowers. Antony, being
tribune, produced a letter sent from Cæsar on this occasion,
and read it, though the consuls did what they could to oppose
it. But Scipio, Pompey's father-in-law, proposed in the
Senate, that if Cæsar did not lay down his arms within such a
time, he should be voted an enemy; and the consuls putting it
to the question, whether Pompey should dismiss his soldiers,
and again, whether Cæsar should disband his, very few assented
to the first, but almost all to the latter. But Antony
proposing again, that both should lay down their commissions,
all but a very few agreed to it. Scipio was upon this very
violent, and Lentulus the consul cried aloud, that they had
need of arms, and not of suffrages, against a robber; so that
the senators for the present adjourned, and appeared in
mourning as a mark of their grief for the dissension.
Afterwards there came other letters from Cæsar, which seemed
yet more moderate, for he proposed to quit everything else,
and only to retain Gaul within the Alps, Illyricum, and two
legions, till he should stand a second time for consul.
Cicero, the orator, who was lately returned from Cilicia,
endeavored to reconcile differences, and softened Pompey, who
was willing to comply in other things, but not to allow him
the soldiers. At last Cicero used his persuasions with Cæsar's
friends to accept of the provinces and 6,000 soldiers only,
and so to make up the quarrel. And Pompey was inclined to give
way to this, but Lentulus, the consul, would not hearken to
it, but drove Antony and Curio out of the senate-house with
insults, by which he afforded Caesar [then at Ravenna] the
most plausible pretence that could be, and one which he could
readily use to inflame the soldiers, by showing them two
persons of such repute and authority, who were forced to
escape in a hired carriage in the dress of slaves. For so they
were glad to disguise themselves, when they fled out of Rome.
There were not about him at that time [November, B. C. 50]
above 300 horse, and 5,000 foot: for the rest of his army,
which was left behind the Alps, was to be brought after him by
officers who had received orders for that purpose. But he
thought the first motion towards the design which he had on
foot did not require large forces at present, and that what
was wanted was to make this first step suddenly, and so as to
astound his enemies with the boldness of it. … Therefore, he
commanded his captains and other officers to go only with
their swords in their hands, without any other arms, and make
themselves masters of Ariminum, a large city cf Gaul, with as
little disturbance and bloodshed as possible. He committed the
care of these forces to Hortensius, and himself spent the day
in public as a stander-by and spectator of the gladiators, who
exercised before him. A little before night he attended to his
person, and then went into the hall, and conversed for some
time with those he had invited to supper, till it began to
grow dusk, when he rose from table, and made his excuses to
the company, begging them to stay till he came back, having
already given private directions to a few immediate friends,
that they should follow him, not all the same way, but some
one way, some another. He himself got into one of the hired
carriages, and drove at first another way, but presently
turned towards Ariminum."
_Plutarch,
Cæsar
(Clough's Dryden's translation)_
ALSO IN
_Cæsar,
Commentaries on the Civil War,
book 1, chapters 1-8._
_T. Arnold,
History of the Later Roman Commonwealth,
chapter 8 (volume 1)._
{2692}
ROME: B. C. 50-49.
Cæsar's passage of the Rubicon.
Flight of Pompeius and the Consuls from Italy.
Cæsar at the capital.
"About ten miles from Ariminum, and twice that distance from
Ravenna, the frontier of Italy and Gaul was traced by the
stream of the Rubicon. This little river, red with the
drainage of the peat mosses from which it descends [and
evidently deriving its name from its color], is formed by the
union of three mountain torrents, and is nearly dry in the
summer, like most of the water courses on the eastern side of
the Appenines. In the month of November the winter flood might
present a barrier more worthy of the important position which
it once occupied; but the northern frontier of Italy had long
been secure from invasion, and the channel was spanned by a
bridge of no great dimensions. … The ancients amused
themselves with picturing the guilty hesitation with which the
founder of a line of despots stood, as they imagined, on the
brink of the fatal river [in the night of the 27th of
November, B. C. 50, corrected calendar, or January 15, B. C.
49, without the correction], and paused for an instant before
he committed the irrevocable act, pregnant with the destinies
of a long futurity. Cæsar, indeed, in his Commentaries, makes
no allusion to the passage of the Rubicon, and, at the moment
of stepping on the bridge, his mind was probably absorbed in
the arrangements he had made for the march of his legions or
for their reception by his friends in Ariminum."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 14._
After the crossing of the Rubicon there were still more,
messages between Cæsar and Pompey, and the consuls supporting
the latter. "Each demands that the other shall first abandon
his position. Of course, all these messages mean nothing.
Cæsar, complaining bitterly of injustice, sends a portion of
his small army still farther into the Roman territory. Marc
Antony goes to Arezzo with five cohorts, and Cæsar occupies
three other cities with a cohort each. The marvel is that he
was not attacked and driven back by Pompey. We may probably
conclude that the soldiers, though under the command of
Pompey, were not trustworthy as against Cæsar. As Cæsar
regrets his two legions, so no doubt do the two legions regret
their commander. At any rate, the consular forces, with Pompey
and the consuls and a host of senators, retreat southwards to
Brundusium—Brindisi—intending to leave Italy. … During this
retreat, the first blood in the civil war is spilt at
Corfinium, a town which, if it now stood at all, would stand
in the Abruzzi. Cæsar there is victor in a small engagement,
and obtained possession of the town. The Pompeian officers
whom he finds there he sends away, and allows them even to
carry with them money which he believes to have been taken
from the public treasury. Throughout his route southward the
soldiers of Pompey—who had heretofore been his soldiers—return
to him. Pompey and the consuls still retreat, and still Cæsar
follows them, though Pompey had boasted, when first warned to
beware of Cæsar, that he had only to stamp upon Italian soil
and legions would arise from the earth ready to obey him. He
knows, however, that away from Rome, in her provinces, in
Macedonia and Achaia, in Asia and Cilicia, in Sicily,
Sardinia, and Africa, in Mauritania and the two Spains, there
are Roman legions which as yet know no Cæsar. It may be better
for Pompey that he should stamp his foot somewhere out of
Italy. At any rate he sends the obedient consuls and his
attendant senators over to Dyrrhachium in Illyria with a part
of his army, and follows with the remainder as soon as Cæsar
is at his heels. Cæsar makes an effort to intercept him and
his fleet, but in that he fails. Thus Pompey deserts Rome and
Italy,—and never again sees the imperial city or the fair
land. Cæsar explains to us why he does not follow his enemy
and endeavour at once to put an end to the struggle. Pompey is
provided with shipping and he is not; and he is aware that the
force of Rome lies in her provinces. Moreover, Rome may be
starved by Pompey, unless he, Cæsar, can take care that the
corn-growing countries, which are the granaries of Rome, are
left free for the use of the city."
_A. Trollope,
The Commentaries of Cæsar,
chapter 9._
Turning back from Brundisium, Cæsar proceeded to Rome to take
possession of the seat of government which his enemies had
abandoned to him. He was scrupulous of legal forms, and, being
a proconsul, holding military command, did not enter the city
in person. But he called together, outside of the walls, such
of the senators as were in Rome and such as could be persuaded
to return to the city, and obtained their formal sanction to
various acts. Among the measures so authorized was the
appropriation of the sacred treasure stored up in the vaults
of the temple of Saturn. It was a consecrated reserve, to be
used for no purpose except the repelling of a Gallic invasion
which had been, for many generations, the greatest dread of
Rome. Cæsar claimed it, because he had put an end to that
fear, by conquering the Gauls. His stay at Rome on this
occasion (April, B. C. 49) was brief, for he needed to make
haste to encounter the Pompeian legions in Spain, and to
secure the submission of all the west before he followed
Pompeius into the Eastern world.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapters 1-4._
ALSO IN
J_. A. Froude,
Cæsar,
chapter 21._
ROME: B. C. 49.
Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.
His conquest of Massilia.
In Spain, all the strong forces of the country were commanded
by partisans of Pompeius and the Optimate party. Cæsar had
already sent forward C. Fabius from Southern Gaul with three
legions, to take possession of the passes of the Pyrenees and
the principal Spanish roads. Following quickly in person, he
found that his orders had been vigorously obeyed. Fabius was
confronting the Pompeian generals, Afranius and Petreius at
Ilerda (modern Lerida in Catalonia), on the river Sicoris
(modern Segre), where they made their stand. They had five
legions of well-trained veterans, besides native auxiliaries
to a considerable number. Cæsar's army, with the
reinforcements that he had added to it, was about the same.
The Pompeians had every advantage of position, commanding the
passage of the river by a permanent bridge of stone and
drawing supplies from both banks. Cæsar, on the other hand,
had great difficulty in maintaining his communications, and
was placed in mortal peril by a sudden flood which destroyed
his bridges. Yet, without any general battle, by pure
strategic skill and by resistless energy, he forced the
hostile army out of its advantageous position, intercepted its
retreat and compelled an unconditional surrender. This Spanish
campaign, which occupied but forty days, and which was
decisive of the contest for all Spain, was one of the finest
of Cæsar's military achievements.
{2693}
The Greek city of Massilia (modern Marseilles), still
nominally independent and the ally of Rome, although
surrounded by the Roman conquests in Gaul, had seen fit to
range itself on the side of Pompeius and the Optimates, and to
close its gates in the face of Cæsar, when he set out for his
campaign in Spain. He had not hesitated to leave three legions
of his moderate army before the city, while he ordered a fleet
to be built at Arelates (Arles), for coöperation in the siege.
Decimus Brutus commanded the fleet and Trebonius was the
general of the land force. The siege was made notable by
remarkable engineering operations on both sides, but the
courage of the Massiliots was of no long endurance. When Cæsar
returned from his Spanish campaign he found them ready to
surrender. Notwithstanding they had been guilty of a great act
of treachery during the siege, by breaking an armistice, he
spared their city, on account, he said, of its name and
antiquity. His soldiers, who had expected rich booty, were
offended, and a dangerous mutiny, which occurred soon
afterwards at Placentia, had this for its main provocation.
_Cæsar,
The Civil War,
book 1, chapters 36-81,
and book 2, chapters 1-22._
ALSO IN
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapters 5 and 8._
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapters 15-16._
ROME: B. C. 48.
The war in Epirus and Thessaly.
Cæsar's decisive victory at Pharsalia.
Having established his authority in Italy, Gaul and Spain, and
having legalized it by procuring from the assembly of the
Roman citizens his formal election to the consulship, for the
year A. U. 706 (B. C. 48), Cæsar prepared to follow Pompeius
and the Senatorial party across the Adriatic. As the calendar
then stood, it was in January that he arrived at Brundisium to
take ship; but the season corresponded with November in the
calendar as Cæsar, himself, corrected it soon afterwards. The
vessels at his command were so few that he could transport
only 15,500 of his troops on the first expedition, and it was
with that number that he landed at Palæste on the coast of
Epirus. The sea was swarming with the fleets of his enemies,
and, although he escaped them in going, his small squadron was
caught on the return voyage and many of its ships destroyed.
Moreover, the Pompeian cruisers became so vigilant that the
second detachment of his army, left behind at Brundisium,
under Marcus Antonius, found no opportunity to follow him
until the winter had nearly passed. Meantime, with his small
force, Cæsar proceeded boldly into Macedonia to confront
Pompeius, reducing fortresses and occupying towns as he
marched. Although his great antagonist had been gathering
troops in Macedonia for months, and now numbered an army of
some 90,000 or 100,000 men, it was Cæsar, not Pompeius, who
pressed for a battle, even before Mark Antony had joined him.
As soon as the junction had occurred he pushed the enemy with
all possible vigor. But Pompeius had no confidence in his
untrained host. He drew his whole army into a strongly
fortified, immense camp, on the sea coast near Dyrrhachium, at
a point called Petra, and there he defied Cæsar to dislodge
him. The latter undertook to wall him in on the land-side of
his camp, by a line of ramparts and towers seventeen miles in
length. It was an undertaking too great for his force.
Pompeius made a sudden flank movement which disconcerted all
his plans, and so defeated and demoralized his men that he was
placed in extreme peril for a time. Had the Senatorial chief
shown half of Cæsar's energy at that critical moment, the
cause of Cæsar would probably have been lost. But Pompeius and
his party took time to rejoice over their victory, while Cæsar
framed plans to repair his defeat. He promptly abandoned his
lines before the enemy's camp and fell back into the interior
of the country, to form a junction with certain troops which
he had previously sent eastward to meet reënforcements then
coming to Pompeius. He calculated that Pompeius would follow
him, and Pompeius did so. The result was to give Cæsar, at
last, the opportunity he had been seeking for months, to
confront with his tried legions the motley levies of his
antagonist on an open field. The decisive and ever memorable
battle was fought in Thessaly, on the plain of Pharsalia,
through which flows the river Enipeus, and overlooking which,
from a contiguous height, stood anciently the city of
Pharsalus. It was fought on the 9th of August, in the year 48
before Christ. It was a battle quickly ended. The
foot-soldiers of Pompeius out-numbered those of Cæsar at least
as two to one; but they could not stand the charge which the
latter made upon them. His cavalry was largely composed of the
young nobility of Rome, and Cæsar had few horsemen with which
to meet them; but he set against them a strong reserve of his
sturdy veterans on foot, and they broke the horsemen's ranks.
The defeat was speedily a rout; there was no rallying.
Pompeius fled with a few attendants and made his way to
Alexandria, where his tragical fate overtook him. Some of the
other leaders escaped in different directions. Some, like
Brutus, submitted to Cæsar, who was practically the master,
from that hour, of the Roman realm, although Thapsus had still
to be fought.
_Cæsar,
The Civil War,
book 3._
ALSO IN
_W. W. Fowler,
Julius Cæsar,
chapter 16._
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapters 10-17._
_T. A. Dodge,
Cæsar,
chapters 31-35._
ROME: B. C. 48-47.
Pursuit or Pompeius to Egypt.
His assassination.
Cæsar at Alexandria, with Cleopatra.
The rising against him.
His peril.
His deliverance.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
ROME: B. C. 47-46.
Cæsar's overthrow or Pharnaces at Zela.
His return to Rome.
The last stand or his opponents in Africa.
Their defeat at Thapsus.
At the time when Cæsar was in a difficult position at
Alexandria, and the subjects of Rome were generally uncertain
as to whether their yoke would be broken or not by the pending
civil war, Pharnaces, son of the vanquished Pontic king,
Mithridates, made an effort to recover the lost kingdom of his
father. He himself had been a traitor to his father, and had
been rewarded for his treason by Pompeius, who gave him the
small kingdom of Bosporus, in the Crimea. He now thought the
moment favorable for regaining Pontus, Cappadocia and Lesser
Armenia. Cæsar's lieutenant in Asia Minor, Domitius Calvinus,
marched against him with a small force, and was badly defeated
at Nicopolis (B. C. 48), in Armenia Minor.
{2694}
As a consequence, Cæsar, on being extricated from Alexandria,
could not return to Rome, although his affairs there sorely
needed him, until he had restored the Roman authority in Asia
Minor. As soon as he could reach Pharnaces, although his army
was small in numbers, he struck and shattered the flimsy
throne at a single blow. The battle was fought (B. C. 47) at
Zela, in Pontus, where Mithridates had once gained a victory
over the Romans. It was of this battle that Cæsar is said to
have written his famous 'Veni, vidi, vici.' "Plutarch says
that this expression was used in a letter to one Amintius; the
name is probably a mistake. Suetonius asserts that the three
words were inscribed on a banner and carried in Cæsar's
triumph. Appian and Dion refer to them as notorious."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 18._
After defeating Pharnaces at Zela, destroying his army, "Cæsar
passed on through Galatia and Bithynia to the province of Asia
proper, settling affairs in every centre; and leaving the
faithful Mithridates [of Pergamum—See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47]
with the title of King of the Bosphorus, as a guarantee for
the security of these provinces, he sailed for Italy, and
arrived at Tarentum before anyone was aware of his approach.
If he had really wasted time or lost energy in Egypt, he was
making up for it now. On the way from Tarentum to Brundisium
he met Cicero, who had been waiting for him here for nearly a
year. He alighted, embraced his old friend, and walked with
him some distance. The result of their talk was shown by
Cicero's conduct for the rest of Cæsar's lifetime; he retired
to his villas, and sought relief in literary work, encouraged
doubtless by Cæsar's ardent praise. The magical effect of
Cæsar's presence was felt throughout Italy; all sedition
ceased, and Rome, which had been the scene of riot and
bloodshed under the uncertain rule of Antonius, was quiet in
an instant. The master spent three months in the city, working
hard. He had been a second time appointed dictator while he
was in Egypt, and probably without any limit of time, space or
power; and he acted now without scruple as an absolute
monarch. Everything that had to be done he saw to himself.
Money was raised, bills were passed, the Senate recruited,
magistrates and provincial governors appointed. But there was
no time for any attempt at permanent organisation; he must
wrest Africa from his enemies. … He quelled a most serious
mutiny, in which even his faithful tenth legion was concerned,
with all his wonderful skill and knowledge of human nature;
sent on all available forces to Sicily, and arrived himself at
Lilybæum in the middle of December."
_W. W. Fowler,
Julius Cæsar,
chapter 17._
The last stand of Cæsar's opponents as a party—the senatorial
party, or the republicans, as they are sometimes called—was
made in Africa, on the old Carthaginian territory, with the
city of Utica for their headquarters, and with Juba, the
Numidian king, for their active ally. Varus, who had held his
ground there, defeating and slaying Cæsar's friend Curio, was
joined first by Scipio, afterwards by Cato, Labienus and other
leaders, Cato having led a wonderful march through the desert
from the Lesser Syrtis. In the course of the year of respite
from pursuit which Cæsar's occupations elsewhere allowed them,
they gathered and organized a formidable army. It was near the
end of the year 47 B. G. that Cæsar assembled his forces at
Lilybæum, in Sicily, and sailed with the first detachment for
Africa. As happened so often to him in his bold military
adventures, the troops which should follow were delayed by
storms, and he was exposed to imminent peril before they
arrived. But he succeeded in fortifying and maintaining a
position on the coast, near Ruspina, until they came. As soon
as they reached him he offered battle to his adversaries, and
found presently an opportunity to force the fighting upon them
at Thapsus, a coast town in their possession, which he
attacked. The battle was decided by the first charge of
Cæsar's legionaries, which swept everything—foot-soldiers,
cavalry and elephants —before it. The victors in their
ferocity gave no quarter and slaughtered 10,000 of the enemy,
while losing from their own ranks but fifty men. The decisive
battle of Thapsus was fought on the 6th of April, B. C. 46,
uncorrected calendar, or February 6th, as corrected later.
Scipio, the commander, fled to Spain, was intercepted on the
voyage, and ended his own life. The high-minded, stoical Cato
committed suicide at Utica, rather than surrender his freedom
to Cæsar. Juba, the Numidian king, likewise destroyed himself
in despair; his kingdom was extinguished and Numidia became a
Roman province. A few scattered leaders of revolt still
disputed Cæsar's supremacy, but his power was firmly fixed.
_A. Hirtius,
The African War._
ALSO IN
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapters 24-27._
ROME: B. C. 45:
Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians in Spain.
His victory at Munda.
After Thapsus, Cæsar had one more deadly and desperate battle
to fight for his sovereignty over the dominions of Rome. Cnæus
Pompeius, son of Pompeius Magnus, with Labienus and Varus, of
the survivors of the African field, had found disaffection in
Spain, out of which they drew an army, with Pompeius in
command. Cæsar marched in person against this new revolt,
crossing the Alps and the Pyrenees with his customary
celerity. After a number of minor engagements had been fought,
the decisive battle occurred at Munda, in the valley of the
Guadalquiver (modern Munda, between Honda and Malaga), on the
17th of March, B. C. 45. "Never, it is said, was the great
conqueror brought so near to defeat and destruction;" but he
won the day in the end, and only Sextus Pompeius survived
among the leaders of his enemies. The dead on the field were
30,000.
_Julius Cæsar,
Commentary on the Spanish War._
ALSO IN
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 19._
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 30._
ROME: B. C. 45-44.
The Sovereignty of Cæsar and his titles.
His permanent Imperatorship.
His unfulfilled projects.
"At Home, official enthusiasm burst forth anew at the tidings
of these successes [in Spain]. The Senate decreed fifty days
of supplications, and recognized Cæsar's right to extend the
pomœrium, since he had extended the limits of the Empire. …
After Thapsus he was more than a demi-god; after Munda he was
a god altogether. A statue was raised to him in the temple of
Quirinus with the inscription: 'To the invincible God,' and a
college of priests, the Julian, was consecrated to him. … On
the 18th September the dictator appeared at the gates of Rome,
but he did not triumph till the beginning of October.
{2695}
This time there was no barbarian king or chieftain to veil the
victories won over citizens. But Cæsar thought he had no
longer need to keep up such consideration; since he was now
the State, his enemies, whatever name they bore, must be
enemies of the State. … It was expected that Cæsar, having
suffered so many outrages, would now punish severely, and
Cicero, who had always doubted his clemency, believed that
tyranny would break out as soon as the tyrant was above fear.
But jealousies, recollections of party strifes, did not reach
to the height of Cæsar. … He restored the statues of Sylla; he
replaced that of Pompey on the rostra. … He pardoned Cassius,
who had tried to assassinate him, the consularis Marcellus who
had stirred up war against him, and Quintus Ligarius who had
betrayed him in Africa. As a temporary precaution, however, he
forbade to the Pompeians, by a 'lex Hirtia,' admission to the
magistracy. For his authority, Cæsar sought no new forms. …
Senate, comitia, magistracies existed as before; but he
centred public action in himself alone by combining in his own
hands all the republican offices. The instrument which Cæsar
used in order to give to his power legal sanction was the
Senate. In former times, the general, after the triumph; laid
aside his title of imperator and imperium, which included
absolute authority over the army, the judicial department and
the administrative power; Cæsar, by a decree of the Senate,
retained both during life, with the right of drawing freely
from the treasury. His dictatorship and his office of
præfectus morum were declared perpetual; the consulship was
offered him for ten years, but he would not accept it; the
Senate wished to join executive to electoral authority by
offering him the right of appointment in all curule and
plebeian offices; he reserved for himself merely the privilege
of nominating half the magistracy. The Senate had enjoined the
members chosen to swear, before entering on office, that they
would undertake nothing contrary to the dictator's acts, these
having the force of law. Further, they gave to his person the
legal inviolability of the tribunes, and in order to ensure
it, knights and senators offered to serve as guards, while the
whole Senate took an oath to watch over his safety. To the
reality of power were added the outward signs. In the Senate,
at the theatre, in the circus, on his tribunal, he sat,
dressed in the royal robe, on a throne of gold, and his effigy
was stamped on the coins, where the Roman magistrates had not
yet ventured to engrave more than their names. They even went
as far as talking of succession, as in a regular monarchy. His
title of imperator and the sovereign pontificate were
transmissible to his legitimate or adopted children. … Cæsar
was not deceived by the secret perfidy which prompted such
servilities, and he valued them as they deserved. But his
enemies found in them fresh reasons for hating the great man
who had saved them. … The Senate had … sunk from its character
of supreme council of the Republic into that of a committee of
consultation, which the master often forgot to consult. The
Civil war had decimated it; Cæsar appointed to it brave
soldiers, even sons of freedmen who had served him well, and a
considerable number of provincials, Spaniards, Gauls of Gallia
Narbonensis, who had long been Romans. He had so many services
to reward that his Senate reached the number of 900 members. …
One day the Senate went in a body to the temple of Venus
Genetrix to present to Cæsar certain decrees drawn up in his
honor. The demi-god was ill and dared not leave his couch.
This was imprudent, for the report spread that he had not
deigned to rise. … The higher nobles remained apart, not from
honours, but from power; but they forgot neither Pharsalia nor
Thapsus. They would have consented to obey on condition of
having the appearance of commanding. This disguised obedience
is for an able government more convenient than outward
servility. A few concessions made to vanity obtain tranquil
possession of power. This was the policy of Augustus, but it
is not that of great ambitions or of a true statesman. These
pretences leave everything doubtful; nothing is settled; and
Cæsar wished to lay the foundations of a government which
should bring a new order of things out of a chaos of ruins.
Unless we are paying too much attention to mere anecdotes, he
desired the royal diadem. … It is difficult not to believe
that Cæsar considered the constituting of a monarchical power
as the rational achievement of the revolution which he was
carrying out. In this way we could explain the persistence of
his friends in offering him a title odious to the Romans, who
were quite ready to accept a monarch, but not monarchy. … In
order to attain to this royal title … he must mount still
higher, and this new greatness he would seek in the East. … It
was meet that he should wipe out the second military
humiliation of Rome after effacing the first; that he should
avenge Crassus."
_V. Duruy,
History of Rome,
chapter 58, sections 2-3 (volume 3)._
"Cæsar was born to do great things, and had a passion after
honor. … It was in fact a sort of emulous struggle with
himself, as it had been with another, how he might outdo his
past actions by his future. In pursuit of these thoughts he
resolved to make war upon the Parthians, and when he had
subdued them, to pass through Hyrcania; thence to march along
by the Caspian Sea to Mount Caucasus, and so on about Pontus,
till he came into Scythia; then to overrun all the countries
bordering upon Germany, and Germany itself; and so to return
through Gaul into Italy, after completing the whole circle of
his intended empire, and bounding it on every side by the
ocean. While preparations were making for this expedition, he
proposed to dig through the isthmus on which Corinth stands;
and appointed Anienus to superintend the work. He had also a
design of diverting the Tiber, and carrying it by a deep
channel directly from Rome to Circeii, and so into the sea
near Tarracina, that there might be a safe and easy passage
for all merchants who traded to Rome. Besides this, he
intended to drain all the marshes by Pomentium and Setia, and
gain ground enough from the water to employ many thousands of
men in tillage. He proposed further to make great mounds on
the shore nearest Rome, to hinder the sea from breaking in
upon the land, to clear the coast at Ostia of all the hidden
rocks and shoals that made it unsafe for shipping, and to form
ports and harbors fit to receive the large number of vessels
that would frequent them. These things were designed without
being carried into effect; but his reformation of the calendar
[See CALENDAR, JULIAN], in order to rectify the irregularity
of time, was not only projected with great scientific
ingenuity, but was brought to its completion, and proved of
very great use."
_Plutarch,
Cæsar (Clough's Dryden's translation)._
ALSO IN
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 11, with note._
{2696}
ROME: B. C. 44.
The Assassination of Cæsar.
"The question of the kingship was over; but a vague alarm had
been created, which answered the purpose of the Optimates.
Cæsar was at their mercy any day. They had sworn to maintain
all his acts. They had sworn, after Cicero's speech,
individually and collectively to defend his life. Cæsar,
whether he believed them sincere or not, had taken them at
their word, and came daily to the Senate unarmed and without a
guard. … There were no troops in the city. Lepidus, Cæsar's
master of the horse, who had been appointed governor of Gaul,
was outside the gates with a few cohorts; but Lepidus was a
person of feeble character, and they trusted to be able to
deal with him. Sixty senators, in all, were parties to the
immediate conspiracy. Of these, nine tenths were members of
the old faction whom Cæsar had pardoned, and who, of all his
acts, resented most that he had been able to pardon them. They
were the men who had stayed at home, like Cicero, from the
fields of Thapsus and Munda, and had pretended penitence and
submission that they might take an easier road to rid
themselves of their enemy. Their motives were the ambition of
their order and personal hatred of Cæsar; but they persuaded
themselves that they were animated by patriotism, and as, in
their hands, the Republic had been a mockery of liberty, so
they aimed at restoring it by a mock tyrannicide. … One man
only they were able to attract into coöperation who had a
reputation for honesty, and could be conceived, without
absurdity, to be animated by a disinterested purpose. Marcus
Brutus was the son of Cato's sister Servilia, the friend, and
a scandal said the mistress, of Cæsar. That he was Cæsar's son
was not too absurd for the credulity of Roman drawing-rooms.
Brutus himself could not have believed in the existence of
such a relation, for he was deeply attached to his mother; and
although, under the influence of his uncle Cato, he had taken
the Senate's side in the war, he had accepted afterwards not
pardon only from Cæsar, but favors of many kinds, for which he
had professed, and probably felt, some real gratitude. …
Brutus was perhaps the only member of the senatorial party in
whom Cæsar felt genuine confidence. His known integrity, and
Cæsar's acknowledged regard for him, made his accession to the
conspiracy an object of particular importance. … Brutus, once
wrought upon, became with Cassius the most ardent in the cause
which assumed the aspect to him of a sacred duty. Behind them
were the crowd of senators of the familiar faction, and others
worse than they, who had not even the excuse of having been
partisans of the beaten cause; men who had fought at Cæsar's
side till the war was over, and believed, like Labienus, that
to them Cæsar owed his fortune, and that he alone ought not to
reap the harvest. … The Ides of March drew near. Cæsar was to
set out in a few days for Parthia. Decimus Brutus was going,
as governor, to the north of Italy, Lepidus to Gaul, Marcus
Brutus to Macedonia, and Trebonius to Asia Minor. Antony,
Cæsar's colleague in the consulship, was to remain in Italy.
Dolabella, Cicero's son-in-law, was to be consul with him as
soon as Cæsar should have left for the East. The foreign
appointments were all made for five years, and in another week
the party would be scattered. The time for action had come, if
action there was to be. … An important meeting of the Senate
had been called for the Ides (the 15th) of the month. The
Pontifices, it was whispered, intended to bring on again the
question of the Kingship before Cæsar's departure. The
occasion would be appropriate. The Senate-house itself was a
convenient scene of operations. The conspirators met at supper
the evening before at Cassius's house. Cicero, to his regret,
was not invited. The plan was simple, and was rapidly
arranged. Cæsar would attend unarmed. The senators not in the
secret would be unarmed also. The party who intended to act
were to provide themselves with poniards, which could be
easily concealed in their paper boxes. So far all was simple;
but a question rose whether Cæsar only was to be killed, or
whether Antony and Lepidus were to be dispatched along with
him. They decided that Cæsar's death would be sufficient. …
Antony and Lepidus were not to be touched. For the rest the
assassins had merely to be in their places in the Senate in
good time. When Cæsar entered, Trebonius was to detain Antony
in conversation at the door. The others were to gather about
Cæsar's chair on pretence of presenting a petition, and so
could make an end. A gang of gladiators were to be secreted in
the adjoining theatre to be ready should any unforeseen
difficulty present itself. … Strange stories were told in
after years of the uneasy labors of the elements that night. …
Calpurnia dreamt her husband was murdered, and that she saw
him ascending into heaven, and received by the hand of God. In
the morning (March 15th) the sacrifices were again
unfavorable. Cæsar was restless. Some natural disorder
affected his spirits, and his spirits were reacting on his
body. Contrary to his usual habit, he gave way to depression.
He decided, at his wife's entreaty, that he would not attend
the Senate that day. The house was full. The conspirators were
in their places with their daggers ready. Attendants came in
to remove Cæsar's chair. It was announced that he was not
coming. Delay might be fatal. They conjectured that he already
suspected something. A day's respite, and all might be
discovered. His familiar friend whom he trusted —the
coincidence is striking—was employed to betray him. Decimus
Brutus, whom it was impossible for him to distrust, went to
entreat his attendance. … Cæsar shook off his uneasiness, and
rose to go. As he crossed the hall his statue fell and
shivered on the stones. Some servant, perhaps, had heard
whispers, and wished to warn him. As he still passed on, a
stranger thrust a scroll into his hand, and begged him to read
it on the spot. It contained a list of the conspirators, with
a clear account of the plot. He supposed it to be a petition
and placed it carelessly among his other papers. The fate of
the Empire hung upon a thread, but the thread was not broken.
… Cæsar entered and took his seat.
{2697}
His presence awed men, in spite of themselves, and the
conspirators had determined to act at once, lest they should
lose courage to act at all. He was familiar and easy of
access. They gathered round him. … One had a story to tell
him; another some favor to ask. Tullius Cimber, whom he had
just made governor of Bithynia, then came close to him, with
some request which he was unwilling to grant. Cimber caught
his gown, as if in entreaty, and dragged it from his
shoulders. Cassius, who was standing behind, stabbed him in
the throat. He started up with a cry and caught Cassius's arm.
Another poniard entered his breast, giving a mortal wound. He
looked round, and seeing not one friendly face, but only a
ring of daggers pointing at him, he drew his gown over his
head, gathered the folds about him that he might fall
decently, and sank down without uttering another word. … The
Senate rose with shrieks and confusion, and rushed into the
Forum. The crowd outside caught the words that Cæsar was dead,
and scattered to their houses. Antony, guessing that those who
had killed Cæsar would not spare himself, hurried off into
concealment. The murderers, bleeding some of them from wounds
which they had given one another in their eagerness, followed,
crying that the tyrant was dead, and that Rome was free; and
the body of the great Cæsar was left alone in the house where
a few weeks before Cicero told him that he was so necessary to
his country that every senator would die before harm should
reach him."
_J. A. Froude,
Cæsar,
chapter 26._
ROME: B. C. 44.
The genius and character of Cæsar.
His rank among great men.
"Was Cæsar, upon the whole, the greatest of men? Dr. Beattie
once observed, that if that question were left to be collected
from the suffrages already expressed in books, and scattered
throughout the literature of all nations, the scale would be
found to have turned prodigiously in Cæsar's favor, as against
any single competitor; and there is no doubt whatsoever, that
even amongst his own countrymen, and his own contemporaries,
the same verdict would have been returned, had it been
collected upon the famous principle of Themistocles, that he
should be reputed the first, whom the greatest number of rival
voices had pronounced the second."
_T. De Quincey,
The Cæsars,
chapter 1._
"The founder of the Roman Empire was a very great man. With
such genius and such fortune it is not surprising that he
should be made an idol. In intellectual stature he was at
least an inch higher than his fellows, which is in itself
enough to confound all our notions of right and wrong. He had
the advantage of being a statesman before he was a soldier,
whereas Napoleon was a soldier before he was a statesman. His
ambition coincided with the necessity of the world, which
required to be held together by force; and, therefore, his
Empire endured for four hundred, or, if we include its Eastern
offset, for fourteen hundred years, while that of Napoleon
crumbled to pieces in four. But unscrupulous ambition was the
root of his character. It was necessary, in fact, to enable
him to trample down the respect for legality which still
hampered other men. To connect him with any principle seems to
me impossible. He came forward, it is true, as the leader of
what is styled the democratic party, and in that sense the
empire which he founded may be called democratic. But to the
gamblers who brought their fortunes to that vast hazard table,
the democratic and aristocratic parties were merely rouge and
noir. The social and political equity, the reign of which we
desire to see, was, in truth, unknown to the men of Cæsar's
time. It is impossible to believe that there was an essential
difference of principle between one member of the triumvirate
and another. The great adventurer had begun by getting deeply
into debt, and had thus in fact bound himself to overthrow the
republic. He fomented anarchy to prepare the way for his
dictatorship. He shrank from no accomplice however tainted,
not even from Catiline; from no act however profligate or even
cruel. … The noblest feature in Cæsar's character was his
clemency. But we are reminded that it was ancient, not modern
clemency, when we find numbered among the signal instances of
it his having cut the throats of the pirates before he hanged
them, and his having put to death without torture (simplici
morte punivit) a slave suspected of conspiring against his
life. Some have gone so far as to speak of him as the
incarnation of humanity. But in the whole history of Roman
conquest will you find a more ruthless conqueror? A million of
Gauls we are told perished by the sword. Multitudes were sold
into slavery. The extermination of the Eburones went to the
verge even of ancient licence. The gallant Vercingetorix, who
had fallen into Cæsar's hands under circumstances which would
have touched any but a depraved heart, was kept by him a
captive for six years, and butchered in cold blood on the day
of the triumph. The sentiment of humanity was then
undeveloped. Be it so, but then we must not call Cæsar the
incarnation of humanity. Vast plans are ascribed to Cæsar at
the time of his death, and it seems to be thought that a world
of hopes for humanity perished when he fell. But if he had
lived and acted for another century, what could he have done
with those moral and political materials but found, what he
did found, a military and sensualist empire. A multitude of
projects are attributed to him by writers, who, we must
remember, are late, and who make him ride a fairy charger with
feet like the hands of a man. Some of these projects are
really great, such as the codification of the law, and
measures for the encouragement of intellect and science;
others are questionable, such as the restoration of commercial
cities from which commerce had departed; others, great works
to be accomplished by an unlimited command of men and money,
are the common dreams of every Nebuchadnezzar. … Still Cæsar
was a very great man, and he played a dazzling part, as all
men do who come just at the fall of an old system, when
society is as clay in the hands of the potter, and found a new
system in its place; while the less dazzling task of making
the new system work, by probity and industry, and of restoring
the shattered allegiance of a people to its institutions,
descends upon unlaurelled heads. But that the men of his time
were bound to recognise in him a Messiah, to use the phrase of
the Emperor of the French, and that those who opposed him were
Jews crucifying their Messiah is an impression which I venture
to think will in time subside."
_Goldwin Smith,
The Last Republicans of Rome
(Macmillan's Magazine, April, 1868)._
ALSO IN:
_T. Arnold,
History of the Later Roman Commonwealth,
chapter 9 (volume 2)._
_A. Trollope,
Life of Cicero,
volume 2, chapter 8._
{2698}
ROME: B. C. 44.
After Cæsar's death.
Flight of "the Liberators."
Mark Antony in power.-
Arrival and wise conduct of Cæsar's heir, the young Octavius.
The assassins of Cæsar were not long in discovering that Rome
gave no applause to their bloody deed. Its first effect was a
simply stupefying consternation. The Senators fled,—the forum
and the streets were nearly emptied. When Brutus attempted an
harangue his hearers were few and silent. In gloomy alarm, he
made haste, with his associates, to take refuge on the heights
of the capitol. During the night which followed, a few
senators, who approved the assassination—Cicero among the
number—climbed the hill and held council with them in their
place of retreat. The result was a second attempt made, on the
following day, to rouse public feeling in their favor by
speeches in the forum. The demonstration was again a failure,
and the "liberators," as they wished to be deemed, returned
with disappointment to the capitol. Meantime, the surviving
consul, who had been Cæsar's colleague for the year, M.
Antonius—known more commonly as Mark Antony—had acted with
vigor to secure power in his own hands. He had taken
possession of the great treasure which Cæsar left, and had
acquired his papers. He had come to a secure understanding,
moreover, with Lepidus, Cæsar's Master of Horse, who
controlled a legion quartered near by, and who really
commanded the situation, if his energy and his abilities had
been equal to it. Lepidus marched his legion into the city,
and its presence preserved order. Yet, with all the advantage
in their favor, neither Antony nor Lepidus took any bold
attitude against Cæsar's murderers. On the contrary, Antony
listened to propositions from them and consented, as consul,
to call a meeting of the Senate for deliberation on their act.
At that meeting he even advocated what might be called a
decree of oblivion, so far as concerned the striking down of
Cæsar, and a confirmation of all the acts executed and
unexecuted, of the late Imperator. These had included the
recent appointment of Brutus, Cassius and other leaders among
the assassins to high proconsular commands in the provinces.
Of course the proposed measure was acceptable to them and
their friends, while Antony, having Cæsar's papers in his
possession, expected to gain everything from it. Under cover
of the blank confirmation of Cæsar's acts, he found in Cæsar's
papers a ground of authority for whatever he willed to do, and
was accused of forging without limit where the genuine
documents failed him. At the same time, taking advantage of
the opportunity that was given to him by a public funeral
decreed to Cæsar, he delivered an artful oration, which
infuriated the people and drove the bloodstained "liberators"
in terror from the city. But in many ways Antonius weakened
the strong position which his skilful combinations had won for
him. In his undisguised selfishness he secured no friends of
his own; he alienated the friends of Cæsar by his calm
indifference to the crime of the assassins of Cæsar, while he
harvested for himself the fruits of it; above all, he offended
and insulted the people by his impudent appropriation of
Cæsar's vast hoard of wealth. The will of the slain Imperator
had been read, and it was known that he had bequeathed three
hundred sesterces—nearly £3 sterling, or $15—to every citizen
of Rome. The heir named to the greater part of the estate was
Cæsar's favorite grand-nephew (grandson of his younger sister,
Julia) Caius Octavius, who became, by the terms of the will,
his adopted son, and who was henceforth to bear the name Caius
Julius Cæsar Octavianus. The young heir, then but eighteen
years of age, was at Apollonia, in Illyria, at the quarters of
a considerable force which Cæsar had assembled there. With
wonderful coolness and prudence for his age, he declined
proposals to lead the army to Rome, for the assertion of his
rights, but went quietly thither with a few friends, feeling
the public pulse as he journeyed. At Rome he demanded from
Antony the moneys which Cæsar had left, but the profligate and
reckless consul had spent them and would give no account. By
great exertions Octavius raised sufficient means on his own
account to pay Cæsar's legacy to the Roman citizens, and
thereby he consolidated a popular feeling in his own favor,
against Antony, which placed him, at once, in important
rivalry with the latter. It enabled him presently to share the
possession of power with Antony and Lepidus, in the Second
Triumvirate, and, finally, to seize the whole sovereignty
which Cæsar intended to bequeath to him.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapters 23-24._
ALSO IN:
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 34._
ROME: B. C. 44-42.
Destruction of the Liberators.
Combination of Antony, Octavius and Lepidus.
The Second Triumvirate.
Mark Antony's arrangement of peace with the murderers of
Cæsar, on the basis of a confirmation in the Senate of all
Cæsar's acts, gave to Marcus Brutus the government of
Macedonia, to Decimus Brutus that of Cisalpine Gaul, and to
Cassius that of Syria, since Cæsar had already named them to
those several commands before they slew him. But Antony
succeeded ere long in procuring decrees from the Senate,
transferring Macedonia to his brother, and Syria to Dolabella.
A little later he obtained a vote of the people giving
Cisalpine Gaul to himself, and cancelling the commission of
Decimus Brutus. His consular term was now near its expiration
and he had no intention to surrender the power he had enjoyed.
An army in northern Italy would afford the support which his
plans required. But, before those plans were ripe, his
position had grown exceedingly precarious. The Senate and the
people were alike unfriendly to him, and alike disposed to
advance Octavius in opposition. The latter, without office or
commission, had already, in the lawless manner of the time, by
virtue of the encouragement given to him, collected an army of
several legions under his personal banner. Decimus Brutus
refused to surrender the government of Gaul, and was supported
by the best wishes of the Senate in defying Antony to wrest it
from him. The latter now faced the situation boldly, and,
although two legions brought from Epirus went over to
Octavius, he collected a strong force at Ariminum, marched
into Cisalpine Gaul and blockaded Decimus Brutus in Mutina
(modern Modena). Meantime, new consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, had
taken office at Rome, and the Senate, led by Cicero, had
declared its hostility to Antony.
{2699}
Octavius was called upon to join the new consuls with his
army, in proceeding against the late consul—now treated as a
public enemy, though not so pronounced. He did so, and two
battles were fought, on the 15th of April, B. C. 43, at Forum
Gallorum, and on the 27th of the same month under the walls of
Mutina, which forced Antony to retreat, but which cost Rome
the lives of both her consuls. Antony retired across the Alps
and joined his old friend Lepidus in Transalpine Gaul.
Octavius declined to follow. Instead of doing so, he sent a
military deputation to Rome to demand the consulship, and
quickly followed it with his army when the demand had been
refused. The demonstration proved persuasive, and he was
elected consul, with his half-brother for colleague. His next
business was to come to terms with Antony and Lepidus, as
against the Liberators and their friends. A conference was
arranged, and the three new masters of Rome met in October, B.
C. 43, on an island near Bononia (modern Bologna),
constituting themselves a commission of three—a triumvirate
—to settle the affairs of the commonwealth. They framed a
formal contract of five years' duration; divided the powers of
government between themselves; named officials for the
subordinate places; and—most serious proceeding of
all—prepared a proscription list, as Sulla had done, of
enemies to be put out of the way. It was an appalling list of
300 senators (the immortal Cicero at their head) and 2,000
knights. When the work of massacre in Rome and Italy had been
done, and when the terrified Senate had legalized the
self-assumed title and authority of the triumvirs, these
turned their attention to the East, where M. Brutus and
Cassius had established and maintained themselves in power.
Decimus Brutus was already slain, after desertion by his army
and capture in attempted flight. In the summer of the year 42
B. C., Antony led a division of the joint army of the
triumvirate across the sea and through Macedonia, followed
soon after by Octavius with additional forces. They were met
at Philippi, and there, in two great battles, fought with an
interval of twenty days between, the republic of Rome was
finally done to death. "The battle of Philippi, in the
estimation of the Roman writers, was the most memorable
conflict in their military annals. The numbers engaged on
either side far exceed all former experience. Eighty thousand
legionaries alone were counted on the one side, and perhaps
120,000 on the other—at least three times as many as fought at
Pharsalia." Both Cassius and Brutus died by their own hands.
There was no more opposition to the triumvirs, except from
Sextus Pompeius, last survivor of the family of the great
Pompeius, who had created for himself at sea a little
half-piratical realm, and who forced the three to recognize
him for a time as a fourth power in the Roman world. But he,
too, perished, B. C. 35. For seven years, from B. C. 42 to B.
C. 36, Antony ruled the East, Octavius the West, and Lepidus
reigned in Africa.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapters 24-28._
ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale,
The Fall of the Roman Republic,
chapter 15._
ROME: B. C. 31.
The victory of Octavius at Actium.
The rise of the Empire.
The battles of Philippi, which delivered the whole Roman world
to Antony, Octavius and Lepidus (the Triumvirs), were fought
in the summer of 42 B. C. The battle of Actium, which made
Octavius—soon to be named Augustus—the single master of a now
fully founded Empire, was fought on the 2d of September, B. C.
31. In the interval of eleven years, Octavius, governing Rome,
Italy, and the provinces of the West, had steadily
consolidated and increased his power, gaining the confidence,
the favor and the fear of his subject people. Antony,
oppressing the East, had consumed his energies and his time in
dalliance with Cleopatra, and had made himself the object of
hatred and contempt. Lepidus, who had Africa for his dominion
to begin with, had measured swords with Octavius and had been
summarily deposed, in the year 36 B. C. It was simply a
question of time as to when Antony, in his turn, should make
room for the coming monarch. Already, in the year after
Philippi, the two sovereign-partners had been at the verge of
war. Antony's brother and his wife, Fulvia, had raised a
revolt in Italy against Octavius, and it had been crushed at
Perusia, before Antony could rouse himself to make a movement
in support of it. He did make a formidable demonstration at
last; but the soldiers of the two rivals compelled them on
that occasion to patch up a new peace, which was accomplished
by a treaty negotiated at Brundisium and sealed by the
marriage of Antony to Octavia, sister of Octavius. This peace
was maintained for ten years, while the jealousies and
animosities of the two potentates grew steadily more bitter.
It came to an end when Octavius felt strong enough to defy the
superior resources, in money, men and ships, which Antony held
at his command. The preparations then made on both sides for
the great struggle were stupendous and consumed a year. It was
by the determination of Antony that the war assumed chiefly a
naval character; but Octavius, not Antony, forced the
sea-fight when it came. His smaller squadrons sought and
attacked the swarming fleets of Egypt and Asia, in the
Ambracian gulf, where they had been assembled. The great
battle was fought at the inlet of the gulf, off the point, or
"acte," of a tongue of land, projecting from the shores of
Acarnania, on which stood a temple to Apollo, called the
Actium. Hence the name of the battle. The cowardly flight of
Cleopatra, followed by Antony, ended the conflict quickly, and
the Antonian fleet was entirely destroyed. The deserted army,
on shore, which had idly watched the sea-fight, threw down its
arms, when the flight of Antonius was known. Before Octavius
pursued his enemy into Egypt and to a despairing death, he had
other work to do, which occupied him for nearly a year. But he
was already sure of the sole sovereignty that he claimed. The
date of the battle of Actium "has been formally recorded by
historians as signalizing the termination of the republic and
the commencement of the Roman monarchy."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 28._
{2700}
ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.
The settlement of the Empire by the second Cæsar,
Octavius, called Augustus.
His organization of government.
"Power and repute had passed away from the old forms of the
Republic. The whole world lay at the feet of the master of
many legions; it remained only to define the constitutional
forms in which the new forces were to work. But to do this was
no easy task. The perplexities of his position, the fears and
hopes that crossed his mind, are thrown into dramatic form by
the historian Dion Cassius, who brings a scene before our
fancy in which Octavianus listens to the conflicting counsels
of his two great advisers, Agrippa and Mæcenas. … There is
little doubt that schemes of resignation were at some time
discussed by the Emperor and by his circle of advisers. It is
even possible, as the same writer tells us, that he laid
before the Senators at this time some proposal to leave the
helm of state and let them guide it as of old. … The scene, if
ever really acted, was but an idle comedy. … It is more
probable that he was content with some faint show of
resistance when the Senate heaped their honours on his head,
as afterwards when, more than once, after a ten years'
interval, they solemnly renewed the tenure of his power. But
we cannot doubt his sincerity in one respect—in his wish to
avoid the kingly title and all the odious associations of the
same. … He shrank also from another title, truly Roman in its
character, but odious since the days of Sulla; and though the
populace of Rome, when panic-struck by pestilence and famine,
clamoured to have him made dictator, … yet nothing would
induce him to bear the hateful name. But the name of Cæsar he
had taken long ago, after his illustrious uncle's death, and
this became the title first of the dynasty and then of the
imperial office.
See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.
Besides this he allowed himself to be styled Augustus, a name
which roused no jealousy and outraged no Roman sentiment, yet
vaguely implied some dignity and reverence from its long
association with the objects of religion. …
See AUGUSTUS, THE TITLE.
With this exception he assumed no new symbol of monarchic
power, but was satisfied with the old official titles, which,
though charged with memories of the Republic, yet singly
corresponded to some side or fragment of absolute authority.
The first of these was Imperator, which served to connect him
with the army. … The title of the tribunician power connected
the monarch with the interests of the lower orders. … The
Emperor did not, indeed, assume the tribunate, but was vested
with the tribunician power which overshadowed the annual
holders of the office. It made his person sacred. … The
'princeps senatus' in old days had been the foremost senator
of his time. … No one but the Emperor could fill this position
safely, and he assumed the name henceforth to connect him with
the Senate, as other titles seemed to bind him to the army and
the people. For the post of Supreme Pontiff, Augustus was
content to wait awhile, until it passed by death from the
feeble hands of Lepidus. He then claimed the exclusive tenure
of the office, and after this time Pontifex Maximus was always
added to the long list of imperial titles. … Besides these
titles to which he assumed an exclusive right he also filled
occasionally and for short periods most of the republican
offices of higher rank, both in the capital and in the country
towns. He took from time to time the consular power, with its
august traditions and imposing ceremonial. The authority of
censor lay ready to his hands when a moral reform was to be
set on foot, … or when the Senate was to be purged of unworthy
members and the order of equites or knights to be reviewed and
its dignity consulted. Beyond the capital the pro-consular
power was vested in him without local limitations. … The
offices of state at Rome, meantime, lasted on from the
Republic to the Empire, unchanged in name, and with little
seeming change of functions. Consuls, Prætors, Quæstors,
Tribunes, and Ædiles rose from the same classes as before, and
moved for the most part in the same round of work, though they
had lost for ever their power of initiative and real control.
… They were now mainly the nominees of Cæsar, though the forms
of popular election were still for a time observed. … The
consulship was entirely reserved for his nominees, but passed
rapidly from hand to hand, since in order to gratify a larger
number it was granted at varying intervals for a few months
only. … It was part of the policy of Augustus to disturb as
little as possible the old names and forms of the Republic. …
But besides these he set up a number of new offices, often of
more real power, though of lower rank. … The name præfectus,
the 'préfêt' of modern France, stood in earlier days for the
deputy of any officer of state charged specially to execute
some definite work. The præfects of Cæsar were his servants,
named by him and responsible to him, set to discharge duties
which the old constitution had commonly ignored. The præfect
of the city had appeared in shadowy form under the Republic to
represent the consul in his absence. Augustus felt the need,
when called away from Rome, to have some one there whom he
could trust to watch the jealous nobles and control the fickle
mob. His trustiest confidants, Mæcenas and Agrippa, filled the
post, and it became a standing office, with a growing sphere
of competence, overtopping the magistracies of earlier date.
The præfects of the prætorian cohorts first appeared when the
Senate formally assigned a body-guard to Augustus later in his
reign. …
See PRÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.
Next to these in power and importance came the præfects of the
watch—the new police force organised by Augustus as a
protection against the dangers of the night, and of the corn
supplies of Rome, which were always an object of especial care
on the part of the imperial government. … The title
'procurator,' which has come down to us in the form of
'proctor,' was at first mainly a term of civil law, and was
used for a financial agent or attorney. The officers so called
were regarded at the first as stewards of the Emperor's
property or managers of his private business. … The agents of
the Emperor's privy purse throughout the provinces were called
by the same title, but were commonly of higher rank and more
repute. Such in its bare outline was the executive of the
imperial government. We have next to see what was the position
of the Senate. … It was one of the first cares of Augustus to
restore its credit. At the risk of odium and personal danger
he more than once revised the list, and purged it of unworthy
members, summoning eminent provincials in their place. … The
functions also of the Senate were in theory enlarged. … But
the substance of power and independence had passed away from
it forever. Matters of great moment were debated first, not in
the Senate House, but in a sort of Privy Council formed by the
trusted advisers of the Emperor. …
{2701}
If we now turn our thoughts from the centre to the provinces
we shall find that the imperial system brought with it more
sweeping changes and more real improvement. … Augustus left to
the Senate the nominal control of the more peaceful provinces,
which needed little military force. … The remaining countries,
called imperial provinces, were ruled by generals, called
'legati,' or in some few cases by proctors only. They held
office during the good pleasure of their master. … There are
signs that the imperial provinces were better ruled, and that
the transference of a country to this class from the other was
looked upon as a real boon, and not as an empty honour. Such
in its chief features was the system of Augustus. … This was
his constructive policy, and on the value of this creative
work his claims to greatness must be based."
_W. W. Capes,
Roman History: The Early Empire,
chapter 1._
"The arrangement undoubtedly satisfied the requirements of the
moment. It saved, at least in appearance, the integrity of the
republic, while at the same time it recognised and legalised
the authority of the man, who was already by common consent
'master of all things'; and this it effected without any
formal alteration of the constitution, without, the creation
of any new office, and by means of the old constitutional
machinery of senate and assembly. But it was an arrangement
avowedly of an exceptional and temporary character. The powers
voted to Augustus were, like those voted to Pompey in 67 B.
C., voted only to him, and, with the exception of the
tribunician power, voted only for a limited time. No provision
was made for the continuance of the arrangement, after his
death, in favour of any other person. And though in fact the
powers first granted to Augustus were granted in turn to each
of the long line of Roman Cæsars, the temporary and
provisional character impressed upon the 'principate' at its
birth clung to it throughout. When the princeps for the time
being died or was deposed, it was always in theory an open
question whether any other citizen should be invested with the
powers he had held. Who the man should be, or how he should be
chosen, were questions which it was left to circumstances to
answer, and even the powers to be assigned to him were,
strictly speaking, determined solely by the discretion of the
senate and people in each case. It is true that necessity
required that some one must always be selected to fill the
position first given to Augustus; that accidents, such as
kinship by blood or adoption to the last emperor, military
ability, popularity with the soldiers or the senate,
determined the selection; and that usage decided that the
powers conferred upon the selected person should be in the
main those conferred upon Augustus. But to the last the Roman
emperor was legally merely a citizen whom the senate and
people had freely invested with an exceptional authority for
special reasons. Unlike the ordinary sovereign, he did not
inherit a great office by an established law of succession;
and in direct contrast to the modern maxim that 'the king
never dies,' it has been well said that the Roman
'principate,' died with the princeps. Of the many attempts
made to get rid of this irregular, intermittent character,
none were completely successful, and the inconveniences and
dangers resulting from it are apparent throughout the history
of the empire."
_H. F. Pelham,
Outlines of Roman History,
book 5, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_W. T. Arnold,
The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
chapter 3._
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapters 30-34 (volume 3-4)._
ROME: B. C. 16-15
Conquest of Rhætia.
See RHÆTIA.
ROME: B. C. 12-9.
Campaigns of Drusus in Germany.
See GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.
ROME: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
Campaigns of Tiberius in Germany.
See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
ROME: A. D. 14-16.
Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.
ROME: A. D. 14-37.
Reign of Tiberius.
Increasing vices and cruelties of his rule.
Campaigns of Germanicus in Germany.
His death.
The Delatores and their victims.
Malignant ascendancy of Sejanus.
The Prætorians quartered at Rome.
Augustus had one child only, a daughter, Julia, who was
brought to him by his second wife Scribonia; but on his last
marriage, with Livia, divorced wife of Tiberius Claudius Nero
(divorced by his command), he had adopted her two sons,
Tiberius and Drusus. He gave his daughter Julia in marriage,
first, to his nephew, Marcellus, the son of his sister
Octavia, by her first husband, C. Marcellus. But Marcellus
soon died, without offspring, and Julia became the spouse of
the emperor's friend and counsellor, Agrippa, to whom she bore
three sons, Caius, Lucius, and Agrippa Posthumus (all of whom
died before the end of the life of Augustus), and two
daughters. Thus the emperor was left with no male heir in his
own family, and the imperial succession fell to his adopted
son Tiberius—the eldest son of his wife Livia and of her first
husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero. There were suspicions that
Livia had some agency in bringing about the several deaths
which cleared her son's way to the throne. When Augustus died,
Tiberius was "in his 56th year, or at least at the close of
the 55th. … He had by this time acquired a perfect mastery in
dissembling his lusts, and his mistrust. … He was anxious to
appear as a moral man, while in secret he abandoned himself to
lusts and debaucheries of every kind. … In accordance with
this character, Tiberius now played the farce which is so
admirably but painfully described by Tacitus; he declined
accepting the imperium, and made the senate beg and intreat
him to accept it for the sake of the public good. In the end
Tiberius yielded, inasmuch as he compelled the senate to
oblige him to undertake the government. This painful scene
forms the beginning of Tacitus' Annals. The early part of his
reign is marked by insurrections among the troops in Pannonia
and on the Rhine. … Drusus [the son of Tiberius] quelled the
insurrection in Illyricum, and Germanicus [the emperor's
nephew, son of his brother Drusus, who had died in Germany, B.
C. 9], that on the Rhine; but, notwithstanding this, it was in
reality the government that was obliged to yield. … The reign
of Tiberius, which lasted for 23 years, that is till A. D. 37,
is by no means rich in events; the early period of it only is
celebrated for the wars of Germanicus in Germany. … The war of
Germanicus was carried into Germany as far as the river Weser
[see GERMANY. A. D. 14-16], and it is surprising to see that
the Romans thought it necessary to employ such numerous armies
against tribes which had no fortified towns. …
{2702}
The history of his reign after the German wars becomes more
and more confined to the interior and to his family. He had an
only son, Drusus, by his first wife Agrippina; and Germanicus,
the son of his brother Drusus, was adopted by him. Drusus must
have been a young man deserving of praise; but Germanicus was
the adored darling of the Roman people, and with justice: he
was the worthy son of a worthy father, the hero of the German
wars. … Germanicus had declined the sovereignty, which his
legions had offered to him after the death of Augustus, and he
remained faithful to his adopted father, although he certainly
could not love him. Tiberius, however, had no faith in virtue,
because he himself was destitute of it; he therefore
mistrusted Germanicus, and removed him from his victorious
legions." He sent him "to superintend the eastern frontiers
and provinces. On his arrival there he was received with the
same enthusiasm as at Rome; but he died very soon afterwards,
whether by a natural death or by poison is a question upon
which the ancients themselves are not agreed. … In the reign
of Augustus, any offence against the person of the imperator
had, by some law with which we are not further acquainted,
been made a 'crimen majestatis,' as though it had been
committed against the republic itself. This 'crimen' in its
undefined character was a fearful thing; for hundreds of
offences might be made to come within the reach of the law
concerning it. All these deplorable cases were tried by the
senate, which formed a sort of condemning machine set in
motion by the tyrant, just like the national convention under
Robespierre. … In the early part of Tiberius' reign, these
prosecutions occurred very rarely; but there gradually arose a
numerous class of denouncers ('delatores'), who made it their
business to bring to trial anyone whom the emperor disliked."
See DELATION.—DELATORS).
This was after the death of the emperor's mother, Livia, whom
he feared, and who restrained his worst propensities. After
her influence was removed, "his dark and tyrannical nature got
the upper hand: the hateful side of his character became daily
more developed, and his only enjoyment was the indulgence of
his detestable lust. … His only friend was Aelius Sejanus, a
man of equestrian rank. … His character bore the greatest
resemblance to that of his sovereign, who raised him to the
office of præfectus praetorio. … Sejanus increased the number
of the praetorian cohorts, and persuaded Tiberius to
concentrate them in the neighbourhood of Rome, in the 'castrum
praetorianum,' which formed us it were the citadel outside the
wall of Servius Tullius, but in the midst of the present city.
The consequences of this measure render it one of the most
important events in Roman history; for the praetorians now
became the real sovereigns, and occupied a position similar to
that which the Janissaries obtained in Algeria: they
determined the fate of the empire until the reign of
Diocletian. …
See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS.
The influence of Sejanus over Tiberius increased every day,
and he contrived to inspire his imperial friend with
sufficient confidence to go to the island of Capreae. While
Tiberius was there indulging in his lusts, Sejanus remained at
Rome and governed as his vicegerent. … Prosecutions were now
instituted against all persons of any consequence at Rome; the
time when Tiberius left the capital is the beginning of the
fearful annals of his reign." The tyrannical proceedings of
Sejanus "continued for a number of years, until at length he
himself incurred the suspicion of Tiberius," and was put out
of the way. "But a man worse even than he succeeded; this was
Macro, who had none of the great qualities of Sejanus, but
only analogous vices. … The butchery at Rome even increased. …
Caius Caesar, the son of Germanicus, commonly known by the
name of Caligula, formed with Macro a connexion of the basest
kind, and promised him the high post of 'praefectus praetorio'
if he would assist him in getting rid of the aged monarch.
Tiberius was at the time severely ill at a villa near cape
Misenum. He fell into a state of lethargy, and everybody
believed him to be dead. He came to life again however; on
which he was suffocated, or at least his death was accelerated
in some way, for our accounts differ on this point. Thus
Tiberius died in the 23d year of his reign, A. D. 37, at the
age of 78."
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lectures 111-112 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_Tacitus,
Annals,
books 1-6._
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapters 42-46 (volume 5)._
ROME: A. D. 37-41.
Reign of Caligula, the first of the imperial madmen.
Cains Cæsar, son of Germanicus, owed his nickname, Caligula,
to the soldiers of his father's command, among whom he was a
great favorite in his childhood. The name was derived from
"Caliga," a kind of foot covering worn by the common soldiers,
and is sometimes translated "Little Boots." "Having … secured
the imperial power, he fulfilled by his elevation the wish of
the Roman people, I may venture to say, of all mankind: for he
had long been the object of expectation and desire to the
greater part of the provincials and soldiers, who had known
him when a child; and to the whole people of Rome, from their
affection for the memory of Germanicus, his father, and
compassion for the family almost entirely destroyed. …
Immediately on his entering the city, by the joint
acclamations of the senate, and people, who broke into the
senate-house, Tiberius's will was set aside, it having left
his other grandson, then a minor, coheir with him; the whole
government and administration of affairs was placed in his
hands; so much to the joy and satisfaction of the public that,
in less than three months after, above 160,000 victims are
said to have been offered in sacrifice. … To this
extraordinary love entertained for him by his countrymen was
added an uncommon regard by foreign nations. … Caligula
himself inflamed this devotion by practising all the arts of
popularity. … He published accounts of the proceedings of the
government—a practice which had been introduced by Augustus,
but discontinued by Tiberius. He granted the magistrates a
full and free jurisdiction, without any appeal to himself. He
made a very strict and exact review of the Roman knights, but
conducted it with moderation; publicly depriving of his horse
every knight who lay under the stigma of any thing base and
dishonourable. … He attempted likewise to restore to the
people their ancient right of voting in the choice of
magistrates. … He twice distributed to the people a bounty of
300 sesterces a man, and as often gave a splendid feast to the
senate and the equestrian order, with their wives and
children. …
{2703}
He frequently entertained the people with stage-plays of
various kinds, and in several parts of the city, and sometimes
by night, when he caused the whole city to be lighted. … He
likewise exhibited a great number of circensian games from
morning until night; intermixed with the hunting of wild
beasts from Africa. … Thus far we have spoken of him as a
prince. What remains to be said of him bespeaks him rather a
monster than a man. … He was strongly inclined to assume the
diadem, and change the form of government from imperial to
regal; but being told that he far exceeded the grandeur of
kings and princes, he began to arrogate to himself a divine
majesty. He ordered all the images of the gods which were
famous either for their beauty or the veneration paid them,
among which was that of Jupiter Olympius, to be brought from
Greece, that he might take the heads off, and put on his own.
Having continued part of the Palatium as far as the Forum, and
the temple of Castor and Pollux being converted into a kind of
vestibule to his house, he often stationed himself between the
twin brothers, and so presented himself to be worshipped by
all votaries; some of whom saluted him by the name of Jupiter
Latialis. He also instituted a temple and priests, with
choicest victims, in honour of his own divinity. … The most
opulent persons in the city offered themselves as candidates
for the honour of being his priests, and purchased it
successively at an immense price. … In the day-time he talked
in private to Jupiter Capitolinus; one while whispering to
him, and another turning his ear to him. … He was unwilling to
be thought or called the grandson of Agrippa, because of the
obscurity of his birth. … He said that his mother was the
fruit of an incestuous commerce maintained by Augustus with
his daughter Julia. … He lived in the habit of incest with an
his sisters. … Whether in the marriage of his wives, in
repudiating them, or retaining them, he acted with greater
infamy, it is difficult to say." Some senators, "who had borne
the highest offices in the government, he suffered to run by
his litter in their togas for several miles together, and to
attend him at supper, sometimes at the head of his couch,
sometimes at his feet, with napkins. Others of them, after he
had privately put them to death, he nevertheless continued to
send for, as if they were still alive, and after a few days
pretended that they had laid violent hands upon themselves. …
When flesh was only to be had at a high price for feeding his
wild beasts reserved for the spectacles, he ordered that
criminals should be given them to be devoured; and upon
inspecting them in a row, while he stood in the middle of the
portico, without troubling himself to examine their cases he
ordered them to be dragged away, from 'bald-pate to bald-pate'
[a proverbial expression, meaning, without
distinction.—Translator's foot-note]. … After disfiguring many
persons of honourable rank, by branding them in the face with
hot irons, he condemned them to the mines, to work in
repairing the high-ways, or to fight with wild beasts; or
tying them, by the neck and heels, in the manner of beasts
carried to slaughter, would shut them up in cages, or saw them
asunder. … He compelled parents to be present at the execution
of their sons. … He generally prolonged the sufferings of his
victims by causing them to be inflicted by slight and
frequently repeated strokes; this being his well-known and
constant order: . Strike so that he may feel himself die.' …
Being incensed at the people's applauding a party at the
Circensian games in opposition to him, he exclaimed, 'I wish
the Roman people had but one neck.' … He used also to complain
aloud of the state of the times, because it was not rendered
remarkable by any public calamities. … He wished for some
terrible slaughter of his troops, a famine, a pestilence,
conflagrations, or an earthquake. Even in the midst of his
diversions, while gaming or feasting, this savage ferocity,
both in his language and actions, never forsook him. Persons
were often put to the torture in his presence, whilst he was
dining or carousing. A soldier, who was an adept in the art of
beheading, used at such times to take off the heads of
prisoners, who were brought in for that purpose. … He never
had the least regard either to the chastity of his own person,
or that of others. … Besides his incest with his sisters …
there was hardly any lady of distinction with whom he did not
make free. … Only once in his life did he take an active part
in military affairs. … He resolved upon an expedition into
Germany. … There being no hostilities, he ordered a few
Germans of his guard to be carried over and placed in
concealment on the other side of the Rhine, and word to be
brought him after dinner that an enemy was advancing with
great impetuosity. This being accordingly done, he immediately
threw himself, with his friends, and a party of the pretorian
knights, into the adjoining wood, where, lopping branches from
the trees, and forming trophies of them, he returned by
torch-light, upbraiding those who did not follow him with
timorousness and cowardice. … At last, as if resolved to make
war in earnest, he drew up his army upon the shore of the
ocean, with his balistæ and other engines of war, and while no
one could imagine what he intended to do, on a sudden
commanded them to gather up the sea shells, and fill their
helmets and the folds of their dress with them, calling them
'the spoils of the ocean due to the Capitol and the Palatium.'
As a monument of his success he raised a lofty tower. … He was
crazy both in body and mind, being subject, when a boy, to the
falling sickness. … What most of all disordered him was want
of sleep, for he seldom had more than three or four hours'
rest in a night; and even then his sleep was not sound."
_Suetonius,
Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Caligula
(translated by A. Thomson)._
ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapters 47-48 (volume 5)._
_S. Baring-Gould,
The Tragedy of the Cæsars,
volume 2._
ROME: A. D. 41.
The murder of Caligula.
Elevation of Claudius to the throne by the Prætorians.
Beginning of the domination of the soldiery.
"If we may believe our accounts, the tyrant's overthrow was
due not to abhorrence of his crimes or indignation at his
assaults on the Roman liberties, so much as to resentment at a
private affront. Among the indiscretions which seem to
indicate the partial madness of the wretched Caius, was the
caprice with which he turned from his known foes against his
personal friends and familiars. … No one felt himself secure,
neither the freedmen who attended on his person, nor the
guards who watched over his safety.
{2704}
Among these last was Cassius Chærea, tribune of a prætorian
cohort, whose shrill woman's voice provoked the merriment of
his master, and subjected him to injurious insinuations. Even
when he demanded the watchword for the night the emperor would
insult him with words and gestures. Chærea resolved to wipe
out the affront in blood. He sought Callistus and others … and
organized with them and some of the most daring of the nobles
a plot against the emperor's life. … The festival of the
Palatine games was fixed on for carrying the project into
effect. Four days did Caius preside in the theatre, surrounded
by the friends and guards who were sworn to slay him, but
still lacked the courage. On the fifth and last, the 24th of
January 794 [A. D. 41], feeling indisposed from the evening's
debauch, he hesitated at first to rise. His attendants,
however, prevailed on him to return once more to the shows;
and as he was passing through the vaulted passage which led
from the palace to the Circus, he inspected a choir of noble
youths from Asia, who were engaged to perform upon the stage.
… Caius was still engaged in conversation with them when
Chærea and another tribune, Sabinus, made their way to him:
the one struck him on the throat from behind with his sword,
while the other was in the act of demanding the watchword. A
second blow cleft the tyrant's jaw. He fell, and drawing his
limbs together to save his body, still screamed, 'I live! I
live!' while the conspirators thronging over him, and crying,
'again! again!' hacked him with thirty wounds. The bearers of
his litter rushed to his assistance with their poles, while
his body-guard of Germans struck wildly at the assassins, and
amongst the crowd which surrounded them, killed, it was said,
more than one senator who had taken no part in the affair. …
When each of the conspirators had thrust his weapon into the
mangled body, and the last shrieks of its agony had been
silenced, they escaped with all speed from the corridor in
which it lay; but they had made no dispositions for what was
to follow, and were content to leave it to the consuls and
senate, amazed and unprepared, to decide on the future destiny
of the republic. … Some cohorts of the city guards accepted
the orders of the consuls, and occupied the public places
under their direction. At the same time the consuls, Sentins
Saturninus and Pomponins Secundus, the latter of whom had been
substituted for Caius himself only a few days before, convened
the senate. … The first act of the sitting was to issue an
edict in which the tyranny of Caius was denounced, and a
remission of the most obnoxious of his taxes proclaimed,
together with the promise of a donative to the soldiers. The
fathers next proceeded to deliberate on the form under which
the government should be henceforth administered. On this
point no settled principles prevailed. Some were ready to vote
that the memory of the Cæsars should be abolished, their
temples overthrown, and the free state of the Scipios and
Catos restored; others contended for the continuance of
monarchy in another family, and among the chiefs of nobility
more than one candidate sprang up presently to claim it. The
debate lasted late into the night; and in default of any other
specific arrangement, the consuls continued to act as the
leaders of the commonwealth. … But while the senate
deliberated, the prætorian guards had resolved. … In the
confusion which ensued on the first news of the event, several
of their body had flung themselves furiously into the palace,
and begun to plunder its glittering chambers. None dared to
offer them any opposition; the slaves and freedmen fled or
concealed themselves. One of the inmates, half hidden behind a
curtain in an obscure corner, was dragged forth with brutal
violence; and great was the intruders' surprise when they
recognised him as Claudius, the long despised and neglected
uncle of the murdered emperor. He sank at their feet almost
senseless with terror: but the soldiers in their wildest mood
still respected the blood of the Cæsars, and instead of
slaying or maltreating the suppliant, the brother of
Germanicus, they hailed him, more in jest perhaps than
earnest, with the title of Imperator, and carried him off to
their camp. … In the morning, when it was found that the
senate had come to no conclusion, and that the people crowding
about its place of meeting were urging it with loud cries to
appoint a single chief, and were actually naming him as the
object of their choice, Claudius found courage to suffer the
prætorians to swear allegiance to him, and at the same time
promised them a donative of 15,000 sesterces apiece. … The
senators assembled once again in the temple of Jupiter; but
now their numbers were reduced to not more than a hundred, and
even these met rather to support the pretensions of certain of
their members, who aspired to the empire … than to maintain
the cause of the ancient republic. But the formidable array of
the prætorians, who had issued from their camp into the city,
and the demonstrations of the popular will, daunted all
parties in the assembly. … Presently the Urban cohorts passed
over, with their officers and colours, to the opposite side.
All was lost; the prætorians, thus reinforced, led their hero
to the palace, and there he commanded the senate to attend
upon him. Nothing remained but to obey and pass the decree,
which had now become a formal act of investiture, by which the
name and honours of Imperator were bestowed upon the new chief
of the commonwealth. Such was the first creation of an emperor
by the military power of the prætorians. … Surrounded by drawn
swords Claudius had found courage to face his nephew's
murderers, and to vindicate his authority to the citizens, by
a strong measure of retribution, in sending Chærea and Lupus,
with a few others of the blood-embrued, to immediate
execution. … Claudius was satisfied with this act of vigour,
and proceeded, with a moderation but little expected, to
publish an amnesty for all the words and acts of the late
interregnum. Nevertheless for thirty days he did not venture
to come himself into the Curia. … The personal fears, indeed,
of the new emperor contributed, with a kindly and placable
disposition, to make him anxious to gain his subjects'
good-will by the gentleness and urbanity of his deportment. …
His proclamation of amnesty was followed by the pardon of
numerous exiles and criminals, especially such as were
suffering under sentence for the crime of majestas. … The
popularity of the new prince, though manifested, thanks to his
own discretion, by no such grotesque and impious flatteries as
attended on the opening promise of Caius, was certainly not
less deeply felt. …
{2705}
The confidence indeed of the upper classes, after the bitter
disappointment they had so lately suffered, was not to be so
lightly won. The senate and knights might view their new ruler
with indulgence, and hope for the best; but they had been too
long accustomed to regard him as proscribed from power by
constitutional unfitness, as imbecile in mind, and which was
perhaps in their estimation even a worse defect, as misshapen
and half-developed in physical form, to anticipate from him a
wise or vigorous administration. … In another rank he would
have been exposed perhaps in infancy; as the son of Drusus and
Antonia he was permitted to live: but he became from the first
an object of disgust to his parents, who put him generally out
of their sight, and left him to grow up in the hands of
hirelings without judgment or feeling. … That the judgment of
one from whom the practical knowledge of men and things had
been withheld was not equal to his learning, and that the
infirmities of his body affected his powers of decision, his
presence of mind, and steadfastness of purpose, may easily be
imagined: nevertheless, it may be allowed that in a private
station, and anywhere but at Rome, Claudius would have passed
muster as a respectable, and not, perhaps, an useless member
of society. The opinion which is here given of this prince's
character may possibly be influenced in some degree by the
study of his countenance in the numerous busts still existing,
which represent it as one of the most interesting of the whole
imperial series. If his figure, as we are told, was tall, and
when sitting appeared not ungraceful, his face, at least in
repose, was eminently handsome. But it is impossible not to
remark in it an expression of pain and anxiety which forcibly
arrests our sympathy. It is the face of an honest and
well-meaning man, who feels himself unequal to the task
imposed upon him. … There is the expression of fatigue both of
mind and body, which speaks of midnight watches over books,
varied with midnight carouses at the imperial table, and the
fierce caresses of rival mistresses. There is the glance of
fear, not of open enemies, but of pretended friends; the
reminiscence of wanton blows, and the anticipation of the
deadly potion. Above all, there is the anxious glance of
dependence, which seems to cast about for a model to imitate,
for ministers to shape a policy, and for satellites to execute
it. The model Claudius found was the policy of the venerated
Augustus; but his ministers were the most profligate of women,
and the most selfish of emancipated slaves. … The commencement
of the new reign was marked by the renewed activity of the
armies on the frontiers."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapters 48-49 (volume 5)._
ALSO IN:
_W. W. Capes,
The Early Empire,
chapters 3-4._
ROME: A. D. 42-67.
St. Peter and the Roman Church: The question.
See PAPACY: ST. PETER AND THE CHURCH AT ROM[E.
ROME: A. D. 43-53.
Conquests of Claudius in Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.
ROME: A. D. 47-54.
The wives of Claudius, Messalina and Agrippina.
Their infamous and terrible ascendancy.
Murder of the emperor.
Advent of Nero.
The wife of Claudius was "Valeria Messalina, the daughter of
his cousin Barbatus Messala, a woman whose name has become
proverbial for infamy. His most distinguished freedmen were
the eunuch Posidus; Felix, whom he made governor of Judæa, and
who had the fortune to be the husband of three queens; and
Callistus, who retained the power which he had acquired under
Caius. But far superior in point of influence to these were
the three secretaries (as we may term them), Polybius,
Narcissus, and Pallas. … The two last were in strict league
with Messalina; she only sought to gratify her lusts; they
longed for honours, power, and wealth. … Their plan, when they
would have anyone put to death, was to terrify Claudius … by
tales of plots against his life. … Slaves and freedmen were
admitted as witnesses against their masters; and, though
Claudius had sworn, at his accession, that no freeman should
be put to the torture, knights and senators, citizens and
strangers, were tortured alike. … Messalina now set no bounds
to her vicious courses. Not content with being infamous
herself, she would have others so; and she actually used to
compel ladies to prostitute themselves even in the palace, and
before the eyes of their husbands, whom she rewarded with
honours and commands, while she contrived to destroy those who
would not acquiesce in their wives' dishonour." At length (A.
D. 48) she carried her audacity so far as to go publicly
through a ceremony of marriage with one of her lovers. This
nerved even the weak Claudius to resolution, and she was put
to death. The emperor then married his niece, Julia Agrippina,
the daughter of Germanicus. "The woman who had now obtained
the government of Claudius and the Roman empire was of a very
different character from the abandoned Messalina. The latter
had nothing noble about her; she was the mere bond-slave of
lust, and cruel and avaricious only for its gratification; but
Agrippina was a woman of superior mind, though utterly devoid
of principle. In her, lust was subservient to ambition; it was
the desire of power, or the fear of death, and not wantonness,
that made her submit to the incestuous embraces of her brutal
brother Caius, and to be prostituted to the companions of his
vices. It was ambition and parental love that made her now
form an incestuous union with her uncle. … The great object of
Agrippina was to exclude Britannicus [the son of Claudius by
Messalina], and obtain the succession for her own son, Nero
Domitius, now a boy of twelve years of age. She therefore
caused Octavia [daughter of Claudius] to be betrothed to him,
and she had the philosopher Seneca recalled from Corsica,
whither he had been exiled by the arts of Messalina, and
committed to him the education of her son, that he might be
fitted for empire. In the following year (51) Claudius,
yielding to her influence, adopted him." But, although
Britannicus was thrust into the background and treated with
neglect, his feeble father began after a time to show signs of
affection for him, and Agrippina, weary of waiting and fearful
of discomfiture, caused poison to be administered to the old
emperor in his food (A. D. 54). "The death of Claudius was
concealed till all the preparations for the succession of Nero
should be made, and the fortunate hour marked by the
astrologers be arrived. He then (October 13) issued from the
palace, … and, being cheered by the cohort which was on guard,
he mounted a litter and proceeded to the camp. He addressed the
soldiers, promising them a donative, and was saluted emperor.
The senate and provinces acquiesced without a murmur in the
will of the guards. Claudius was in his 64th year when he was
poisoned."
_T. Keightley,
History of the Roman Empire,
part 1, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapter 50 (volume 5)._
_Tacitus,
Annals,
books 11-12._
{2706}
ROME: A. D. 54-64.
The atrocities of Nero.
The murder of his mother.
The burning of the city.
"Nero … was but a variety of the same species [as Caligula].
He also was an amateur, and an enthusiastic amateur, of
murder. But as this taste, in the most ingenious hands, is
limited and monotonous in its modes of manifestation, it would
be tedious to run through the long Suetonian roll-call of his
peccadilloes in this way. One only we shall cite, to
illustrate the amorous delight with which he pursued any
murder which happened to be seasoned highly to his taste by
enormous atrocity, and by almost unconquerable difficulty. …
For certain reasons of state, as Nero attempted to persuade
himself, but in reality because no other crime had the same
attractions of unnatural horror about it, he resolved to
murder his mother Agrippina. This being settled, the next
thing was to arrange the mode and the tools. Naturally enough,
according to the custom then prevalent in Rome, he first
attempted the thing by poison. The poison failed: for
Agrippina, anticipating tricks of this kind, had armed her
constitution against them, like Mithridates; and daily took
potent antidotes and prophylactics. Or else (which is more
probable) the emperor's agent in such purposes, fearing his
sudden repentance and remorse, … had composed a poison of
inferior strength. This had certainly occurred in the case of
Britannicus, who had thrown off with ease the first dose
administered to him by Nero," but who was killed by a second
more powerful potion. "On Agrippina, however, no changes in
the poison, whether of kind or strength, had any effect; so
that, after various trials, this mode of murder was abandoned,
and the emperor addressed himself to other plans. The first of
these was some curious mechanical device, by which a false
ceiling was to have been suspended by bolts above her bed; and
in the middle of the night, the bolt being suddenly drawn, a
vast weight would have descended with a ruinous destruction to
all below. This scheme, however, taking air from the
indiscretion of some amongst the accomplices, reached the ears
of Agrippina. … Next, he conceived the idea of an artificial
ship, which, at the touch of a few springs, might fall to
pieces in deep water. Such a ship was prepared, and stationed
at a suitable point. But the main difficulty remained, which
was to persuade the old lady to go on board." By complicated
stratagems this was brought about. "The emperor accompanied
her to the place of embarkation, took a most tender leave of
her, and saw her set sail. It was necessary that the vessel
should get into deep water before the experiment could be
made; and with the utmost agitation this pious son awaited
news of the result. Suddenly a messenger rushed breathless
into his presence, and horrified him by the joyful information
that his august mother had met with an alarming accident; but,
by the blessing of Heaven, had escaped safe and sound, and was
now on her road to mingle congratulations with her
affectionate son. The ship, it seems, had done its office; the
mechanism had played admirably; but who can provide for
everything? The old lady, it turned out, could swim like a
duck; and the whole result had been to refresh her with a
little sea-bathing. Here was worshipful intelligence. Could
any man's temper be expected to stand such continued sieges? …
Of a man like Nero it could not be expected that he should any
longer dissemble his disgust, or put up with such repeated
affronts. He rushed upon his simple congratulating friend,
swore that he had come to murder him, and as nobody could have
suborned him but Agrippina, he ordered her off to instant
execution. And, unquestionably, if people will not be murdered
quietly and in a civil way, they must expect that such
forbearance is not to continue for ever; and obviously have
themselves only to blame for any harshness or violence which
they may have rendered necessary. It is singular, and shocking
at the same time, to mention, that, for this atrocity, Nero
did absolutely receive solemn congratulations from all orders
of men. With such evidences of base servility in the public
mind, and of the utter corruption which they had sustained in
their elementary feelings, it is the less astonishing that he
should have made other experiments upon the public patience,
which seem expressly designed to try how much it would
support. Whether he were really the author of the desolating
fire which consumed Rome for six days and seven nights [A. D.
64], and drove the mass of the people into the tombs and
sepulchres for shelter, is yet a matter of some doubt. But one
great presumption against it, founded on its desperate
imprudence, as attacking the people in their primary comforts,
is considerably weakened by the enormous servility of the
Romans in the case just stated: they who could volunteer
congratulations to a son for butchering his mother (no matter
on what pretended suspicions), might reasonably be supposed
incapable of any resistance which required courage, even in a
case of self-defence or of just revenge. … The great loss on
this memorable occasion was in the heraldic and ancestral
honours of the city. Historic Rome then went to wreck for
ever. Then perished the 'domus priscorum ducum hostilibus
ad-huc spoliis adornatæ'; the 'rostral' palace; the mansion of
the Pompeys; the Blenheims and the Strathfieldsayes of the
Scipios, the Marcelli, the Paulli, and the Cæsars; then
perished the aged trophies from Carthage and from Gaul; and,
in short, as the historian sums up the lamentable desolation,
'quidquid visendum atque memorabile ex antiquitate duraverat.'
And this of itself might lead one to suspect the emperor's
hand as the original agent; for by no one act was it possible
so entirely and so suddenly to wean the people from their old
republican recollections. … In any other sense, whether for
health or for the conveniences of polished life, or for
architectural magnificence, there never was a doubt that the
Roman people gained infinitely by this conflagration. For,
like London, it arose from its ashes with a splendour
proportioned to its vast expansion of wealth and population;
and marble took the place of wood. For the moment, however,
this event must have been felt by the people as an
overwhelming calamity.
{2707}
And it serves to illustrate the passive endurance and timidity
of the popular temper, and to what extent it might be provoked
with impunity, that in this state of general irritation and
effervescence Nero absolutely forbade them to meddle with the
ruins of their own dwellings—taking that charge upon himself,
with a view to the vast wealth which he anticipated from
sifting the rubbish."
_T. De Quincey,
The Cæsars
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_Suetonius,
Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Nero._
_Tacitus,
Annals,
books 13-16._
_S. Baring-Gould,
The Tragedy of the Cæsars,
volume 2._
ROME: A. D. 61.
Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus in Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
ROME: A. D. 64-68.
The first persecution of Christians.
The fitting end of Nero.
"Nero was so secure in his absolutism, he had hitherto found
it so impossible to shock the feelings of the people or to
exhaust the terrified adulation of the Senate, that he was
usually indifferent to the pasquinades which were constantly
holding up his name to execration and contempt. But now [after
the burning of Rome] he felt that he had gone too far, and
that his power would be seriously imperilled if he did not
succeed in diverting the suspicions of the populace. He was
perfectly aware that when the people in the streets cursed
those who set fire to the city, they meant to curse him. If he
did not take some immediate step he felt that he might perish,
as Gaius [Caligula], had perished before him, by the dagger of
the assassin. It is at this point of his career that Nero
becomes a prominent figure in the history of the Church. It
was this phase of cruelty which seemed to throw a blood-red
light over his whole character, and led men to look on him as
the very incarnation of the world-power in its most demoniac
aspect—as worse than the Antiochus Epiphanes of Daniel's
Apocalypse—as the Man of Sin whom (in language figurative,
indeed, yet awfully true) the Lord should slay with the breath
of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
For Nero endeavoured to fix the odious crime of having
destroyed the capital of the world upon the most innocent and
faithful of his subjects—upon the only subjects who offered
heartfelt prayers on his behalf—the Roman Christians. … Why he
should have thought of singling out the Christians, has always
been a curious problem, for at this point St. Luke ends the
Acts of the Apostles, perhaps purposely dropping the curtain,
because it would have been perilous and useless to narrate the
horrors in which the hitherto neutral or friendly Roman
Government began to play so disgraceful a part. Neither
Tacitus, nor Suetonius, nor the Apocalypse, help us to solve
this particular problem. The Christians had filled no large
space in the eye of the world. Until the days of Domitian we
do not hear of a single noble or distinguished person who had
joined their ranks. … The slaves and artisans, Jewish and
Gentile, who formed the Christian community at Rome, had never
in any way come into collision with the Roman Government. …
That the Christians were entirely innocent of the crime
charged against them was well known both at the time and
afterwards. But how was it that Nero sought popularity and
partly averted the deep rage which was rankling in many hearts
against himself, by torturing men and women, on whose agonies
he thought that the populace would gaze not only with a stolid
indifference, but even with fierce satisfaction? Gibbon has
conjectured that the Christians were confounded with the Jews,
and that the detestation universally felt for the latter fell
with double force upon the former. Christians suffered even
more than the Jews because of the calumnies so assiduously
circulated against them, and from what appeared to the
ancients to be the revolting absurdity of their peculiar
tenets. 'Nero,' says Tacitus, 'exposed to accusation, and
tortured with the most exquisite penalties, a set of men
detested for their enormities, whom the common people called
Christians. Christus, the founder of this sect, was executed
during the reign of Tiberius by the Procurator Pontius Pilate,
and the deadly superstition, suppressed for a time, began to
burst out once more, not only throughout Judaea, where the
evil had its root, but even in the City, whither from every
quarter all things horrible or shameful are drifted, and find
their votaries.' The lordly disdain which prevented Tacitus
from making any inquiry into the real views and character of
the Christians, is shown by the fact that he catches up the
most baseless allegations against them. … The masses, he says,
called them 'Christians;' and while he almost apologises for
staining his page with so vulgar an appellation, he merely
mentions in passing, that, though innocent of the charge of
being turbulent incendiaries, on which they were tortured to
death, they were yet a set of guilty and infamous sectaries,
to be classed with the lowest dregs of Roman criminals. But
the haughty historian throws no light on one difficulty,
namely, the circumstances which led to the Christians being
thus singled out. The Jews were in no way involved in Nero's
persecution. … The Jews were by far the deadliest enemies of
the Christians; and two persons of Jewish proclivities were at
this time in close proximity to the person of the Emperor. One
was the pantomimist Aliturus, the other was Poppaea, the
harlot Empress. … If, as seems certain, the Jews had it in
their power during the reign of Nero more or less to shape the
whisper of the throne, does not historical induction drive us
to conclude with some confidence that the suggestion of the
Christians as scapegoats and victims came from them? … Tacitus
tells us that 'those who confessed were first seized, and then
on their evidence a huge multitude were convicted, not so much
on the charge of incendiarism as for their hatred to mankind.'
Compressed and obscure as the sentence is, Tacitus clearly
means to imply by the 'confession' to which he alludes the
confession of Christianity; and though he is not sufficiently
generous to acquit the Christians absolutely of all complicity
in the great crime, he distinctly says that they were made the
scapegoats of a general indignation. The phrase—'a huge
multitude'—is one of the few existing indications of the
number of martyrs in the first persecution, and of the number
of Christians in the Roman Church. When the historian says
that they were convicted on the charge of 'hatred against
mankind' he shows how completely he confounds them with the
Jews, against whom he elsewhere brings the accusation of
'hostile feelings towards all except themselves.' Then the
historian adds one casual but frightful sentence—a sentence
which flings a dreadful light on the cruelty of Nero and the
Roman mob.
{2708}
He adds, 'And various forms of mockery were added to enhance
their dying agonies. Covered with the skins of wild beasts,
they were doomed to die by the mangling of dogs, or by being
nailed to crosses; or to be set on fire and burnt after
twilight by way of nightly illumination. Nero offered his own
gardens for this show, and gave a chariot race, mingling with
the mob in the dress of a charioteer, or actually driving
about among them. Hence, guilty as the victims were, and
deserving of the worst punishments, a feeling of compassion
towards them began to rise, as men felt that they were being
immolated not for any advantage to the commonwealth, but to
glut the savagery of a single man.' Imagine that awful scene,
once witnessed by the silent obelisk in the square before St.
Peter's at Rome! … Retribution did not linger, and the
vengeance fell at once on the guilty Emperor and the guilty
city. The air was full of prodigies. There were terrible
storms; the plague wrought fearful ravages. Rumours spread
from lip to lip. Men spoke of monstrous births; of deaths by
lightning under strange circumstances; of a brazen statue of
Nero melted by the flash; of places struck by the brand of
heaven in fourteen regions of the city; of sudden darkenings
of the sun. A hurricane devastated Campania; comets blazed in
the heavens; earthquakes shook the ground. On all sides were
the traces of deep uneasiness and superstitious terror. To all
these portents, which were accepted as true by Christians as
well as by Pagans, the Christians would give a specially
terrible significance.… In spite of the shocking servility
with which alike the Senate and the people had welcomed him
back to the city with shouts of triumph, Nero felt that the
air of Rome was heavy with curses against his name. He
withdrew to Naples, and was at supper there on March 19, A. D.
68, the anniversary of his mother's murder, when he heard that
the first note of revolt had been sounded by the brave C.
Julius Vindex, Præfect of Farther Gaul. He was so far from
being disturbed by the news, that he showed a secret joy at
the thought that he could now order Gaul to be plundered. For
eight days he took no notice of the matter. … At last, when he
heard that Virginius Rufus had also rebelled in Germany, and
Galba in Spain, he became aware of the desperate nature of his
position. On receiving this intelligence he fainted away, and
remained for some time unconscious. He continued, indeed, his
grossness and frivolity, but the wildest and fiercest schemes
chased each other through his melodramatic brain. … Meanwhile
he found that the palace had been deserted by his guards, and
that his attendants had robbed his chamber even of the golden
box in which he had stored his poison. Rushing out, as though
to drown himself in the Tiber, he changed his mind, and begged
for some quiet hiding-place in which to collect his thoughts.
The freedman Phaon offered him a lowly villa about four miles
from the city. Barefooted, and with a faded coat thrown over
his tunic, he hid his head and face in a kerchief, and rode
away with only four attendants. … There is no need to dwell on
the miserable spectacle of his end, perhaps the meanest and
most pusillanimous which has ever been recorded. The poor
wretch who, without a pang, had caused so many brave Romans
and so many innocent Christians to be murdered, could not
summon up resolution to die. … Meanwhile a courier arrived for
Phaon. Nero snatched his despatches out of his hand, and read
that the Senate had decided that he should be punished in the
ancestral fashion as a public enemy. Asking what the ancestral
fashion was, he was informed that he would be stripped naked
and scourged to death with rods, with his head thrust into a
fork. Horrified at this, he seized two daggers, and after
theatrically trying their edges, sheathed them again, with the
excuse that the fatal moment had not yet arrived! Then he bade
Sporus begin to sing his funeral song, and begged some one to
show him how to die. … The sound of horses' hoofs then broke
on his ears, and, venting one more Greek quotation, he held
the dagger to his throat. It was driven home by Epaphroditus,
one of his literary slaves. … So died the last of the Cæsars!
And as Robespierre was lamented by his landlady, so even Nero
was tenderly buried by two nurses who had known him in the
exquisite beauty of his engaging childhood, and by Acte, who
had inspired his youth with a genuine love."
_F. W. Farrar,
The Early Days of Christianity,
book 1, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_T. W. Allies,
The Formation of Christendom,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._
ROME: A. D. 68-96.
End of the Julian line.
The "Twelve Cæsars" and their successors.
A logical classification.
"In the sixth Caesar [Nero] terminated the Julian line. The
three next princes in the succession were personally
uninteresting; and, with a slight reserve in favor of Otho, …
were even brutal in the tenor of their lives and monstrous;
besides that the extreme brevity of their several reigns (all
three, taken conjunctly, having held the supreme power for no
more than twelve months and twenty days) dismisses them from
all effectual station or right to a separate notice in the
line of Caesars. Coming to the tenth in the succession,
Vespasian, and his two sons, Titus and Domitian, who make up
the list of the twelve Caesars, as they are usually called, we
find matter for deeper political meditation and subjects of
curious research. But these emperors would be more properly
classed with the five who succeed them—Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian,
and the two Antonines; after whom comes the young ruffian,
Commodus, another Caligula or Nero, from whose short and
infamous reign Gibbon takes up his tale of the decline of the
empire. And this classification would probably have prevailed,
had not the very curious work of Suetonius, whose own life and
period of observation determined the series and cycle of his
subjects, led to a different distribution. But as it is
evident that, in the succession of the first twelve Caesars,
the six latter have no connection whatever by descent,
collaterally, or otherwise, with the six first, it would be a
more logical distribution to combine them according to the
fortunes of the state itself, and the succession of its
prosperity through the several stages of splendour,
declension, revival, and final decay. Under this arrangement,
the first seventeen would belong to the first stage; Commodus
would open the second; Aurelian down to Constantine or Julian
would fill the third; and Jovian to Agustulus would bring up
the melancholy rear."
_T. De Quincey,
The Cæsars,
chapter 3._
ROME: A. D. 69.
Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.
See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.
{2709}
ROME: A. D. 69.
Galba, Otho, Vitellius.
Vespasian.
The Vitellian conflict.
On the overthrow and death of Nero, June, A. D. 68, the
veteran soldier Galba, proclaimed imperator by his legions in
Spain, and accepted by the Roman senate, mounted the imperial
throne. His brief reign was terminated in January of the
following year by a sudden revolt of the prætorian guard,
instigated by Salvius Otho, one of the profligate favorites of
Nero, who had betrayed his former patron and was disappointed
in the results. Galba was slain and Otho made emperor, to
reign, in his turn, for a brief term of three months. Revolt
against Otho was quick to show itself in the provinces, east
and west. The legions on the Rhine set up a rival emperor, in
the person of their commander, Aulus Vitellius, whose single
talent was in gluttony, and who had earned by his vices the
favor of four beastly rulers, from Tiberius to Nero, in
succession. Gaul having declared in his favor, Vitellius sent
forward two armies by different routes into Italy. Otho met
them, with such forces as he could gather, at Bedriacum,
between Verona and Cremona, and suffered there a defeat which
he accepted as decisive. He slew himself, and Vitellius made
his way to Rome without further opposition, permitting his
soldiers to plunder the country as they advanced. But the
armies of the east were not disposed to accept an emperor by
the election of the armies of the west, and they, too, put
forward a candidate for the purple. Their choice was better
guided, for it fell on the sturdy soldier, Titus Flavius
Vespasianus, then commanding in Judea. The advance corps of
the forces supporting Vespasian (called "Flavians," or
"Flavianites") entered Cisalpine Gaul from Illyricum in the
autumn of 69, and encountered the Vitellians at Bedriacum, on
the same field where the latter had defeated the Othonians a
few weeks before. The Vitellians were defeated. Cremona, a
flourishing Roman colony, which capitulated to the conquerors,
was perfidiously given up to a merciless soldiery and totally
destroyed,—one temple, alone, escaping. Vitellius, in despair,
showed an eagerness to resign the throne, and negotiated his
resignation with a brother of Vespasian, residing in Rome. But
the mob of fugitive Vitellian soldiers which had collected in
the capital interposed violently to prevent this abdication.
Flavius Sabinus—the brother of Vespasian—took refuge, with his
supporters, in the Capitolium, or temple of Jupiter, on the
Capitoline Hill. But the sacred precincts were stormed by the
Vitellian mob, the Capitol—the august sanctuary of Rome—was
burned and Sabinus was slain. The army which had won the
victory for Vespasian at Bedriacum, commanded by Antonius
Primus, soon appeared at the gates of the city, to avenge this
outrage. The unorganized force which attempted opposition was
driven before it in worse disorder. Victors and vanquished
poured into Rome together, slaughtering and being slaughtered
in the streets. The rabble of the city joined in the bloody
hunt, and in the plundering that went with it. "Rome had seen
the conflicts of armed men in the streets under Sulla and
Cinna, but never before such a hideous mixture of levity and
ferocity." Vitellius was among the slain, his brief reign
ending on the 21st of December, A. D. 69. Vespasian was still
in the east, and did not enter Rome until the summer of the
following year.
_Tacitus,
History,
book 1-3._
ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapters 56-57._
ROME: A. D. 70.
Siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.
See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.
ROME: A. D. 70-96.
The Flavian family.
Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian.
"Unfortunately Tacitus fails us … at this point, and this time
completely. Nothing has been saved of his 'Histories' from the
middle of the year 70, and we find ourselves reduced to the
mere biographies of Suetonius, to the fragments of Dion, to
the abridgments of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius. The majestic
stream from which we have drawn and which flowed with brimming
banks is now only a meagre thread of water. Of all the
emperors Vespasian is the one who loses the most by this, for
he was, says S. Augustine, a very good prince and very worthy
of being beloved. He came into power at an age when one is no
longer given to change, at 60 years. He had never been fond of
gaming or debauchery, and he maintained his health by a frugal
diet, even passing one day every month without eating. His
life was simple and laborious. … He had no higher aim than to
establish order in the state and in the finances; but he
accomplished this, and if his principate, like all the others,
made no preparations for the future, it did much for the
present. It was a restorative reign, the effects of which were
felt for several generations; this service is as valuable as
the most brilliant victories. Following the example of the
second Julius, the first of the Flavians resolved to seek in
the senate the support of his government. This assembly,
debased by so many years of tyranny, needed as much as it did
a century before to be submitted to a severe revision. …
Vespasian acted with resolution. Invested with the title of
censor in 73, with his son Titus for colleague, he struck from
the rolls of the two orders the members deemed unworthy,
replaced them by the most distinguished persons of the Empire,
and, by virtue of his powers as sovereign pontiff, raised
several of them to the patriciate. A thousand Italian or
provincial families came to be added to the 200 aristocratic
families which had survived, and constituted with these the
higher Roman society, from which the candidates for all civil,
military, and religious functions were taken. … This
aristocracy, borrowed by Vespasian from the provincial cities,
where it had been trained to public affairs, where it had
acquired a taste for economy, simplicity, and order, brought
into Rome pure morals. … It will furnish the great emperors of
the second century, the skilled lieutenants who will second
them, and senators who will hereafter conspire only at long
intervals. … To the senate, thus renewed and become the true
representation of the Empire, Vespasian submitted all
important matters. … Suetonius renders him this testimony,
that it would be difficult to cite a single individual
unjustly punished in his reign, at least unless it were in his
absence or without his knowledge. He loved to dispense justice
himself in the Forum. … The legions, who had made and unmade
five emperors in two years, were no longer attentive to the
ancient discipline. He brought them back to it. … The morals
of the times were bad; he did more than the laws to reform
them—he set good examples. …
{2710}
Augustus had raised two altars to Peace; Vespasian built a
temple to her, in which he deposited the most precious spoils
of Jerusalem; and … the old general closed, for the sixth
time, the doors of the temple of Janus. He built a forum
surrounded by colonnades, in addition to those already
existing, and commenced, in the midst of the city, the vast
amphitheatre, a mountain of stone, of which three-fourths
remain standing to-day. … A colossal statue raised near by for
Nero, but which Vespasian consecrated to the Sun, gave it its
name, the Coliseum. … We have no knowledge of the wars of
Vespasian, except that three times in the year 71 he assumed
the title of 'imperator,' and three times again the following
year. But when we see him making Cappadocia an imperial
proconsular province with numerous garrisons to check the
incursions which desolated it; and, towards the Danube,
extending his influence over the barbarians even beyond the
Borysthenes; when we read in Tacitus that Velleda, the
prophetess of the Bructeri, was at that time brought a captive
to Rome; that Cerialis vanquished the Brigantes and Frontinus
the Silures, we must believe that Vespasian made a vigorous
effort along the whole line of his outposts to impress upon
foreign nations respect for the Roman name. … Here is the
secret of that severe economy which appeared to the prodigal
and light-minded a shameful stinginess. … Vespasian … was 69
years old, and was at his little house in the territory of
Reate when he felt the approach of death. 'I feel that I am
becoming a god,' he said to those around him, laughing in
advance at his apotheosis. … 'An emperor,' he said, 'ought to
die standing.' He attempted to rise and expired in this
effort, on the 23rd of June, 79. The first plebeian emperor
has had no historian, but a few words of his biographer
suffice for his renown: 'rem publicam stabilivit et ornavit,'
'by him the State was strengthened and glorified.' … Vespasian
being dead, Titus assumed the title of Augustus. … His father
had prepared him for this by taking him as associate in the
Empire; he had given to him the title of Cæsar, the
censorship, the tribunitian power, the prefecture of the
prætorium, and seven consulates. Coming into power at the age
of maturity, rich in experience and satiated with pleasures by
his very excesses, he had henceforth but one passion, that of
the public welfare. At the outset he dismissed his boon
companions; in his father's lifetime he had already sacrificed
to Roman prejudices his tender sentiments for the Jewish queen
Berenice, whom he had sent back to the East. In taking
possession of the supreme pontificate he declared that he
would keep his hands pure from blood, and he kept his word: no
one under his reign perished by his orders." It was during the
short reign of Titus that Herculaneum and Pompeii were
overwhelmed by an eruption of Vesuvius (August 23, A. D. 79),
while other calamities afflicted Italy. "Pestilence carried
off thousands of people even in Rome [see PLAGUE: A. D.
78-266]; and at last a conflagration, which raged three days,
consumed once more the Capitol, the library of Augustus, and
Pompey's theatre. To Campania Titus sent men of consular rank
with large sums of money, and he devoted to the relief of the
survivors the property that had fallen to the treasury through
the death of those who had perished in the disaster without
leaving heirs. At Rome he took upon himself the work of
repairing everything, and to provide the requisite funds he
sold the furniture of the imperial palace. … This reign lasted
only 26 months, from the 23rd of June, A. D. 79, to the 13th
of September, A. D. 81. As Titus was about to visit his
paternal estate in the Sabine territory he was seized by a
violent fever, which soon left no hope of his recovery. There
is a report that he partly opened the curtains of his litter
and gazed at the sky with eyes full of tears and reproaches.
'Why,' he exclaimed, 'must I die so soon? In all my life I
have, however, but one thing to repent.' What was this? No one
knows." Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian, then
thirty years old. "The youth of Domitian had been worthy of
the times of Nero, and he had wearied his father and brother
by his intrigues. Nevertheless he was sober, to the extent of
taking but one meal a day, and he had a taste for military
exercises, for study and poetry, especially since the
elevation of his family. Vespasian had granted him honours,
but no power, and, at the death of Titus, he had only the
titles of Cæsar and Prince of the Youth. In his hurry to seize
at last that Empire so long coveted, he abandoned his dying
brother to rush to Rome, to the camp of the prætorians. … On
the day of their coronation there are few bad princes. Almost
all begin well, but, in despotic monarchies, the majority end
badly, particularly when the reigns are of long duration. …
Domitian reigned 15 years, one year longer than Nero, and his
reign reproduced the same story: at first it wise government,
then every excess. Happily the excesses did not come till
late. … Fully as vain as the son of Agrippina, Domitian heaped
every title upon his own head and decreed deification to
himself. His edicts stated: 'Our lord and our god ordains … '
The new god did not scorn vulgar honours. … He was consul 17
times, and 22 times did he have himself proclaimed 'imperator'
for victories that had not always been gained. He recalled
Nero too by his fondness for shows and for building. … There
were several wars under Domitian, all defensive excepting the
expedition against the Catti [see CHATTI], which was only a
great civil measure to drive away the hostile marauders from
the frontier. If Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are to be
believed, these wars were like those which Caligula waged:
Domitian's victories were defeats; his captives, purchased
slaves; his triumphs, audacious falsehoods. Suetonius is not
so severe. … Domitian's cruelty appeared especially, and
perhaps we should say only, after the revolt of a person of
high rank, Antonius Saturninus, who pretended to be a
descendant of the triumvir. … He was in command of two legions
in Germany whom he incited to revolt, and he called the
Germans to his aid. An unexpected thaw stopped this tribe on
the right bank of the Rhine, while Appius Norbanus Maximus,
governor of Aquitania, crushed Antonius on the opposite shore.
… This revolt must belong to the year 93, which, as Pliny
says, is that in which Domitian's great cruelties began. …
Domitian lived in a state of constant alarm; every sound
terrified him, every man seemed to him an assassin, every
occurrence was an omen of evil." He endured this life of
gloomy terror for three years, when his dread forebodings were
realized, and he was murdered by his own attendants, September
18, A. D. 96.
_V. Duruy,
History of Rome,
chapters 77-78 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_Suetonius,
Lives of the Twelve Cæsars: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian._
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapters 57-60 (volumes 6-7)._
{2711}
ROME: A. D. 78-84.
Campaigns of Agricola in Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
ROME: A. D. 96-138.
Brief reign of Nerva.-
Adoption and succession of Trajan.
His persecution of Christians.
His conquests beyond the Danube and in the east.
Hadrian's relinquishment of them.
"On the same day on which Domitian was assassinated, M.
Cocceius Nerva was proclaimed Emperor by the Prætorians, and
confirmed by the people. He owed his elevation principally to
Petronius, Prefect of the Prætorians, and Parthenius,
chamberlain to the late Emperor. He was of Cretan origin, and
a native of Narni in Umbria, and consequently the first
Emperor who was not of Italian descent. … He was prudent,
upright, generous, and of a gentle temper; but a feeble frame
and weak constitution, added to the burden of 64 years,
rendered him too reserved, timid, and irresolute for the
arduous duties of a sovereign prince. … The tolerant and
reforming administration of the new Emperor soon became
popular. Rome breathed again after the bloody tyranny under
which she had been trampled to the dust. The perjured
'delator' was threatened with the severest penalties. The
treacherous slave who had denounced his master was put to
death. Exiles returned to their native cities, and again
enjoyed their confiscated possessions. … Determined to
administer the government for the benefit of the Roman people,
he (Nerva) turned his attention to the question of finance,
and to the burdensome taxation which was the fruit of the
extravagance of his predecessors. … He diminished the enormous
sums which were lavished upon shows and spectacles, and
reduced, as far as was possible, his personal and household
expenses. … It was not probable that an Emperor of so weak and
yielding a character, notwithstanding his good qualities as a
prince and a statesman, would be acceptable to a licentious
and dominant soldiery. But a few months had elapsed when a
conspiracy was organized against him by Calpurnius Crassus. It
was, however, discovered; and the ringleader, having confessed
his crime, experienced the Emperor's usual generosity, being
only punished by banishment to Tarentum. … Meanwhile the
Prætorians, led on by Ælianus Carperius, who had been their
Prefect under Domitian, besieged Nerva in his palace, with
cries of vengeance upon the assassins of his predecessor,
murdered Petronius and Parthenius, and compelled the timid
Emperor publicly to express his approbation of the deed, and
to testify his obligation to them for wreaking vengeance on
the guilty. … Nerva was in declining years, and, taught by
circumstances that he was unequal to curb or cope with the
insolence of the soldiery, adopted Trojan as his son and
successor [A. D. 97]. Soon after, he conferred upon him in the
Senate the rank of Cæsar, and the name of Germanicus, and
added the tribuneship and the title of Emperor. This act
calmed the tumult, and was welcomed with the unanimous consent
of the Senate and the people. … Soon after the adoption of
Trajan he died of a fit of ague which brought on fever, at the
gardens of Sallust, after a reign of sixteen months, in the
sixty-sixth year of his age [A. D. 98]. … The choice which
Nerva had made proved a fortunate one. M. Ulpius Nerva
Trajanus was a Spaniard, a native of Italica, near Seville. …
He was of an ancient and distinguished family, and his father
had filled the office of consul. Although a foreigner, he was
a Roman in habits, sympathies, and language; for the south of
Spain had become so completely Roman that the inhabitants
generally spoke Latin. When a young man he had distinguished
himself in a war against the Parthians. … At the time of his
adoption by Nerva he was in command of a powerful army in
Lower Germany, his head-quarters being at Cologne. He was in
the prime of life, possessed of a robust constitution, a
commanding figure, and a majestic countenance. He was a
perfect soldier, by taste and education, and was endowed with
all the qualities of a general. … He was a strict
disciplinarian, but he knew all his veterans, spoke to them by
their names, and never let a gallant action pass unrewarded. …
The news of Nerva's death was conveyed to him at Cologne by
his cousin Hadrian, where he immediately received the imperial
power. During the first year of his reign he remained with the
army in Germany, engaged in establishing the discipline of the
troops and in inspiring them with a love of their duty. … The
ensuing year he made his entry into Rome on foot, together
with his empress, Pompeia Plotina, whose amiability and
estimable character contributed much to the popularity of her
husband. Her conduct, together with that of his sister,
Marciana, exercised a most beneficial influence upon Roman
society. They were the first ladies of the imperial court who
by their example checked the shameless licentiousness which
had long prevailed amongst women of the higher classes. … The
tastes and habits of his former life led to a change in the
peaceful policy which had so long prevailed. The first war in
which he was engaged was with the Dacians, who inhabited the
country beyond the Danube. …
See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.
A few years of peace ensued, which Trajan endured with patient
reluctance; and many great public works undertaken during the
interval show his genius for civil as well as for military
administration. … But his presence was soon required in the
East, and he joyfully hailed the opportunity thus offered him
for gaining fresh laurels. The real object of this expedition
was ambition—the pretext, that Exedarius, or Exodares, king of
Armenia, had received the crown from the king of Parthia,
instead of from the Emperor of Rome, as Tiridates had from the
hands of Nero. For this insult he demanded satisfaction.
Chosroes, the king of Parthia, at first treated his message
with contempt; but afterwards, seeing that war was imminent,
he sent ambassadors with presents to meet Trajan at Athens,
and to announce to him the deposition of Exedarius, and to
entreat him to confer the crown of Armenia upon Parthamasiris,
or Parthamaspes. Trajan received the ambassadors coldly, told
them that he was on his march to Syria, and would there act as
he thought fit. Accordingly he crossed into Asia, and marched
by way of Cilicia, Syria, and Seleucia to Antioch.
{2712}
The condemnation of the martyr bishop St. Ignatius marked his
stay in that city [A. D. 115]. It seems strange that the
persecution of the Christians should have met with countenance
and support from an emperor like Trajan; but the fact is, the
Roman mind could not separate the Christian from the Jew. The
religious distinction was beneath their notice; they
contemplated the former merely as a sect of the latter. The
Roman party in Asia were persuaded that the Jews were
meditating and preparing for insurrection; and the rebellions
of this and the ensuing reign proved that their apprehensions
were not unreasonable. Hence, at Antioch, the imperial
influence was on the side of persecution; and hence when
Pliny, the gentle governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to
Trajan for instructions respecting the Christians in his
province, his 'rescript' spoke of Christianity as a dangerous
superstition, and enjoined the punishment of its professors if
discovered, although he would not have them sought for. Having
received the voluntary sub·mission of Abgarns, prince of
Osrhoene in Mesopotamia, he marched against Armenia.
Parthamasiris, who had assumed the royal state, laid his
diadem at his feet, in the hopes that he would return it to
him as Nero had to Tiridates. Trajan claimed his kingdom as a
province of the Roman people, and the unfortunate monarch lost
his life in a useless struggle for his crown. This was the
commencement of his triumphs: he received the voluntary
submission of the kings of Iberia, Sarmatia, the Bosphorus,
Colchis, Albania; and he assigned kings to most of the
barbarous tribes that inhabited the coast of the Euxine. Still
he proceeded on his career of conquest. He chastised the king
of Adiabene, who had behaved to him with treachery, and took
possession of his dominions, subjugated the rest of
Mesopotamia, constructed a bridge of boats over the Tigris,
and commenced a canal to unite the two great rivers of
Assyria. His course of conquest was resistless; he captured
Seleucia, earned the title of Parthicus by taking Ctesiphon,
the capital of Parthia [A. D. 116], imposed a tribute on
Mesopotamia, and reduced Assyria to the condition of a Roman
province. He returned to winter at Antioch, which was in the
same winter almost destroyed by an earthquake. Trajan escaped
through a window, not without personal injury. … The river
Tigris bore the victorious Emperor from the scene of his
conquest down to the Persian Gulf; he subjugated Arabia Felix,
and, like a second Alexander, was meditating and even making
preparations for an invasion of India by sea; but his
ambitious designs were frustrated by troubles nearer at hand.
Some of the conquered nations revolted, and his garrisons were
either expelled or put to the sword. He sent his generals to
crush the rebels; one of them, Maximus, was conquered and
slain; the other, Lusius Quietus, gained considerable
advantages and was made governor of Palestine, which had begun
to be in a state of insurrection.
See JEWS: A. D. 116.
He himself marched to punish the revolted Hagareni (Saracens),
whose city was called Atra, in Mesopotamia. … Trajan laid
siege to it, but was obliged to raise the siege with great
loss. Soon after this he was seized with illness. … Leaving
his army therefore to the care of Hadrian, whom he had made
governor of Syria, he embarked for Rome at the earnest
solicitation of the Senate. On arriving at Selinus in Cilicia
(afterwards named Trajanopolis), he was seized with diarrhœa,
and expired in the twentieth year of his reign [August, A. D.
117]. … He died childless, and it is said had not intended to
nominate a successor, following in this the example of
Alexander. Hadrian owed his adoption to Plotina. … Dio
positively asserts that she concealed her husband's death for
some days, and that the letter informing the Senate of his
last intentions was signed by her, and not by Trajan. Hadrian
received the despatches declaring his adoption on the 9th of
August, and those announcing Trajan's death two days
afterwards. … As soon as he was proclaimed Emperor at Antioch,
he sent an apologetic despatch to the Senate requesting their
assent to his election; the army, he said, had chosen him
without waiting for their sanction, lest the Republic should
remain without a prince. The confirmation which he asked for
was immediately granted. … The state of Roman affairs was at
this moment a very critical one, and did not permit the new
Emperor to leave the East. Emboldened by the news of Trajan's
illness, the conquered Parthians had revolted and achieved
some great successes; Sarmatia on the north, Mauritania,
Egypt, and Syria on the south, were already in a state of
insurrection. The far-sighted prudence of Hadrian led him to
fear that the empire was not unlikely to fall to pieces by its
own weight, and that the Euphrates was its best boundary. It
was doubtless a great sacrifice to surrender all the rich and
populous provinces beyond that river which had been gained by
the arms of his predecessor. It was no coward fear or mean
envy of Trajan which prompted Hadrian, but he wisely felt that
it was worth any price to purchase peace and security.
Accordingly he withdrew the Roman armies from Armenia, Assyria
and Mesopotamia, constituted the former of these an
independent kingdom, surrendered the two latter to the
Parthians, and restored their deposed king Chosroes to his
throne. … After taking these measures for establishing peace
in the East, he left Catilius Severus governor of Syria, and
returned by way of Illyria to Rome, where he arrived the
following year. … A restless curiosity, which was one of the
principal features in his character, would not permit him to
remain inactive at Rome; he determined to make a personal
survey of every province throughout his vast dominions, and
for this reason he is so frequently represented on medals as
the Roman Hercules. He commenced his travels with Gaul, thence
he proceeded to Germany, where he established order and
discipline amongst the Roman forces, and then crossed over to
Britain. … It would be uninteresting to give a mere catalogue
of the countries which he visited during the ensuing ten years
of his reign. In the fifteenth winter of it he arrived in
Egypt, and rebuilt the tomb of Pompey the Great at Pelusium.
Thence he proceeded to Alexandria which was at that period the
university of the world. … He had scarcely passed through
Syria when the Jews revolted, and continued in arms for three
years. …
See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.
{2713}
Hadrian spent the winter at Athens, where he gratified his
architectural taste by completing the temple of Jupiter
Olympius. … Conscious … of the infirmities of disease and of
advancing years, he adopted L. Aurelius Verus, a man of
pleasure and of weak and delicate health, totally unfit for
his new position. … Age and disease had now so altered his
[Hadrian's] character that he became luxurious,
self-indulgent, suspicious, and even cruel: Verus did not live
two years, and the Emperor then adopted Titus Antoninus, on
condition that he should in his turn adopt M. Annius Verus,
afterwards called M. Aurelius, and the son of Aurelius Verus."
Hadrian's malady "now became insupportably painful, his temper
savage even to madness, and many lives of senators and others
were sacrificed to his fury. His sufferings were so
excruciating that he was always begging his attendants to put
him to death. At last he went to Baiæ, where, setting at
defiance the prescriptions of his physicians, he ate and drank
what he pleased. Death, therefore, soon put a period to his
sufferings, in the sixty-third year of his age and the
twenty-first of his restless reign [A. D. 138]. Antoninus was
present at his death, his corpse was burnt at Puteoli
(Pozzuoli), and his ashes deposited in the mausoleum (moles
Hadriani) which he had himself built, and which is now the
Castle of St. Angelo."
_R. W. Browne,
History of Rome from A. D. 96,
chapters 1-2._
ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapters 63-66 (volume 7)._
_T. Arnold and others,
History of the Roman Empire
(Encyclopædia Metropolitana).
chapters 4-6._
[IMAGE:
THE ROMAN EMPIRE AT ITS GREATEST EXTENT UNDER TRAJAN (116)
SHOWING ACQUISITIONS OF TERRITORY FROM THE ACCESSION OR AUGUSTUS.
ROMAN TERRITORY AT THE ACCESSION OF AUGUSTUS.
TERRITORY ACQUIRED TO THE ACCESSION or TRAJAN.
THE TEMPORARY CONQUESTS OF TRAJAN ARE SHOWN BY THE BORDER COLOR.
THE ACQUISITIONS OF THE DIFFERENT EMPERORS ARE INDICATED
BY THE LETTERING.]
ROME: A. D. 138-180.
The Antonines.
Antoninus Pius.
Marcus Aurelius.
"On the death of Hadrian in A. D. 138, Antoninus Pius
succeeded to the throne, and, in accordance with the late
Emperor's conditions, adopted Marcus Aurelius and Lucius
Commodus. Marcus had been betrothed at the age of 15 to the
sister of Lucius Commodus, but the new Emperor broke off the
engagement, and betrothed him instead to his daughter
Faustina. The marriage, however, was not celebrated till seven
years afterwards, A. D. 146. The long reign of Antoninus Pius
is one of those happy periods that have no history. An almost
unbroken peace reigned at home and abroad. Taxes were
lightened, calamities relieved, informers discouraged;
confiscations were rare, plots and executions were almost
unknown. Throughout the whole extent of his vast domain the
people loved and valued their Emperor, and the Emperor's one
aim was to further the happiness of his people. He, too, like
Aurelius, had learnt that what was good for the bee was good
for the hive. … He disliked war, did not value the military
title of Imperator, and never deigned to accept a triumph.
With this wise and eminent prince, who was as amiable in his
private relations as he was admirable in the discharge of his
public duties, Marcus Aurelius spent the next 23 years of his
life. … There was not a shade of jealousy between them; each
was the friend and adviser of the other, and, so far from
regarding his destined heir with suspicion, the Emperor gave
him the designation 'Cæsar,' and heaped upon him all the
honours of the Roman commonwealth. It was in vain that the
whisper of malignant tongues attempted to shake this mutual
confidence. … In the year 161, when Marcus was now 40 years
old. Antoninus Pius, who had reached the age of 75, caught a
fever at Lorium. Feeling that his end was near, he summoned
his friends and the chief men of Rome to his bedside, and
there (without saying a word about his other adopted son, who
is generally known by the name of Lucius Verus) solemnly
recommended Marcus to them as his successor; and then, giving
to the captain of the guard the watchword of 'Equanimity,' as
though his earthly task was over he ordered to be transferred
to the bedroom of Marcus the little golden statue of Fortune,
which was kept in the private chamber of the Emperors as an
omen of public prosperity. The very first act of the new
Emperor was one of splendid generosity, namely, the admission
of his adoptive brother Lucius Verus into the fullest
participation of imperial honours. … The admission of Lucius
Verus to a share of the Empire was due to the innate modesty
of Marcus. As he was a devoted student, and cared less for
manly exercises, in which Verus excelled, he thought that his
adoptive brother would be a better and more useful general
than himself, and that he could best serve the State by
retaining the civil administration, and entrusting to his
brother the management of war. Verus, however, as soon as he
got away from the immediate influence and ennobling society of
Marcus, broke loose from all decency, and showed himself to be
a weak and worthless personage. … Two things only can be said
in his favour; the one, that, though depraved, he was wholly
free from cruelty; and the other, that he had the good sense
to submit himself entirely to his brother. … Marcus had a
large family by Faustina, and in the first year of his reign
his wife bore twins, of whom the one who survived became the
wicked and detested Emperor Commodus. As though the birth of
such a child were in itself an omen of ruin, a storm of
calamity began at once to burst over the long tranquil State.
An inundation of the Tiber … caused a distress which ended in
wide-spread famine. Men's minds were terrified by earthquakes,
by the burning of cities, and by plagues of noxious insects.
To these miseries, which the Emperors did their best to
alleviate, was added the horror of wars and rumours of wars.
The Parthians, under their king Vologeses, defeated and all
but destroyed a Roman army, and devastated with impunity the
Roman province of Syria. The wild tribes of the Catti burst
over Germany with fire and sword; and the news from Britain
was full of insurrection and tumult. Such were the elements of
trouble and discord which overshadowed the reign of Marcus
Aurelius from its very beginning down to its weary close. As
the Parthian war was the most important of the three, Verus
was sent to quell it, and but for the ability of his
generals—the greatest of whom was Avidius Cassius—would have
ruined irretrievably the fortunes of the Empire. These
generals, however, vindicated the majesty of the Roman name
[A. D. 165-166 —see PARTHIA], and Verus returned in triumph,
bringing back with him from the East the seeds, of a terrible
pestilence which devastated the whole Empire [see PLAGUE: A.
D. 78-266] and by which, on the outbreak of fresh wars, Verus
himself was carried off at Aquileia. … Marcus was now the
undisputed lord of the Roman world. … But this imperial
elevation kindled no glow of pride or self-satisfaction in his
meek and chastened nature. He regarded himself as being in
fact the servant of all. … He was one of those who held that
nothing should be done hastily, and that few crimes were worse
than the waste of time.
{2714}
It is to such views and such habits that we owe the
composition of his works. His 'Meditations' were written amid
the painful self-denial and distracting anxieties of his wars
with the Quadi and the Marcomanni [A. D. 168-180,—see
SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS], and he
was the author of other works which unhappily have perished.
Perhaps of all the lost treasures of antiquity there are few
which we should feel a greater wish to recover than the lost
autobiography of this wisest of Emperors and holiest of Pagan
men. … The Court was to Marcus a burden; he tells us himself
that Philosophy was his mother, Empire only his stepmother; it
was only his repose in the one that rendered even tolerable to
him the burdens of the other. … The most celebrated event of
the war [with the Quadi] took place in a great victory … which
he won in A. D. 174, and which was attributed by the
Christians to what is known as the 'Miracle of the Thundering
Legion.' …
See THUNDERING LEGION.
To the gentle heart of Marcus all war, even when accompanied
with victories, was eminently distasteful; and in such painful
and ungenial occupations no small part of his life was passed.
… It was his unhappy destiny not to have trodden out the
embers of this [the Sarmatian] war before he was burdened with
another far more painful and formidable. This was the revolt
of Avidius Cassius, a general of the old blunt Roman type,
whom, in spite of some ominous warnings, Marcus both loved and
trusted. The ingratitude displayed by such a man caused Marcus
the deepest anguish; but he was saved from all dangerous
consequences by the wide-spread affection which he had
inspired by his virtuous reign. The very soldiers of the
rebellious general fell away from him, and, after he had been
a nominal Emperor for only three months and six days, he was
assassinated by some of his own officers. … Marcus travelled
through the provinces which had favoured the cause of Avidius
Cassius, and treated them all with the most complete and
indulgent forbearance. … During this journey of pacification,
he lost his wife Faustina, who died suddenly in one of the
valleys of Mount Taurus. History … has assigned to Faustina a
character of the darkest infamy, and it has even been made a
charge against Aurelius that he overlooked or condoned her
offences. … No doubt Faustina was unworthy of her husband; but
surely it is the glory and not the shame of a noble nature to
be averse from jealousy and suspicion. … 'Marcus Aurelius
cruelly persecuted the Christians.' Let us briefly consider
this charge. … Marcus in his 'Meditations' alludes to the
Christians once only, and then it is to make a passing
complaint of the indifference to death, which appeared to him,
as it appeared to Epictetus, to arise, not from any noble
principles, but from mere obstinacy and perversity. That he
shared the profound dislike with which Christians were
regarded is very probable. That he was a cold-blooded and
virulent persecutor is utterly unlike his whole character. …
The true state of the case seems to have been this: The deep
calamities in which during the whole reign of Marcus the
Empire was involved, caused wide-spread distress, and roused
into peculiar fury the feelings of the provincials against men
whose atheism (for such they considered it to be) had kindled
the anger of the gods. … Marcus, when appealed to, simply let
the existing law take its course. … The martyrdoms took place
in Gaul and Asia Minor, not in Rome. … The persecution of the
churches in Lyons and Vienne happened in A. D. 177. Shortly
after this period fresh wars recalled the Emperor to the
North. … He was worn out with the toils, trials and travels of
his long and weary life. He sunk under mental anxieties and
bodily fatigues, and after a brief illness died in Pannonia,
either at Vienna or at Sirmium, on March 17, A. D. 180, in the
59th year of his age and the 20th of his reign."
_F. W. Farrar,
Seekers after God: Marcus Aurelius._
"One moment, thanks to him, the world was governed by the best
and greatest man of his age. Frightful decadences followed;
but the little casket which contained the 'Thoughts' on the
banks of the Granicus was saved. From it came forth that
incomparable book in which Epictetus was surpassed, that
Evangel of those who believe not in the supernatural, which
has not been comprehended until our day. Veritable, eternal
Evangel, the book of 'Thoughts,' which will never grow old,
because it asserts no dogma."
_E. Renan,
English Conferences: Marcus Aurelius._
ALSO IN:
_W. W. Capes,
The Age of the Antonines._
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapters 67-68 (volume 7)._
_P. B. Watson,
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus._
_G. Long,
Thoughts of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus,
introduction._
ROME: A. D. 180-192.
The reign of Commodus.
"If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the
world during which the condition of the human race was most
happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that
which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of
Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by
absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The
armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four
successive emperors whose characters and authority commanded
involuntary respect. … It has been objected to Marcus, that he
sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for
a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own
family rather than in the republic. Nothing, however, was
neglected by the anxious father, and by the men of virtue and
learning whom he summoned to his assistance, to expand the
narrow mind of young Commodus, to correct his growing vices,
and to render him worthy of the throne for which he was
designed. … The beloved son of Marcus succeeded to his father,
amidst the acclamations of the senate and armies; and when he
ascended the throne, the happy youth saw round him neither
competitor to remove, nor enemies to punish. In this calm
elevated station it was surely natural that he should prefer
the love of mankind to their detestation, the mild glories of
his five predecessors to the ignominious fate of Nero and
Domitian. Yet Commodus was not, as he has been represented, a
tiger born with an insatiate thirst of human blood, and
capable, from his infancy, of the most inhuman actions. Nature
had formed him of a weak, rather than a wicked disposition.
His simplicity and timidity rendered him the slave of his
attendants, who gradually corrupted his mind. His cruelty,
which at first obeyed the dictates of others, degenerated into
habit, and at length became the ruling passion of his soul. …
{2715}
During the three first years of his reign, the forms, and even
the spirit, of the old administration were maintained by those
faithful counsellors to whom Marcus had recommended his son,
and for whose wisdom and integrity Commodus still entertained
a reluctant esteem. The young prince and his profligate
favorites revelled in all the license of sovereign power; but
his hands were yet unstained with blood; and he had even
displayed a generosity of sentiment, which might perhaps have
ripened into solid virtue. A fatal incident decided his
fluctuating character. One evening, as the emperor was
returning to the palace through a dark and narrow portico in
the amphitheatre, an assassin, who waited his passage, rushed
upon him with a drawn sword, loudly exclaiming, 'The senate
sends you this.' The menace prevented the deed; the assassin
was seized by the guards, and immediately revealed the authors
of the conspiracy. It had been formed, not in the State, but
within the walls of the palace. … But the words of the
assassin sunk deep into the mind of Commodus, and left an
indelible impression of fear and hatred against the whole body
of the senate. Those whom he had dreaded as importunate
ministers he now suspected as secret enemies. The Delators, a
race of men discouraged, and almost extinguished, under the
former reigns, again became formidable as soon as they
discovered that the emperor was desirous of finding
disaffection and treason in the senate. … Suspicion was
equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a
considerable senator was attended with the death of all who
might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once
tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse. …
Pestilence and famine contributed to fill up the measure of
the calamities of Rome. … His cruelty proved at last fatal to
himself. He had shed with impunity the noblest blood of Rome:
he perished as soon as he was dreaded by his own domestics.
Marcia, his favorite concubine, Eclectus, his chamberlain, and
Lætus, his Prætorian præfect, alarmed by the fate of their
companions and predecessors, resolved to prevent the
destruction which every hour hung over their heads, either
from the mad caprice of the tyrant, or the sudden indignation
of the people. Marcia seized the occasion of presenting a
draught of wine to her lover, after he had fatigued himself
with hunting some wild beasts. Commodus retired to sleep; but
whilst he was laboring with the effects of poison and
drunkenness, a robust youth, by profession a wrestler, entered
his chamber, and strangled him without resistance"
(December 31, A. D. 192).
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 3-4._
ALSO IN:
_J. B. L. Crevier,
History of the Roman Emperors,
book 21 (volume 7)._
ROME: A. D. 192-284.
From Commodus to Diocletian.
Twenty-three Emperors in the Century.
Thirteen murdered by their own soldiers or servants.
Successful wars of Severus, Aurelian, and Probus.
On the murder of Commodus, "Helvius Pertinax, the prefect of
the city, a man of virtue, was placed on the throne by the
conspirators, who would fain justify their deed in the eyes of
the world, and their choice was confirmed by the senate. But
the Prætorians had not forgotten their own power on a similar
occasion; and they liked not the virtue and regularity of the
new monarch. Pertinax was, therefore, speedily deprived of
throne and life. Prætorian insolence now attained its height.
Regardless of the dignity and honour of the empire, they set
it up to auction. The highest bidder was a senator, named
Didius Julianus [March, 193]. … The legions disdained to
receive an emperor from the life-guards. Those of Britain
proclaimed their general Clodius Albinus; those of Asia,
Pescennius Niger: the Pannonian legions, Septimius Severus.
This last was a man of bravery and conduct: by valour and
stratagem he successively vanquished his rivals [defeating
Albinus in an obstinate battle at Lyons, A. D: 197, and
finishing the subjugation of his rivals in the east by
reducing Byzantium after a siege of three years]. He
maintained the superiority of the Roman arms against the
Parthians and Caledonians.
See Britain; A. D. 208-211].
His reign was vigorous and advantageous to the state; but he
wanted either the courage or the power to fully repress the
license and insubordination of the soldiery. Severus left the
empire [A. D. 211] to his two sons. Caracalla, the elder, a
prince of violent and untamable passions, disdained to share
empire with any. He murdered his brother and colleague, the
more gentle Geta, and put to death all who ventured to
disapprove of the deed. A restless ferocity distinguished the
character of Caracalla; he was ever at war, now on the banks
of the Rhine, now on those of the Euphrates. His martial
impetuosity daunted his enemies; his reckless cruelty
terrified his subjects. … During a Parthian war Caracalla gave
offence to Macrinus, the commander of his body-guard, who
murdered him [A. D. 217). Macrinus seized the empire, but had
not power to hold it. He and his son Diadumenianus [after
defeat in battle at Immæ, near Antioch] … were put to death by
the army, who proclaimed a supposed son [and actually a second
cousin] of their beloved Caracalla. This youth was named
Elagabalus, and was priest of the Sun in the temple of Emesa,
in Syria. Every vice stained the character of this licentious
effeminate youth, whose name is become proverbial for sensual
indulgence: he possessed no redeeming quality, had no friend,
and was put to death by his own guards, who, vicious as they
were themselves, detested vice in him. Alexander Severus,
cousin to Elagabalus, but of a totally opposite character,
succeeded that vicious prince [A. D. 222]. All estimable
qualities were united in the noble and accomplished Alexander.
… The love of learning and virtue did not in him smother
military skill and valour; he checked the martial hordes of
Germany, and led the Roman eagles to victory against the
Sassanides, who had displaced the Arsacides in the dominion
over Persia, and revived the claims of the house of Cyrus over
Anterior Asia. Alexander, victorious in war, beloved by his
subjects, deemed he might venture on introducing more regular
discipline into the army. The attempt was fatal, and the
amiable monarch lost his life in the mutiny that resulted [A.
D. 235]. Maximin, a soldier, originally a Thracian shepherd,
distinguished by his prodigious size, strength and appetite, a
stranger to all civic virtues and all civic rules, rude,
brutal, cruel, and ferocious, seated himself on the throne of
the noble and virtuous prince, in whose murder he had been the
chief agent. At Rome, the senate conferred the vacant dignity
on Gordian, a noble, wealthy and virtuous senator, and on his
son of the same name, a valiant and spirited youth.
{2716}
But scarcely were they recognized when the son fell in an
engagement, and the father slew himself [A. D. 237]. Maximin
was now rapidly marching towards Rome, full of rage and fury.
Despair gave courage to the senate; they nominated Balbinus
and Pupienus [Maximus Pupienus], one to direct the internal,
the other the external affairs. Maximin had advanced as far as
Aquileia [which he besieged without success], when his
horrible cruelties caused an insurrection against him, and he
and his son, an amiable youth, were murdered [A. D. 238]. The
army was not, however, willing to acquiesce in the claim of
the senate to appoint an emperor. Civil war was on the point
of breaking out [and Balbinus and Pupienus were massacred by
the Prætorians], when the conflicting parties agreed in the
person of the third Gordian, a boy of but thirteen years of
age [A. D. 238]. Gordian III. was … chiefly guided by his
father-in-law, Misitheus, who induced him to engage in war
against the Persians. In the war, Gordian displayed a courage
worthy of any of his predecessors; but he shared what was now
become the usual fate of a Roman emperor. He was murdered by
Philip, the captain of his guard [A. D. 244]. Philip, an
Arabian by birth, originally a captain of freebooters, seized
on the purple of his murdered sovereign. Two rivals arose and
contended with him for the prize, but accomplished nothing. A
third competitor, Decius, the commander of the army of the
Danube, defeated and slew him near Verona [A. D. 249]. During
the reign of Philip, Rome attained her thousandth year."
_T. Keightley,
Outlines of History
(Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopœdia),
part 1, chapter 9._
"Decius is memorable as the first emperor who attempted to
extirpate the Christian religion by a general persecution of
its professors. His edicts are lost; but the records of the
time exhibit a departure from the system which had been
usually observed by enemies of the church since the days of
Trajan. The authorities now sought out Christians; the legal
order as to accusations was neglected; accusers ran no risk;
and popular clamour was admitted instead of formal
information. The long enjoyment of peace had told unfavourably
on the church. … When, as Origen had foretold, a new season of
trial came, the effects of the general relaxation were sadly
displayed. On being summoned, in obedience to the emperor's
edict, to appear and offer sacrifice, multitudes of Christians
in every city rushed to the forum. … It seemed, says St.
Cyprian, as if they had long been eager to find an opportunity
for disowning their faith. The persecution was especially
directed against the bishops and clergy. Among its victims
were Fabian of Rome, Babylas of Antioch, and Alexander of
Jerusalem; while in the lines of other eminent men (as
Cyprian, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Dionysius of
Alexandria) the period is marked by exile or other sufferings.
The chief object, however, was not to inflict death on the
Christians, but to force them to recantation. With this view
they were subjected to tortures, imprisonment and want of
food; and under such trials the constancy of many gave way.
Many withdrew into voluntary banishment; among these was Paul,
a young man of Alexandria, who took up his abode in the desert
of the Thebaid, and is celebrated as the first Christian
hermit."
_J. C. Robertson,
History of the Christian Church,
book 1, chapter 6 (volume 1)._
"This persecution [of Decius] was interrupted by an invasion
of the Goths, who, for the first time, crossed the Danube in
considerable numbers, and devastated Mœsia.
See GOTHS: A. D. 244-251.
Decius marched against them, and gained some important
advantages; but in his last battle, charging into the midst of
the enemy to avenge the death of his son, he was overpowered
and slain (A. D. 251). A great number of the Romans, thus
deprived of their leader, fell victims to the barbarians; the
survivors, grateful for the protection afforded them by the
legions of Gallus, who commanded in the neighbourhood,
proclaimed that general emperor. Gallus concluded a
dishonourable peace with the Goths, and renewed the
persecutions of the Christians. His dastardly conduct provoked
general resentment; the provincial armies revolted, but the
most dangerous insurrection was that headed by Æmilianus, who
was proclaimed emperor in Mœsia. He led his forces into Italy,
and the hostile armies met at Interamna (Terni); but just as
an engagement was about to commence, Gallus was murdered by
his own soldiers (A. D. 253), and Æmilianus proclaimed
emperor. In three months Æmilianus himself met a similar fate,
the army having chosen Valerian, the governor of Gaul, to the
sovereignty. Valerian, though now sixty years of age,
possessed powers that might have revived the sinking fortunes
of the empire, which was now invaded on all sides. The Goths,
who had formed a powerful monarchy on the lower Danube and the
northern coasts of the Black Sea, extended their territories
to the Borysthenes (Dneiper) and Tanais (Don): they ravaged
Mœsia, Thrace and Macedon; while their fleets … devastated the
coasts both of the European and Asiatic provinces.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
The great confederation of the Franks became formidable on the
lower Rhine, and not less dangerous was that of the Allemanni
on the upper part of that river.
See FRANKS: A. D. 253.
The Carpians and Sarmatians laid Mœsia waste; while the
Persians plundered Syria, Cappadocia, and Cilicia. Gallienus,
the emperor's son, whom Valerian had chosen for his colleague,
and Aurelian, destined to succeed him in the empire, gained
several victories over the Germanic tribes; while Valerian
marched in person against the Scythians and Persians, who had
invaded Asia. He gained a victory over the former in Anatolia,
but, imprudently passing the Euphrates, he was surrounded by
Sapor's army near Edessa … and was forced to surrender at
discretion (A. D. 259).
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
During nine years Valerian languished in hopeless captivity,
the object of scorn and insult to his brutal conqueror, while
no effort was made for his liberation by his unnatural son.
Gallienus succeeded to the throne. … At the moment of his
accession, the barbarians, encouraged by the captivity of
Valerian, invaded the empire on all sides. Italy itself was
invaded by the Germans, who advanced to Ravenna, but they were
forced to retire by the emperor.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.
{2717}
Gallienus, after this exertion, sunk into complete inactivity:
his indolence roused a host of competitors for the empire in
the different provinces, commonly called 'the thirty tyrants,'
though the number of pretenders did not exceed 19. … Far the
most remarkable of them was Odenatus, who assumed the purple
at Palmyra, gained several great victories over the Persians,
and besieged Sapor in Ctesiphon. … But this great man was
murdered by some of his own family; he was succeeded by his
wife, the celebrated Zenobia, who took the title of Queen of
the East. Gallienus did not long survive him; he was murdered
while besieging Aureolus, one of his rivals, in Mediolanum
(Milan); but before his death he transmitted his rights to
Claudius, a general of great reputation (A. D. 268). Most of
the other tyrants had previously fallen in battle or by
assassination. Marcus Aurelius Claudius, having conquered his
only rival, Aureolus, marched against the Germans and Goths,
whom he routed with great slaughter
See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.
He then prepared to march against Zenobia, who had conquered
Egypt; but a pestilence broke out in his army, and the emperor
himself was one of its victims (A. D. 270). … His brother was
elected emperor by acclamation; but in 17 days he so
displeased the army, by attempting to revive the ancient
discipline, that he was deposed and murdered. Aurelian, a
native of Sirmium in Pannonia, was chosen emperor by the army;
and the senate, well acquainted with his merits, joyfully
confirmed the election. He made peace with the Goths, and led
his army against the Germans, who had once more invaded Italy.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.
Aurelian was at first defeated; but he soon retrieved his
loss, and cut the whole of the barbarian army to pieces. His
next victory was obtained over the Vandals, a new horde that
had passed the Danube; and having thus secured the tranquility
of Europe, he marched to rescue the eastern provinces from
Zenobia," whom he vanquished and brought captive to Rome.
See PALMYRA.
This accomplished, the vigorous emperor proceeded to the
suppression of a formidable revolt in Egypt, and then to the
recovery of Gaul, Spain, and Britain, "which had now for
thirteen years been the prey of different tyrants. A single
campaign restored these provinces to the empire; and Aurelian,
returning to Rome, was honoured with the most magnificent
triumph that the city had ever beheld. … But he abandoned the
province of Dacia to the barbarians, withdrawing all the Roman
garrisons that had been stationed beyond the Danube.
Aurelian's virtues were sullied by the sternness and severity
that naturally belongs to a peasant and a soldier. His
officers dreaded his inflexibility," and he was murdered, A.
D. 275, by some of them who had been detected in peculations
and who dreaded his wrath. The senate elected as his successor
Marcus Claudius Tacitus, who died after a reign of seven
months. Florian, a brother of Tacitus, was then chosen by the
senate; but the Syrian army put forward a competitor in the
person of its commander, Marcus Aurelius Probus, and Florian
was presently slain by his own troops. "Probus, now undisputed
master of the Empire, led his troops from Asia to Gaul, which
was again devastated by the German tribes; he not only
defeated the barbarians, but pursued them into their own
country, where he gained greater advantages than any of his
predecessors.
See GAUL: A. D. 277
and GERMANY: A. D. 277.
Thence he passed into Thrace, where he humbled the Goths; and,
returning to Asia, he completely subdued the insurgent
Isaurians, whose lands he divided among his veterans," and
commanded peace on his own terms from the king of Persia. But
even the power with which Probus wielded his army could not
protect him from its licentiousness, and in a sudden mutiny
(A. D. 282) he was slain. Carus, captain of the prætorian
guards, was then raised to the throne by the army, the senate
assenting. He repelled the Sarmatians and defeated the
Persians, who had renewed hostilities; but he died, A. D. 283,
while besieging Ctesiphon. His son Numerianus was chosen his
successor; "but after a few months' reign, he was assassinated
by Aper, his father-in-law and captain of his guards. The
crime, however, was discovered, and the murderer put to death
by the army. Dioclesian, said to have been originally a slave,
was unanimously saluted Emperor by the army. He was proclaimed
at Chalcedon, on the 17th of December, A. D. 284; an epoch
that deserves to be remembered, as it marks the beginning of a
new era, called 'the Era of Dioclesian,' or 'the Era of
Martyrs,' which long prevailed in the church, and is still
used by the Copts, the Abyssinians, and other African
nations."
_W. C. Taylor,
Student's Manual of Ancient History,
chapter 17, sections 6-7._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 5-12 (volume 1)._
ROME: A. D. 213.
First collision with the Alemanni.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.
ROME: A. D. 238.
Siege of Aquileia by Maximin.
See ROME: A. D. 192-284.
ROME: A. D. 238-267.
Naval incursions and ravages of the Goths
in Greece and Asia Minor.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
ROME: A. D. 284-305.
Reconstitution of the Empire by Diocletian.
Its division and subdivision between
two Augusti and two Cæsars.
Abdication of Diocletian.
"The accession of Diocletian to power marks a new epoch in the
history of the Roman empire. From this time the old names of
the republic, the consuls, the tribunes, and the Senate
itself, cease, even if still existing, to have any political
significance. The government becomes avowedly a monarchical
autocracy, and the officers by whom it is administered are
simply the nominees of the despot on the throne. The empire of
Rome is henceforth an Oriental sovereignty. Aurelian had
already introduced the use of the Oriental diadem. The
nobility of the empire derive their positions from the favor
of the sovereign; the commons of the empire, who have long
lost their political power, cease to enjoy even the name of
citizens. The provinces are still administered under the
imperial prefects by the magistrates and the assemblies of an
earlier date, but the functions of both the one and the other
are confined more strictly than ever to matters of police and
finance. Hitherto, indeed, the Senate, however intrinsically
weak, had found opportunities for putting forth its claims to
authority. … The chosen of the legions had been for some time
past the commander of an army, rather than the sovereign of
the state. He had seldom quitted the camp, rarely or never
presented himself in the capital. … The whole realm might
split asunder at any moment into as many kingdoms as there
were armies, unless the chiefs of the legions felt themselves
controlled by the strength or genius of one more eminent than
the rest. …
{2718}
The danger of disruption, thus far averted mainly by the awe
which the name of Rome inspired, was becoming yearly more
imminent, when Diocletian arose to re-establish the organic
connection of the parts, and breathe a new life into the heart
of the body politic. The jealous edict of Gallienus … had
forbidden the senators to take service in the army, or to quit
the limits of Italy. The degradation of that once illustrious
order, which was thus rendered incapable of furnishing a
candidate for the diadem, was completed by its indolent
acquiescence in this disqualifying ordinance. The nobles of
Rome relinquished all interest in affairs which they could no
longer aspire to conduct. The emperors, on their part, ceased
to regard them as a substantive power in the state; and in
constructing his new imperial constitution Diocletian wholly
overlooked their existence. … While he disregarded the
possibility of opposition at Rome, he contrived a new check
upon the rivalry of his distant lieutenants, by associating
with himself three other chiefs, welded together by strict
alliance into one imperial family, each of whom should take up
his residence in a separate quarter of the empire, and combine
with all the others in maintaining their common interest. His
first step was to choose a single colleague in the person of a
brave soldier of obscure origin, an Illyrian peasant, by name
Maximianus, whom he invested with the title of Augustus in the
year 286. The associated rulers assumed at the same time the
fanciful epithets of Jovius and Herculius, auspicious names,
which made them perhaps popular in the camps, where the
commanding genius of the one and the laborious fortitude of
the other were fully recognized. Maximianus was deputed to
control the legions in Gaul, to make head against domestic
sedition, as well as against the revolt of Carausius, a
pretender to the purple in Britain, while Diocletian
encountered the enemies or rivals who were now rising up in
various quarters in the East.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.
His dangers still multiplied, and again the powers of the
state were subdivided to meet them. In the year 292 Diocletian
created two Cæsars; the one, Galerius, to act subordinately to
himself in the East; the other, Constantius Chlorus, to divide
the government of the western provinces with Maximian. The
Cæsars were bound more closely to the Augusti by receiving
their daughters in marriage; but though they acknowledged each
a superior in his own half of the empire, and admitted a
certain supremacy of Diocletian over all, yet each enjoyed
kingly rule in his own territories, and each established a
court and capital, as well as an army and a camp. Diocletian
retained the wealthiest and most tranquil portion of the
realm, and reigned in Nicomedia [see NICOMEDIA] over Asia
Minor, Syria, and Egypt; while he intrusted to the Cæsar
Galerius, established at Sirmium, the more exposed provinces
on the Danube. Maximian occupied Italy, the adjacent islands,
and Africa, stationing himself, however, not in Rome, but at
Milan. Constantius was required to defend the Rhenish
frontier; and the martial provinces of Gaul, Spain, and
Britain were given him to furnish the forces necessary for
maintaining that important trust. The capital of the Western
Cæsar was fixed at Treves. Inspired with a common interest,
and controlled by the ascendency of Diocletian himself, all
the emperors acted with vigor in their several provinces.
Diocletian recovered Alexandria and quieted the revolt of
Egypt.
See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
Maximian routed the unruly hordes of Maurentia, and overthrew
a pretender to sovereignty in that distant quarter.
Constantius discomfited an invading host of Alemanni, kept in
check Carausius, who for a moment had seized upon Britain, and
again wrested that province from Allectus, who had murdered
and succeeded to him. Galerius brought the legions of Illyria
to the defence of Syria against the Persians, and though once
defeated on the plains of Carrhæ, at last reduced the enemy to
submission.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627].
Thus victorious in every quarter, Diocletian celebrated the
commencement of his twentieth year of power with a triumph at
the ancient capital, and again taking leave of the imperial
city, returned to his customary residence at Nicomedia. The
illness with which he was attacked on his journey suggested or
fixed his resolution to relieve himself from his cares, and on
May 1, in the year 305, being then fifty-nine years of age, he
performed the solemn act of abdication at Morgus, in Mæsia,
the spot where he had first assumed the purple at the bidding
of his soldiers. Strange to say, he did not renounce the
object of his ambition alone. On the same day a similar scene
was enacted by his colleague Maximian at Milan; but the
abdication of Maximian was not, it is said, a spontaneous
sacrifice, but imposed upon him by the influence or authority
of his elder and greater colleague. Diocletian had established
the principle of succession by which the supreme power was to
descend. Having seen the completion of all his arrangements,
and congratulated himself on the success, thus far, of his
great political experiments, he crowned his career of
moderation and self-restraint by strictly confining himself
during the remainder of his life to the tranquil enjoyment of
a private station. Retiring to the residence he had prepared
for himself at Salona, he found occupation and amusement in
the cultivation of his garden."
_C. Merivale,
General History of Rome,
chapter 70._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 13._
_W. T. Arnold,
The Roman System of Provincial Administration,
chapter 4._
See, also, DIOCLETIAN.
ROME: A. D. 287.
Insurrection of the Bagauds in Gaul.
See BAGAUDS;
also, DEDITITIUS.
ROME: A. D. 303-305.
The persecution of Christians under Diocletian.
"Dreams concerning the overthrow of the Empire had long been
cast into the forms of prophecies amongst the Christians. …
There were some to repeat the predictions and to count the
proofs of overthrow impending upon the Empire. But there were
more, far more, to desire its preservation. Many even laboured
for it. The number of those holding offices of distinction at
the courts and in the armies implies the activity of a still
larger number in inferior stations. … Never, on the other
hand, had the generality of Christians been the objects of
deeper or more bitter suspicions. … By the lower orders, they
would be hated as conspiring against the customs of their
province or the glories of their race. By men of position and
of education, they would be despised as opposing every
interest of learning, of property, and of rank. Darker still
were the sentiments of the sovereigns.
{2719}
By them the Christians were scorned as unruly subjects,
building temples without authority, appointing priests without
license, while they lived and died for principles the most
adverse to the laws and to the rulers of the Empire. …
Everywhere they were advancing. Everywhere they met with
reviving foes. At the head of these stood the Cæsar,
afterwards the Emperor Galerius. He who had been a herdsman of
Dacia was of the stamp to become a wanton ruler. He showed his
temper in his treatment of the Heathen. He showed it still
more clearly in his hostility towards the Christians. … He
turned to Diocletian. The elder Emperor was in the mood to
hear his vindictive son-in-law. Already had Diocletian
fulminated his edicts against the Christians. Once it was
because his priests declared them to be denounced in an oracle
from Apollo, as opposing the worship of that deity. At another
time, it was because his soothsayers complained of the
presence of his Christian attendants as interfering with the
omens on which the Heathen depended. Diocletian was
superstitious. But he yielded less to his superstition as a
man than to his imperiousness as a sovereign, when he ordered
that all employed in the imperial service should take part in
the public sacrifices under pain of scourging and dismissal. …
At this crisis he was accosted by Galerius. Imperious as he
was, Diocletian was still circumspect. … Galerius urged
instant suppression. 'The world,' replied his father-in-law,
'will be thrown into confusion, if we attack the Christians.'
But Galerius insisted. Not all the caution of the elder
Emperor was proof against the passions thus excited by his
son-in-law. The wives of Diocletian and Galerius, both said to
have been Christians, interceded in vain. Without consulting
the other sovereigns, it was determined between Diocletian and
Galerius to sound the alarum of persecution throughout their
realms. Never had persecution begun more fearfully. Without a
note of warning, the Christians of Nicomedia were startled,
one morning, by the sack and demolition of their church. … Not
until the next day, however, was there any formal declaration
of hostilities. An edict then appeared commanding instant and
terrible proceedings against the Christians. Their churches
were to be razed. Their Scriptures were to be destroyed. They
themselves were to be deprived of their estates and offices. …
Some days or weeks, crowded with resistance as well as
suffering, went by. Suddenly a fire broke out in the palace at
Nicomedia. It was of course laid at the charge of the
Christians. … Some movements occurring in the eastern
provinces were also ascribed to Christian machinations. … The
Empresses, suspected of sharing the faith of the sufferers,
were compelled to offer public sacrifice. Fiercer assaults
ensued. A second edict from the palace ordered the arrest of
the Christian priests. A third commanded that the prisoners
should be forced to sacrifice according to the Heathen ritual
under pain of torture. When the dungeons were filled, and the
racks within them were busy with their horrid work, a fourth
edict, more searching and more pitiless than any, was
published. By this the proper officers were directed to arrest
every Christian whom they could discover, and bring him to one
of the Heathen temples. … Letters were despatched to demand
the co-operation of the Emperor Maximian and the Cæsar
Constantius. The latter, it is said, refused; yet there were
no limits that could be set to the persecution by any one of
the sovereigns. … None suffered more than the Christians in
Britain. … The intensity of the persecution was in no degree
diminished by the extent over which it spread. … Some were
thrown into dungeons to renounce their faith or to die amidst
the agonies of which they had no fear. Long trains of those
who survived imprisonment were sent across the country or
beyond the sea to labour like brutes in the public mines. In
many cities the streets must have been literally blocked up
with the stakes and scaffolds where death was dealt alike to
men and women and little children. It mattered nothing of what
rank the victims were. The poorest slave and the first officer
of the imperial treasury were massacred with equal savageness.
… The memory of man embraces no such strife, if that can be
called a strife in which there was but one side armed, but one
side slain."
_S. Eliot,
History of the Early Christians,
book 3, chapter 10 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_A. Carr,
The Church and the Roman Empire,
chapter 2._
_G. Uhlhorn,
The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
book 3, chapter 1._
ROME: A. D. 305-323.
The wars of Constantine and his rivals.
His triumph.
His reunion of the Empire.
On the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Constantius and
Galerius, who had previously held the subordinate rank of
Cæsars, succeeded to the superior throne, as Augusti. A nephew
of Galerius, named Maximin, and one Severus, who was his
favorite, were then appointed Cæsars, to the exclusion of
Constantine, son of Constantius, and Maxentius, son of
Maximian, who might have naturally expected the elevation.
Little more than a year afterwards, Constantius died, in
Britain, and Constantine was proclaimed Augustus and Emperor,
in his place, by the armies of the West. Galerius had not
courage to oppose this military election, except so far as to
withhold from Constantine the supreme rank of Augustus, which
he conferred on his creature, Severus. Constantine acquiesced,
for the moment, and contented himself with the name of Cæsar,
while events and his own prudence were preparing for him a far
greater elevation. In October, 306, there was a successful
rising at Rome against Severus, Maxentius was raised to the
throne by the voice of the feeble senate and the people, and
his father, Maximian, the abdicated monarch, came out of his
retirement to resume the purple, in association at first, but
afterwards in rivalry with his son. Severus was besieged at
Ravenna and, having surrendered, was condemned to death.
Galerius undertook to avenge his death by invading Italy, but
retreated ignominiously. Thereupon he invested his friend
Licinius with the emblems and the rank of the deceased
Severus. The Roman world had then six emperors—each claiming
the great title of "Augustus": Galerius, Licinius, and Maximin
in the East (including Africa), making common cause against
Maximian, Maxentius and Constantine in the West. The first, in
these combinations, to fall out, were the father and son,
Maximian and Maxentius, both claiming authority in Italy. The
old emperor appealed to his former army and it declared
against him.
{2720}
He fled, taking shelter, first, with his enemy Galerius, but
soon repairing to the court of Constantine, who had married
his daughter Fausta. A little later, the dissatisfied and
restless old man conspired to dethrone his son-in-law and was
put to death. The next year (May, A. D. 311) Galerius died at
Nicomedia, and his dominions were divided between Licinius and
Maximin. The combinations were now changed, and Constantine
and Licinius entered into an alliance against Maxentius and
Maximin. Rome and Italy had wearied by this time of Maxentius,
who was both vicious and tyrannical, and invited Constantine
to deliver them. He responded by a bold invasion of Italy,
with a small army of but 40,000 men; defeated the greater army
of Maxentius at Turin; occupied the imperial city of Milan;
took Verona, after a siege and a desperate battle fought
outside its walls, and finished his antagonist in a third
encounter (October 28, A. D. 312), at Saxa Rubra, within nine
miles of Rome. Maxentius perished in the flight from this
decisive field and Constantine possessed his dominions. In the
next year, Maximin, rashly venturing to attack Licinius, was
defeated near Heraclea, on the Propontis, and died soon
afterwards. The six emperors of the year 308 were now (A. D.
313) reduced to two, and the friendship between them was
ostentatious. But it endured little longer than a single year.
Licinius was accused of conspiring against Constantine, and
the latter declared war. The first battle was fought near
Cibalis, in Pannonia, the second on the plain of Mardia, in
Thrace, and Constantine was the victor in both. Licinius sued
for peace and obtained it (December, A. D. 315) by the cession
of all his dominion in Europe, except Thrace. For eight years,
Constantine was contented with the great empire he then
possessed. In 323 he determined to grasp the entire Roman
world. Licinius opposed him with a vigor unexpected and the
war was prepared for on a mighty scale. It was practically
decided by the first great battle, at Hadrianople, on the 3d
of July, 323. Licinius, defeated, took refuge in Byzantium,
which Constantine besieged. Escaping from Byzantium into Asia,
Licinius fought once more at Chrysopolis and then yielded to
his fate. He died soon after. The Roman empire was again
united and Constantine was its single lord.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 14._
ALSO IN:
_E. L. Cutts,
Constantine the Great,
chapters 7-22._
ROME: A. D. 306.
Constantine's defeat of the Franks.
See FRANKS: A. D. 306.
ROME: A. D. 313.
Constantine's Edict of Milan.
Declared toleration of Christianity.
After the extension of the sovereignty of Constantine over the
Italian provinces as well as Gaul and the West, he went, in
January, A. D. 313, to Milan, and there held a conference with
Licinius, his eastern colleague in the empire. One of the
results of that conference was the famous Edict of Milan,
which recognized Christianity and admitted it to a footing of
equal toleration with the paganisms of the empire—in terms as
follows: "Wherefore, as I, Constantine Augustus, and I,
Licinius Augustus, came under favourable auspices to Milan,
and took under consideration all affairs that pertained to the
public benefit and welfare, these things among the rest
appeared to us to be most advantageous and profitable to all.
We have resolved among the first things to ordain, those
matters by which reverence and worship to the Deity might be
exhibited. That is, how we may grant likewise to the
Christians, and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of
worship which they may wish. That whatsoever divinity and
celestial power may exist may be propitious to us, and to all
that live under our government. Therefore, we have decreed the
following ordinance as our will, with a salutary and most
correct intention, that no freedom at all shall be refused to
Christians, to follow or to keep their observances or worship.
But that to each one power be granted to devote his mind to
that worship which he may think adapted to himself. That the
Deity may in all things exhibit to us His accustomed favour
and kindness. … And this we further decree, with respect to
the Christians, that the places in which they were formerly
accustomed to assemble, concerning which also we formerly
wrote to your fidelity, in a different form, that if any
persons have purchased these, either from our treasurer, or
from any other one, these shall restore them to the
Christians, without money and without demanding any price. …
They who as we have said restore them without valuation and
price may expect their indemnity from our munificence and
liberality."
_Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History,
book 10, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_P. Schaff,
Progress of Religious Freedom,
chapter 2._
ROME: A. D. 318-325.
The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.
See ARIANISM;
and NICÆA: A. D. 325.
ROME: A. D. 323.
The conversion of Constantine.
His Christianity.
His character.
"The alleged supernatural conversion of Constantine has
afforded a subject of doubt and debate from that age to the
present. Up to the date of his war against Maxentius, the
Emperor believed, like his father, in one god, whom he
represented to himself, not with the attributes of Jupiter,
best and greatest, father of gods and men, but under the form
of Apollo, with the attributes of the glorified youth of
manhood, the god of light and life. … His conversion to
Christianity took place at the period of the war with
Maxentius. The chief contemporary authorities on the subject
are Lactantius and Eusebius. Lactantius, an African by birth,
was a rhetorician (or, as we should call him, professor) at
Nicomedia, of such eminence that Constantine entrusted to him
the education of his eldest son, Crispus. Writing before the
death of Licinius, i. e. before the year 314 A. D., or within
two, or at most three, years of the event, Lactantius says,
'Constantine was admonished in his sleep to mark the celestial
sign of God on the shields, and so to engage in the battle. He
did as he was commanded and marked the name of Christ on the
shields by the letter X drawn across them, with the top
circumflexed. Armed with this sign his troops proceed,' etc.
Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, the historian of the early
Church, the most learned Christian of his time, was, after
Constantine's conquest of the East, much about the court, in
the confidence of the Emperor, and one of his chief advisers
in ecclesiastical matters. In his 'Life of Constantine',
published twenty-six years after the Emperor's death, he gives
us an interesting account of the moral process of the
Emperor's conversion.
{2721}
Reflecting on the approaching contest with Maxentius, and
hearing of the extraordinary rites by which he was
endeavouring to win the favour of the gods, 'being convinced
that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces
could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical
enchantments which were so diligently practised by the tyrant,
he began to seek for divine assistance. … And while he was
thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvellous sign
appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might
have been difficult to receive with credit, had it been
related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor
himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this
history, when he was honoured with his acquaintance and
society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could
hesitate to credit the relation, especially since the
testimony of after time has established its truth? He said
that at mid-day, when the sun was beginning to decline, he
saw, with his own eyes, the trophy of a cross of light in the
heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, "Conquer
by this." At this sight he himself was struck with amazement,
and his whole army also, which happened to be following him on
some expedition, and witnessed the miracle. He said, moreover,
that he doubted within himself what the import of this
apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and
reason on its meaning, night imperceptibly drew on; and in his
sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign
which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to procure
a standard made in the likeness of that sign, and to use it as
a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.'" The
standard which is said to have had this origin was the famous
Labarum.
_E. L. Cutts,
Constantine the Great,
chapter 11._
"He [Constantine] was not lacking in susceptibility to certain
religious impressions; he acknowledged the peculiar providence
of God in the manner in which he had been delivered from
dangers, made victorious over all his pagan adversaries, and
finally rendered master of the Roman world. It flattered his
vanity to be considered the favourite of God, and his destined
instrument to destroy the empire of the evil spirits (the
heathen deities). The Christians belonging to court were
certainly not wanting on their part to confirm him in this
persuasion. … Constantine must indeed have been conscious that
he was striving not so much for the cause of God as for the
gratification of his own ambition and love of power; and that
such acts of perfidy, mean revenge, or despotic jealousy, as
occurred in his political course, did not well befit an
instrument and servant of God, such as he claimed to be
considered. … Even Eusebius, one of the best among the bishops
at his court, is so dazzled by what the emperor had achieved
for the outward extension and splendour of the church, as to
be capable of tracing to the purest motives of a servant of
God all the acts which a love of power that would not brook a
rival had, at the expense of truth and humanity, put into the
heart of the emperor in the war against Licinius. … Bishops in
immediate attendance on the emperor so far forgot indeed to
what master they belonged, that, at the celebration of the
third decennium of his reign (the tricennalia), one of them
congratulated him as constituted by God the ruler over all in
the present world, and destined to reign with the Son of God
in the world to come, The feelings of Constantine himself were
shocked at such a parallel."
_A. Neander,
General History of the Christian Religion and Church,
period 2, section. 1, A._
"As he approached the East, he [Constantine] adopted oriental
manners; he affected the gorgeous purple of the monarchs of
Persia; he decorated his head with false hair of different
colours, and with a diadem covered with pearls and gems. He
substituted flowing silken robes, embroidered with flowers,
for the austere garb of Rome, or the unadorned purple of the
first Roman emperors. He filled his palace with eunuchs, and
lent an ear to their perfidious calumnies; he became the
instrument of their base intrigues, their cupidity, and their
jealousy. He multiplied spies, and subjected the palace and
the empire, alike, to a suspicious police. He lavished the
wealth of Rome on the sterile pomp of stately buildings. … He
poured out the best and noblest blood in torrents, more
especially of those nearly connected with himself. The most
illustrious victim of his tyranny was Crispus, his son by his
first wife, whom he had made the partner of his empire, and
the commander of his armies. … In a palace which he had made a
desert, the murderer of his father-in-law, his
brothers-in-law, his sister, his wife, his son, and his
nephew, must have felt the stings of remorse, if hypocritical
priests and courtier bishops had not lulled his conscience to
rest. We still possess the panegyric in which they represent
him as a favourite of Heaven, a saint worthy of our highest
veneration; we have also several laws by which Constantine
atoned for all his crimes, in the eyes of the priests, by
heaping boundless favours on the church. The gifts he bestowed
on it, the immunities he granted to persons and to property
connected with it, soon directed ambition entirely to
ecclesiastical dignities. The men who had so lately been
candidates for the honours of martyrdom, now found themselves
depositaries of the greatest wealth and the highest power. How
was it possible that their characters should not undergo a
total change?"
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._
See, also,
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.
ROME: A. D. 330.
Transference of the capital of the Empire to
Byzantium (Constantinople).
See CONSTANTINOPLE A. D. 330.
ROME: A. D. 337-361.
Redivision of the Empire.
Civil wars between the sons of Constantine
and their successors.
Elevation of Julian to the throne.
Before the death of Constantine, "his three sons, Constantine,
Constantius, and Constans, had already been successively
raised to the rank of Cæsar about the tenth, twentieth, and
thirtieth years of his reign. The royal family contained also
two other young princes, sons of Dalmatius, one of the
half-brothers of Constantine; the elder of these nephews of
the Emperor was called Dalmatius, after his father, the other
Hanniballianus. … Constantine shared—not the Empire, but—the
imperial power among his three sons. The eldest, Constantine,
was to hold the first rank among the three Augusti, and to
take the western Gallic provinces under his especial
administration; Constantius was to take the east, viz., Asia,
Syria, and Egypt; Constans was to take the central portion of
the Empire, Italy, Africa, and Western Illyricum."
_E. L. Cutts,
Constantine the Great,
chapter 33._
{2722}
The father of these three princes was no sooner dead (A. D.
337) than they made haste to rid themselves of all the
possible rivals in a family which seemed too numerous for
peace. Two uncles and seven cousins—including Dalmatius and
Hannibalianus—with other connections by marriage and
otherwise, were quickly put out of the way under one and
another pretence and with more or less mockery of legal forms.
The three brothers then divided the provinces between them on
much the same plan as before; but Constantine, the eldest, now
reigned in the new capital of his father, which bore his name.
There was peace between them for three years. It was broken by
Constantine, who demanded the surrender to him of a part of
the dominions of Constans. War ensued and Constantine was
killed in one of the earliest engagements of it. Constans took
possession of his dominions, refusing any share of them to
Constantius, and reigned ten years longer, when he was
destroyed, A. D. 350, by a conspiracy in Gaul, which raised to
his throne one Magnentius, a soldier of barbarian extraction.
Magnentius was acknowledged in Gaul and Italy; but the troops
in Illyricum invested their own general, Vetranio, with the
purple. Constantius, in the East, now roused himself to oppose
these rebellions, and did so with success. Vetranio, an aged
man, was intimidated by artful measures and driven to
surrender his unfamiliar crown. Magnentius advanced boldly to
meet an enemy whom he despised, and was defeated in a great
battle fought September 21, A. D. 351, at Mursa (Essek, in
modern Hungary, on the Drave). Retreating to Italy, and from
Italy to Gaul, he maintained the war for another year, but
slew himself finally in despair and the empire had a single
ruler, once more. The sole emperor, Constantius, now found his
burden of power too great, and sought to share it. Two young
nephews had been permitted to live, when the massacre of the
house of Constantine occurred, and he turned to these. He
raised the elder, Gallus, to the rank of Cæsar, and gave him
the government of the præfecture of the East. But Gallus
conducted himself like a Nero and was disgraced and executed
in little more than three years. The younger nephew, Julian,
escaped his brother's fate by great prudence of behavior and
by the friendship of the Empress Eusebia. In 355, he, in turn,
was made Cæsar and sent into Gaul. Distinguishing himself
there in several campaigns against the Germans (see GAUL: A.
D. 355-361), he provoked the jealousy of Constantius and of
the eunuchs who ruled the imperial court. To strip him of
troops, four Gallic legions were ordered to the East, for the
Persian war. They rose in revolt, at Paris, proclaimed Julian
emperor and forced him to assume the dangerous title. He
promptly sent an embassy to Constantius asking the recognition
and confirmation of this procedure; but his overtures were
rejected with disdain. He then declared war, and conducted an
extraordinary expedition into Illyricum, through the Black
Forest and down the Danube, occupying Sirmium and seizing the
Balkan passes before he was known to have left Gaul. But the
civil war so vigorously opened was suddenly arrested at this
stage by the death of Constantius (A. D. 361), and Julian
became sole emperor without more dispute. He renounced
Christianity and is known in history as Julian the Apostate.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 18-22._
ROME: A. D. 338-359.
Wars of Constantius with the Persians.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
ROME: A. D. 350-361.
Extensive abandonment of Gaul to the Germans.
Its recovery by Julian.
See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
ROME: A. D. 361-363.
Julian and the Pagan revival.
"Heathenism still possessed a latent power greater than those
supposed who persuaded the Emperors that now it could be
easily extirpated. The state of affairs in the West differed
from that in the East. In the West it was principally the
Roman aristocracy, who with few exceptions still adhered to
their ancient religion, and with them the great mass of the
people. In the East, on the contrary, Christianity had made
much more progress among the masses, and a real aristocracy
could scarcely be said to exist. In its stead there was an
aristocracy of learning, whose hostility was far more
dangerous to Christianity than the aversion of the Roman
nobility. The youth still thronged to the ancient and
illustrious schools of Miletus, Ephesus, Nicomedia, Antioch,
and above all Athens, and the teachers in these schools were
almost without exception heathen. … There the ancient heathen
spirit was imbibed, and with it a contempt for barbarian
Christianity. The doctrinal strife in the Christian Church was
held up to ridicule, and, alas! with too much reason. For,
according to the Emperor's favor and caprice, one doctrine
stood for orthodoxy to-day and another to-morrow. To-day it
was decreed that Christ was of the same essence with the
Father, and all who refused to acknowledge this were deposed
and exiled. Tomorrow the court theology had swung round, it
was decreed that Christ was a created being, and now it was
the turn of the other party to go into banishment. The
educated heathen thought themselves elevated far above all
this in their classic culture. With what secret anger they
beheld the way in which the temples were laid waste, the works
of art broken to pieces, the memorials of an age of greatness
destroyed, and all in favor of a barbarian religion destitute
of culture. The old rude forms of Heathenism, indeed, they
themselves did not desire, but the refined Heathenism of the
Neoplatonic school seemed to them not merely the equal but the
superior of Christianity. … These were the sources of the
re-action against Christianity. Their spirit was embodied in
Julian. In him it ascended for the last time the imperial
throne, and made the final attempt to stop the triumphal
progress of Christianity. But it succeeded only in giving to
the world irresistible evidence that the sceptre of the spirit
of Antiquity was forever broken. … What influenced Julian was
chiefly enthusiasm for Greek culture. Even in a religious
aspect Polytheism seemed to him superior to Monotheism,
because more philosophic. Neoplatonism filled the whole soul
of the young enthusiast, and seemed to him to comprehend all
the culture of the ancient world in a unified system. But of
course his vanity had a great share in the matter, for he
naturally received the most devoted homage among the
Hellenists, and his rhetorical friends did not stint their
flattery. … He made his entry … [into Constantinople) as a
declared heathen. Although at the beginning of his campaign he
had secretly sacrificed to Bellona, yet he had attended the
church in Vienne.
{2723}
But on the march he put an end to all ambiguity, and publicly
offered sacrifices to the ancient gods. The Roman Empire once
more had a heathen Emperor. At first all was joy; for as
universally as Constantius was hated, Julian was welcomed as a
deliverer. Even the Christians joined in this rejoicing. They
too had found the arbitrary government of the last few years
hard enough to bear. And if some who looked deeper began to
feel anxiety, they consoled themselves by the reflection that
even a heathen Emperor could not injure the Church so much as
a Christian Emperor who used his power in promoting whatever
seemed to him at the time to be orthodoxy in the dogmatic
controversies of the age. And Julian proclaimed, not the
suppression of Christianity, but only complete religious
liberty. He himself intended to be a heathen, but no Christian
should be disturbed in his faith. Julian was certainly
thoroughly in earnest in this. To be a persecutor of the
Church, was the last thing he would have thought of. Besides,
he was much too fully persuaded of the untruth of Christianity
and the truth of Heathenism to persecute. Julian was an
enthusiast, like all the rhetoricians and philosophers who
surrounded him. He regarded himself as called by a divine
voice to the great work of restoring Heathenism, and this was
from the beginning avowedly his object. And he was no less
firmly convinced that this restoration would work itself out
without any use of force; as soon as free scope was given to
Heathenism it would, by its own powers, overcome Christianity.
… The Emperor himself was evidently in all respects a heathen
from sincere conviction. In this regard at least he was honest
and no hypocrite. The flagrant voluptuousness, which had
corrupted the court, was banished, and a large number of
useless officials dismissed. The life of the court was to be
simple, austere, and pure. Men had never before seen an
Emperor who conducted himself with such simplicity, whose
table was so economically supplied, and who knew no other
employments than hard work, and devoted worship of the gods. A
temple was built in the palace, and there Julian offered a
daily sacrifice. Often he might be seen serving at the
sacrifice himself, carrying the wood and plunging the knife
into the victim with his own hand. He remembered every
festival which should be celebrated, and knew how to observe
the whole half-forgotten ritual most punctiliously. He was
equally zealous in performing the duties of his office as
Pontifex Maximus. Everywhere he revived the ancient worship
which had fallen into neglect. Here a closed temple was
re-opened, there a ruined shrine restored, images of the gods
were set up again, and festivals which had ceased to be
celebrated, were restored. … Soon conversions became
plentiful; governors, officials, soldiers, made themselves
proficient in the ancient cultus; and even a bishop, Pegasius
of New Ilium, whom Julian had previously learned to know as a
secret friend of the gods, when he had heen the Emperor's
guide to the classic sites of Troy, changed his religion, and
from a Christian bishop became a heathen high-priest. … The
dream of a restoration of Heathenism nevertheless soon began
to prove itself a dream. Though now surrounded by heathen
only, Julian could not help feeling that he was really
isolated in their midst. He himself was naturally a mystic,
and lived in his ideals. His Heathenism was one purified by
poetic feeling. But there was little or nothing of this to be
found actually existing. His heathen friends were courtiers,
who agreed with him without inward conviction. … He was far
too serious and severely moral for their tastes. They
preferred the theatre to the temple, they liked amusement
best, and found the daily attendance at worship and the
monotonous ceremonies and sacrifices very dull. A measurably
tolerant Christian Emperor would doubtless have suited them
better than this enthusiastically pious heathen. Blinded as
Julian was by his ideal views, he soon could not escape the
knowledge that things were not going well. If Heathenism was
to revive, it must receive new life within. The restoration
must be also a reformation. Strangely enough Julian felt
compelled to borrow from Christianity the ways and means for
such a reformation. The heathen priests, like the Christian,
were to instruct the people, and exhort them to holy living.
The heathen, like the Christians, were to care for the poor. …
While new strength was thus to be infused into Heathenism,
other measures were adopted to weaken Christianity. An
imperial edict, June 17, A. D. 362, forbade the Christians to
act as teachers of the national literature, the ancient
classics. It was, the Emperor explained, a contradiction for
Christians to expound Homer, Thucydides, or Demosthenes, when
they regarded them as godless men and aliens. He would not
compel them to change their convictions, but also he could not
permit the ancient writers to be expounded by those who took
them to task for impiety. … This, of course, was not a
persecution, if the use of force alone makes a persecution,
yet it was a persecution, and in a sense a worse one than any
which went before. Julian tried to deprive the Christians of
that which should be common to all men,—education. …
Nevertheless he had to confess to himself that the restoration
of Heathenism was making no progress worth speaking of. … He
spent his whole strength, he sacrificed himself, he lived only
for the Empire over which Providence had made him lord, and
yet found himself alone in his endeavor. Even his heathen
friends, the philosophers and rhetoricians, kept at a
distance. … With such thoughts as these, Julian journeyed to
Antioch, in Syria, in order to make preparations there for the
great campaign he purposed to make against the Persians. There
new disappointments awaited him. He found the shrines of his
gods forsaken and desolate. … The temple of Apollo was
restored with the greatest splendor. Julian went there to
offer a sacrifice to the god. He expected to find a multitude
of worshippers, but no one even brought oil for a lamp or
incense to burn in honor of the deity. Only an old man
approached to sacrifice a goose. … Shortly afterwards, the
newly restored temple burned down in the night. Now the
Emperor's wrath knew no bounds. He ascribed the guilt to the
Christians; and although the temple, as is probable, caught
fire through the fault of a heathen philosopher, who carried a
dedicatory lamp about in it without due precautions, many
Christians were arrested and tortured. The Church had its
martyrs once more; and Julian, discontented with himself and
the whole world besides, advanced to new measures.
{2724}
The cathedral of Antioch was closed and its property
confiscated. Julian decreed that the Christians, whose God had
forbidden them to kill, should not be intrusted with any
office with which judicial functions were connected. … Julian
himself became more and more restless. He hurried from temple
to temple, brought sacrifice after sacrifice; he knelt for
hours before his gods and covered their statues with kisses.
Then at night he sat in the silence at his writing-table, and
gave vent to his bitterness and disgust with every thing. Then
he wrote his works full of brilliant wit, thought out and
expressed with Greek refinement, but full of bitterest hatred
especially against the Galileans and their Carpenter's Son. …
Finally, his immense preparations for the campaign against the
Persians were finished. Julian started, after finally setting
over the Antiochians a wretch as governor, with the remark
that the man did not deserve to be a governor, but they
deserved to be governed by such a one."
_G. Uhlhorn,
The Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism,
book 3, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_G. H. Rendall.
Julian the Emperor._
_B. L. Gildersleeve,
The Emperor Julian
(Essays and Studies, pages 355-400)._
_Gregory Nazianzen,
Invectives against Julian, and Libanius,
Funeral Oration upon Julian,
translated by C. W. King._
ROME: A. D. 363.
The Persian expedition of Julian.
His death.
Jovian made Emperor by the retreating army.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
ROME: A. D. 363-379.
Christianity reascendant.
Secret hostility of Paganism.
Reign of Valentinian and Valens.
Approach of the Huns.
The struggle with the Goths.
Elevation of Theodosius to the throne.
When Julian's successor, Jovian, "who did not reign long
enough to lead back to Constantinople the army which he had
marched from the banks of the Tigris, made public profession
of Christianity, he, at the same time, displaced a great
number of brave officers and able functionaries, whom Julian
had promoted in proportion to their zeal for paganism. From
that period, up to the fall of the empire, a hostile sect,
which regarded itself as unjustly stripped of its ancient
honours, invoked the vengeance of the gods on the heads of the
government, exulted in the public calamities, and probably
hastened them by its intrigues, though inextricably involved
in the common ruin. The pagan faith, which was not attached to
a body of doctrine, nor supported by a corporation of priests,
nor heightened by the fervour of novelty, scarcely ever
displayed itself in open revolt, or dared the perils of
martyrdom; but pagans still occupied the foremost rank in
letters:—the orators, the philosophers (or, as they were
otherwise called, sophists), the historians, belonged, almost
without an exception, to the ancient religion. It still kept
possession of the most illustrious schools, especially those
of Athens and Alexandria; the majority of the Roman senate
were still attached to it; and in the breasts of the common
people, particularly the rural population, it maintained its
power for several centuries, branded, however, with the name
of magic. … Less than eight months after his elevation to the
throne, on the 17th of February, 364, Jovian died in a small
town of Galatia. After the expiration of ten days, the army
which he was leading home from Persia, at a solemn assembly
held at Nice, in Bithynia, chose as his successor the son of a
captain from a little village of Pannonia, the count
Valentinian, whom his valour and bodily prowess had raised to
one of the highest posts of the army. … Spite of his savage
rudeness, and the furious violence of his temper, the Roman
empire found in him an able chief at the moment of its
greatest need. Unhappily, the extent of the empire required,
at least, two rulers. The army felt this, and demanded a
second. … Valentinian … chose his brother. Valens, with whom
he shared his power, had the weak, timid, and cruel character
which ordinarily distinguishes cowards. Valentinian, born in
the West, … reserved the government of it to himself. He ceded
to his brother a part of Illyricum on the Danube, and the
whole of the East. He established universal toleration by law,
and took no part in the sectarian controversies which divided
Christendom. Valens adopted the Arian faith, and persecuted
the orthodox party. The finances of the empire demanded a
reform, which neither of the emperors was in a condition to
undertake. They wanted money, and they were ignorant where to
seek the long exhausted sources of public wealth. … Vast
provinces in the interior were deserted; enlistments daily
became more scanty and difficult; the magistrates of the
'curiæ' or municipalities, who were responsible both for the
contributions and the levies of their respective towns, sought
by a thousand subterfuges to escape the perilous honour of the
magistrature. …
See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.
During the twelve years that Valentinian reigned over the West
(A. D. 364-376), he redeemed his cruelties by several
brilliant victories. …
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.
Valentinian had undertaken the defence of Gaul in person, and
generally resided at Treves, then the capital of that vast
prefecture; but at the time he was thus occupied, invasions
not less formidable had devastated the other provinces of the
West. …
See BRITAIN. A. D. 367-370.
At this period Valens reigned over the Greeks, whose language
he did not understand (A. D. 364-378). His eastern frontier
was menaced by the Persians, his northern by the Goths. …
Armenia and Iberia became subject to Persia; but as the people
of both these countries were Christian, they remained faithful
to the interests of Rome, though conquered by her enemy. … The
dominion of the Goths extended along the shores of the Danube
and the Black Sea, and thirty years had elapsed since they had
made any incursion into the Roman territory. But during that
period they had gone on increasing in greatness and in power.
… Spite of the formidable neighbourhood of the Goths and the
Persians—spite of the cowardice and the incapacity of
Valens—the East had remained at peace, protected by the mere
name of Valentinian, whose military talents, promptitude, and
severity were known to all the barbarian tribes. But the
career of this remarkable man, so dreaded by his enemies and
by his subjects, had now reached its term." He died in a fit
of rage, from the bursting of a blood-vessel in his chest,
November 17, A. D. 375. "His two sons,—Gratian, who was
scarcely come to manhood, and Valentinian, still a
child,—shared the West between them. …
{2725}
Never, however, was the empire in greater need of an able and
vigorous head. The entire nation of the Huns, abandoning to
the Sienpi its ancient pastures bordering on China, had
traversed the whole north of Asia by a march of 1,300
leagues." The Goths, overwhelmed and flying before them,
begged permission to cross the Danube and take refuge in Mœsia
and Thrace. They were permitted to do so; but such extortions
and outrages were practiced on them, at the same time, that
they were exasperated to a passionate hatred. This bore fruit
in a general rising in 377. Two years of war ensued, marked by
two great battles, that of Ad Salices, or The Willows, which
neither side could fully claim, and that of Adrianople, August
9, 378, in which Valens perished, and more than 60,000 of his
soldiers fell.
See GOTHS: A. D. 376, and 378.
"The forces of the East were nearly annihilated at the
terrible battle of Adrianople. … The Goths … advanced,
ravaging all around them, to the foot of the walls of
Constantinople; and, after some unimportant skirmishes,
returned westward through Macedonia, Epirus, and Dalmatia.
From the Danube to the Adriatic, their passage was marked by
conflagration and blood. … No general in the East attempted to
take advantage of the anarchy in favour of his own ambition;
no army offered the purple to its chief; all dreaded the
responsibility of command at so tremendous a crisis. All eyes
were turned on the court of Treves, the only point whence help
was hoped for. But Gratian, eldest son of Valentinian, and
emperor of the West, was only 19. He … marched upon Illyricum
with his army, when he learned the event of the battle of
Adrianople, and the death of Valens, who had been so eager to
secure the undivided honours of victory, that he would not
wait for his arrival. Incapable of confronting such a tempest,
he retreated to Sirmium. The news of an invasion of the
Allemans into Gaul recalled him to the defence of his own
territory. Danger started up on every hand at once. The empire
stood in need of a new chief, and one of approved valour.
Gratian had the singular generosity to choose from among his
enemies, and from a sense of merit alone. Theodosius, the
Spaniard, his father's general, who had successively
vanquished the Scots and afterwards the Moors, and who had
been unjustly condemned to the scaffold at the beginning of
Gratian's reign, had left a son 33 years of age, who bore his
name. The younger Theodosius had distinguished himself in the
command he held in Mœsia, but was living in retirement and
disgrace on his estates in Spain, when, with, the confidence
of a noble mind, Gratian chose him out, presented him to the
army on the 19th of January, 379, and declared him his
colleague, and emperor of the East."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
The Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 5 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
introduction, and book 1, chapter 1._
ROME: A. D. 378.
Gratian's overthrow of the Alemanni in Gaul.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
ROME: A. D. 379-395.
Theodosius and the Goths.
His Trinitarian Edict.
Revolt of Maximus.
Death of Gratian.
Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.
Usurpation of Eugenius, and his fall.
Death of Theodosius.
"The first duty that Theodosius had to undertake was to
restore the self-confidence and trust in victory of the Roman
army, terribly shaken as these qualities had been by the
disastrous rout of Hadrianople. This he accomplished by waging
a successful guerilla war with the Gothic marauders. Valens
had played into the hands of the barbarians by risking
everything on one great pitched battle. Theodosius adopted the
very opposite policy. He outmanoeuvred the isolated and
straggling bands of the Goths, defeated them in one skirmish
after another that did not deserve the name of a battle, and
thus restored the courage and confidence of the Imperial
troops. By the end of 379 he seems to have succeeded in
clearing the territory south of the Balkan range of the
harassing swarms of the barbarians. In February, 380, he fell
sick at Thessalonica (which was his chief basis of operations
throughout this period), and this sickness, from which he did
not fully recover for some months, was productive of two
important results, (1) his baptism as a Trinitarian Christian,
(2) a renewal of the war against fresh swarms of barbarians.
(1) Theodosius appears up to this point of his career not to
have definitively ranged himself on either side of the great
Arian controversy, though he had a hereditary inclination
towards the Creed of Nicaea. Like his father, however, he had
postponed baptism in accordance with the prevalent usage of
his day: but now upon a bed of sickness which seemed likely to
be one of death, he delayed no longer, but received the rite
at the hands of Ascholius, the Catholic Bishop of
Thessalonica. Before he was able to resume his post at the
head of the legions, he published his celebrated Edict: 'To
the people of Constantinople.—We desire that all the nations
who are governed by the rule of our Clemency shall practise
that religion which the Apostle Peter himself delivered to the
Romans, and which it is manifest that the pontiff Damasus, and
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of Apostolic sanctity, do
now follow: that according to the discipline of the Apostles
and the teaching of the Evangelists they believe in the one
Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in equal Majesty, and
in the holy Trinity. We order all who follow this law to
assume the name of Catholic Christians, decreeing that all
others, being mad and foolish persons, shall bear the infamy
of their heretical dogmas, and that their Conventicles shall
not receive the name of Churches: to be punished first by
Divine vengeance, and afterwards by that exertion of our power
to chastise which we have received from the decree of heaven.'
Thus then at length the Caesar of the East was ranged on the
side of Trinitarian orthodoxy. Constantine in the latter part
of his reign, Constantius, Valens, had all been Arians or
semi-Arians, some of them bitter in their heterodoxy. Julian
had been a worshipper of the gods of Olympus. Thus for nearly
two generations the influence of the Court of Constantinople
had been thrown into the scale against the teaching of
Athanasius, which was generally accepted throughout the
Western realm. Now by the accession of Theodosius to the
Trinitarian side, religious unity was restored to the Empire:
but at the same time a chasm, an impassable chasm, was opened
between the Empire itself and its new Teutonic guests, nearly
all of whom held fast to the Arian teaching of their great
Apostle Ulfilas. (2) The other consequence of the sickness of
Theodosius was, as I have said, a fresh incursion of barbarian
hordes, swarming across the Danube and climbing all the high
passes of the Balkans.
{2726}
The work of clearing the country of these marauders had to be
all done over again. … At length, in the closing months of
380, the provinces south of the Balkans (Macedonia and Thrace)
were once more cleared of their barbarian intruders. Peace, in
which Gratian concurred, was concluded with the Goths who
still doubtless abounded in Moesia. …
See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.
The insurrection at Antioch [A. D. 387] displayed the
character of Theodosius in a favourable light, as a strong but
merciful and magnanimous ruler of men. Very different was the
effect on his fame of the insurrection which broke out three
years later (390) in the Macedonian city of Thessalonica. …
See THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.
In the year 383 a military revolt broke out in Britain against
the young Emperor Gratian. … The army revolted and proclaimed
Magnus Clemens Maximus, Emperor. He was, like Theodosius, a
native of Spain, and though harsh and perhaps rapacious, a man
of ability and experience, not unworthy of the purple if he
had come to it by lawful means. Gratian on his side had
evidently given some real cause for dissatisfaction to his
subjects. … Hence it was that when Maximus with the army of
Britain landed in Gaul, he shook down the fabric of his power
without difficulty. Gratian, finding himself deserted by his
troops, escaped from the battle-field, but was overtaken and
killed at Lyons. For more than four years, Maximus, satisfied
with ruling over the three great Western provinces which had
fallen to the share of Gratian, maintained at any rate the
appearance of harmony with his two colleagues. … At length, in
the autumn of 387, Maximus deemed that the time had come for
grasping the whole Empire of the West. Lulling to sleep the
suspicions of Valentinian and his mother by embassies and
protestations of friendship, he crossed the Alps with an army
and marched towards Aquileia, where the young Emperor was then
dwelling in order to be as near as possible to the dominions
of his friendly colleague and protector. Valentinian did not
await the approach of his rival, but going down to the port of
Grado, took ship and sailed for Thessalonica, his mother and
sisters accompanying him. The Emperor and the Senate of
Constantinople met the Imperial fugitives at Thessalonica, and
discussed the present position of affairs. … What the
entreaties of the mother might have failed to effect, the
tears of the daughter [Galla] accomplished. Theodosius, whose
wife Flaccilla had died two years before (385), took Galla for
his second wife, and vowed to avenge her wrongs and replace
her brother on the throne. He was some time in preparing for
the campaign, but, when it was opened, he conducted it with
vigour and decision. His troops pressed up the Save valley,
defeated those of Maximus in two engagements, entered Aemona
(Laybach) in triumph, and soon stood before the walls of
Aquileia [July, 388], behind which Maximus was sheltering
himself. … A mutiny among the troops of Maximus did away with
the necessity for a siege," and the usurper, betrayed and
delivered to Theodosius, was speedily put to death. Theodosius
"handed over to Valentinian II. the whole of the Western
Empire, both his own especial share and that which had
formerly been held by his brother Gratian. The young Emperor
was now 17 years of age; his mother, Justina, had died
apparently on the eve of Theodosius's victory, and he
governed, or tried to govern alone." But one of his Frankish
generals, named Arbogast, gathered all the power of the
government into his hands, reduced Valentinian to helpless
insignificance, and finally, in May, 392, caused him to be
strangled. "The Frankish general, who durst not shock the
prejudices of the Roman world by himself assuming the purple,
hung that dishonoured robe upon the shoulders of a
rhetorician, a confidant, and almost a dependent of his own,
named Eugenius. This man, like most of the scholars and
rhetoricians of the day, had not abjured the old faith of
Hellas. As Arbogast also was a heathen, though worshipping
Teutonic rather than Olympian gods, this last revolution
looked like a recurrence to the days of Julian, and threatened
the hardly-won supremacy of Christianity." Again Theodosius
was summoned to the rescue of the West, and, after two years
of careful preparation, marched against Eugenius by the same
route that he had taken before. The two armies met at a place
"half-way between Aemona and Aquileia, where the Julian Alps
are crossed, and where a little stream called the Frigidus
(now the Wipbach) burst suddenly from a limestone hill." The
battle was won by Theodosius after a terrible struggle,
lasting two days (September 5-6, A. D. 394). Eugenius was
taken prisoner and put to death; Arbogast fell by his own
hand. "Theodosius, who was still in the prime of life, had now
indeed 'the rule of the world,' without a rival or a colleague
except his own boyish sons. … Had his life been prolonged, as
it well might have been for twenty or thirty years longer,
many things might have gone differently in the history of the
world. But, little more than four months after the victory of
the Frigidus, Theodosius died [January 17, A. D. 395] of
dropsy, at Milan."
_T. Hodgkin,
The Dynasty of Theodosius,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_F. W. Farrar,
Lives of the Fathers,
chapter 15: Ambrose and Theodosius (volume 2)._
_R. Thornton,
St. Ambrose,
chapters 6-14._
ROME: A. D. 388.
Formal establishment of Christianity.
Until the year 384, "paganism was still the constitutional
religion of the [Roman] senate. The hall or temple in which
they assembled was adorned by the statue and altar of Victory.
… The senators were sworn on the altar of the goddess to
observe the laws of the emperor and of the empire; and a
solemn offering of wine and incense was the ordinary prelude
of their public deliberations. The removal of this ancient
monument was the only injury which Constantius had offered to
the superstition of the Romans. The altar of Victory was again
restored by Julian, tolerated by Valentinian, and once more
banished from the senate by the zeal of Gratian. But the
emperor yet spared the statues of the gods which were exposed
to the public veneration: four hundred and twenty-four temples
or chapels still remained to satisfy the devotion of the
people, and in every quarter of Rome the delicacy of the
Christians was offended by the fumes of idolatrous sacrifice.
But the Christians formed the least numerous party in the
senate of Rome." The senate addressed several petitions to
Gratian, to the young Valentinian, and to Theodosius for the
restoration of the altar of Victory.
{2727}
They were supported by the eloquence of the orator Symmachus,
and opposed by the energy of Ambrose, the powerful Archbishop
of Milan. The question is said to have been, in the end,
submitted to the senate, itself, by the Emperor Theodosius (A.
D. 388)—he being present in person—"Whether the worship of
Jupiter or that of Christ should be the religion of the
Romans? The liberty of suffrages, which he affected to allow,
was destroyed by the hopes and fears that his presence
inspired. … On a regular division of the senate, Jupiter was
condemned and degraded by the sense of a very large majority."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 28._
ROME: A. D. 391-395.
Suppression of Paganism.
"The religious liberty of the Pagans, though considerably
abridged by Gratian, was yet greater than had been allowed by
the laws of Constantine and his immediate successors. The
priests and vestals were deprived of their immunities; the
revenues of the temples were confiscated for the service of
the State; but the heathen rites of their forefathers were
still allowed to those who were conscientiously attached to
them, provided they abstained from nocturnal sacrifices and
magical incantations. But when Theodosius, in the early part
of his reign, prohibited the immolation of victims, their
superstition was attacked in its most vital part, and, in the
course of a few years, the success of his measures against
heresy, and his triumph over Maximus, emboldened him to
proceed to steps of a still more decisive kind, and to attempt
the entire subversion of the already tottering fabric of
paganism. A commission was issued to the præfect of the East,
directing him to close all heathen temples within his
jurisdiction; and while the imperial officers were engaged in
this task, assisted by the clergy, and especially by the
monks, with a vigour not always strictly legal, Theodosius
gradually increased the rigour of his legislative
prohibitions. A law was passed in the year 391, declaring that
to enter a heathen temple, with a religious purpose, was an
offence liable to a fine of fifteen pounds of gold; and in the
following year, not only all public, but even all private and
domestic, exercise of heathen rites was interdicted under the
severest penalties. In some few instances, the intemperate and
tumultous proceedings of the monks in destroying the temples,
excited the opposition of the fanatical heathen peasantry, and
at Alexandria a serious commotion, fatal to many Christians,
was occasioned by the injudicious measures of the patriarch
Theophilus. But, generally speaking, the pagans showed little
disposition to incur the rigorous penalties of the laws, still
less to become martyrs for a religion so little calculated to
inspire real faith or fortitude. Some show of zeal in the
cause of paganism was made at Rome, where the votaries of the
ancient superstition still had a strong party, both among the
senate and populace. But the eloquent exertions of Symmachus,
the champion of heathenism, were easily baffled by Ambrose,
who encountered him with equal ability, better argument, and a
confident reliance on the support of his sovereign; and not
long after, a more important victory was gained, in an
enactment by the senate, carried, through the influence of
Theodosius, by an overwhelming majority, that Christianity
should for the future be the sole religion of the Roman State.
This decisive measure sealed the ruin of paganism in Rome and
its dependencies. The senators and nobles hastened to conform,
nominally at least, to the dominant religion; the inferior
citizens followed their example, and St. Jerome was in a
little while able to boast that every heathen altar in Rome
was forsaken, and every temple had become a place of
desolation."
_J. B. S. Carwithen and A. Lyall,
History of the Christian Church,
page 63-65._
ALSO IN:
P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
period 3, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 28._
ROME: A. D. 394-395.
Final division of the Empire between the sons of Theodosius.
Arcadius in the East, Honorius in the West.
Ministries of Rufinus and Stilicho.
Advent of Alaric the Visigoth.
"The division of the Empire between East and West on the
accession of the sons of Theodosius [A. D. 395], though it was
possibly meant to be less complete than some preceding
partitions, proved to be the final one. It is worth while to
indicate the line of division, which is sufficiently
accurately traced for us in the Notitia. In Africa it was the
well-known frontier marked by 'the Altars of the Philaeni,'.
which separated Libya (or Cyrenaica) on the East from Africa
Tripolitana on the West. Modern geographers draw exactly the
same line (about 19° E. of Greenwich) as the boundary of Barca
and Tripoli. On the Northern shore of the Mediterranean the
matter is a little more complicated. Noricum, Pannonia, Savia,
and Dalmatia belonged to the West, and Dacia—not the original
but the later province of Dacia—to the East. This gives us for
the frontier of the Western Empire the Danube as far as
Belgrade, and on the Adriatic the modern town of Lissa. The
inland frontier is traced by geographers some 60 miles up the
Save from Belgrade, then southwards by the Drina to its
source, and so across the mountains to Lissa. Thus Sclavonia,
Croatia, and Dalmatia in the Austrian Empire, and Croatia,
most of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Montenegro in the state which
was lately called Turkey in Europe, belonged to the Western
Empire. The later province of Dacia, which fell to the Eastern
share, included Servia (Old and New), the south-east corner of
Bosnia, the north of Albania, and the west of Bulgaria. By
this partition the Prefecture of Illyricum, as constituted by
Diocletian, was divided into two nearly equal parts. … What
makes the subject somewhat perplexing to the student is the
tendency to confuse Illyricum the 'province' and Illyricum the
'prefecture,'" the latter of which embraced, in modern
geographical terms, Servia, Western Bulgaria, Macedon, Epirus
and Greece.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 4, note C,
and chapter 3 (volume 1)._
"This decree for a partition, published by Theodosius shortly
before his death, appears to have been generally expected and
approved. The incapacity of Arcadius and Honorius, of whom the
former had only attained his 18th and the latter his 11th
year, had not then been discovered. These princes showed more
and more clearly, as time went on, that they inherited no
share of their father's abilities, their weakness being such
as to render their sovereignty little more than nominal. … It
was never intended that the two jurisdictions should be
independent of each other, but rather that the Emperors should
be colleagues and coadjutors, the defenders of one
commonwealth. …
{2728}
At the time of the decree, belief in the unity and immortality
of the 'Sancta Respublica Romana' was universal. … Enactments
were invariably made in the names of both Emperors; and, so
often as a vacancy of either throne occurred, the title of the
Caesar elect remained incomplete until his elevation had been
approved and confirmed by the occupant of the other. …
Theodosius left the Roman world in peace, and provided with a
disciplined army sufficient, if rightly directed, for its
defence; but his choice of the men to whom he confided the
guidance of his sons was unfortunate. Rufinus, to whom the
guardianship of Arcadius was entrusted, by birth a Gascon,
owed his advancement to his eloquence as an advocate, and his
plausible duplicity had so far imposed on the confiding nature
of Theodosius as to obtain for him the prefecture of the East.
Stilicho, the guardian of Honorius, was by descent a Vandal,
and is styled by St. Jerome a semi-barbarian. … His military
abilities, combined with a prepossessing exterior, induced
Theodosius to confer upon him the chief command of the
imperial forces, and the hand of his niece, Serena."
_R. H. Wrightson,
The Sancta Respublica Romana,
chapter 1._
"Stilicho … was popular with the army, and for the present the
great bulk of the forces of the Empire was at his disposal;
for the regiments united to suppress Eugenius had not yet been
sent back to their various stations. Thus a struggle was
imminent between the ambitious minister who had the ear of
Arcadius, and the strong general who held the command and
enjoyed the favour of the army. … It was the cherished project
of Rufinus to unite Arcadius with his only daughter. … But he
imprudently made a journey to Antioch, in order to execute
vengeance personally on the count of the East, who had
offended him; and during his absence from Byzantium an
adversary stole a march on him. This adversary was the eunuch
Eutropius, the lord chamberlain. … Determining that the future
Empress should be bound to himself and not to Rufinus, he
chose Eudoxia, a girl of singular beauty, the daughter of a
distinguished Frank, but herself of Roman education. …
Eutropius showed a picture of the Frank maiden to the Emperor,
and engaged his affections for her; the nuptials were arranged
by the time Rufinus returned to Constantinople, and were
speedily celebrated (27th April 395). This was a blow to
Rufinus, but he was still the most powerful man in the East.
The event which at length brought him into contact with
Stilicho was the rising of the Visigoths, who had been settled
by Theodosius in Moesia and Thrace. … Under the leadership of
Alaric they raised the ensign of revolt, and spread desolation
in the fields and homesteads of Macedonia, Moesia, and Thrace,
even advancing close to the walls of Constantinople. …
See GOTHS: A. D. 395.
It was impossible to take the field against the Goths, because
there were no forces available, as the eastern armies were
still with Stilicho in the West. Arcadius therefore was
obliged to summon Stilicho to send or bring them back
immediately, to protect his throne. This summons gave that
general the desired opportunity to interfere in the politics
of Constantinople; and having, with energetic celerity,
arranged matters on the Gallic frontier, he marched overland
through Illyricum, and confronted Alaric in Thessaly, whither
the Goth had traced his devastating path from the Propontis. …
It seems that before Stilicho arrived, Alaric had experienced
a defeat at the hands of garrison soldiers in Thessaly; at all
events he shut himself up in a fortified camp and declined to
engage with the Roman general. In the meantime Rufinus induced
Arcadius to send a peremptory order to Stilicho to despatch
the eastern troops to Constantinople and depart himself whence
he had come; the Emperor resented, or pretended to resent, the
presence of his cousin as an officious interference. Stilicho
yielded so readily that his willingness seems almost
suspicious. … He consigned the eastern soldiers to the command
of a Gothic captain, Gainas, and himself departed to Salona,
allowing Alaric to proceed on his wasting way into the lands
of Hellas." When Gainas and his army arrived at the gates of
Constantinople, the Emperor came out to meet them, with
Rufinus by his side. The troops suddenly closed round the
latter and murdered him. "We can hardly suppose that the
lynching of Rufinus was the fatal inspiration of a moment, but
whether it was proposed or approved of by Stilicho, or was a
plan hatched among the soldiers on their way to
Constantinople, is uncertain."
_J. B. Bury,
History of the Later Roman Empire,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
ROME: A. D. 396-398.
Commission of Alaric under the Eastern Empire.
Suppression of the revolt of Gildo in Africa.
Commanding position of Stilicho.
"For the next five or six years the chief power over the
feeble soul of Arcadius was divided between three persons, his
fair Frankish Empress Eudoxia, Eutropius, the haggard old
eunuch who had placed her on the throne, and Gainas the Goth,
commander of the Eastern army. Again, in the year 306, did
Stilicho, now commanding only the Western forces, volunteer to
deliver Greece from the Visigoths. The outset of the campaign
was successful. The greater part of Peloponnesus was cleared
of the invader, who was shut up in the rugged mountain country
on the confines of Elis and Arcadia. The Roman army was
expecting soon to behold him forced by famine to an
ignominious surrender, when they discovered that he had
pierced the lines of circumvallation at an unguarded point,
and marched with all his plunder northwards to Epirus. What
was the cause of this unlooked-for issue of the struggle? …
The most probable explanation … is that Fabian caution
co-operated with the instinct of the Condottiere against
pushing his foe too hard. There was always danger for Rome in
driving Alaric to desperation: there was danger privately for
Stilicho if the dead Alaric should render him no longer
indispensable. Whatever might be the cause, by the end of 396
Alaric was back again in his Illyrian eyrie, and thenceforward
whatever threats might be directed towards the East the actual
weight of his arms was felt only by the West. Partly, at
least, this is to be accounted for by the almost sublime
cowardice of the ministers of Arcadius, who rewarded his
Grecian raids by clothing him with the sacred character of an
officer of the Empire in their portion of Illyricum.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395.
{2729}
The precise title under which he exercised jurisdiction is not
stated. … During an interval of quiescence, which lasted
apparently about four years, the Visigothic King was using the
forms of Roman law, the machinery of Roman taxation, the almost
unbounded authority of a Roman provincial governor, to prepare
the weapon which was one day to pierce the heart of Rome
herself. The Imperial City, during the first portion of this
interval, was suffering the pang's of famine. … Since the
foundation of Constantinople … Egypt had ceased to nourish the
elder Rome. … Rome was thus reduced to an almost exclusive
dependence on the harvests of Africa proper (that province of
which Carthage was the capital), of Numidia, and of
Mauretania. … But this supply … in the year 397 was entirely
stopped by the orders of Gildo, who had made himself virtual
master of these three provinces." The elder Theodosius had
suppressed in 374 a revolt in Mauretania headed by one Firmus.
"The son of a great sheep-farmer, Nabal, he [Firmus] had left
behind him several brothers, one of whom, Gildo, had in the
year 386 gathered up again some portion of his brother's
broken power. We find him, seven years later (in 393), holding
the rank of Count of Africa in the Roman official hierarchy. …
He turned to his own account the perennial jealousy existing
between the ministers of the Eastern and Western Courts,
renounced his allegiance to Rome, and preferred to transfer it
to Constantinople. What brought matters to a crisis was his
refusal to allow the grain crops of 397 to be conveyed to
Rome. … The Roman Senate declared war in the early winter
months of 398 against Gildo. Stilicho, who, of course,
undertook the fitting out of the expedition, found a suitable
instrument for Rome's chastisement in one who had had cruel
wrongs of his own to avenge upon Gildo. This was yet another
son of Nabal, Mascezel." Mascezel, at the head of nearly
40,000 men, accomplished the overthrow of his brother, who
slew himself, or was slain, when he fell into Roman hands.
"Thus the provinces of Africa were for the time won back again
for the Empire of the West, and Rome had her corn again. … The
glory and power of Stilicho were now nearly at their highest
point. Shortly before the expedition against Gildo he had
given his daughter Maria in marriage to Honorius, and the
father-in-law of the Emperor might rightly be deemed to hold
power with a securer grasp than his mere chief minister."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._
ROME: A. D. 400-403.
First Gothic invasion of Italy under Alaric.
Stilicho's repulse of the invaders.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403.
ROME: A. D. 400-518.
The Eastern Empire.
Expulsion of Gothic soldiery from Constantinople.
Conflict of John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.
Reigns of Theodosius II., Pulcheria, Marcianus,
Leo I., Zeno, and Anastasius.
Persistent vitality of the Byzantine government.
"While Alaric's eyes were turned on Italy, but before he had
actually come into conflict with Stilicho, the Court of
Constantinople had been the seat of grave troubles. Gainas,
the Gothic 'Magister militum' of the East, and his creature,
the eunuch Eutropius, had fallen out, and the man of war had
no difficulty in disposing of the wretched harem-bred Grand
Chamberlain. … The Magister militum now brought his army over
to Constantinople, and quartered it there to overawe the
emperor. It appeared quite likely that ere long the Germans
would sack the city; but the fate that befell Rome ten years
later was not destined for Constantinople. A mere chance brawl
put the domination of Gainas to a sudden end [July, A. D.
400]. … The whole population turned out with extemporized arms
and attacked the German soldiery. … Isolated bodies of the
Germans were cut off one by one, and at last their barracks
were surrounded and set on fire. The rioters had the upper
hand; 7,000 soldiers fell, and the remnant thought themselves
lucky to escape. Gainas at once declared open war on the
empire, but … he was beaten in the field and forced to fly
across the Danube, where he was caught and beheaded by Uldes,
king of the Huns. … The departure of Alaric and the death of
Gainas freed the Eastern Romans from the double danger that
[had] impended over them. … The weak Arcadius was enabled to
spend the remaining seven years of his life in comparative
peace and quiet. His court was only troubled by an open war
between his spouse, the Empress Ælia Eudoxia, and John
Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople. John was a man of
saintly life and apostolic fervour, but rash and inconsiderate
alike in speech and action. … The patriarch's enemies were
secretly supported by the empress, who had taken offence at
the outspoken way in which John habitually denounced the
luxury and insolence of her court. She favoured the intrigues
of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, against his brother
prelate, backed the Asiatic clergy in their complaints about
John's oppression of them, and at last induced the Emperor to
allow the saintly patriarch to be deposed by a
hastily-summoned council, the 'Synod of the Oak,' held outside
the city. The populace rose at once to defend their pastor;
riots broke out, Theodosius was chased back to Egypt, and the
Emperor, terrified by an earthquake which seemed to manifest
the wrath of heaven, restored John to his place. Next year,
however, the war between the empress and the patriarch broke
out again. … The Emperor, at his wife's demand, summoned
another council, which condemned Chrysostom, and on Easter
Day, A. D. 404, seized the patriarch in his cathedral by armed
force, and banished him to Asia. That night a fire, probably
kindled by the angry adherents of Chrysostom, broke out in St.
Sophia, which was burnt to the ground. From thence it spread
to the neighbouring buildings, and finally to the
Senate-house, which was consumed with all the treasures of
ancient Greek art of which Constantine had made it the
repository. Meanwhile the exiled John was banished to a dreary
mountain fastness in Cappadocia, and afterwards condemned to a
still more remote prison at Pityus on the Euxine. He died on
his way thither. … The feeble and inert Arcadius died in A. D.
408, at the early age of thirty-one; his imperious consort had
preceded him to the grave, and the empire of the East was left
to Theodosius II., a child of seven years, their only son. …
The little emperor was duly crowned, and the administration of
the East undertaken in his name by the able Anthemius, who
held the office of Praetorian Praefect. History relates
nothing but good of this minister; he made a wise commercial
treaty with the king of Persia; he repelled with ease a
Hunnish invasion of Moesia; he built a flotilla on the Danube,
where Roman war-ships had not been seen since the death of
Valens, forty years before; he reorganized the corn supply of
Constantinople; and did much to get back into order and
cultivation the desolated north-western lands of the Balkan
Peninsula. …
{2730}
The empire was still more indebted to him for bringing up the
young Theodosius as an honest and god-fearing man. The palace
under Anthemius' rule was the school of the virtues; the lives
of the emperor and his three sisters, Pulcheria, Arcadia, and
Marina, were the model and the marvel of their subjects.
Theodosius inherited the piety and honesty of his grandfather
and namesake, but was a youth of slender capacity, though he
took some interest in literature, and was renowned for his
beautiful penmanship. His eldest sister, Pulcheria, was the
ruling spirit of the family, and possessed unlimited influence
over him, though she was but two years his senior. When
Anthemius died in A. D. 414, she took the title of Augusta,
and assumed the regency of the East. Pulcheria was an
extraordinary woman: on gathering up the reins of power she
took a vow of chastity, and lived as a crowned nun for
thirty-six years; her fear had been that, if she married, her
husband might cherish ambitious schemes against her brother's
crown; she therefore kept single herself and persuaded her
sisters to make a similar vow. Austere, indefatigable, and
unselfish, she proved equal to ruling the realms of the East
with success, though no woman had ever made the attempt
before. When Theodosius came of age he refused to remove his
sister from power, and treated her as his colleague and equal.
By her advice he married in A. D. 421, the year that he came
of age, the beautiful and accomplished Athenaïs, daughter of
the philosopher Leontius. … Theodosius' long reign passed by
in comparative quiet. Its only serious troubles were a short
war with the Persians, and a longer one with Attila, the great
king of the Huns, whose empire now stretched over all the
lands north of the Black Sea and Danube, where the Goths had
once dwelt. In this struggle the Roman armies were almost
invariably unfortunate. The Huns ravaged the country as far as
Adrianople and Philippopolis, and had to be bought off by the
annual payment of 700 lbs. of gold [£31,000]. … The
reconstruction of the Roman military forces was reserved for
the successors of Theodosius II. He himself was killed by a
fall from his horse in 450 A. D., leaving an only daughter,
who was married to her cousin Valentinian III., Emperor of the
West. Theodosius, with great wisdom, had designated as his
successor, not his young son-in-law, a cruel and profligate
prince, but his sister Pulcheria, who at the same time ended
her vow of celibacy and married Marcianus, a veteran soldier
and a prominent member of the Senate. The marriage was but
formal, for both were now well advanced in years: as a
political expedient it was all that could be desired. The
empire had peace and prosperity under their rule, and freed
itself from the ignominious tribute to the Huns. Before Attila
died in 452, he had met and been checked by the succours which
Marcianus sent to the distressed Romans of the West. When
Marcianus and Pulcheria passed away, the empire came into the
hands of a series of three men of ability. They were all bred
as high civil officials, not as generals; all ascended the
throne at a ripe age; not one of them won his crown by arms,
all were peaceably designated either by their predecessors, or
by the Senate and army. These princes were Leo I. (457-474),
Zeno (474-491), Anastasius (491-(18). Their chief merit was
that they guided the Roman Empire in the East safely through
the stormy times which saw its extinction in the West. While,
beyond the Adriatic, province after province was being lopped
off and formed into a new Germanic kingdom, the emperors who
reigned at Constantinople kept a tight grip on the Balkan
Peninsula and on Asia, and succeeded in maintaining their
realm absolutely intact. Both East and West were equally
exposed to the barbarian in the fifth century, and the
difference of their fate came from the character of their
rulers, not from the diversity of their political conditions."
_C. W. C. Oman,
Story of the Byzantine Empire,
chapters 4-5._
"In spite of the dissimilarity of their personal conduct, the
general policy of their government [i. e. of the six emperors
between Arcadius and Justinian] is characterised by strong
features of resemblance. … The Western Empire crumbled into
ruins, while the Eastern was saved, in consequence of these
emperors having organised the system of administration which
has been most unjustly calumniated, under the name of
Byzantine. The highest officers, and the proudest military
commanders, were rendered completely dependent on ministerial
departments and were no longer able to conspire or rebel with
impunity. The sovereign was no longer exposed to personal
danger, nor the treasury to open peculation. But,
unfortunately, the central executive power could not protect
the people from fraud with the same ease as it guarded the
treasury; and the emperors never perceived the necessity of
intrusting the people with the power of defending themselves
from the financial oppression of the subaltern
administration."
_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 2, section 11._
ROME: A. D. 404-408.
The Western Empire: The last gladiatorial show.
Retreat of Honorius and the imperial court to Ravenna.
Invasion of Radagaisus.
Alliance with Alaric the Goth.
Fall and death of Stilicho.
"After the retreat of the barbarians, Honorius was directed to
accept the dutiful invitation of the senate, and to celebrate
in the imperial city the auspicious era of the Gothic victory
and of his sixth consulship. The suburbs and the streets, from
the Milvian bridge to the Palatine mount, were filled by the
Roman people, who, in the space of a hundred years, had only
thrice been honoured with the presence of their sovereigns
[whose residence had been at Constantinople, at Treves, or at
Milan]. … The emperor resided several months in the capital. …
The people were repeatedly gratified by the attention and
courtesy of Honorius in the public games. … In these games of
Honorius, the inhuman combats of gladiators polluted for the
last time the amphitheatre of Rome. … The recent danger to
which the person of the emperor had been exposed in the
defenceless palace of Milan urged him to seek a retreat in
some inaccessible fortress of Italy, where he might securely
remain, while the open country was covered by a deluge of
barbarians; … and in the 20th year of his age the Emperor of
the West, anxious only for his personal safety, retired to the
perpetual confinement of the walls and morasses of Ravenna.
{2731}
The example of Honorius was imitated by his feeble successors,
the Gothic kings, and afterwards the exarchs, who occupied the
throne and palace of the emperors; and till the middle of the
8th century Ravenna was considered as the seat of government
and the capital of Italy. The fears of Honorius were not
without foundation, nor were his precautions without effect.
While Italy rejoiced in her deliverance from the Goths, a
furious tempest was excited among the nations of Germany, who
yielded to the irresistible impulse that appears to have been
gradually communicated from the eastern extremity of the
continent of Asia [by the invasion of the Huns, which Gibbon
considers to have been the impelling cause of the great
avalanche of barbarians from the north that swept down upon
Italy under Radagaisus in 406. …
See RADAGAISUS.
Many cities of Italy were pillaged or destroyed; and the siege
of Florence by Radagaisus is one of the earliest events in the
history of that celebrated republic, whose firmness checked
and delayed the unskilful fury of the barbarians." Stilicho
came to the relief of the distressed city, "and the famished
host of Radagaisus was in its turn besieged." The barbarians,
surrounded by well guarded entrenchments, were forced to
surrender, after many had perished from want of food. The
chief was beheaded; his surviving followers were sold as
slaves. Meantime, Alaric, the Gothic king, had been taken into
the pay of the Empire. "Renouncing the service of the Emperor
of the East, Alaric concluded with the Court of Ravenna a
treaty of peace and alliance, by which he was declared
master-general of the Roman armies throughout the præfecture
of Illyricum; as it was claimed, according to the true and
ancient limits, by the minister of Honorius." This arrangement
with Alaric caused great dissatisfaction in the army and among
the people, and was a potent cause of the fall and death of
Stilicho, which occurred A. D. 408. He was arrested and
summarily executed, at Ravenna, on the mandate of his
ungrateful and worthless young master, whose trembling throne
he had upheld for thirteen years.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 30 (volume 3)._
ROME: A. D. 406-500.
The breaking of the Rhine barrier.
The great Teutonic invasion and occupation
of the Western Empire.
"Up to the year 406 the Rhine was maintained as the frontier
of the Roman Empire against the numerous barbarian races and
tribes that swarmed uneasily in central Europe. From the
Flavian Emperors until the time of Probus (282), the great
military line from Coblenz to Kehlheim on the Danube had been
really defended, though often overstepped and always a strain
on the Romans, and thus a tract of territory (including Baden
and Würtemberg) on the east shore of the Upper Rhine, the
titheland as it was called, belonged to the Empire. But in the
fourth century it was as much as could be done to keep off the
Alemanni and Franks who were threatening the provinces of
Gaul. The victories of Julian and Valentinian produced only
temporary effects. On the last day of December 406 a vast
company of Vandals, Suevians, and Alans crossed the Rhine. The
frontier was not really defended; a handful of Franks who
professed to guard it for the Romans were easily swept aside,
and the invaders desolated Gaul at pleasure for the three
following years. Such is the bare fact which the chroniclers
tell us, but this migration seems to have been preceded by
considerable movements on a large scale along the whole Rhine
frontier, and these movements may have agitated the
inhabitants of Britain and excited apprehensions there of
approaching danger. Three tyrants had been recently elected by
the legions in rapid succession; the first two, Marcus and
Gratian, were slain, but the third Augustus, who bore the
auspicious name of Constantine, was destined to play a
considerable part for a year or two on the stage of the
western world.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
It seems almost certain that these two movements, the passage
of the Germans across the Rhine and the rise of the tyrants in
Britain, were not without causal connection; and it also seems
certain that both events were connected with the general
Stilicho. The tyrants were elevated in the course of the year
406, and it was at the end of the same year that the Vandals
crossed the Rhine. Now the revolt of the legions in Britain
was evidently aimed against Stilicho. … There is direct
contemporary evidence … that it was by Stilicho's invitation
that the barbarians invaded Gaul; he thought that when they
had done the work for which he designed them he would find no
difficulty in crushing them or otherwise disposing of them. We
can hardly avoid supposing that the work which he wished them
to perform was to oppose the tyrant of Britain—Constantine, or
Gratian, or Marcus, whoever was tyrant then; for it is quite
certain that, like Maximus, he would pass into Gaul, where
numerous Gallo-Roman adherents would flock to his standards.
Stilicho died before Constantine was crushed, and the
barbarians whom he had so lightly summoned were still in the
land, harrying Gaul, destined soon to harry and occupy Spain
and seize Africa. From a Roman point of view Stilicho had much
to answer for in the dismemberment of the Empire; from a
Teutonic point of view, he contributed largely to preparing
the way for the foundation of the German kingdoms."
_J. B. Bury,
A History of the Later Roman Empire,
book 2, chapter 6 (volume 1)._
"If modern history must have a definite beginning, the most
convenient beginning for it is the great Teutonic invasion of
Gaul in the year 407. Yet the nations of modern Europe do not
spring from the nations which then crossed the Rhine, or from
any intermixture between them and the Romans into whose land
they made their way. The nations which then crossed the Rhine
were the Vandals, Suevians, and Alans. … None of these nations
made any real settlements in Gaul; Gaul was to them simply the
high road to Spain. There they did settle, though the Vandals
soon forsook their settlement, and the Alans were soon rooted
out of theirs. The Suevian kept his ground for a far longer
time; we may, if we please, look on him as the Teutonic
forefather of Leon, while we look on the Goth as the Teutonic
forefather of Castile. Here we have touched one of the great
national names of history; the Goth, like the Frank, plays
quite another part in Western Europe from the Alan, the
Suevian, and the Vandal. … Now both Franks and Goths had
passed into the Empire long before the invasion of 407. One
branch of the Franks … was actually settled on Roman lands,
and, as Roman subjects, did their best to withstand the great
invasion.
{2732}
What then makes that invasion so marked an epoch? … The answer
is that the invasion of 407 not only brought in new elements,
but put the existing elements into new relations to one
another. Franks and Goths put on a new character and begin a
new life. The Burgundians pass into Gaul, not as a road to
Spain, but as a land in which to find many homes. They press
down to the south-eastern corner of the land, while the Frank
no longer keeps himself in his north-eastern corner, while in
the south-west the Goth is settled as for a while the liegeman
of Cæsar, and in the north-west a continental Britain springs
into being. Here in truth are some of the chiefest elements of
the modern world, and though none of them are among the
nations that crossed the Rhine in 407, yet the new position
taken by all of them is the direct consequence of that
crossing. In this way, in Gaul and Spain at least, the joint
Vandal, Alan, and Suevian invasion is the beginning of the
formation of the modern nations, though the invading nations
themselves form no element in the later life of Gaul and only
a secondary element in the later life of Spain. The later life
of these lands, and that of Italy also, has sprung of the
settlement of Teutonic nations in a Roman land, and of the
mutual influences which Roman and Teuton have had on one
another. Roman and Teuton lived side by side, and out of their
living side by side has gradually sprung up a third thing
different from either, a thing which we cannot call either
Roman or Teutonic, or more truly a thing which we may call
Roman and Teutonic and some other things as well, according to
the side of it which we look at. This third thing is the
Romance element in modern Europe, the Romance nations and
their Romance tongues."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Chief Periods of European History,
pages 87-90._
"The true Germanic people who occupied Gaul were the
Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks. Many other people,
many other single bands of Vandals, Alani, Suevi, Saxons, &c.,
wandered over its territory; but of these, some only passed
over it, and the others were rapidly absorbed by it; these are
partial incursions which are without any historical
importance. The Burgundians, the Visigoths, and the Franks,
alone deserve to be counted among our ancestors. The
Burgundians definitively established themselves in Gaul
between the years 406 and 413; they occupied the country
between the Jura, the Saone, and the Duranee; Lyons was the
centre of their dominion. The Visigoths, between the years 412
and 450, spread themselves over the provinces bounded by the
Rhone, and even over the left bank of the Rhone to the south
of the Durance, the Loire, and the Pyrenees: their king
resided at Toulouse. The Franks, between the years 481 and
500, advanced in the north of Gaul, and established themselves
between the Rhine, the Scheldt, and the Loire, without
including Brittany and the western portions of Normandy;
Clovis had Soissons and Paris for his capitals. Thus, at the
end of the fifth century, was accomplished the definitive
occupation of the territory of Gaul by the three great German
tribes. The condition of Gaul was not exactly the same in its
various parts, and under the dominion of these three nations.
There were remarkable differences between them. The Franks
were far more foreign, German, and barbarous, than the
Burgundians and the Goths. Before their entrance into Gaul,
these last had had ancient relations with the Romans; they had
lived in the eastern empire, in Italy; they were familiar with
the Roman manners and population. We may say almost as much
for the Burgundians. Moreover, the two nations had long been
Christians. The Franks, on the contrary, arrived from Germany
in the condition of pagans and enemies. Those portions of Gaul
which they occupied became deeply sensible of this difference,
which is described with truth and vivacity in the seventh of
the 'Lectures upon the History of France,' of M. Augustin
Thierry. I am inclined, however, to believe that it was less
important than has been commonly supposed. If I do not err,
the Roman provinces differed more among themselves than did
the nations which had conquered them. You have already seen
how much more civilized was southern than northern Gaul, how
much more thickly covered with population, towns, monuments,
and roads. Had the Visigoths arrived in as barbarous a
condition as that of the Franks, their barbarism would yet
have been far less visible and less powerful in Gallia
Narbonensis and in Aquitania; Roman civilization would much
sooner have absorbed and altered them. This, I believe, is
what happened; and the different effects which accompanied the
three conquests resulted rather from the differences of the
conquered than from that of the conquerors."
_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
volume 2, lecture 8._
"The invasion of the barbarians was not like the torrent which
overwhelms, but rather like a slow, persistent force which
undermines, disintegrates, and crumbles. The Germans were not
strangers to the Roman Empire when they began their conquests.
… It is well known that many of the Roman Emperors were
barbarians who had been successful soldiers in the Imperial
army; that military colonies were established on the frontiers
composed of men of various races under the control of Roman
discipline; that the Goths, before they revolted against the
authority of the Emperor, were his chosen troops; that the
great Alaric was a Roman general; that the shores of the
Danube and the Rhine, which marked the limits of the Empire,
were lined with cities which were at the same time Roman
colonies and peopled with men of the Teutonic races. When the
barbarians did actually occupy the territory their movement
seems at first to have been characterized by a strange mixture
of force with a sentiment of awe and reverence for the Roman
name. In Italy and in Gaul they appropriated to themselves
two-thirds of the lands, but they sought to govern their
conquests by means of the Roman law and administration, a
machine which proved in their hands, by the way, a rather
clumsy means of government. They robbed the provincials of all
the movable property they possessed, but the suffering they
inflicted is said not to have been as great as that caused by
the exactions of the Roman taxgatherer. The number of armed
invaders has doubtless been exaggerated. The whole force of
the Burgundian tribe, whose territory, in the southeast of
modern France, extended to the Rhone at Avignon, did not, it
is said, exceed sixty thousand in all, while the armed bands
of Clovis, who changed the destinies not only of Gaul but of
Europe, were not greater than one-tenth of that number.
{2733}
The great change in their life was, as I have said, that they
ceased to be wanderers; they became, in a measure at least,
fixed to the soil; and in contrast with the Romans, they
preferred to live in the country and not in the towns. In this
they followed their Teutonic habits, little knowing what a
mighty change this new distribution of population was to cause
in the social condition of Europe. They retained, too, their
old military organization, and, after attempts more or less
successful to use the Roman administration for the ordinary
purposes of government, they abandoned it, and ruled the
countries they conquered by simple military force, under their
Dukes and Counts, the Romans generally being allowed in their
private relations to govern themselves by the forms of the
Roman law."
_C. J. Stillé,
Studies in Mediæval History,
chapter 2._
"The coming in of the Germans brought face to face the four
chief elements of our civilization: the Greek with its art and
science, much of it for the time forgotten; the Roman with its
political institutions and legal ideas, and furnishing the
empire as the common ground upon which all stood; the
Christian with its religious and moral ideas; and the German
with other political and legal ideas, and with a reinforcement
of fresh blood and life. By the end of the sixth century these
all existed side by side in the nominal Roman empire. It was
the work of the remaining centuries of the middle ages to
unite them into a single organic whole—the groundwork of
modern civilization. But the introduction of the last element,
the Germans, was a conquest—a conquest rendered possible by
the inability of the old civilization any longer to defend
itself against their attack. It is one of the miracles of
history that such a conquest should have occurred, the violent
occupation of the empire by the invasion of an inferior race,
with so little destruction of civilization, with so complete
an absorption, in the end, of the conqueror by the conquered.
It must be possible to point out some reasons why the conquest
of the ancient world by the Germans was so little what was to
be expected. In a single word, the reason is to be found in
the impression which the world they had conquered made upon
the Germans. They conquered it, and they treated it as a
conquered world. They destroyed and plundered what they
pleased, and it was not a little. They took possession of the
land and they set up their own tribal governments in place of
the Roman. And yet they recognized, in a way, even the worst
of them, their inferiority to the people they had overcome.
They found upon every side of them evidences of a command over
nature such as they had never acquired: cities, buildings,
roads, bridges, and ships; wealth and art, skill in mechanics
and skill in government, the like of which they had never
known; ideas firmly held that the Roman system of things was
divinely ordained and eternal; a church strongly organized and
with an imposing ceremonial, officered by venerable and
saintly men, and speaking with an overpowering positiveness
and an awful authority that did not yield before the strongest
barbarian king. The impression which these things made upon
the mind of the German must have been profound. In no other
way can the result be accounted for. Their conquest was a
physical conquest, and as a physical conquest it was complete,
but it scarcely went farther. In government and law there was
little change for the Roman; in religion and language, none at
all. Other things, schools and commercial arrangements for
instance, the Germans would have been glad to maintain at the
Roman level if they had known how. Half unconsciously they
adopted the belief in the divinely founded and eternal empire,
and in a vague way recognized its continuance after they had
overthrown it."
_G. B. Adams,
Civilization During the Middle Ages,
chapter 5._
See, also,
GAUL: A. D. 406-409, 5-8TH CENTURIES,
and 5-10TH CENTURIES.
ROME: A. D. 408-410.
The three sieges and
the sacking of the Imperial city by Alaric.
Death of the Gothic chieftain.
Having rid himself of the great minister and general whose
brain and arm were the only hope of his dissolving empire,
Honorius proceeded to purge his army and the state of
barbarians and heretics. He "removed all who professed
religious opinions different from his own, from every public
office; … and, to complete the purification of his army,
ordered a general massacre of all the women and children of
the barbarians, whom the soldiers in his service had delivered
up as hostages. In one day and hour these innocent victims
were given up to slaughter and their property to pillage.
These hostages had been left in all the Italian cities by the
barbarian confederates, as a guarantee for their fidelity to
Rome; when they learned that the whole had perished, in the
midst of peace, in contempt of all oaths, one furious and
terrific cry of vengeance arose, and 30,000 soldiers, who had
been the faithful servants of the empire, at once passed over
to the camp of Alaric [then in Illyria], and urged him to lead
them on to Rome. Alaric, in language the moderation of which
Honorius and his ministers ascribed to fear, demanded
reparation for the insults offered him, and strict observance
of the treaties concluded with him. The only answer he
obtained was couched in terms of fresh insult, and contained
an order to evacuate all the provinces of the empire." On this
provocation, Alaric crossed the Alps, in October, A. D. 408,
meeting no resistance till he reached Ravenna. He threatened
that city, at first, but the contemptible Emperor of the West
was safe in his fen-fastness, and the Goth marched on to Rome.
He "arrived before Rome [in the autumn of A. D. 408] 619 years
after that city had been threatened by Hannibal. During that
long interval her citizens had never looked down from her
walls upon the banner of an enemy [a foreign invader] waving
in their plains. … Alaric did not attempt to take Rome by
assault: he blockaded the gates, stopped the navigation of the
Tiber, and soon famine took possession of a city which was
eighteen miles in circumference and contained above a million
of inhabitants. … At length, the Romans had recourse to the
clemency of Alaric; and, by means of a ransom of five thousand
pounds of gold and a great quantity of precious effects, the
army was induced to retire into Tuscany." The standard of
Alaric was now joined by 40,000 barbarian slaves, who escaped
from their Italian masters, and by a large reinforcement of
Goths from the Danube, led by the brother-in-law of Alaric,
Ataulphus, or Athaulphus (Adolphus, in its modern form) by
name. The Visigothic king offered peace to the empire if it
would relinquish to him a kingdom in Noricum, Dalmatia and
Venetia, with a yearly payment of gold; in the end his demands
fell until they extended to Noricum, only.
{2734}
But the fatuous court at Ravenna refused all terms, and Alaric
marched back to Rome. Once more, however, he spared the
venerable capital, and sought to attain his ends by requiring
the senate to renounce allegiance to Honorius and to choose a
new emperor. He was obeyed and Priscus Attalus, the præfect of
the city, was formally invested with the purple. This new
Augustus made Alaric and Ataulphus his chief military
officers, and there was peace for a little time. But Attalus,
unhappily, took his elevation with seriousness and did not
recognize the commands that were hidden in the advice which he
got from his Gothic patron. Alaric found him to be a fool and
stripped his purple robe from his shoulders within less than a
year. Then, failing once more to negotiate terms of peace with
the worthless emperor shut up in Ravenna, he laid siege to
Rome for the third time—and the last. "On the 24th of April,
410, the year 1163 from the foundation of the august city, the
Salarian gate was opened to him in the night, and the capital
of the world, the queen of nations, was abandoned to the fury
of the Goths. Yet this fury was not without some tinge of
pity; Alaric granted a peculiar protection to the churches,
which were preserved from all insult, together with their
sacred treasures, and all those who had sought refuge within
their walls. While he abandoned the property of the Romans to
pillage, he took their lives under his protection; and it is
affirmed that only a single senator perished by the sword of
the barbarians. The number of plebeians who were sacrificed
appears not to have been thought a matter of sufficient
importance even to be mentioned. At the entrance of the Goths,
a small part of the city was given up to the flames; but
Alaric soon took precautions for the preservation of the rest
of the edifices. Above all, he had the generosity to withdraw
his army from Rome on the sixth day, and to march it into
Campania, loaded, however, with an immense booty. Eleven
centuries later, the army of the Constable de Bourbon showed
less veneration." Alaric survived the sack of Rome but a few
months, dying suddenly in the midst of preparations that he
made for invading Sicily. He was buried in the bed of the
little river Bisentium, which flows past the town of Cozenza,
the stream being diverted for the purpose and then turned back
to its course.
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 31._
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 1, chapter 7._
ROME: A. D. 409-414.
Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Sueves and Alans.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
ROME: A. D. 410.
Abandonment of Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 410.
ROME: A. D. 410-419.
Treaty with the Visigoths.
Their settlement in Aquitaine.
Founding of their kingdom of Toulouse.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.
ROME: A. D. 410-420.
The barbarian attack on Gaul joined by the Franks.
See FRANKS: A. D. 410-420.
ROME: A. D. 412-453.
Mixed Roman and barbarian administration in Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 412-453.
ROME: A. D. 423-450.
Death of Honorius.
Reign of Valentinian III. and his mother Placidia.
Legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.
The disastrous reign of Honorius, emperor of the West, was
ended by his death in 423. The nearest heir to the throne was
his infant nephew, Valentinian, son of his sister Placidia.
The latter, after being a captive in the hands of the Goths
and after sharing the Visigothic throne for some months, as
wife of king Ataulphus, had been restored to her brother on
her Gothic husband's death. Honorius forced her, then, to
marry his favorite, the successful general, Constantius, whom
he raised to the rank of Augustus and associated with himself
on the throne of the West. But Constantius soon died, leaving
his widow with two children—a daughter and a son. Presently,
on some quarrel with Honorius, Placidia withdrew from Ravenna
and took refuge at Constantinople, where her nephew Theodosius
occupied the Eastern throne. She and her children were there
when Honorius died, and in their absence the Western throne
was usurped by a rebel named John, or Joannes, the Notary, who
reigned nearly two years. With the aid of forces from the
Eastern Empire he was unseated and beheaded and the child
Valentinian was invested with the imperial purple, A. D. 425.
For the succeeding twenty-five years his mother, Placidia,
reigned in his name. As compensation to the court at
Constantinople for the material aid received from it, the rich
province of Dalmatia and the troubled provinces of Pannonia
and Noricum, were now severed from the West and ceded to the
Empire of the East. At the same time, the unity of the Roman
government was formally and finally dissolved. "By a positive
declaration, the validity of all future laws was limited to
the dominions of their peculiar author; unless he should think
proper to communicate them, subscribed with his own hand, for
the approbation of his independent colleague."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 33._
ALSO IN:
_J. B. Bury,
History of the Later Roman Empire,
chapters 6-8._
ROME: A. D. 428-439.
Conquests of the Vandals in Spain and Africa.
See VANDALS: A. D. 428; and 429-439.
ROME: A. D. 441-446.
Destructive invasion of the Eastern Empire by the Huns.
Cession of territory and payment of tribute to Attila.
See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.
ROME: A. D. 446.
The last appeal from Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 446.
ROME: A. D. 451.
Great invasion of Gaul by the Huns.
Their defeat at Chalons.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
ROME: A. D. 452.
Attila's invasion of Italy.
The frightful devastation of his hordes.
Origin of Venice.
See HUNS: A. D. 452;
and VENICE: A. D. 452.
ROME: A. D. 455.
Pillage of the city by the Vandals.
"The sufferings and the ignominy of the Roman empire were
increased by a new calamity which happened in the year of
Valentinian's death [murdered by an usurper, Petronius Maximus
A. D. 455]. Eudoxia, the widow of that emperor, who had
afterwards become [through compulsion] the wife of Maximus,
avenged the murder of her first husband by plotting against
her second; reckless how far she involved her country in the
ruin. She invited to Rome Genseric, king of the Vandals, who,
not content with having conquered and devastated Africa, made
every effort to give a new direction to the rapacity of his
subjects, by accustoming them to maritime warfare, or, more
properly speaking, piracy.
{2735}
His armed bands, who, issuing from the shores of the Baltic,
had marched over the half of Europe, conquering wherever they
went, embarked in vessels which they procured at Carthage, and
spread desolation over the coasts of Sicily and Italy. On the
12th of June, 455, they landed at Ostia. Maximus was killed in
a seditious tumult excited by his wife. Defence was
impossible; and, from the 15th to the 29th of June, the
ancient capital of the world was pillaged by the Vandals with
a degree of rapacity and cruelty to which Alaric and the Goths
had made no approach. The ships of the pirates were moored
along the quays of the Tiber, and were loaded with a booty
which it would have been impossible for the soldiers to carry
off by land."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 8 (volume 1)._
"On the whole, it is clear from the accounts of all the
chroniclers that Gaiseric's [or Genseric's] pillage of Rome,
though insulting and impoverishing to the last degree, was in
no sense destructive to the Queen of cities. Whatever he may
have done in Africa, in Rome he waged no war on architecture,
being far too well employed in storing away gold and silver
and precious stones, and all manner of costly merchandise in
those insatiable hulks which were riding at anchor by Ostia.
Therefore, when you stand in the Forum of Rome or look upon
the grass-grown hill which was once the glorious Palatine,
blame if you like the Ostrogoth, the Byzantine, the Lombard,
above all, the Norman, and the Roman baron of the Middle Ages,
for the heart-breaking ruin that you see there, but leave the
Vandal uncensured, for, notwithstanding the stigma conveyed in
the word 'vandalism,' he is not guilty here."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._
ROME: A. D. 455-476.
Barbarian masters and imperial puppets.
From Count Ricimer to Odoacer.
The ending of the line of Roman Emperors in the West,
called commonly the Fall of the Western Empire.
"After the death of Valentinian III., the unworthy grandson of
the great Theodosius [March 16, A. D. 455], the first thought
of the barbarian chiefs was, not to destroy or usurp the
Imperial name, but to secure to themselves the nomination of
the emperor. Avitus, chosen in Gaul under the influence of the
West Gothic King of Toulouse, Theoderic II., was accepted for
a time as the western emperor, by the Roman Senate and by the
Court of Constantinople. But another barbarian, Ricimer the
Sueve, ambitious, successful, and popular, had succeeded to
the command of the 'federated' foreign bands which formed the
strength of the imperial army in Italy. Ricimer would not be a
king, but he adopted as a settled policy the expedient, or the
insulting jest, of Alaric. … He deposed Avitus, and probably
murdered him. Under his direction, the Senate chose Majorian.
Majorian was too able, too public-spirited, perhaps too
independent, for the barbarian Patrician; Majorian, at a
moment of ill-fortune was deposed and got rid of." After
Majorian, one Severus (A. D. 461-467), and after Severus a
Greek, Anthemius (A. D. 467-472), nominated at Constantinople,
wore the purple at the command of Count Ricimer. When, after
five years of sovereignty, Anthemius quarreled with his
barbarian master, the latter chose a new emperor—the senator
Olybrius—and conducted him with an army to the gates of Rome,
in which the imperial court had once more settled itself.
Anthemius, supported by the majority of the senate and people,
resisted, and Rome sustained a siege of three months. It was
taken by storm, on the 11th of July, A. D. 472, and suffered
every outrage at the hands of the merciless victors. Anthemius
was slain and his enemy, Ricimer, died a few weeks later.
Olybrius followed the latter to the grave in October.
Ricimer's place was filled by his nephew, a refugee Burgundian
king, Gundobad, who chose for emperor an unfortunate officer
of the imperial guard, named Glycerius. Glycerius allowed
himself to be deposed the next year by Julius Nepos and
accepted a bishopric in place of the throne; but later
circumstances gave the emperor-bishop an opportunity to
assassinate his supplanter and he did not hesitate to do so.
By this time, the real power had passed to another barbarian
"patrician" and general, Orestes, former secretary of Attila,
and Orestes proclaimed his own son emperor. To this son "by a
strange chance, as if in mockery of his fortune, had been
given the names of the first king and the first emperor of
Rome, Romulus Augustus, soon turned in derision into the
diminutive 'Augustulus.' But Orestes failed to play the part
of Ricimer. A younger and more daring barbarian adventurer,
Odoacer the Herule, or Rugian, bid higher for the allegiance
of the army. Orestes was slain, and the young emperor was left
to the mercy of Odoacer. In singular and significant contrast
to the common usage when a pretender fell, Romulus Augustulus
was spared. He was made to abdicate in legal form; and the
Roman Senate, at the dictation of Odoacer, officially
signified to the Eastern emperor, Zeno, their resolution that
the separate Western Empire should cease, and their
recognition of the one emperor at Constantinople, who should
be supreme over West and East. Amid the ruin of the empire and
the state, the dethroned emperor passed his days, in such
luxurious ease as the times allowed, at the Villa of Lucullus
at Misenum; and Odoacer, taking the Teutonic title of king,
sent to the emperor at Constantinople the imperial crown and
robe which were to be worn no more at Rome or Ravenna for more
than three hundred years. Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman
empire, or rather, the line of Roman emperors, in the West."
_R. W. Church,
Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 1._
"When, at Odoacer's bidding, Romulus Augustulus, the boy whom
a whim of fate had chosen to be the last native Cæsar of Rome,
had formally announced his resignation to the senate, a
deputation from that body proceeded to the Eastern court to
lay the insignia of royalty at the feet of the Eastern Emperor
Zeno. The West, they declared, no longer required an Emperor
of its own; one monarch sufficed for the world; Odoacer was
qualified by his wisdom and courage to be the protector of
their state, and upon him Zeno was entreated to confer the
title of patrician and the administration of the Italian
provinces. The Emperor granted what he could not refuse, and
Odoacer, taking the title of King ['not king of Italy, as is
often said'—foot-note], continued the consular office,
respected the civil and ecclesiastical institutions of his
subjects, and ruled for fourteen years as the nominal vicar of
the Eastern Emperor.
{2736}
There was thus legally no extinction of the Western Empire at
all, but only a reunion of East and West. In form, and to some
extent also in the belief of men, things now reverted to their
state during the first two centuries of the Empire, save that
Byzantium instead of Rome was the centre of the civil
government. The joint tenancy which had been conceived by
Diocletian, carried further by Constantine, renewed under
Valentinian I. and again at the death of Theodosius, had come
to an end; once more did a single Emperor sway the sceptre of
the world, and head an undivided Catholic Church."
_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 3, chapters 4-8._
_J. B. Bury,
History of the Later Roman Empire,
preface and book 3, chapter 5 (volume 1)._
ROME: A. D. 476.
Causes of the decay of the Empire
and the significance of its fall in the West.
"Thus in the year 476 ended the Roman empire, or rather, the
line of Roman emperors, in the West. Thus it had become clear
that the foundations of human life and society, which had
seemed under the first emperors eternal, had given way. The
Roman empire was not the 'last word' in the history of the
world; but either the world was in danger of falling into
chaos, or else new forms of life were yet to appear, new ideas
of government and national existence were to struggle with the
old for the mastery. The world was not falling into chaos.
Europe, which seemed to have lost its guidance and its hope of
civilization in losing the empire, was on the threshold of a
history far grander than that of Rome, and was about to start
in a career of civilization to which that of Rome was rude and
unprogressive. In the great break-up of the empire in the
West, some parts of its system lasted, others disappeared.
What lasted was the idea of municipal government, the
Christian Church, the obstinate evil of slavery. What
disappeared was the central power, the imperial and universal
Roman citizenship, the exclusive rule of the Roman law, the
old Roman paganism, the Roman administration, the Roman
schools of literature. Part of these revived; the idea of
central power under Charles the Great, and Otto his great
successor; the appreciation of law, though not exclusively
Roman law; the schools of learning. And under these conditions
the new nations—some of mixed races, as in France, Spain, and
Italy; others simple and homogeneous, as in Germany, England,
and the Scandinavian peninsula —begin their apprenticeship of
civilization."
_R. W. Church,
The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 1._
"The simple facts of the fall of the Empire are these. The
Imperial system had been established … to protect the
frontier. This it did for two centuries with eminent success.
But in the reign of Marcus Aurelius … there occurred an
invasion of the Marcomanni, which was not repulsed without
great difficulty, and which excited a deep alarm and
foreboding throughout the Empire. In the third century the
hostile powers on every frontier began to appear more
formidable. The German tribes, in whose discord Tacitus saw
the safety of the Empire, present themselves now no longer in
separate feebleness, but in powerful confederations. We hear
no more the insignificant names of Chatti and Chauci; the
history of the third century is full of Alemanni, Franks, and
Goths. On the eastern frontier, the long decayed power of the
Parthians now gives place to a revived and vigorous Persian
Empire. The forces of the Empire are more and more taxed to
defend it from these powerful enemies. … It is evident that
the Roman world would not have steadily receded through
centuries before the barbaric, had it not been decidedly
inferior in force. To explain, then, the fall of the Empire,
it is necessary to explain the inferiority in force of the
Romans to the barbarians. This inferiority of the Romans, it
is to be remembered, was a new thing. At an earlier time they
had been manifestly superior. When the region of barbarism was
much larger; when it included warlike and aggressive nations
now lost to it, such as the Gauls; and when, on the other
hand, the Romans drew their armies from a much smaller area,
and organized them much less elaborately, the balance had
inclined decidedly the other way. In those times the Roman
world, in spite of occasional reverses, had on the whole
steadily encroached on the barbaric. … Either, therefore, a
vast increase of power must have taken place in the barbaric
world, or a vast internal decay in the Roman. Now the barbaric
world had actually received two considerable accessions of
force. It had gained considerably, through what influences we
can only conjecture, in the power and habit of co-operation.
As I have said before, in the third century we meet with large
confederations of Germans, whereas before we read only of
isolated tribes. Together with this capacity of confederation
we can easily believe that the Germans had acquired new
intelligence, civilization, and military skill. Moreover, it
is practically to be considered as a great increase of
aggressive force, that in the middle of the fourth century
they were threatened in their original settlements by the
Huns. The impulse of desperation which drove them against the
Roman frontier was felt by the Romans as a new force acquired
by the enemy. But we shall soon see that other and more
considerable momenta must have been required to turn the
scale. … We are forced, … to the conclusion that the Roman
Empire, in the midst of its greatness and civilization, must
have been in a stationary and unprogressive, if not a decaying
condition. Now what can have been the cause of this
unproductiveness or decay? It has been common to suppose a
moral degeneration in the Romans, caused by luxury and
excessive good fortune. To support this it is easy to quote
the satirists and cynics of the imperial time, and to refer to
such accounts as Ammianus gives of the mingled effeminacy and
brutality of the aristocracy of the capital in the fourth
century. But the history of the wars between Rome and the
barbaric world does not show us the proofs we might expect of
this decay of spirit. We do not find the Romans ceasing to be
victorious in the field, and beginning to show themselves
inferior in valor to their enemies. The luxury of the capital
could not affect the army. … Nor can it be said that luxury
corrupted the generals, and through them the army. On the
contrary, the Empire produced a remarkable series of capable
generals. … Whatever the remote and ultimate cause may have
been, the immediate cause to which the fall of the Empire can
be traced is a physical, not a moral, decay.
{2737}
In valor, discipline, and science, the Roman armies remained
what they had always been, and the peasant emperors of
Illyricum were worthy successors of Cincinnatus and Caius
Marius. But the problem was how to replenish those armies. Men
were wanting; the Empire perished for want of men. The proof
of this is in the fact that the contest with barbarism was
carried on by the help of barbarian soldiers. … It must have
been because the Empire could not furnish soldiers for its own
defence, that it was driven to the strange expedient of
turning its enemies and plunderers into its defenders. … Nor
was it only in the army that the Empire was compelled to
borrow men from barbarism. To cultivate the fields whole
tribes were borrowed. From the time of Marcus Aurelius, it was
a practice to grant lands within the Empire, sometimes to
prisoners of war, sometimes to tribes applying for admission.
… The want of any principle of increase in the Roman
population is attested at a much earlier time. In the second
century before Christ, Polybius bears witness to it; and the
returns of the census from the Second Punic War to the time of
Augustus show no steady increase in the number of citizens
that cannot be accounted for by the extension of citizenship
to new classes. … Precisely as we think of marriage, the Roman
of Imperial times thought of celibacy,—that is, as the most
comfortable but the most expensive condition of life. Marriage
with us is a pleasure for which a man must be content to pay;
with the Romans it was an excellent pecuniary investment, but
an intolerably disagreeable one. Here lay, at least in the
judgment of Augustus, the root of the evil. To inquire into
the causes of this aversion to marriage in this place would
lead me too far. We must be content to assume that, owing
partly to this cause and partly to the prudential check of
infanticide, the Roman population seems to have been in
ordinary times almost stationary. The same phenomenon had
shown itself in Greece before its conquest by the Romans.
There the population had even greatly declined; and the shrewd
Polybius explains that it was not owing to war or plague, but
mainly to a general repugnance to marriage, and reluctance to
rear large families, caused by an extravagantly high standard
of comfort. … Perhaps enough has now been said to explain that
great enigma, which so much bewilders the reader of Gibbon;
namely, the sharp contrast between the age of the Autonines
and the age which followed it. A century of unparalleled
tranquillity and virtuous government is followed immediately
by a period of hopeless ruin and dissolution. A century of
rest is followed, not by renewed vigor, but by incurable
exhaustion. Some principle of decay must clearly have been at
work, but what principle? We answer: it was a period of
sterility or barrenness in human beings; the human harvest was
bad. And among the causes of this barrenness we find, in the
more barbarous nations, the enfeeblement produced by the
too-abrupt introduction of civilization, and universally the
absence of industrial habits, and the disposition to
listlessness which belongs to the military character."
_J. R. Seeley,
Roman Imperialism,
pages 47-61._
"At no period within the sphere of historic records was the
commonwealth of Rome anything but an oligarchy of warriors and
slave-owners, who indemnified themselves for the restraint
imposed on them by their equals in the forum by aggression
abroad and tyranny in their households. The causes of its
decline seem to have little connexion with the form of
government established in the first and second centuries. They
were in full operation before the fall of the Republic, though
their baneful effects were disguised and perhaps retarded by
outward successes, by extended conquests, and increasing
supplies of tribute or plunder. The general decline of
population throughout the ancient world may be dated even from
the second century before our era. The last age of the
Republic was perhaps the period of the most rapid exhaustion
of the human race; but its dissolution was arrested under
Augustus, when the population recovered for a time in some
quarters of the empire, and remained at least stationary in
others. The curse of slavery could not but make itself felt
again, and demanded the destined catastrophe. Whatever evil we
ascribe to the despotism of the Cæsars, we must remark that it
was Slavery that rendered political freedom and constitutional
government impossible. Slavery fostered in Rome, as previously
at Athens, the spirit of selfishness and sensuality, of
lawlessness and insolence, which cannot consist with political
equality, with political justice, with political moderation.
The tyranny of the emperors was … only the tyranny of every
noble extended and intensified. The empire became no more than
an ergastulum or barracoon [slave prison] on a vast scale,
commensurate with the dominions of the greatest of Roman
slaveholders. … We have noticed already the pestilence which
befell Italy and many of the provinces in the reign of
Aurelius. There is reason to believe that this scourge was no
common disorder, that it was of a type new at least in the
West, and that, as a new morbific agent, its ravages were more
lasting, as well as more severe, than those of an ordinary
sickness. … At another time, when the stamina of ancient life
were healthier and stronger, such a visitation might possibly
have come and gone, and, however fatal at the moment, have
left no lasting traces; but periods seem to occur in national
existence when there is no constitutional power of rallying
under casual disorders. The sickness which in the youth of the
commonwealth would have dispelled its morbid humours and
fortified its system, may have proved fatal to its advancing
years, and precipitated a hale old age into palsied
decrepitude. The vital powers of the empire possessed no
elasticity; every blow now told upon it with increasing force;
the blows it slowly or impatiently returned were given by the
hands of hired barbarians, not by the strength of its own
right arm. Not sickness alone, but famines, earthquakes, and
conflagrations, fell in rapid succession upon the capital and
the provinces. Such casualties may have occurred at other
periods not less frequently or disastrously; but these were
observed, while the others passed unnoticed, because the
courage of the nation was now broken no less than its physical
vigour, and, distressed and terrified, it beheld in every
natural disorder the stroke of fate, the token of its destined
dissolution. Nor indeed was the alarm unfounded. These
transient faintings and sicknesses were too truly the symptoms
of approaching collapse. The long line of northern frontier,
from Odessus to the island of the Batavi, was skirted by a
fringe of fire, and through the lurid glare loomed the
wrathful faces of myriads, Germans, Scythians, and Sarmatians,
all armed for the onslaught in sympathy or concert."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire,
chapter 18 (volume 7)._
{2738}
"Under the humane pretext of gratifying the world with a
flattering title, an Antoninus, in one of his edicts, called
by the name of Roman citizens the tributaries of the Roman
empire, those men whom a proconsul might legally torture, flog
with rods, or crush with labour and taxes. Thus the power of
that formerly inviolable title, before which the most
shameless tyranny stopped short, was contradicted; thus
perished that ancient safety-cry which made the executioners
fall back; I am a Roman citizen. From that period Rome no
longer existed; there was a court and provinces: we do not
understand by that word what it now signifies in the vulgar
languages, but what it signified primitively in the Roman
language, a country conquered by arms; we mean to say, that
the primitive distinction between conquering Rome and those it
had conquered, then became established between the men in the
palace and those out of the palace; that Rome itself lived
only for one family, and a handful of courtiers, as formerly
the nations it had conquered had only lived by it. It was then
that the name of subjugated, subjecti, which our language has
corrupted into that of subjects, was transported from the
conquered inhabitants of the East or Gaul, to the victorious
inhabitants of Italy, attached in future to the yoke of a
small number of men, as these had been attached to their yoke;
the property of those men, as well as the others, had been
their property, worthy, in a word, of the degrading title of
subjects, subjecti, which must be taken literally. Such was
the order of things which had been gradually forming since the
time of Augustus; each emperor gloried in hastening the moment
of its perfection; Constantine gave it the finishing stroke.
He effaced the name of Rome from the Roman standards, and put
in its place the symbol of the religion which the empire had
just embraced. He degraded the revered name of the civil
magistrature below the domestic offices of his house. An
inspector of the wardrobe took precedence of the consuls. The
aspect of Rome importuned him; he thought he saw the image of
liberty still engraved on its old walls; fear drove him
thence; he fled to the coasts of Byzantia, and there built
Constantinople, placing the sea as a barrier between the new
city of the Cæsars and the ancient city of the Brutus. If Rome
had been the home of independence, Constantinople was the home
of slavery; from thence issued the dogmas of passive obedience
to the Church and throne; there was but one right—that of the
empire; but one duty—that of obedience. The general name of
citizen, which was equivalent, in language, to men living
under the same law, was replaced by epithets graduated
according to the credit of the powerful or the cowardice of
the weak. The qualifications of Eminence, Royal Highness, and
Reverence, were bestowed on what was lowest and most
despicable in the world. The empire, like a private domain,
was transmitted to children, wives, and sons-in-law; it was
given, bequeathed, substituted; the universe was exhausting
itself for the establishment of the family; taxes increased
immoderately; Constantinople alone was exempted; that
privilege of Roman liberty was the price of its infamy. The
rest of the cities and nations were treated like beasts of
burden, which are used without scruple, flogged when they are
restive, and killed when there is cause to fear them. Witness
the population of Antioch, condemned to death by the pious
Theodosius; and that of Thessalonica, entirely massacred by
him for a tax refused, and an unfortunate creature secured
from the justice of his provosts. Meanwhile savage and free
nations armed against the enslaved world, as if to chastise it
for its baseness. Italy, oppressed by the empire, soon found
pitiless revengers in its heart. Rome was menaced by the
Goths. The people, weary of the imperial yoke, did not defend
themselves. The men of the country, still imbued with the old
Roman manners and religion, those men, the only ones whose
arms were still robust and souls capable of pride, rejoiced to
see among them free men and gods resembling the ancient gods
of Italy. Stilico, the general to whom the empire entrusted
its defence, appeared at the foot of the Alps; he called to
arms, and no one arose; he promised liberty to the slaves, he
lavished the treasures of the fisc; and out of the immense
extent of the empire, he only assembled 40,000 men, the fifth
part of the warriors that Hannibal had encountered at the
gates of free Rome."
_A. Thierry,
Narratives of the Merovingian Era
and Historical Essays, essay 13._
"It was not the division into two empires, nor merely the
power of external enemies, that destroyed the domination of
Rome. Republican Rome had ended in monarchy by the decadence
of her institutions and customs, by the very effect of her
victories and conquests, by the necessity of giving to this
immense dominion a dominus. But after she had begun to submit
to the reality of a monarchy, she retained the worship of
republican forms. The Empire was for a long time a piece of
hypocrisy; for it did not dare to give to its rulers the first
condition of stability, a law of succession. The death of
every emperor was followed by troubles, and the choice of a
master of the world was often left to chance. At length the
monarchy had to be organized, but thenceforth it was absolute,
without restraint or opposition. Its proposed aim was to
exploit the world, an aim which in practice was carried to an
extreme. Hence it exhausted the orbis romanus."
_E. Lavisse,
General View of the Political History of Europe,
chapter 1._
ROME: A. D. 486.
The last Roman sovereignty in Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.
ROME: A. D. 488.
Theodoric the king of the Ostrogoths authorized and
commissioned by the Emperor Zeno to conquer a kingdom in Italy.
See GOTHS (OSTROGOTHS): A. D. 473-488.
ROME: A. D. 488-526.
The Ostrogothic kingdom of Theodoric.
It was in the autumn of the year 488 that Theodoric,
commissioned by the Eastern Emperor, Zeno, to wrest Italy from
Odoacer (or Odovacar), broke up his camp or settlement on the
Danube, in the neighborhood of Sistova, and moved towards the
west. The movement was a national migration—of wives and
children as well as of warriors—and the total number is
estimated at not less than 200,000. Following the course of
the Danube, the Gothic host met with no opposition until it
came to Singidunum, near the junction of the Save. There, on
the banks of a stream called the Ulca, they fought a great
battle with the Gepidæ, who held possession of Pannonia, and
who disputed their advance.
{2739}
Victorious in this encounter, Theodoric pushed on, along the
course of the Save; but the movement of his cumbrous train was
so slow and the hardships of the march so great, that nearly a
year passed before he had surmounted the passes of the Julian
Alps and entered Italy. He found Odoacer waiting to give him
battle on the Isonzo; but the forces of the latter were not
courageous enough or not faithful enough for their duty, and
the invading Goths forced the passage of the stream on the
28th of August, 489. Odoacer retreated to Verona, followed by
Theodoric, and there, on the 30th of September, a great and
terrible battle was fought, from which not many of the Rugian
and Herulian troops of Odoacer escaped. Odoacer, himself, with
some followers, got clear of the rout and made their way to
the safe stronghold of Ravenna. For a time, Odoacer's cause
seemed abandoned by all who had supported him; but it was a
treacherous show of submission to the victor. Theodoric, ere
long, found reactions at work which recruited the forces of
his opponent and diminished his own. He was driven to retreat
to Ticinum (Pavia) for the winter. But having solicited and
received aid from the Visigoths of southern Gaul, he regained,
in the summer of 490 (August 11) in a battle on the Adda, not
far from Milan, all the ground that he had lost, and more.
Odoacer was now driven again into Ravenna, and shut up within
its walls by a blockade which was endured until February in
the third year afterwards (493), when famine compelled a
surrender. Theodoric promised life to his rival and respect to
his royal dignity; but he no sooner had the old self-crowned
king Odoacer in his power than he slew him with his own hand.
Notwithstanding this savagery in the inauguration of it, the
reign of the Ostrogothic king in Italy appears to have been,
on the whole, wise and just, with more approximation to the
chivalric half-civilization of later mediæval times than
appears in the government of any of his Gothic or German
neighbors. "Although Theoderic did not care to run the risk of
offending both his Goths and the Court of Constantinople by
calling himself Cæsar or Emperor, yet those titles would have
exactly expressed the character of his rule—so far at least as
his Roman subjects were concerned. When the Emperor Anastasius
in 497 acknowledged him as ruler of Italy, he sent him the
purple cloak and the diadem of the Western emperors; and the
act showed that Anastasius quite understood the difference
between Theodoric's government and that of Odovacar. In fact,
though not in name, the Western empire had been restored with
much the same institutions it had under the best of the
Cæsars." The reign of Theodoric, dating it, as he did, from
his first victory on Italian soil, was thirty-seven years in
duration. When he died, August 30, A. D. 526, he left to his
grandson, Athalaric, a kingdom which extended, beyond Italy,
over Rhætia, Noricum, Pannonia and Illyricum (the modern
Austrian empire south and west of the Danube), together with
Provence in southern Gaul and a district north of it embracing
much of modern Dauphiné. His government extended, likewise,
over the Visigothic kingdom, as guardian of its young king,
his grandson. But this great kingdom of the heroic Ostrogoth
was not destined to endure. One who lived the common measure
of life might have seen the beginning of it and the end. It
vanished in one quarter of a century after he who founded it
was laid away in his great tomb at Ravenna, leaving nothing to
later history which can be counted as a survival of it,—not
even a known remnant of the Ostrogothic race.
_H. Bradley,
Story of the Goths,
chapters 16-20._
"Theodoric professed a great reverence for the Roman
civilization. He had asked for and obtained from the Emperor
Anastasius the imperial insignia that Odovakar had
disdainfully sent back to Constantinople, and he gave up the
dress of the barbarians for the Roman purple. Although he
lived at Ravenna he was accustomed to consult the Roman
senate, to whom he wrote: 'We desire, conscript fathers, that
the genius of liberty may look with favor upon your assembly.'
He established a consul of the West, three prætorian prefects,
and three dioceses,—that of northern Italy, that of Rome, and
that of Gaul. He retained the municipal government, but
appointed the decurions himself. He reduced the severity of
the taxes, and his palace was always open to those who wished
to complain of the iniquities of the judges. … Thus a
barbarian gave back to Italy the prosperity which she had lost
under the emperors. The public buildings, aqueducts, theatres,
and baths were repaired, and palaces and churches were built.
The uncultivated lands were cleared and companies were formed
to drain the Pontine marshes and the marshes of Spoleto. The
iron mines of Dalmatia and a gold mine in Bruttii were worked.
The coasts were protected from pirates by numerous flotillas.
The population increased greatly. Theodoric, though he did not
know how to write, gathered around him the best literary merit
of the time,—Boethius, the bishop Ennodius, and Cassiodorus.
The latter, whom he made his minister, has left us twelve
books of letters. Theodoric seems in many ways like a first
sketch of Charlemagne. Though himself an Arian, he respected
the rights of the Catholics from the first. … When, however,
the Emperor Justin I. persecuted the Arians in the East, he
threatened to retaliate, and as a great commotion was observed
among his Italian subjects, he believed that a conspiracy was
being formed against himself. … The prefect Symmachus and his
son-in-law, Boethius, were implicated. Theodoric confined them
in the tower of Pavia, and it was there that Boethius wrote
his great work, The Consolations of Philosophy. They were both
executed in 525. Theodoric, however, finally recognized their
innocence, and felt such great regret that his reason is said
to have been unbalanced and that remorse hastened his end."
_V. Duruy,
History of the Middle Ages,
book 1, chapter 3._
"The personal greatness of Theodoric overshadowed Emperor and
Empire; from his palace at Ravenna, by one title or another,
by direct dominion, as guardian, as elder kinsman, as
representative of the Roman power, as head by natural
selection of the whole Teutonic world, he ruled over all the
western lands save one; and even to the conquering Frank he
could say, Thus far shalt thou come and no further. In true
majesty such a position was more than Imperial; moreover there
was nothing in the rule of Theodoric which touched the Roman
life of Italy. … As far as we can see, it was the very
greatness of Theodoric which kept his power from being
lasting.
{2740}
Like so many others of the very greatest of men, he set on
foot a system which he himself could work, but which none but
himself could work. He sought to set up a kingdom of Goths and
Romans, under which the two nations should live side by side,
distinct but friendly, each keeping its own law and doing its
own work. And for one life-time the thing was done. Theodoric
could keep the whole fabric of Roman life untouched, with the
Goth standing by as an armed protector. He could as he said,
leave to the Roman consul the honours of government and take
for the Gothic king only the toils. Smaller men neither could
nor would do this. … It was the necessary result of his
position that he gave Italy one generation of peace and
prosperity such as has no fellow for ages on either side of
it, but that, when he was gone, a fabric which had no
foundation but his personal qualities broke down with a
crash."
_E. A. Freeman,
Chief Periods of European History,
lecture 3._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
The Goths at Ravenna
(Historical Essays, volume 3, chapter 4)._
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapters 6-13 (volume 3)._
_Cassiodorus,
Letters,
translated and edited by T. Hodgkin._
_H. F. Stewart,
Boethius,
chapter 2._
ROME: A. D. 527-565.
The reign of Justinian.
"In the year after the great Theoderic died (526), the most
famous in the time of Eastern emperors, since Constantine,
began his long and eventful reign (527-567). Justinian was
born a Slavonian peasant, near what was then Sardica, and is
now Sofia; his original Slave name, Uprawda, was latinized
into Justinian, when he became an officer in the imperial
guard. Since the death of the second Theodosius (450), the
Eastern emperors had been, as they were continually to be, men
not of Roman or Greek, but of barbarian or half barbarian
origin, whom the imperial city and service attracted,
naturalized, and clothed with civilized names and Roman
character. Justinian's reign, so great and so unhappy, was
marked by magnificent works, the administrative organization
of the empire, the great buildings at Constantinople, the last
and grandest codification of Roman law.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
But it was also marked by domestic shame, by sanguinary
factions, by all the vices and crimes of a rapacious and
ungrateful despotism.
See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.
Yet it seemed for a while like the revival of the power and
fortune of Rome. Justinian rose to the highest ideas of
imperial ambition; and he was served by two great masters of
war, foreigners in origin like himself, Belisarius the
Thracian, and Narses the Armenian, who were able to turn to
full account the resources, still enormous, of the empire, its
immense riches, its technical and mechanical skill, its
supplies of troops, its military traditions, its command of
the sea. Africa was wrested from the Vandals;
See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534;
Italy from the successors of Theoderic [see below]; much of
Spain from the West Goths."
_R. W. Church,
The Beginning of the Middle Ages,
chapter 6._
"In spite of the brilliant events which have given the reign
of Justinian a prominent place in the annals of mankind, it is
presented to us in a series of isolated and incongruous facts.
Its chief interest is derived from the biographical memorials
of Belisarius, Theodora, and Justinian; and its most
instructive lesson has been drawn from the influence which its
legislation has exercised on foreign nations. The unerring
instinct of mankind has however fixed on this period as one of
the greatest eras in man's annals. The actors may have been
men of ordinary merit, but the events of which they were the
agents effected the mightiest revolutions in society. The
frame of the ancient world was broken to pieces, and men long
looked back with wonder and admiration at the fragments which
remained, to prove the existence of a nobler race than their
own. The Eastern Empire, though too powerful to fear any
external enemy, was withering away from the rapidity with
which the State devoured the resources of the people. … The
life of Belisarius, either in its reality or its romantic
form, has typified his age. In his early youth, the world was
populous and wealthy, the empire rich and powerful. He
conquered extensive realms and mighty nations and led kings
captive to the footstool of Justinian, the lawgiver of
civilisation. Old age arrived; Belisarius sank into the grave
suspected and impoverished by his feeble and ungrateful
master; and the world, from the banks of the Euphrates to
those of the Tagus, presented the awful spectacle of famine
and plague, of ruined cities, and of nations on the brink of
extermination. The impression on the hearts of men was
profound."
_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 3, section 1._
See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon,
Life of Belisarius._
ROME: A. D. 528-556.
The Persian Wars and the Lazic War of Justinian.
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627;
also, LAZICA.
ROME: A. D. 535-553.
Fall of the Gothic kingdom of Theodoric.
Recovery of Italy by the Emperor Justinian.
The long Gothic siege of Rome.
The siege, capture and pillage by Totila.
The forty days of lifeless desolation in the great city.
On the death of the great Theodoric, the Ostrogothic crown
passed, not to his daughter, Amalasuntha, but to her son,
Athalaric, a child of eight or ten years. The boy-king died at
the age of sixteen, and Amalasuntha assumed the regal power
and title, calling one of her cousins, named Theodatus, or
Theodahad, to the throne, to share it with her. She had
powerful enemies in the Gothic court and the ungrateful
Theodatus was soon in conspiracy with them. Amalasuntha and
her partisans were overcome, and the unhappy queen, after a
short imprisonment on a little island in the lake of Bolsena,
was put to death. These dissensions in the Gothic kingdom gave
encouragement to the Eastern emperor, the ambitious Justinian,
to undertake the reconquest of Italy. His great general,
Belisarius, had just vanquished the Vandals and restored
Carthaginian Africa to the imperial domain.
See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.
With far smaller forces than that achievement demanded,
Belisarius was now sent against the Goths. He landed, first,
in Sicily (A. D. 535), and the whole island was surrendered to
him, almost without a blow. The following spring (having
crossed to Carthage meantime and quelled a formidable revolt),
he passed the straits from Messina and landed his small army
in Italy. Marching northwards, he encountered his first
opposition at Neapolis—modern Naples—where he was detained
for twenty days by the stout resistance of the city.
{2741}
It was surprised, at length, by a storming party which crept
through one of the aqueducts of the town, and it suffered
fearfully from the barbarians of the Roman army before
Belisarius could recover control of his savage troops. Pausing
for a few months to organize his easy conquest of southern
Italy, he received, before he marched to Rome, the practical
surrender of the capital. On the 9th of December, 536, he
entered the city and the Gothic garrison marched out. The
Goths, meantime, had deposed the cowardly Theodatus and raised
to the throne their most trusty warrior, Witigis. They
employed the winter of 537 in gathering all their available
forces at Ravenna, and in the spring they returned to Rome,
150,000 strong, to expel the Byzantine invader. Belisarius had
busily improved the intervening months, and the long-neglected
fortifications of the city were wonderfully restored and
improved. At the beginning of March, the Goths were thundering
at the gates of Rome; and then began the long siege, which
endured for a year and nine days, and which ended in the
discomfiture of the huge army of the besiegers. Their retreat
was a flight and great numbers were slain by the pursuing
Romans. "The numbers and prowess of the Goths were rendered
useless by the utter incapacity of their commander. Ignorant
how to assault, ignorant how to blockade, he allowed even the
sword of Hunger to be wrested from him and used against his
army by Belisarius. He suffered the flower of the Gothic
nation to perish, not so much by the weapons of the Romans as
by the deadly dews of the Campagna." After the retreat of the
Goths from Rome, the conquest of Italy would have been quickly
completed, no doubt, if the jealousy of Justinian had not
hampered Belisarius, by sending the eunuch Narses—who proved
to be a remarkable soldier, in the end—to divide the command
with him. As it was, the surrender to Belisarius of the Gothic
capital, Ravenna, by the Gothic king, Witigis, in the spring
of 540, seemed to make the conquest an accomplished fact. The
unconquered Gothic warriors then held but two important
cities—Verona and Pavia. Milan they had retaken after losing
it, and had practically destroyed, massacring the inhabitants.
See MILAN: A. D. 539.
But now they chose a new king, Ildibad, who reigned
promisingly for a year and was slain; then another, who wore
the crown but five months; and, lastly, they found a true
royal chief in the knightly young warrior Baduila, or Totila,
by whose energy and valor the Gothic cause was revived.
Belisarius had been recalled by his jealous master, and the
quarrels of eleven generals who divided his authority gave
every opportunity to the youthful king. Defeating the Roman
armies in two battles, at Faenza and in the valley of Mugello,
near Florence, he crossed the Apennines, passed by Rome,
besieged and took Naples and Cumæ and overran all the southern
provinces of Italy, in 542 and 543, finding everywhere much
friendliness among the people, whom the tax-gatherers of
Justinian had alienated by their merciless rapacity. In 544,
Belisarius, restored to favor and command only because of the
desperate need of his services, came back to Italy to recover
what his successors had lost; but he came almost alone.
Without adequate troops, he could only watch, from Ravenna,
and circumscribe a little, the successes of his enterprising
antagonist. The latter, having strengthened his position well,
in central as well as in southern Italy, applied himself to
the capture of Rome. In May, 546, the Gothic lines were drawn
around the city and a blockade established which soon produced
famine and despair. An attempt by Belisarius to break the
leaguer came to naught, and Rome was betrayed to Totila on the
17th of December following. He stayed the swords of his
followers when they began to slay, but gave them full license
to plunder. When the great city had been stripped and most of
its inhabitants had fled, he resolved to destroy it utterly;
but he was dissuaded from that most barbarous design by a
letter of remonstrance from Belisarius. Contenting himself,
then, with throwing down a great part of the walls, he
withdrew his whole army—having no troops to spare for an
adequate garrison—and took with him every single surviving
inhabitant (so the historians of the time declare), so that
Rome, for the space of six weeks or more (January and
February, 547), was a totally deserted and silent city. At the
end of that time, Belisarius threw his army inside of the
broken walls, and repaired them with such celerity that Totila
was baffled when he hastened back to expel the intruders.
Three times the Goths attacked and were repulsed; the best of
their warriors were slain; the prestige of their leader was
lost. But, once more, jealousies and enmities at
Constantinople recalled Belisarius and the Goths recovered
ground. In 549 they again invested Rome and it was betrayed to
them, as before, by a part of the garrison. Totila now made
the great city—great even in its ruins—his capital, and
exerted himself to restore its former glories. His arms for a
time were everywhere successful. Sicily was invaded and
stripped of its portable wealth. Sardinia and Corsica were
occupied; the shores of Greece were threatened. But in 552 the
tide of fortune was turned once more in favor of
Justinian,—this time by his second great general, the eunuch
Narses. In one decisive battle fought that year, in July, at a
point on the Flaminian Way where it crosses the Apennines, the
army of the Goths was broken and their king was slain. The
remnant which survived crowned another king, Teias; but, he,
too, perished, the following March, in a battle fought at the
foot of Mount Vesuvius, and the Ostrogothic kingdom was at an
end. Rome was already recovered—the fifth change of masters it
had undergone during the war—and one by one, all the strong
places in the hands of the Goths were given up. The
restoration of Italy to the Empire was complete.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 16;
book 5, chapters 1-24._
"Of all ages in history the sixth is the one in which the
doctrine that the Roman Empire came to an end at some time in
the fifth sounds most grotesque. Again the Roman armies march
to victory, to more than victory, to conquest, to conquests
more precious than the conquests of Cæsar or of Trajan, to
conquests which gave back Rome herself to her own Augustus. We
may again be met with the argument that we have ourselves used
so often; that the Empire had to win back its lost provinces
does indeed prove that it had lost them; but no one seeks to
prove that the provinces had not been lost; what the world is
loth to understand is that there was still life enough in the
Roman power to win them back again.
{2742}
I say the Roman power; what if I said the Roman commonwealth?
It may startle some to hear that in the sixth century, nay in
the seventh, the most common name for the Empire of Rome is
still 'respublica.' No epithet is needed; there is no Deed to
say that the 'respublica' spoken of is 'respublica Romano.' It
is the Republic which wins back Italy, Africa, and Southern
Spain from their Teutonic masters. … The point of the
employment of the word lies in this, that it marks the
unbroken being of the Roman state; in the eyes of the men of
the sixth century the power which won back the African
province in their own day was the same power which had first
won it well-nigh seven hundred years before. The consul
Belisarius was the true successor of the consul Scipio."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Chief Periods of European History,
lecture 4._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 41 and 43._
_J. B. Bury,
History of the Later Roman Empire,
book 4, chapters 5-7 (volume 1)._
_R. H. Wrightson,
The Sancta Respublica Romana,
chapters 5-7._
_Lord Mahon,
Life of Belisarius._
ROME: A. D. 541.
Extinction of the office of Consul.
See CONSUL, ROMAN.
ROME: A. D. 554-800.
The Exarchate of Ravenna.
On the final overthrow and annihilation of the Gothic monarchy
in Italy by the decisive victories of the eunuch Narses, its
throne at Ravenna was occupied by a line of vice-royal rulers,
named exarchs, who represented the Eastern Roman emperor,
being appointed by him and exercising authority in his name.
"Their jurisdiction was soon reduced to the limits of a narrow
province; but Narses himself, the first and most powerful of
the exarchs, administered above fifteen years the entire
kingdom of Italy. … A duke was stationed for the defence and
military command of each of the principal cities; and the eye
of Narses pervaded the ample prospect from Calabria to the
Alps. The remains of the Gothic nation evacuated the country
or mingled with the people. … The civil state of Italy, after
the agitation of a long tempest, was fixed by a pragmatic
sanction, which the emperor promulgated at the request of the
pope. Justinian introduced his own jurisprudence into the
schools and tribunals of the West. … Under the exarchs of
Ravenna, Rome was degraded to the second rank. Yet the
senators were gratified by the permission of visiting their
estates in Italy, and of approaching without obstacle the
throne of Constantinople: the regulation of weights and
measures was delegated to the pope and senate; and the
salaries of lawyers and physicians, of orators and
grammarians, were destined to preserve or rekindle the light
of science in the ancient capital. … During a period of 200
years Italy was unequally divided between the kingdom of the
Lombards and the exarchate of Ravenna. … Eighteen successive
exarchs were invested, in the decline of the empire, with the
full remains of civil, of military and even of ecclesiastical
power. Their immediate jurisdiction, which was afterwards
consecrated as the patrimony of St. Peter, extended over the
modern Romagna, the marshes or valleys of Ferrara and
Commachio, five maritime cities from Rimini to Ancona, and a
second inland Pentapolis, between the Adriatic coast and the
hills of the Apennine. Three subordinate provinces—of Rome, of
Venice, and of Naples—which were divided by hostile lands from
the palace of Ravenna, acknowledged, both in peace and war,
the supremacy of the exarch. The duchy of Rome appears to have
included the Tuscan, Sabine, and Latin conquests of the first
400 years of the city, and the limits may be distinctly traced
along the coast, from Civita Vecchio, to Terracina, and with
the course of the Tiber from Ameria and Narni to the port of
Ostia. The numerous islands from Grado to Chiozza composed the
infant dominion of Venice; but the more accessible towns on
the continent were overthrown by the Lombards, who beheld with
impotent fury a new capital rising from the waves. The power
of the dukes of Naples was circumscribed by the bay and the
adjacent isles, by the hostile territory of Capua, and by the
Roman colony of Amalphi. … The three islands of Sardinia,
Corsica, and Sicily still adhered to the empire. … Rome was
oppressed by the iron sceptre of the exarchs, and a Greek,
perhaps a eunuch, insulted with impunity the ruins of the
Capitol. But Naples soon acquired the privilege of electing
her own dukes; the independence of Amalphi was the fruit of
commerce; and the voluntary attachment of Venice was finally
ennobled by an equal alliance with the Eastern empire."
E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapters 43 and 45.
{2742a}
{2742b}
[IMAGE: EUROPE AT THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN 565 A. D.
EAST ROMAN EMPIRE
RACE DIVISIONS
CELTIC PEOPLES.
SLAVIC PEOPLES.
LITHUANIAN PEOPLES.
URAL ALTAIC PEOPLES.
SCANDINAVIANS.
ANGLES, SAXONS, JUTES ETC.
THE GERMANIC STATES AND PEOPLES ALL APPEAR
IN DIFFERENT SHADES OF PINK.]
ROME: A. D. 565-628.
Decline of the Eastern Empire.
Thickening calamities.
Reigns of Justinus II., Tiberius Constantinus, Maurice,
and Phocas.
Brief brightening of events by Heraclius.
His campaigns against the Persians.
"The thirty years which followed the death of Justinian are
covered by three reigns, those of Justinus II. (565-578),
Tiberius Constantinus (578-582), and Maurice (582-602). These
three emperors were men of much the same character as the
predecessors of Justinian; each of them was an experienced
official of mature age, who was selected by the reigning
emperor as his most worthy successor. … Yet under them the
empire was steadily going down hill: the exhausting effects of
the reign of Justinian were making themselves felt more and
more, and at the end of the reign of Maurice a time of chaos
and disaster was impending, which came to a head under his
successor. … The misfortunes of the Avaric and Slavonic war
[see AVARS] were the cause of the fall of the Emperor Maurice.
… Maurice sealed his fate when, in 602, he issued orders for
the discontented army of the Danube to winter north of the
river, in the waste marshes of the Slavs. The troops refused
to obey the order, and chased away their generals. Then
electing as their captain an obscure centurion, named Phocas,
they marched on Constantinople. Maurice armed the city
factions, the 'Blues' and 'Greens,' and strove to defend
himself. But when he saw that no one would fight for him, he
fled across the Bosphorus with his wife and children, to seck
refuge in the Asiatic provinces, where he was less unpopular
than in Europe. Soon he was pursued by orders of Phocas, whom
the army had now saluted as emperor, and caught at Chalcedon.
The cruel usurper had him executed, along with all his five
sons, the youngest a child of only three years of age. … For
the first time since Constantinople had become the seat of
empire the throne had been won by armed rebellion and the
murder of the legitimate ruler. …
{2743}
Phocas was a mere brutal soldier—cruel, ignorant, suspicious,
and reckless, and in his incapable hands the empire began to
fall to pieces with alarming rapidity. He opened his reign
with a series of cruel executions of his predecessor's
friends, and from that moment his deeds of bloodshed never
ceased. … The moment that Phocas had mounted the throne,
Chosroës of Persia declared war on him, using the hypocritical
pretext that he wished to revenge Maurice, for whom he
professed a warm personal friendship. This war was far
different from the indecisive contests in the reigns of
Justinian and Justin II. In two successive years the Persians
burst into North Syria and ravaged it as far as the sea; but
in the third they turned north and swept over the hitherto
untouched provinces of Asia Minor. In 608 their main army
penetrated across Cappadocia and Galatia right up to the gates
of Chalcedon. The inhabitants of Constantinople could see the
blazing villages across the water on the Asiatic shore. … Plot
after plot was formed in the capital against Phocas, but he
succeeded in putting them all down, and slew the conspirators
with fearful tortures. For eight years his reign continued. …
Africa was the only portion of the Roman Empire which in the
reign of Phocas was suffering neither from civil strife nor
foreign invasion. It was well governed by the aged exarch
Heraclius, who was so well liked in the province that the
emperor had not dared to depose him. Urged by desperate
entreaties from all parties in Constantinople to strike a blow
against the tyrant, and deliver the empire from the yoke of a
monster, Heraclius at last consented." He sent his son—who
bore the same name, Heraclius—with a fleet, to Constantinople.
Phocas was at once abandoned by his troops and was given up to
Heraclius, whose sailors slew him. "Next day the patriarch and
the senate hailed Heraclius [the younger] as emperor, and he
was duly crowned in St. Sophia on October 5, A. D. 610. … Save
Africa and Egypt and the district immediately around the
capital, all the provinces were overrun by the Persian, the
Avar and the Slav. The treasury was empty, and the army had
almost disappeared, owing to repeated and bloody defeats in
Asia Minor. Heraclius seems at first to have almost despaired.
… For the first twelve years of his reign he remained at
Constantinople, endeavouring to reorganize the empire, and to
defend at any rate the frontiers of Thrace and Asia Minor. The
more distant provinces he hardly seems to have hoped to save,
and the chronicle of his early years is filled with the
catalogue of the losses of the empire. … In 614 the Persian
army appeared before the holy city of Jerusalem, took it after
a short resistance and occupied it with a garrison. But the
populace rose and slaughtered the Persian troops, when
Shahrbarz had departed with his main army. This brought him
back in wrath: he stormed the city and put 90,000 Christians
to the sword, only sparing the Jewish inhabitants. Zacharias,
Patriarch of Jerusalem, was carried into captivity, and with
him went what all Christians then regarded as the most
precious thing in the world—the wood of the 'True Cross'. …
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.
The horror and rage roused by the loss of the 'True Cross' and
the blasphemies of King Chosroës brought about the first real
outburst of national feeling that we meet in the history of
the Eastern Empire. … Heraclius made no less than six
campaigns (A. D. 622-627) in his gallant and successful
attempt to save the half-ruined empire. He won great and
well-deserved fame, and his name would be reckoned among the
foremost of the world's warrior-kings if it had not been for
the misfortunes which afterwards fell on him in his old age.
His first campaign cleared Asia Minor of the Persian hosts,
not by a direct attack, but by skilful strategy. … In his next
campaigns Heraclius endeavoured to liberate the rest of the
Roman Empire by a similar plan: he resolved to assail Chosroës
at home, and force him to recall the armies he kept in Syria
and Egypt to defend his own Persian provinces. In 623-4 the
Emperor advanced across the Armenian mountains and threw
himself into Media. … Chosroës … fought two desperate battles
to cover Ctesiphon. His generals were defeated in both, but
the Roman army suffered severely. Winter was at hand, and
Heraclius fell back on Armenia. In his next campaign he
recovered Roman Mesopotamia. … But 626 was the decisive year
of the war. The obstinate Chosroës determined on one final
effort to crush Heraclius, by concerting a joint plan of
operations with the Chagan of the Avars. While the main
Persian army watched the emperor in Armenia, a great body
under Shahrbarz slipped south of him into Asia Minor and
marched on the Bosphorus. At the same moment the Chagan of the
Avars, with the whole force of his tribe and of his Slavonic
dependents, burst over the Balkans and beset Constantinople on
the European side. The two barbarian hosts could see each
other across the water, and even contrived to exchange
messages, but the Roman fleet, sailing incessantly up and down
the strait, kept them from joining forces. … In the end of
July 80,000 Avars and Slavs, with all sorts of siege
implements, delivered simultaneous assaults along the land
front of the city, but they were beaten back with great
slaughter." They suffered even more on trying to encounter the
Roman galleys with rafts. "Then the Chagan gave up the siege
in disgust and retired across the Danube." Meantime Heraclius
was wasting Media and Mesopotamia, and next year he ended the
war by a decisive victory near Nineveh, as the result of which
he took the palace of Dastagerd, "and divided among his troops
such a plunder as had never been seen since Alexander the
Great captured Susa. … In March, 628, a glorious peace ended
the 26 years of the Persian war. Heraclius returned to
Constantinople in the summer of the same year with his spoils,
his victorious army, and his great trophy, the 'Holy Wood.' …
The quiet for which he yearned was to be denied him, and the
end of his reign was to be almost as disastrous as the
commencement. The great Saracen invasion was at hand, and it
was at the very moment of Heraclius' triumph that Mahomet sent
out his famous circular letter to the kings of the earth,
inviting them to embrace Islam."
_C. W. C. Oman,
The Story of the Byzantine Empire,
chapters 9-10._
ALSO IN:
_J. B. Bury,
History of the Later Roman Empire,
book 4, part 2, and book 5, chapters 1-3 (volume 2)._
See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
ROME: A. D. 568-573.
Invasion of the Lombards.
Their conquest of northern Italy.
Their kingdom.
See LOMBARDS: A. D. 568-573; and 573-754.
{2744}
ROME: A. D. 590-640.
Increasing influence and importance of the Bishop of Rome.
Circumstances under which his temporal authority grew.
"The fall of the shadowy Empire of the West, and the union of
the Imperial power in the person of the ruler of
Constantinople, brought a fresh accession of dignity and
importance to the Bishop of Rome. The distant Emperor could
exercise no real power over the West. The Ostrogothic kingdom
in Italy scarcely lasted beyond the lifetime of its great
founder Theodoric. The wars of Justinian only served to show
how scanty were the benefits of the Imperial rule. The
invasion of the Lombards united all dwellers in Italy in an
endeavour to escape the lot of servitude and save their land
from barbarism. In this crisis it was found that the Imperial
system had crumbled away, and that the Church alone possessed
a strong organisation. In the decay of the old municipal
aristocracy the people of the towns gathered round their
bishops, whose sacred character inspired some respect in the
barbarians, and whose active charity lightened the calamities
of their flocks. In such a state of things Pope Gregory the
Great raised the Papacy [A. D. 590] to a position of decisive
eminence, and marked out the course of its future policy. The
piety of emperors and nobles had conferred lands on the Roman
Church, not only in Italy, but in Sicily, Corsica, Gaul, and
even in Asia and Africa, until the Bishop of Rome had become
the largest landholder in Italy. To defend his Italian lands
against the incursions of the Lombards was a course suggested
to Gregory by self-interest; to use the resources which came
to him from abroad as a means of relieving the distress of the
suffering people in Rome and Southern Italy was a natural
prompting of his charity. In contrast to this, the distant
Emperor was too feeble to send any effective help against the
Lombards, while the fiscal oppression of his representatives
added to the miseries of the starving people. The practical
wisdom, administrative capacity, and Christian zeal of Gregory
I. led the people of Rome and the neighbouring regions to look
upon the Pope as their head in temporal as well as in
spiritual matters. The Papacy became a national centre to the
Italians, and the attitude of the Popes towards the Emperor
showed a spirit of independence which rapidly passed into
antagonism and revolt. Gregory I. was not daunted by the
difficulties nor absorbed by the cares of his position at
home. When he saw Christianity threatened in Italy by the
heathen Lombards, he boldly pursued a system of religious
colonisation. While dangers were rife at Rome, a band of Roman
missionaries carried Christianity to the distant English, and
in England first was founded a Church which owed its existence
to the zeal of the Roman bishop. Success beyond all that he
could have hoped for attended Gregory's pious enterprise. The
English Church spread and flourished, a dutiful daughter of
her mother-church of Rome. England sent forth missionaries in
her turn, and before the preaching of Willibrod and Winifred
heathenism died away in Friesland, Franconia, and Thuringia.
Under the new name of Boniface, given him by Pope Gregory II.,
Winifred, as Archbishop of Mainz, organised a German Church,
subject to the successor of S. Peter. The course of events in
the East also tended to increase the importance of the See of
Rome. The Mohammedan conquests destroyed the Patriarchates of
Antioch and Jerusalem, which alone could boast of an
apostolical foundation. Constantinople alone remained as a
rival to Rome; but under the shadow of the Imperial despotism
it was impossible for the Patriarch of Constantinople to lay
claim to spiritual independence. The settlement of Islam in
its eastern provinces involved the Empire in a desperate
struggle for its existence. Henceforth its object no longer
was to reassert its supremacy over the West, but to hold its
ground against watchful foes in the East. Italy could hope for
no help from the Emperor, and the Pope saw that a breach with
the Empire would give greater independence to his own
position, and enable him to seek new allies elsewhere."
_M. Creighton,
History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,
introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_T. W. Allies,
The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations,
chapter 5._
See, also,
CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800;
and PAPACY: A. D. 461-604, and after.
ROME: A. D. 632-709.
The Eastern Empire.
Its first conflicts with Islam.
Loss of Syria, Egypt, and Africa.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639, to 647-709.
ROME: A. D. 641-717.
The Eastern Empire.
The period between the death of Heraclius and the advent of
Leo III. (the Isaurian) is covered, in the Eastern Empire, by
the following reigns:
Constantine III. and Heracleonas (641);
Constans II. (641-668);
Constantine IV. (668-685);
Justinian II. (685-711);
Leontius and Absimarus (usurpers, who interrupted the reign
of Justinian II. from 695 to 698 and from 698 to 704);
Philippicus (711-713);
Anastasius II. (713-716);
Theodosius III. (716-717).
ROME: A. D. 717-800.
The Eastern Roman Empire: should it take
the name of the Byzantine Empire?—and when?
"The precise date at which the eastern Roman empire ceased to
exist has been variously fixed. Gibbon remarks, 'that Tiberius
[A. D. 578-582] by the Arabs, and Maurice [A. D. 582-602] by
the Italians, are distinguished as the first of the Greek
Cæsars, as the founders of a new dynasty and empire.' But if
manners, language, and religion are to decide concerning the
commencement of the Byzantine empire, the preceding pages have
shown that its origin must be carried back to an earlier
period; while, if the administrative peculiarities in the form
of government be taken as the ground of decision, the Roman
empire may be considered as indefinitely prolonged with the
existence of the title of Roman emperor, which the sovereigns
of Constantinople continued to retain as long as
Constantinople was ruled by Christian princes. … The period …
at which the Roman empire of the East terminated is decided by
the events which confined the authority of the imperial
government to those provinces where the Greeks formed the
majority of the population; and it is marked by the adoption
of Greek as the language of the government, by the prevalence
of Greek civilisation, and by the identification of the
nationality of the people, and the policy of the emperors with
the Greek church. For, when the Saracen conquests had severed
from the empire all those provinces which possessed a native
population distinct from the Greeks, by language, literature,
and religion, the central government of Constantinople was
gradually compelled to fall back on the interests and passions
of the remaining inhabitants, who were chiefly Greeks. …
{2745}
Yet, as it was by no means identified with the interests and
feelings of the native inhabitants of Hellas, it ought
correctly to be termed Byzantine, and the empire is,
consequently, justly called the Byzantine empire. … Even the
final loss of Egypt, Syria, and Africa only reveals the
transformation of the Roman empire, when the consequences of
the change begin to produce visible effects on the internal
government. The Roman empire seems, therefore, really to have
terminated with the anarchy which followed the murder of
Justinian II. [A. D. 711], the last sovereign of the family of
Heraclius; and Leo III., or the Isaurian [A. D. 717-741], who
identified the imperial administration with ecclesiastical
forms and questions, must be ranked as the first of the
Byzantine monarchs, though neither the emperor, the clergy,
nor the people perceived at the time the moral change in their
position, which makes the establishment of this new era
historically correct. Under the sway of the Heraclian family
[A. D. 610-711], the extent of the empire was circumscribed
nearly within the bounds which it continued to occupy during
many subsequent centuries. … The geographical extent of the
empire at the time of its transition from the Roman to the
Byzantine empire affords evidence of the influence which the
territorial changes produced by the Saracen conquests
exercised in conferring political importance on the Greek
race. The frontier towards the Saracens of Syria commenced at
Mopsuestia in Cilicia, the last fortress of the Arab power. It
ran along the chains of Mounts Amanus and Taurus to the
mountainous district to the north of Edessa and Nisibis,
called, after the time of Justinian, the Fourth Armenia, of
which Martyropolis was the capital. It then followed nearly
the ancient limits of the empire until it reached the Black
Sea, a short distance to the east of Trebizond. … In Europe,
Mount Hæmus [the Balkans] formed the barrier against the
Bulgarians, while the mountainous ranges which bound Macedonia
to the north-west, and encircle the territory of Dyrrachium,
were regarded as the limits of the free Sclavonian states. …
Istria, Venice, and the cities on the Dalmatian coast, still
acknowledged the supremacy of the empire. … In the centre of
Italy, the exarchate of Ravenna still held Rome in subjection,
but the people of Italy were entirely alienated. … The cities
of Gaëta, Naples, Amalfi, and Sorento, the district of
Otranto, and the peninsula to the south of the ancient
Sybaris, now called Calabria, were the only parts [of southern
Italy] which remained under the Byzantine government. Sicily,
though it had begun to suffer from the incursions of the
Saracens, was still populous and wealthy."
_G. Finlay,
Greece under the Romans,
chapter 5, sections 1 and 7._
Dissenting from the view presented above, Professor Freeman
says: "There is no kind of visible break, such as is suggested
by the change of name, between the Empire before Leo and the
Empire after him. The Emperor of the Romans reigned over the
land of Romania after him as well as before him. … Down to the
fall of Constantinople in the East, down to the abdication of
Francis II. in the West, there was no change of title; the
Emperor of the Romans remained Emperor of the Romans, however
shifting might be the extent of his dominions. But from 800 to
1453 there were commonly two, sometimes more, claimants of the
title. The two Empires must be distinguished in some way; and,
from 800 to 1204, 'Eastern' and 'Western' seem the simplest
forms of distinction. But for 'Eastern' it is just as easy,
and sometimes more expressive, to say 'Byzantine'; only it is
well not to begin the use of either name as long as the Empire
keeps even its nominal unity. With the coronation of Charles
the Great [800] that nominal unity comes to an end. The Old
Rome passes away from even the nominal dominion of the prince
who reigns in the New."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Essays, series 3,
page 244._
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
ROME: A. D. 728-733.
Beginnings of Papal Sovereignty.
The Iconoclastic controversy.
Rupture with the Byzantine Emperor.
Practical independence assumed by the Pope.
See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774;
and ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.
ROME: A. D. 751.
Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.
See PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.
ROME: A. D. 754-774.
Struggle of the Popes against the Lombards.
Their deliverance by Pippin and Charlemagne.
Fall of the Lombard kingdom.
See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;
also, PAPACY: A. D. 728-774, and 755-774.
ROME: A. D. 800.
Coronation of Charlemagne.
The Empire revived.
See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;
and GERMANY: A. D. 800.
ROME: A. D. 843-951.
The breaking up of Charlemagne's Empire
and founding of the Holy Roman Empire.
See ITALY: A. D. 843-951;
FRANKS: A. D. 814-962;
and GERMANY: A. D. 814-843, to 936-973.
ROME: A. D. 846-849.
Attack by the Saracens.
"A fleet of Saracens from the African coast presumed to enter
the mouth of the Tiber, and to approach a city which even yet,
in her fallen state, was revered as the metropolis of the
Christian world. The gates and ramparts were guarded by a
trembling people; but the tombs and temples of St. Peter and
St. Paul were left exposed in the suburbs of the Vatican and
of the Ostian Way. Their invisible sanctity had protected them
against the Goths, the Vandals, and the Lombards; but the
Arabs disdained both the Gospel and the legend; and their
rapacious spirit was approved and animated by the precepts of
the Koran. The Christian idols were stripped of their costly
offerings. … In their course along the Appian Way, they
pillaged Fundi and besieged Gaeta." The diversion produced by
the siege of Gaeta gave Rome a fortunate respite. In the
interval, a vacancy occurred on the papal throne, and Pope Leo
IV. by unanimous election, was raised to the place. His energy
as a temporal prince saved the great city. He repaired its
walls, constructed new towers and barred the Tiber by an iron
chain. He formed an alliance with the cities of Gaeta, Naples,
and Amalfi, still vassals of the Greek empire, and brought
their galleys to his aid. When, therefore, in 849, the
Saracens from Africa returned to the attack, they met with a
terrible repulse. An opportune storm assisted the Christians
in the destruction of their fleet, and most of the small
number who escaped death remained captives in the hands of the
Romans and their allies.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52._
{2746}
ROME: A. D. 903-964.
The reign of the courtesans and their brood.
Interference of Otho the Great.
His revival of the Empire.
"During these changes [in the breaking up of the empire of
Charlemagne], Rome became a sort of theocratic democracy,
governed by women and priests; a state of things which, in the
barbarism of the middle ages, was only possible at Rome.
Theodora, a woman of patrician descent, equally celebrated for
her beauty and her daring, obtained great power in Rome, which
she prolonged by the charms of her two daughters. The city of
Saint Peter was ruled by this trio of courtesans. The mother,
Theodora, by her familiar commerce with several of the Roman
barons, had obtained possession of the castle of Saint Angelo,
at the entrance of Rome, on one of the principal bridges over
the Tiber; and she had made it an abode of pleasure and a
fortress, whence she corrupted and oppressed the Church. Her
daughters, Marozia and Theodora, disposed of the pontificate
by their own arts, or through their lovers, and occasionally
bestowed it on the lovers themselves. Sergius III., after a
contested election and seven years' exile, was recalled to the
see of Rome by the interest of Marozia, by whom he had had a
son, who afterwards became Pope. The younger Theodora was no
less ambitious and influential than her sister. She loved a
young clerk of the Roman Church, for whom she had first
obtained the bishopric of Bologna, and then the archbishopric
of Ravenna. Finding it irksome to be separated from him by a
distance of 200 miles, she procured his nomination to the
papacy, in order to have him near her; and he was elected Pope
in 912, under the title of John X. … After a pontificate of
fourteen years, John was displaced by the same means to which
he owed his elevation." Marozia, who had married Guy, Duke of
Tuscany, conspired with her husband against the Pope and he
was put out of the way. That accomplished, "Marozia allowed
the election of two Popes successively, whose pontificate was
obscure and short; and then she raised to the papal see a
natural son of hers, it is said, by Pope Sergius III., her
former lover. This young man took the name of John XI., and
Marozia, his mother, having soon after lost her husband, Guy,
was sought in marriage by Hugh, King of Italy, and his brother
by the mother's side. But it would appear that the people of
Rome were growing weary of the tyranny of this shameless and
cruel woman." King Hugh was driven from Rome by a revolt, in
which another son of Marozia, named Alberic, took the lead.
"Alberic, the leader of this popular rising, was proclaimed
consul by the Romans, who still clung to the traditions of the
republic; he threw his mother, Marozia, into prison, and set a
guard over his brother, Pope John; and thus, invested with the
popular power, he prepared to defend the independence of Rome
against the pretensions of Hugh and the forces of Lombardy.
Alberic, master of Rome under the title of patrice and
senator, exercised, during twenty-three years, all the rights
of sovereignty. The money was coined with his image, with two
sceptres across; he made war and peace, appointed magistrates
and disposed of the election and of the power of the Popes,
who, in that interval, filled the See of Rome, John XI., Leo
VII., Stephen IX., Martin III., and Agapetus II. The name of
this subject and imprisoned papacy was none the less revered
beyond the limits of Rome. … Alberic died lord of Rome, and
had bequeathed his power to his son Octavian; who, two years
afterwards, on the death of Agapetus II., caused himself,
young as he was, to be named Pope by those who already
acknowledged him as patrice."
_A. F. Villemain,
Life of Gregory VII.,
introduction, period 6._
"He [Octavian] was elected Pope on the 23d of March, A. D.
956. His promotion was a disgraceful calamity. He brought to
the chair of St. Peter only the vices and dissolute morals of
a young debauchee; and though Luitprand must have exaggerated
the disorders of this Pope, yet there remains enough of truth
in the account to have brought down the scandal of the
pontificate through succeeding ages, like a loud blasphemy,
which makes angels weep and hell exult. Octavian assumed the
name of John XII. This first example of a change of name on
ascending the pontifical chair has since passed into a custom
with all the Sovereign Pontiffs."
_Abbé J. E. Darras,
General History of the Catholic Church,
period 4, chapter 7._
Finding it hard to defend his independence against the king of
Italy, Pope John XII. made the mistake, fatal to himself, of
soliciting help from the German king Otho the Great. Otho
came, made himself master of Italy, revived the empire of
Charlemagne, was crowned with the imperial crown of Rome, by
the Pope, and then purged the Roman See by causing the bestial
young pope who crowned him to be deposed.
See ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY;
and GERMANY; A. D. 936-973.
John was subsequently reinstated by the Romans, but died soon
after, A. D. 964.
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 5, chapter 12._
The state of things at Rome described in the above has been
fitly styled by some writers "a pornocracy."
ROME: A. D. 962-1057.
Futile attempts of the German Emperors to reform the Papacy.
Chronic disorganization of the city.
"It had not been within the power of the Emperor Otto I. to
establish a permanent reformation in Rome. … The previous
scandalous scenes were renewed, and a slight amelioration of
things under the Popes Gregory V. and Silvester II., whom Otto
III. placed on the papal throne [A. D. 997-1003], was but
transitory. … For the third time it became necessary for an
emperor, in this instance Henry III., to constitute himself
the preserver and purifier of the papacy, first at Sutri and
afterwards at Rome. At that period the papal chair was
occupied within twelve years by five German popes [Clement II.
to Victor II.—A. D. 1046-1057], since amongst the Roman clergy
no fitting candidate could be found. These popes, with one
exception, died almost immediately, poisoned by the unhealthy
atmosphere of Rome; one only, Leo IX., under Hildebrand's
guidance, left any lasting trace of his pontificate, and laid
the foundation of that Gregorian system which resulted in
papal supremacy. … Rome was assuming more and more the
character of a sacerdotal city; the old wealthy patrician
families had either disappeared or migrated to Constantinople;
and as the seat of government was either at Constantinople or
Ravenna, there was no class of state officials in Rome. But
the clergy had become rich upon the revenues of the vast
possessions of St. Peter. … Without manufactures, trade, or
industry of their own, the people of Rome were induced to rely
upon exactions levied upon the foreigner, and upon profits
derived from ecclesiastical institutions. … Hence the
unvarying sameness in the political history of Rome from the
5th to the 15th century."
_J. I. von Döllinger,
Studies in European History,
chapter. 3._
See PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046.
{2746a}
NINTH CENTURY.
CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.
A.D.
801. Conquest of Barcelona from the Moors by the Franks.
805. Charlemagne's subjugation of the Avars.
Creation of the Austrian march.
806. Division of the Empire by Charlemagne
between his sons formally planned.
809. Death of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid.
812. Civil war between the sons of the Caliph Haroun al Raschid;
siege of Bagdad.
814. Death of Charlemagne, and accession of Louis the Pious,
his only surviving son.
816. Death of Pope Leo III.;
election of Stephen IV.
817. Partition of the Empire of the Franks by Louis the Pious.
826. Grant of a county between the Rhine and Moselle
to Harold of Jutland, by the Emperor.
821. Beginning of Moslem conquest of Sicily.
830. First rebellion of the sons of the Emperor Louis the Pious.
833. Second rebellion of the Emperor's sons;
the "Field of Lies";
deposition of the Emperor Louis the Pious.
Death of the Caliph Mamun, son of Haroun al Raschid.
834. Restoration of Louis the Pious.
835. Invasion of the Netherlands and sacking of Utrecht
by the Northmen.
836. Burning of Antwerp and ravaging of Flanders by the Northmen.
Death of Ecgberht, the first king of all the English.
837. First expedition of the Northmen up the Rhine.
838. Asia Minor invaded by the Caliph Motassem;
the Amorian War.
840. Third rebellion of the sons of the Frankish Emperor
Louis the Pious; his death; civil war.
841. Expedition of the Northmen up the Seine;
their capture of Rouen.
842. The Oath of Strasburg.
843. Conquest by the Mahometans of Messina in Sicily.
Partition Treaty of Verdun between the sons of the
Emperor Louis the Pious; formation of the realms of
Louis the German and Charles the Bald,
which grew into the kingdoms of Germany and France.
845. First attack of the Northmen on Paris;
their destruction of Hamburg.
846. Rome attacked by the Moslems.
847. Siege and capture of Bordeaux by the Northmen.
849. Birth of Alfred the Great (d. 901).
852. Revolt against the Moslems in Armenia.
854. Ravages of the Northmen on the Loire checked at Orleans.
855. Death of Lothaire, Emperor of the Franks, and civil war
between his sons.
First footing of the Danes established in England.
851. Deposition of Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
and elevation of Photius.
860. Discovery of Iceland by the Northmen. [Uncertain date.]
861. Formation of the Duchy of France;
origin of the House of Capet.
Paris surprised by the Northmen.
863. Papal decree against the Eastern Patriarch, Photius.
Creation of the County of Flanders by Charles the Bald.
864. Mission of Cyril and Methodius to the Slavonians.
865. First Varangian or Russian attack on Constantinople.
866. Beginning of the permanent conquests of the Danes in England.
871. Moslem fortress of Bari, in southern Italy,
surrendered to the Franks and Greeks.
Accession of Alfred the Great to the throne of Wessex.
815. Death of Louis II., Emperor of the Franks and king of Italy;
imperial coronation of Charles the Bald.
876. The Seine entered by the Northmen under Rollo.
817. Death of the Emperor, Charles the Bald,
and accession of Louis the Stammerer.
Founding of the kingdom of Provence by Count Boso.
878. Capture by the Moslems of Syracuse in Sicily.
880. Ravages of the Northmen in Germany;
battles of the Ardennes and Ebbsdorf.
Defeat of the Danes by the English King Alfred at Ethandun;
Peace of Wedmore. [Uncertain date.]
881. Accession of Charles the Fat, king of Germany and Italy.
884. Temporary reunion of the Empire of the Franks
under Charles the Fat.
885. Siege of Paris by the Northmen under Rollo.
881. Deposition of the Emperor, Charles the Fat.
888. Death of Charles the Fat and final disruption of the
Empire of the Franks;
founding of the kingdom of Transjurane Burgundy.
The crown of France in dispute between Eudes, Count of
Paris, and the Caroling heir, Charles the Simple.
889. Second siege of Paris by Rollo.
890. Third siege of Paris and siege of Bayeux by Rollo.
891. Defeat of the Danes at Louvain by King Arnulf.
894. Arnulf of Germany made Emperor.
890. Rome taken by the Emperor Arnulf.
898. Death of Eudes, leaving Charles the Simple sole
king of France.
899. Death of the Emperor Arnulf;
accession of Louis the Child to the German throne.
900. Italy ravaged in the north by the Hungarians.
{2746b}
TENTH CENTURY.
CONTEMPORANEOUS EVENTS.
A.D.
901. Death of the English king, Alfred the Great, and accession
of his son, Edward the Elder.
Founding of the Samanide dynasty in Khorassan.
904. Sergius III. made Pope;
beginning of the rule of the courtesans at Rome.
909. Founding of the Fatimite caliphate in Africa.
910. Founding of the monastery of Clugny in France.
911. Death of the Emperor Louis the Child, extinguishing
the Carolingian dynasty in Germany, and election of
Conrad the Franconian.
Defeat of the Northmen at Chartres in France;
cession of Normandy to Rollo.
912. Baptism of the Norman Duke Rollo.
914. Elevation of John X. to the papal throne by the courtesan,
Theodora. [Uncertain date.]
916. Imperial coronation in Italy of Berengar.
919. Election of the Saxon Duke, Henry the Fowler,
to the kingship of Germany.
Establishment of the Danish kingdom of Dublin.
923. The crown of France disputed with Charles the Simple
by Rudolph, of Burgundy.
924. Devastation of Germany by the Hungarians;
truce agreed upon for nine years.
Lapse of the imperial title on the death of Berengar.
Commendation of Scotland to the West Saxon King.
925. Death of the English king, Edward the Elder,
and accession of his son Ethelstan.
928. Overthrow and imprisonment of Pope John X.
by the courtesan Marozia. [Uncertain date.]
929. Death of Charles the Simple in France.
931. John XI., son of the courtesan Marozia,
made Pope. [Uncertain date.]
932. Domination of Rome by the Pope's brother, Alberic.
936. Election of Otho, called the Great,
to the throne of Germany.
Death of Rudolph of Burgundy and restoration of
the Carolingians to the French throne.
937. Ethelstan's defeat of Danes, Britons and Scots
at the battle of Brunnaburgh.
Invasion of France by the Hungarians.
940. Death of the English king, Ethelstan,
and accession of his brother Edmund.
946. Death of the English king, Edmund,
and accession of his brother Edred.
951. First expedition of Otho the Great into Italy;
founding of the Holy Roman Empire (afterwards so called).
954. Death of Alberic, tyrant of Rome, his son, Octavian,
succeeding him.
Death of the Carolingian king of France, Louis IV.,
called "d'Outremer";
accession of Lothaire.
955. Germany invaded by the Hungarians;
their decisive defeat on the Lech.
Death of the English king, Edred,
and accession of his nephew, Edwig.
956. Assumption of the Papal throne by Octavian, as John XII.
957. Revolt against the English king Edwig;
division of the kingdom with his brother Edgar.
[Uncertain date.]
959. Death of Edwig and accession of Edgar;
Abbot Dunstan made Archbishop of Canterbury.
961. The crown of Italy taken by Otho the Great, of Germany.
962. Imperial coronation of Otho the Great at Rome;
revival of the Western Empire.
963. Expulsion and deposition of Pope John XII.;
election of Leo VIII.
964. Expulsion of Pope Leo VIII.;
return and death of John XII.;
siege and capture of Rome by the Emperor.
965. Death of Pope Leo VIII.;
election, expulsion, and forcible restoration of John XIII.
967. Conquest of Egypt by the Fatimite caliph. [Uncertain date.]
969. Murder of the Eastern Emperor Nicephorus Phocas
by John Zimisces, his successor.
972. Marriage of Otho, the Western Emperor's son,
to the Byzantine princess, Theophano.
Death of Pope John XIII., and election of Pope Benedict VI.
973. Death of the Emperor Otho the Great;
accession of Otho II.
974. Murder of Pope Benedict VI.
975. Election of Pope Benedict VII.
Death of the English king Edgar;
accession of his son Edward the Martyr.
979. Death of Edward the Martyr;
accession of Ethelred the Unready. [Uncertain date.]
983. Death of the Emperor Otho II.;
accession of Otho III. to the German throne, under the
regency of his mother, Theophano.
First visit of Erik the Red to Greenland.
984. Election of Pope John XIV.
985. Murder of Pope John XIV.;
election of Pope John XV.
986. Death of Lothaire, king of France;
accession of his son Louis V.
987. Death of Louis V., the last of the Carolingian kings;
election of Hugh Capet.
988. Death of Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury.
Cherson acquired by the Romans.
991. Invasion of England by Vikings from Norway;
battle of Maldon.
996. Death of Hugh Capet, king of France;
accession of his son, Robert II.
Death of Pope John XV.;
election of Gregory V.
Imperial coronation of Otho III.
997. Insurrection of peasants in Normandy.
Rebellion of Crescentius in Rome;
expulsion of the Pope.
998. Overthrow of Crescentius at Rome.
Excommunication of King Robert of France.
999. Gerbert raised by the Emperor to the Papal chair,
as Sylvester II.
1000. Expectations of the end of the world.
Pilgrimages of the Emperor Otho.
Royal title conferred on Duke Stephen of Hungary,
by the Pope.
Christianity formally adopted in Iceland.
{2747}
ROME: A. D. 1077-1102.
Donation of the Countess Matilda to the Holy See.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.
ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.
Surrender to Henry IV.
Terrible Norman visitation.
Four years after his humiliation of himself before the pope at
Canossa (see CANOSSA), Henry IV. ("King of the Romans" and
claiming the imperial coronation, which the pope refused him),
entered Italy with an army to enforce his demands. He had
recovered his authority in Germany; the rival set up against
him was slain; northern Italy was strong in his support. For
three successive years Henry marched his army to the walls of
Rome and made attempts to enter, by force, or intrigue, or by
stress of blockade, and every year, when the heats of summer
came, he found himself compelled to withdraw. At last, the
Romans, who had stood firm by Gregory VII., tired of the
siege, or the gold which purchased their fidelity (some say)
gave out, and they opened their gates. Pope Gregory took
refuge in his impregnable Castle of St. Angelo, and Henry,
bringing with him the anti-pope whom his partisans had set up,
was crowned by the latter in the Church of St. Peter. But the
coveted imperial crown was little more than settled upon his
head when news came of the rapid approach of Robert Guiscard,
the Norman conqueror of southern Italy, with a large army, to
defend the legitimate pope. Henry withdrew from Rome in haste
and three days afterwards Robert Guiscard's army was under its
walls. The Romans feared to admit these terrible champions of
their pope; but the vigilance and valor of the Normans
surprised a gate, and the great city was in their power. They
made haste to conduct Gregory to his Lateran Palace and to
receive his blessing; then they "spread through the city,
treating it with an the cruelty of a captured town, pillaging,
violating, murdering, wherever they met with opposition. The
Romans had been surprised, not subdued. For two days and
nights they brooded over their vengeance; on the third day
they broke out in general insurrection. … The Romans fought at
advantage, from their possession of the houses and their
knowledge of the ground. They were gaining the superiority;
the Normans saw their peril. The remorseless Guiscard gave the
word to fire the houses. … The distracted inhabitants dashed
wildly into the streets, no longer endeavouring to defend
themselves, but to save their families. They were hewn down by
hundreds. … Nuns were defiled, matrons forced, the rings cut
from their living fingers. Gregory exerted himself, not
without success, in saving the principal churches. It is
probable, however, that neither Goth nor Vandal, neither Greek
nor German, brought such desolation on the city as this
capture by the Normans. From this period dates the desertion
of the older part of the city, and its gradual extension over
the site of the modern city, the Campus Martius. … Many
thousand Romans were sold publicly as slaves; many carried
into the remotest parts of Calabria." When Guiscard withdrew
his destroying army from the ruins of Rome, Gregory went with
him and never returned. He died not long after at Salerno.
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 7, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_A. F. Villemain,
Life of Gregory VII.,
book 9._
See, also,
GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122,
and PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122.
ROME: A. D. 1122-1250.
Conflict of the Popes with the Hohenstaufen Emperors.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.
ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.
The Republic of Arnold of Brescia.
Arnold of Brescia—so-called from his native city in
Lombardy—was a disciple of Abelard, and not so much a
religious as a political reformer. "On all the high mysterious
doctrines of the Church, the orthodoxy of Arnold was
unimpeachable; his personal life was that of the sternest
monk; he had the most earnest sympathy with the popular
religion. … He would reduce the clergy to their primitive and
apostolic poverty; confiscate all their wealth, escheat all
their temporal power. … His Utopia was a great Christian
republic, exactly the reverse of that of Gregory VII." In
1145, Arnold was at Rome, where his doctrines had gone before
him, and where the citizens had already risen in rebellion
against the rule of the pope. "His eloquence brought over the
larger part of the nobles to the popular side; even some of
the clergy were infected by his doctrines. The re~public,
under his influence, affected to resume the constitution of
elder Rome. … The Capitol was rebuilt and fortified; even the
church of St. Peter was sacrilegiously turned into a castle.
The Patrician took possession of the Vatican, imposed taxes,
and exacted tribute by violence from the pilgrims. Rome began
again to speak of her sovereignty of the world." The republic
maintained itself until 1155, when a bolder pope —the
Englishman, Adrian or Hadrian IV.—had mounted the chair of St.
Peter, and confronted Arnold with unflinching hostility. The
death of one of his Cardinals, killed in a street tumult, gave
the pope an opportunity to place the whole city under an
interdict. "Religion triumphed over liberty. The clergy and
the people compelled the senate to yield. Hadrian would admit
of no lower terms than the abrogation of the republican
institutions; the banishment of Arnold and his adherents. The
republic was at an end, Arnold an exile; the Pope again master
in Rome." A few months later, Arnold of Brescia, a prisoner in
the hands of Frederick Barbarossa, then coming to Rome for the
imperial crown, was given up to the Pope and was executed in
some summary way, the particulars of which are in considerable
dispute.
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 8. chapters 6-7._
ALSO IN:
_J. Miley,
History of the Papal States,
book 6._
ROME: A. D. 1155.
Tumult at the coronation of Frederick Barbarossa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
ROME: A. D. 1167.
The taking of the city by Frederick Barbarossa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1166-1167.
ROME: A. D. 1198-1216.
The establishing of Papal Sovereignty
in the States of the Church.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.
ROME: A. D. 1215.
The beginning in Italy of the strife of
the Guelphs and Ghibellines.
See ITALY: A. D. 1215.
{2748}
ROME: 13-14th Centuries.
The turbulence of the Roman nobles.
The strife of the Colonna and the Ursini.
"In the beginning of the 11th century Italy was exposed to the
feudal tyranny, alike oppressive to the sovereign and the
people. The rights of human nature were vindicated by her
numerous republics, who soon extended their liberty and
dominion from the city to the adjacent country. The sword of
the nobles was broken; their slaves were enfranchised; their
castles were demolished; they assumed the habits of society
and obedience. … But the feeble and disorderly government of
Rome was unequal to the task of curbing her rebellious sons,
who scorned the authority of the magistrate within and without
the walls. It was no longer a civil contention between the
nobles and plebeians for the government of the state. The
barons asserted in arms their personal independence; their
palaces and castles were fortified against a siege; and their
private quarrels were maintained by the numbers of their
vassals and retainers. In origin and affection they were
aliens to their country; and a genuine Roman, could such have
been produced, might have renounced these haughty strangers,
who disdained the appellation of citizens, and proudly styled
themselves the princes of Rome. After a dark series of
revolutions, all records of pedigree were lost; the
distinction of surnames was abolished; the blood of the
nations was mingled in a thousand channels; and the Goths and
Lombards, the Greeks and Franks, the Germans and Normans, had
obtained the fairest possessions by royal bounty or the
prerogative of valour. … It is not my design to enumerate the
Roman families which have failed at different periods, or
those which are continued in different degrees of splendour to
the present time. The old consular line of the Frangipani
discover their name in the generous act of breaking or
dividing bread in a time of famine; and such benevolence is
more truly glorious than to have enclosed, with their allies
the Corsi, a spacious quarter of the city in the chains of
their fortifications. The Savelli, as it should seem a Sabine
race, have maintained their original dignity; the obsolete
surname of the Capizucchi is inscribed on the coins of the
first senators; the Conti preserve the honour, without the
estate, of the counts of Signia; and the Annibaldi must have
been very ignorant, or very modest, if they had not descended
from the Carthaginian hero. But among, perhaps above, the
peers and princes of the city, I distinguish the rival houses
of Colonna and Ursini [or Orsini]. … About the end of the
thirteenth century the most powerful branch [of the Colonna]
was composed of an uncle and six brothers, all conspicuous in
arms or in the honours of the Church. Of these Peter was
elected senator of Rome, introduced to the Capitol in a
triumphant car, and hailed in some vain acclamations with the
title of Cæsar; while John and Stephen were declared Marquis
of Ancona and Count of Romagna by Nicholas IV., a patron so
partial to their family that he has been delineated in
satirical portraits, imprisoned, as it were, in a hollow
pillar. After his decease their haughty behaviour provoked the
displeasure of the most implacable of mankind. The two
cardinals, the uncle and the nephew, denied the election of
Boniface VIII.; and the Colonna were oppressed for a moment by
his temporal and spiritual arms. He proclaimed a crusade
against his personal enemies; their estates were confiscated;
their fortresses on either side of the Tiber were besieged by
the troops of St. Peter and those of the rival nobles; and
after the ruin of Palestrina, or Præneste, their principal
seat, the ground was marked with a ploughshare, the emblem of
perpetual desolation. …
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348].
Some estimate may be formed of their wealth by their losses,
of their losses by the damages of 100,000 gold florins which
were granted them against the accomplices and heirs of the
deceased pope. All the spiritual censures and
disqualifications were abolished by his prudent successors;
and the fortune of the house was more firmly established by
this transient hurricane. … But the first of the family in
fame and merit was the elder Stephen, whom Petrarch loved and
esteemed as a hero superior to his own times and not unworthy
of ancient Rome. … Till the ruin of his declining age, the
ancestors, the character, and the children of Stephen Colonna
exalted his dignity in the Roman republic and at the Court of
Avignon. The Ursini migrated from Spoleto; the sons of Ursus,
as they are styled in the twelfth century, from some eminent
person who is only known as the father of their race. But they
were soon distinguished among the nobles of Rome by the number
and bravery of their kinsmen, the strength of their towers,
the honours of the senate and sacred college, and the
elevation of two popes, Celestin III. and Nicholas III., of
their name and lineage. … The Colonna embraced the name of
Ghibellines and the party of the empire; the Ursini espoused
the title of Guelphs and the cause of the Church. The eagle
and the keys were displayed in their adverse banners; and the
two factions of Italy most furiously raged when the origin and
nature of the dispute were long since forgotten. After the
retreat of the popes to Avignon they disputed in arms the
vacant republic; and the mischiefs of discord were perpetuated
by the wretched compromise of electing each year two rival
senators. By their private hostilities the city and country
were desolated."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 69._
"Had things been left to take their natural course, one of
these families, the Colonna, for instance, or the Orsini,
would probably have ended by overcoming its rivals, and have
established, as was the case in the republics of Romagna and
Tuscany, a 'signoria,' or local tyranny, like those which had
once prevailed in the cities of Greece. But the presence of
the sacerdotal power, as it had hindered the growth of
feudalism, so also it stood in the way of such a development
as this, and in so far aggravated the confusion of the city."
_J. Bryce,
The Holy Roman Empire,
chapter 16._
ROME: A. D. 1300.
The Jubilee.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.
ROME: A. D. 1305-1377.
Withdrawal of the Papal court from Rome
and settlement at Avignon.
The "Babylonish Captivity."
See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348, to 1352-1378.
ROME: A. D. 1312.
Resistance to the entry and coronation of Henry VII.
See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
ROME: A. D. 1328.
Imperial coronation of Louis IV. of Bavaria.
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
{2749}
ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.
The revolution of Rienzi, the last Tribune.
"The Holy City had no government. She was no longer the
Imperial Rome, nor the Pontifical Rome. The Teutonic Cæsars
had abandoned her. The Popes had also fled from the sacred
hill of the Vatican to the slimy Gallic city, Avignon. … The
real masters of the city were the princes or barons, who dwelt
in their fortified castles in the environs, or their strong
palaces within. The principal among them were masters of
different parts of the city. The celebrated old family of the
Colonnas reigned, it may be said, over the north of the city,
towards the Quirinal. … The new family of the Orsini extended
their sway along the Tiber from the Campo-di-Fiore, to the
Church of St. Peter, comprising the castle of St. Angelo. The
Savelli, less powerful, possessed a part of the Aventine, with
the theatre of Marcellus, and the Conti, the huge tower which
bears their name, on Cæsar's Forum. Other members of the
nobility, in the country, were possessors of small fortified
cities, or castles. … Rome, subjected to such a domination,
had become almost deserted. The population of the seven-hilled
city had come down to about 30,000 souls. When the barons were
at peace with each other, which, however, was a rare
occurrence, they combined to exercise their tyranny over the
citizens and the serfs, to rob and plunder the farmers,
travellers, and pilgrims. Petrarch wrote to the Pope at this
period, that Rome had become the abode of demons, the
receptacle of all crimes, a hell for the living. … Rienzi was
then 28 years old. … His function of notary (assessore) to the
Roman tribunals, would seem to infer that he was considered a
peaceful, rational citizen. It appears, however, that he
brought in the exercise of his official duties, the excited
imagination and generosity of heart which characterized his
nature. He gloried in being surnamed the Consul of orphans, of
widows, and of the poor. His love for the humble soon became
blended with an intense hatred for the great: one of his
brothers was killed accidentally by a Roman baron, without his
being able to obtain any satisfaction. … Rienzi had always
been noted for his literary and poetical taste; he was
considered as deeply versed in the knowledge of antiquity, and
as the most skilful in deciphering and explaining the numerous
inscriptions with which Rome abounded. … The least remains of
antiquity became for him a theme of declamatory addresses to
the people, on the present state of Rome, on the iniquities
that surrounded him. Followed by groups that augmented daily,
and which listened to him with breathless interest, he led
them from ruin to ruin, to the Forum, to the tombs of the
Christian martyrs, thus associating every glory, and made the
hearts of the people throb by his mystical eloquence. … No
remedy being brought to the popular grievances, an
insurrection broke out. The senator was expelled; thirteen
good men (buoni uomini) were installed in the Capitol and
invested with dictatorial powers. It was a Guelfic movement;
Rienzi was mixed with it; but without any preeminent
participation. This new government resolved to send an embassy
to the Pope, at Avignon, and Rienzi formed part of it. Such
was the first real public act in the life of Cola di Rienzi.
The embassy was joined by Petrarch. … The Pope would not hear
of leaving his new splendid palace, and the gentle population
of Avignon, for the heap of ruins and the human turbulence of
Rome." But "Cardinal Aymeric was named to represent the Pope
at Rome, as Legate, and a Colonna and an Orsini invested with
the senatorial dignity, in order to restore order in the
Eternal City, in the name of the Pontiff. Rienzi indulged in
the most extravagant exultation. He wrote a highly
enthusiastic address to the Roman people. But his illusion was
not of long duration. The new Legate only attended to the
filling of the Papal Treasury. The nobility, protected by the
new senators, continued their course of tyranny. Rienzi
protested warmly against such a course of iniquities, in the
council. One day he spoke with a still greater vehemence of
indignation, when one of the members of the council struck him
in the face, others hissed out at him sneeringly, calling him
the Consul of orphans and widows. From that day he never
appeared at any of its meetings; his hatred had swollen, and
must explode. … He went straight to the people (popolo
minuto), and prepared a revolution. To render his exhortations
to the people more impressive, he made use of large
allegorical pictures, hastily drawn, and which form a curious
testimony of his mystical imagination, as well as of his
forensic eloquence. … Finally, he convoked the people at the
Capitol for the 20th of May, 1347, the day of Pentecost,
namely, under the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Rienzi had
heard, with fervour, thirty masses during the preceding night.
On that day he came out at 12 o'clock armed, with his head
uncovered, followed by 25 partisans; three unfurled standards
were carried before him, bearing allegorical pictures. This
time his address was very brief—merely stating, that from his
love for the Pope and the salvation of the people, he was
ready to encounter any danger. He then read the laws which
were to insure the happiness of Rome. They were, properly
speaking, a summary of reforms, destined to relieve the people
from their sufferings, and intended to realize, what he
proclaimed, must become the good state [or Good Estate], il
buono stato. … By this outline of a new constitution, the
people were invested, with the property and government of the
city as well as of its environs; the Pontifical See, bereft of
the power it had exercised during several centuries; and the
nobility deprived of what they considered as their property,
to assist the public poverty. The revolution could not be more
complete; and it is needless to add, that Rienzi was
clamorously applauded, and immediately invested with full
powers to realize and organize the buono stato, of which he
had given the programme. He declined the title of Rector, and
preferred the more popular name of Tribune. Nothing was fixed
as to the duration of this extraordinary popular magistracy.
The new government was installed at the Capitol, the Senators
expelled, and the whole revolution executed with such
rapidity, that the new Tribune might well be strengthened in
his belief that he was acting under the protection of the Holy
Ghost. He was careful, nevertheless, not to estrange the
Pontifical authority, and requested that the apostolical vicar
should be offered to be adjoined to him, which the prelate
accepted, however uncertain and perilous the honour appeared
to be.
{2750}
During the popular enthusiasm, old Stephen Colonna, with the
more formidable of the barons, who had been away, returned to
Rome in haste; he expressed publicly his scorn, and when the
order came from Rienzi for him to quit the city, he replied
that he would soon come and throw that madman out of one of
the windows of the Capitol. Rienzi ordered the bells to be
rung, the people instantly assembled in arms, and that
proudest of the barons was obliged to fly to Palestrina. The
next day it was proclaimed that all the nobles were to come,
to swear fealty to the Roman people, and afterwards withdraw
to their castles, and protect the public roads. John, the son
of old Colonna, was the first who presented himself at the
Capitol, but it was with the intention of braving and
insulting the Tribune. When he beheld the popular masses in
close array, he felt awed, and took the oath to protect the
people—protect the roads—succour the widows and orphans, and
obey the summons of the Tribune. The Orsini, Savelli, Gaetani,
and many others, came after him and followed his example.
Rienzi, now sole master, without opponents, gave a free course
to the allurements of authority. … The tolls, taxes, and
imposts which pressed upon the people were abolished by
Rienzi, in the first instance, and afterwards, the taxes on
the bridges, wine, and bread; but he endeavoured to compensate
such an enormous deficit by augmenting the tax on salt, which
was not yet unpopular, besides an impost on funded property.
He was thus making hasty, serious, even dangerous engagements
with the people, which it might not be in his power to keep. …
For the present, calmness and security were reigning in the
city. … The Tribune received the congratulations of all the
ambassadors; the changes he had effected appeared miraculous.
… He believed implicitly that he was the founder of a new era.
The homage profusely lavished upon him by all the Italian
Republics, and even by despotic sovereigns confirmed him in
his conviction. … One nobleman alone, the Prefect of Vico,
secretly supported by the agent of the Pontifical patrimony,
refused to submit and to surrender the three or four little
cities in his jurisdiction. Rienzi led rapidly against him an
army of 8,000 men, and attacked the rebellious Prefect so
suddenly and skilfully, that the latter surrendered
unconditionally. This success inflamed the head and
imagination of Rienzi, and with it commenced the mystical
extravagances and follies which could not fail to cause his
ruin."
_Prof. De Vericour,
Rienzi, the last of the Tribunes
Dublin University Magazine, 1860._
_Eclectic Magazine,
September, 1860._
"Rienzi's head was turned by his success. He assumed the pomp
of a sovereign. He distributed titles, surrounded himself with
ceremonies, and multiplied feasts and processions. … He
desired to be ennobled, and to have the title of Knight, as
well as Tribune. To celebrate his installation as Knight, a
splendid series of ceremonies was arranged," at the end of
which he "made an address, in which he cited the Pope, and
Lewis of Bavaria, and Charles of Bohemia, to give reasons for
any claims they had on Rome; and pointing his sword to three
points of the compass, he exclaimed, 'This is mine, and this
is mine, and this is mine.' … Folly had quite got the better
of him now, and his vanity was leading him swiftly to ruin. …
Shortly afterwards he issued a proclamation that he had
discovered a conspiracy against the people and himself, and
declared that he would cut off the heads of all those
concerned in it. The conspirators were seized and brought
forward, and among them were seen the chief of the princely
families of Rome. Solemn preparations were made for their
execution, when Rienzi, suddenly and without reason, not only
pardoned them all, but conferred upon them some of the most
important charges and offices of the state. No sooner were
these nobles and princes free out of Rome than they began
seriously to conspire to overthrow Rienzi and his government.
They assembled their soldiers, and, after devastating the
country, threatened to march upon Rome itself. The Tribune,
who was no soldier, attempted to intimidate his enemies by
threats; but finding that the people grew clamorous for
action, he at last took up arms, and made a show of advancing
against them. But after a few days, during which he did
nothing except to destroy still more of the Campagna, he
returned to Rome, clothed himself in the Imperial robes,. and
received a legate from the Pope. … His power soon began to
crumble away under him; and when, shortly afterwards, he
endeavoured to prevail upon the people to rise and drive out
the Count of Minorbino, who had set his authority at defiance,
he found that his day was past. … He then ordered the trumpets
of silver to sound, and, clothed in all his pomp, he marched
through Rome, accompanied by his small band of soldiers, and
on the 15th October, 1347, intrenched himself in the Castle
St. Angelo. Still the influence of his name and his power was
so great, that it was not till three days after that the
nobles ventured to return to Rome, and then they found that
Cola's power had vanished. It faded away like a carnival
pageant, as that gay procession entered the Castle St. Angelo.
There he remained until the beginning of March, and then fled,
and found his way to Civita Vecchia, where he stayed with a
nephew of his for a short time. But his nephew having been
arrested, he again returned to Rome secretly, and was
concealed in Castle St. Angelo by one of the Orsini who was
friendly to him and his party. … Cola soon after fled to
Naples, fearing lest he should be betrayed into the hands of
the Cardinals. Rome now fell into a state of anarchy and
confusion even worse than when he assumed the reins of power.
Revolutions occurred. Brigandage was renewed. … In 1353 Rienzi
returned with Cardinal Albornos, the legate of the Pope. He
was received with enthusiasm, and again installed in power.
But he was embarrassed in all his actions by the Cardinal, who
sought only to make use of him, while he himself exercised all
the power. The title of Senator of Rome was conferred on him,
and the people forgave him. … But Rienzi had lost the secret
of his power in losing his enthusiasm. … At last, in October
1353, a sedition broke out, and the mob rushed to the Capitol
with cries of 'Death to the traitor Rienzi!' … He appeared on
the balcony clothed in his armour as Knight, and, with the
standard of the people in his hand, demanded to be heard. But
the populace refused to listen to him. … At last he decided to
fly. Tearing off his robes, he put on the miserable dress of
the porter, rushed down the flaming stairs and through the
burning chambers, … and at last reached the third floor. … At
this very moment his arm was seized, and a voice said, 'Where
are you going?' He saw that all was lost.
{2751}
But, at bay, he did nothing mean. Again there was a flash of
heroic courage, not unworthy of him. He threw off his
disguise, and disdaining all subterfuges, said, 'I am the
Tribune!' He was then led out through the door … to the base
of the basalt lions, where he had made his first great call
upon the people. Standing there, undaunted by its tumultuous
cries, he stood for an hour with folded arms, and looked
around upon the raging crowd. At last, profiting by a lull of
silence, he lifted his voice to address them, when suddenly an
artisan at his side, fearing perhaps the result of his
eloquence, and perhaps prompted by revenge, plunged his pike
in his breast, and he fell. The wild mob rushed upon his
corpse."
_W. W. Story,
Castle St. Angelo,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 12, chapters 10-11 (volume 5)._
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 70._
ROME: A. D. 1367-1369.
Temporary return of Urban V. from Avignon.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.
ROME: A. D. 1377-1379.
Return of the Papal court.
Election of Urban VI. and the Great Schism.
Battles in the city.
Siege and partial destruction of Castle St. Angelo.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417.
ROME: A. D. 1405-1414.
Rising in the city and flight of Pope Innocent VII.
Sacking of the Vatican.
Surrender of the city to Ladislas, king of Naples.
Expulsion of the Neapolitans and their return.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.
ROME: A. D. 1447-1455.
The pontificate of Nicolas V.
Building of the Vatican Palace and
founding of the Vatican Library.
The Porcaro revolt.
See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
ROME: A. D. 1492-1503.
Under the Borgias.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.
ROME: A. D. 1494.
Charles VIII. and the French army in the city.
See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
ROME: A. D. 1526.
The city taken and the Vatican plundered
by the Colonnas and the Spaniards.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.
ROME: A. D. 1527.
The capture and the sacking of the city
by the army of Constable Bourbon.
Captivity of the Pope.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; 1527; and 1527-1529.
ROME: A. D. 1537-1563.
Inclinations towards the Reformation.
Catholic reaction.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.
ROME: A. D. 1600-1656.
The great families and the Roman population.
"A numerous, powerful, and wealthy aristocracy surrounded the
papal throne; the families already established imposed
restraints ou those that were but newly rising; from the
self-reliance and authoritative boldness of monarchy, the
ecclesiastical sovereignty was passing to the deliberation,
sobriety, and measured calmness of aristocratic government. …
There still flourished those old and long-renowned Roman
races, the Savelli, Conti, Orsini, Colonna, and Gaetani. … The
Colonna and Orsini made it their boast, that for centuries no
peace had been concluded between the princes of Christendom,
in which they had not been included by name. But however
powerful these houses may have been in earlier times, they
certainly owed their importance in those now before us to
their connection with the Curia and the popes. … Under
Innocent X., there existed for a considerable time, as it
were, two great factions, or associations of families. The
Orsini, Cesarini, Borghesi, Aldobrandini, Ludovisi, and
Giustiniani were with the Pamfili; while opposed to them, was
the house of Colonna and the Barberini. … In the middle of the
seventeenth century there were computed to be fifty noble
families in Rome of three hundred years standing, thirty-five
of two hundred, and sixteen of one hundred years. None were
permitted to claim a more ancient descent, or were generally
traced to an obscure, or even a low origin. … But by the side
of the old families there rose up various new ones. All the
cardinals and prelates of the Curia proceeded according to the
pope's example, and each in proportion to his means employed
the surplus of his ecclesiastical revenue for the
aggrandizement of his kindred, the foundation of a new family.
There were others which had attained to eminence by judicial
appointments, and many were indebted for their elevation to
being employed as bankers in the affairs of the Dataria.
Fifteen families of Florence, eleven from Genoa, nine
Portuguese, and four French, are enumerated as having risen to
more or less consideration by these means, according to their
good fortune or talents; some of them, whose reputation no
longer depended on the affairs of the day, became monarchs of
gold; as for example, the Guicciardini and Doni, who connected
themselves, under Urban VIII., with the Giustiniani, Primi,
and Pallavicini. But even, without affairs of this kind,
families of consideration were constantly repairing to Rome,
not only from Urbino, Rieti, and Bologna, but also from Parma
and Florence. … Returns of the Roman population are still
extant, and by a comparison of the different years, we find a
most remarkable result exhibited, as regards the manner in
which that population was formed. Not that its increase was
upon the whole particularly rapid, this we are not authorized
to assert. In the year 1600 the inhabitants were about
110,000; fifty-six years afterwards they were somewhat above
120,000, an advance by no means extraordinary; but another
circumstance here presents itself which deserves attention. At
an earlier period, the population of Rome had been constantly
fluctuating. Under Paul IV. it had decreased from 80,000 to
50,000; in a score or two of years it had again advanced to
more than 100,000. And this resulted from the fact that the
court was then formed principally of unmarried men, who had no
permanent abode there. But, at the time we are considering,
the population became fixed into settled families. This began
to be the case towards the end of the sixteenth century, but
took place more particularly during the first half of the
seventeenth. … After the return of the popes from Avignon, and
on the close of the schism, the city, which had seemed on the
point of sinking into a mere village, extended itself around
the Curia. But it was not until the papal families had risen
to power and riches—until neither internal discords nor
external enemies were any longer to be feared, and the incomes
drawn from the revenues of the church or state secured a life
of enjoyment without the necessity for labour, that a numerous
permanent population arose in the city."
_L. Ranke.
History of the Popes,
book 8, section 7 (volume 2)._
ROME: A. D. 1797-1798.
French intrigues and occupation of the city.
Formation of the Roman Republic.
Expulsion of the Pope.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797-1798 (DECEMBER-MAY).
{2752}
ROME: A. D. 1798 (November).
Brief expulsion of the French by the Neapolitans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
ROME: A. D. 1799.
Overthrow of the Roman Republic.
Expulsion of the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
ROME: A. D. 1800.
The Papal government re-established by Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).
ROME: A. D. 1808-1809.
Napoleon's quarrel with the Pope.
Captivity of Pius VII.
French occupation.
Declared to be a free and imperial city.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
ROME: A. D. 1810.
The title of King of Rome given to Napoleon's son.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
ROME: A. D. 1813.
Papal Concordat with Napoleon.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
ROME: A. D. 1814.
Occupation by Murat for the Allies.
Return of the Pope.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814:
and PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
ROME: A. D. 1815.
Restoration of the works of art taken by Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
ROME: A. D. 1831-1832.
Revolt of the Papal States, suppressed by Austrian troops.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
ROME: A. D. 1846-1849.
Liberal reforms of Pope Pius IX.
His breach with the extremists.
Revolution, and flight of the Pope.
Intervention of France.
Garibaldi's defense of the city.
Its capture and occupation by the French.
Overthrow of the Roman Republic.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
ROME: A. D. 1859-1861.
First consequences of the Austro-Italian war.
Absorption of the Papal States in the new kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
ROME: A. D. 1867-1870.
Garibaldi's attempt.
His defeat at Mentana.
Italian troops in the city.
The king of Italy takes possession of his capital.
See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870.
ROME: A. D. 1869-1870.
The (Ecumenical Council of the Vatican.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.
ROME: A. D. 1870-1871.
End of Papal Sovereignty.
Occupation of the city as the capital of the kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1867-1870;
and PAPACY: A. D. 1870.
----------ROME: End--------
ROMERS-WAALE, Naval battle of (1574).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.
ROMMANY.
See GYPSIES.
ROMULUS, Legendary founder of Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 753-510.
ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS,
The last Roman Emperor of the old line,
in the West, A. D. 475-476.
RONCAGLIA, The Diets of.
See ITALY: A. D. 961-1039.
RONCESVALLES, The ambuscade of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 778.
ROOD, Holy (or Black Rood) of Scotland.
See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.
ROOF OF THE WORLD.
The Pamir high plateau, which is a continuation of the Bolor
range, is called by the natives "Bamiduniya," or the Roof of
the World.
_T. E. Gordon,
The Roof of the World,
chapter 9._
ROOSEBECK OR ROSEBECQUE, Battle of (1382).
See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.
ROOT AND BRANCH BILL, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (MARCH-MAY).
RORKE'S DRIFT, Defense of (1879).
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.
ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1645-1652.
Siege and capture by the French.
Recovery by the Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646; and 1648-1652.
ROSAS, OR ROSES: A. D. 1808.
Siege and capture by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
ROSBACH, OR ROSSBACH, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).
ROSECRANS, General W. S.:
Command in West Virginia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);
and 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).
Command of the Army of the Mississippi.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
Battle of Stone River.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).
The Tullahoma campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).
Chickamauga.
Chattanooga campaign.
Displacement.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
ROSECRANS'S ADVANCE;
and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE)
Command in Missouri.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).
ROSES, Wars of the.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
ROSETTA STONE.
"The Rosetta Stone is a fragment of a stela discovered in the
year 1799 by M. Boussard, a French artillery officer, while
digging entrenchments round the town of that name. It contains
a copy of a decree made by the priests of Egypt, assembled at
Memphis, in honour of Ptolemy Epiphanes. This decree is
engraved on the stone in three languages, or rather in three
different writings. The first is the hieroglyphic, the grand
old writing of the monuments; the second is the demotic
character as used by the people; and the third is the Greek.
But the text in Greek character is the translation of the two
former. Up to this time, hieroglyphs had remained an
impenetrable mystery even for science. But a corner of the
veil was about to be lifted: in proceeding from the known to
the unknown, the sense at all events was at length to be
arrived at of that mysterious writing which had so long defied
all the efforts of science. Many erudite scholars tried to
solve the mystery, and Young, among others, very nearly
brought his researches to a satisfactory issue. But it was
Champollion's happy lot to succeed in entirely tearing a way
the veil. Such is the Rosetta Stone, which thus became the
instrument of one of the greatest discoveries which do honour
to the nineteenth century."
_A. Mariette-Bey,
Monuments of Upper Egypt (Itinéraire)
page 29._
See, also, HIEROGLYPHICS.
ROSICRUCIANS.
ILLUMINATI.
"About the year 1610, there appeared anonymously a little
book, which excited great sensation throughout Germany. It was
entitled, The Discovery of the Brotherhood of the Honourable
Order of the Rosy Cross, and dedicated to all the scholars and
magnates of Europe. It commenced with an imaginary dialogue
between the Seven Sages of Greece, and other worthies of
antiquity, on the best method of accomplishing a general
reform in those evil times.
{2753}
The suggestion of Seneca is adopted, as most feasible, namely
a secret confederacy of wise philanthropists, who shall labour
everywhere in unison for this desirable end. The book then
announces the actual existence of such an association. One
Christian Rosen Kreuz, whose travels in the East had enriched
him with the highest treasures of occult lore, is said to have
communicated his wisdom, under a vow of secrecy, to eight
disciples, for whom he erected a mysterious dwelling-place
called The Temple of the Holy Ghost. It is stated further,
that this long-hidden edifice had been at last discovered, and
within it the body of Rosen Kreuz, untouched by corruption,
though, since his death, 120 years had passed away. The
surviving disciples of the institute call on the learned and
devout, who desire to co-operate in their projects of reform,
to advertise their names. They themselves indicate neither
name nor place of rendezvous. They describe themselves as true
Protestants. They expressly assert that they contemplate no
political movement in hostility to the reigning powers. Their
sole aim is the diminution of the fearful sum of human
suffering, the spread of education, the advancement of
learning, science, universal enlightenment, and love.
Traditions and manuscripts in their possession have given them
the power of gold-making, with other potent secrets; but by
their wealth they set little store. They have arcana, in
comparison with which the secret of the alchemist is a trifle.
But all is subordinate, with them, to their one high purpose
of benefiting their fellows both in body and soul. … I could
give you conclusive reasons, if it would not tire you to hear
them, for the belief that this far-famed book was written by a
young Lutheran divine named Valentine Andreä. He was one of
the very few who understood the age, and had the heart to try
and mend it. … This Andreä writes the Discovery of the
Rosicrucian Brotherhood, a jeu-d'esprit with a serious
purpose, just as an experiment to see whether something cannot
be done by combined effort to remedy the defect and
abuses—social, educational, and religious, so lamented by all
good men. He thought there were many Andreäs scattered
throughout Europe—how powerful would be their united
systematic action! … Many a laugh, you may be sure, he enjoyed
in his parsonage with his few friends who were in the secret,
when they found their fable everywhere swallowed greedily as
unquestionable fact. On all sides they heard of search
instituted to discover the Temple of the Holy Ghost. Printed
letters appeared continually, addressed to the imaginary
brotherhood, giving generally the initials of the candidate,
where the invisibles might hear of him, stating his motives
and qualifications for entrance into their number, and
sometimes furnishing samples of his cabbalistic acquirements.
Still, no answer. Not a trace of the Temple. Profound darkness
and silence, after the brilliant flash which had awakened so
many hopes. Soon the mirth grew serious. Andreä saw with
concern that shrewd heads of the wrong sort began to scent his
artifice, while quacks reaped a rogue's harvest from it. … A
swarm of impostors pretended to belong to the Fraternity, and
found a readier sale than ever for their nostrums. Andreä
dared not reveal himself. All he could do was to write book
after book to expose the folly of those whom his handiwork had
so befooled, and still to labour on, by pen and speech, in
earnest aid of that reform which his unhappy stratagem had
less helped than hindered. … Confederacies of pretenders
appear to have been organized in various places; but Descartes
says he sought in vain for a Rosicrucian lodge in Germany. The
name Rosicrucian became by degrees a generic term, embracing
every species of occult pretension,—arcana, elixirs, the
philosopher's stone, theurgic ritual, symbols, initiations. In
general usage the term is associated more especially with that
branch of the secret art which has to do with the creatures of
the elements. … And from this deposit of current mystical
tradition sprang, in great measure, the Freemasonry and
Rosicrucianism of the 18th century,—that golden age of secret
societies. Then flourished associations of every imaginable
kind, suited to every taste. … Some lodges belonged to
Protestant societies, others were the implements of the
Jesuits. Some were aristocratic, like the Strict Observance;
others democratic, seeking in vain to escape an Argus-eyed
police. Some—like the Illuminati under Weishaupt Knigge, and
Von Zwackh, numbering (among many knaves) not a few names of
rank, probity, and learning—were the professed enemies of
mysticism and superstition. Others existed only for the
profitable juggle of incantations and fortune-telling. … The
best perished at the hands of the Jesuits, the worst at the
hands of the police."
_R. A. Vaughan,
Hours with the Mystics,
book 8, chapter 9 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volume 4, pages 483-504._
_T. Frost,
The Secret Societies of the European Revolution,
volume 1, chapter 1._
_A. P. Marras,
Secret Fraternities of the Middle Ages,
chapter 8._
ROSLIN, Battle of.
One of the minor battles fought in the Scottish "war of
independence," with success to the Scots, A. D. 1302.
ROSSBACH,
ROSBACH, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).
ROSSBRUNN, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
ROSTOCK:
The founding of the city.
See HANSA TOWNS.
ROSY CROSS, The Honourable Order of the.
See ROSICRUCIANS.
ROTENNU,
RUTENNU,
RETENNU, The.
"The Syrian populations, who, to the north of the Canaanites
[17th century B. C.], occupied the provinces called in the
Bible by the general name of Aram, as far as the river
Euphrates, belonged to the confederation of the Rotennu, or
Retennu, extending beyond the river and embracing all
Mesopotamia ( Naharaina). … The Rotennu had no well-defined
territory, nor even a decided unity of race. They already
possessed powerful cities, such as Nineveh and Babylon, but
there were still many nomadic tribes within the ill-defined
limits of the confederacy. Their name was taken from the city
of Resen, apparently the most ancient, and originally the most
important, city of Assyria. The germ of the Rotennu
confederation was formed by the Semitic Assyro-Chaldæan
people, who were not yet welded into a compact monarchy."
_F. Lenormant,
Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
book 3, chapter 3._
ROTHIERE, Battle of La.
See FRANCE A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
{2754}
ROTOMAGUS.
Modern Rouen.
See BELGÆ.
RÖTTELN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1638).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
ROTTEN BOROUGHS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830; and 1830-1832.
ROTTWEIL: Siege and capture by the French (1643).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.
----------ROUEN: Start--------
ROUEN:
Origin of the city and name.
See BELGÆ.
ROUEN: A. D. 841.
First destructive visit of the Northmen.
See NORMANS: A. D. 841.
ROUEN: A. D. 845.
Second capture by the Northmen.
See PARIS: A. D.845.
ROUEN: A. D. 876-91 I.
Rollo's settlement.
See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.
ROUEN: A. D. 1418-1419.
Siege and capture by Henry V. of England.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
ROUEN: A. D. 1431.
The burning of the Maid of Orleans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.
ROUEN: A. D. 1449.
Recovery from the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.
ROUEN: A. D. 1562.
Occupied by the Huguenots and retaken by the Catholics.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
ROUEN: A. D. 1591-1592.
Siege by Henry IV., raised by the Duke of Parma.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
ROUEN: A. D. 1870.
Taken by the Germans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
----------ROUEN: End--------
ROUM,
ICONIUM,
NICÆA, The Sultans of.
See TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092.
ROUMANI,
ROMÚNI, The.
See DACCA: A. D. 102-106.
ROUMANIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-18TH CENTURIES.
ROUMELIA, Eastern.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878,
TREATIES OF SAN STEFANO AND MADRID;
and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878, to 1878-1886.
ROUND TABLE, Knights of the.
See ARTHUR, KING.
ROUND TOWERS OF IRELAND.
"At various periods between the sixth and twelfth centuries
(some of them still later, but the greater number, perhaps, in
the ninth and tenth centuries), were erected those singular
buildings, the round towers, which have been so enveloped in
mystery by the arguments and conjectures of modern
antiquaries. … The real uses of the Irish round towers, both
as belfries and as ecclesiastical keeps or castles, have been
satisfactorily established by Dr. Petrie, in his important and
erudite work on the ecclesiastical architecture of Ireland. …
These buildings were well contrived to supply the clergy with
a place of safety for themselves, the sacred vessels, and
other objects of value, during the incursions of the Danes,
and other foes; and the upper stories, in which there were
four windows, were perfectly well adapted for the ringing of
the largest bells then used in Ireland."
_M. Haverty,
History of Ireland,
page 115._
ALSO IN:
_S. Bryant,
Celtic Ireland,
chapter 7._
ROUNDHEADS.
The Parliamentary or popular party in the great English civil
war were called Roundheads because they generally wore their
hair cut short, while the Cavaliers of the king's party held
to the fashion of flowing locks. According to the
Parliamentary clerk Rushworth, the first person who applied
the name was one David Hyde, who threatened a mob of citizens
which surrounded the Houses of Parliament on the 27th of
December, 1641, crying "No Bishops," that he would "cut the
throats of these round-headed dogs."
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 2, book 2, chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_Mrs. Hutchinson,
Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson (1642)._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (OCTOBER).
ROUSSEAU, and educational reform.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1762.
ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1639.
Situation of the county.
Invasion by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1037-1640.
ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1642.
French conquest.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
ROUSSILLON: A. D. 1659.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
ROUTIERS The.
See WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.
ROXOLANI, The.
A people, counted among the Sarmatians, who occupied anciently
the region between the Don and the Dnieper, —afterwards
encroaching on Dacian territory. They were among the
barbarians who troubled the Roman frontier earliest, and were
prominent in the wars which disturbed the reign of Marcus
Aurelius. Later, they disappeared in the flood of Gothic and
Hunnish invasion, partly by absorption, it is supposed, and
partly by extermination.
ROYAL ROAD OF ANCIENT PERSIA, The.
"Herodotus describes the great road of the Persian period from
Ephesos by the Cilician Gates to Susa. It was called the
'Royal Road,' because the service of the Great King passed
along it; and it was, therefore, the direct path of
communication for all government business. … It is an accepted
fact that in several other cases roads of the Persian Empire
were used by the Assyrian kings long before the Persian time,
and, in particular, that the eastern part of the 'Royal Road,'
from Cilicia to Susa, is much older than the beginning of the
Persian power. … Herodotus represents it as known to
Aristagoras, and therefore, existing during the 6th century,
B. C., and the Persians had had no time to organise a great
road like this before 500; they only used the previously
existing road. Moreover, the Lydian kings seem to have paid
some attention to their roads, and perhaps even to have
measured them, as we may gather from Herodotus's account of
the roads in the Lycus valley, and of the boundary pillar
erected by Crœsus at Kydrara."
_W. M. Ramsay,
Historical Geography of Asia Minor,
part 1, chapter 2._
ROYAL TOUCH, The.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.
RUBICON, Cæsar's passage of the.
See ROME: B. C. 50-49.
RUCANAS, The.
See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
RUDOLPH,
King of France, A. D. 923-936.
Rudolph I., King of Germany-called Emperor
(the first of the House of Hapsburg), 1273-1291.
Rudolph II., Archduke of Austria and King of Hungary, 1576-1606;
King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1576-1612.
{2755}
RUGBY SCHOOL.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.
RUGII, The.
A coast tribe in ancient Germany who seem to have occupied the
extreme north of Pomerania and who probably gave their name to
the Isle of Rugen.
_Church and Brodribb,
Geographical Notes to the Germany of Tacitus._
In the fifth century, after the breaking up of the empire of
Attila, the Hun, a people called the Rugii, and supposed to be
the same, were occupying a region embraced in modern Austria.
There were many Rugians among the barbarian auxiliaries in the
Roman army, and some of the annalists place among the number
Odoacer, who gave the extinguishing blow to the empire.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 8._
RULE OF ST. BENEDICT.
See BENEDICTINE ORDERS.
RUMP, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
RUNJIT SINGH,
RANJIT SINGH,
The conquests of.
See SIKHS.
RUNNYMEDE.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.
RUPERT, OR ROBERT (of the Palatine).
King of Germany, A. D. 1400-1410.
RUPERT'S LAND.
See CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.
RUSCINO.
The ancient name of modern Roussillon.
RUSSELL, Lord John, Ministries of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1846; 1851-1852; 1865-1868.
RUSSELL, Lord William, Execution of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
----------RUSSIA: Start--------
RUSSIA: A. D. 862.
Scandinavian Origin of the name and the National Organization.
"'In the year 859,' says Nestor [the oldest Russian
chronicler, a monk of Kiev, who wrote early in the 12th
century] 'came the Varangians from beyond the sea and demanded
tribute from the Chud and from the Slavonians, the Meria, the
Ves, and the Krivichi; but the Khazars took tribute of the
Polians, the Severians and of the Viatichi.' Then he
continues: 'In the year 862 they drove the Varangians over the
sea, and paid them no tribute, and they began to govern
themselves, and there was no justice among them, and clan rose
against clan, and there was internal strife between them, and
they begun to make war upon each other. And they said to each
other: Let us seek for a prince who can reign over us and
judge what is right. And they went over the sea to the
Varangians, to Rus, for so were these Varangians called: they
were called Rus as others are called Svie (Swedes), others
Nurmane (Northmen, Norwegians), others Angliane (English, or
Angles of Sleswick?), others Gote (probably the inhabitants
of the island of Gothland). The Chud, the Slavonians, the
Krivichi, and the Ves said to Rus: Our land is large and rich,
but there is no order in it; come ye and rule and reign over
us. And three brothers were chosen with their whole clan, and
they took with them all the Rus, and they came. And the
eldest, Rurik, settled in Novgorod, and the second, Sineus,
near Bielo-ozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. And the
Russian land, Novgorod, was called after these Varangians;
they are the Novgorodians of Varangian descent; previously the
Novgorodians were Slavonians. But after the lapse of two years
Sineus and his brother Truvor died and Rurik assumed the
government and divided the towns among his men, to one
Polotsk, to another Rostov, to another Bielo-ozero.' Such is
Nestor's naive description of the foundation of the Russian
state. If it be read without prejudice or sophistical comment,
it cannot be doubted that the word Varangians is used here as
a common term for the inhabitants of Scandinavia, and that Rus
was meant to be the name of a particular Scandinavian tribe;
this tribe, headed by Rurik and his brothers, is said to have
crossed the sea and founded a state whose capital, for a time,
was Novgorod, and this state was the nucleus of the present
Russian empire. Next, Nestor tells us that in the same year
two of Rurik's men, 'who were not of his family,' Askold and
Dir, separated themselves from him with the intention to go to
Constantinople. They went down the Dnieper; but when they
arrived at Kiev, the capital of the Polians, who at that time
were tributary to the Khazars, they preferred to stay there,
and founded in that town an independent principality. Twenty
years after, in 882, this principality was incorporated by
Rurik's successor, Oleg: by a stratagem he made himself master
of the town and killed Askold and Dir, and from this time
Kiev, 'the mother of all Russian towns,' as it was called,
remained the capital of the Russian state and the centre of
the Russian name. … From the time historical critics first
became acquainted with Nestor's account, that is to say from
the beginning of the last century, until about fifteen or
twenty years ago [written in 1877], scarcely anyone ventured
to doubt the accuracy of his statement. Plenty of evidence was
even gradually produced from other sources to corroborate in
the most striking manner the tradition of the Russian
chronicles."
_V. Thomsen,
Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
lecture 1._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 55._
_R. G. Latham,
The Germany of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
section 18._
RUSSIA: A. D. 865.
First attack of the Russians on Constantinople.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865.
RUSSIA: A. D. 865-900.
Early relations with the Byzantine Empire.
"The first Russian naval expedition against Constantinople in
865 would probably have been followed by a series of
plundering excursions, like those carried on by the Danes and
Normans on the coasts of England and France, had not the
Turkish tribe called the Patzinaks rendered themselves masters
of the lower course of the Dnieper, and become instruments in
the hands of the emperors to arrest the activity of the bold
Varangians. The northern rulers of Kief were the same rude
warriors that infested England and France, but the Russian
people was then in a more advanced state of society than the
mass of the population in Britain and Gaul. The majority of
the Russians were freemen; the majority of the inhabitants of
Britain and Gaul were serfs.
{2756}
The commerce of the Russians was already so extensive as to
influence the conduct of their government, and to modify the
military ardour of their Varangian masters. … After the defeat
in 865, the Russians induced their rulers to send envoys to
Constantinople to renew commercial intercourse, and invite
Christian missionaries to visit their country; and no
inconsiderable portion of the people embraced Christianity,
though the Christian religion continued long after better
known to the Russian merchants than to the Varangian warriors.
The commercial relations of the Russians with Cherson and
Constantinople were now carried on directly, and numbers of
Russian traders took up their residence in these cities. The
first commercial treaty between the Russians of Kief and the
Byzantine empire was concluded in the reign of Basil I. The
intercourse increased from that time."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
book 2, chapter 2, section 1._
RUSSIA: A. D. 907-1043.
Wars, commerce and church connection with the Byzantines.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043.
RUSSIA: 10TH Century.
The introduction of Christianity.
See CHRISTIANITY: 10TH CENTURY.
RUSSIA: A. D. 980-1054.
Family divisions and their consequence.
"Under Wladimir I. (980-1015), and under Jaroslaf I.
(1019-1054), the power of the grand-duchy of Kiew was
respectable. But Jaroslaf having divided it between his sons
conduced to enfeeble it. In the 12th century, the supremacy
passed from the grand-duchy of Kiew to the grand-duchy of
Wladimir, without extricating Russia from division and
impotence. The law of primogeniture not existing in Russia,
where it was not introduced into the Czarean family until the
14th century, the principalities were incessantly divided."
_S. Menzies,
History of Europe,
chapter. 36._
RUSSIA: A. D. 988.
Acquisition of Cherson.
See CHERSON: A. D. 988.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1054-1237.
The early Russian territory and its divisions.
"It must not be forgotten that the oldest Russia was formed
mainly of lands which afterwards passed under the rule of
Poland and Lithuania. … The Dnieper, from which Russia was
afterwards cut off, was the great central river of the elder
Russia; of the Don and the Volga she held only the upper
course. The northern frontier barely passed the great lakes of
Ladoga and Onega, and the Gulf of Finland itself. It seems not
to have reached what was to be the Gulf of Riga, but some of
the Russian princes held a certain supremacy over the Finnish
and Lettish tribes of that region. In the course of the 11th
century, the Russian state, like that of Poland, was divided
among princes of the reigning family, acknowledging the
superiority of the great prince of Kief. In the next century
the chief power passed from Kief to the northern Vladimir on
the Kiasma. Thus the former Finnish land of Susdal on the
upper tributaries of the Volga became the cradle of the second
Russian power. Novgorod the Great, meanwhile, under elective
princes, claimed, like its neighbour Pskof, to rank among
commonwealths. Its dominion was spread far over the Finnish
tribes to the north and east; the White Sea, and, far more
precious, the Finnish Gulf, had now a Russian seaboard. It was
out of Vladimir and Novgorod that the Russia of the future was
to grow. Meanwhile a crowd of principalities, Polotsk,
Smolensk, the Severian Novgorod, Tchernigof, and others, arose
on the Duna and Dnieper. Far to the east arose the
commonwealth of Viatka, and on the frontiers of Poland and
Hungary arose the principality of Halicz or Galicia, which
afterwards grew for a while into a powerful kingdom. Meanwhile
in the lands on the Euxine the old enemies, Patzinaks and
Chazars, gave way to the Cumans, known in Russian history as
Polovtzi and Parthi. They spread themselves from the Ural
river to the borders of Servia and Danubian Bulgaria, cutting
off Russia from the Caspian. In the next century Russians and
Cumans—momentary allies—fell before the advance of the
Mongols, commonly known in European history as Tartars. Known
only as ravagers in the lands more to the west, over Russia
they become overlords for 250 years. All that escaped
absorption by the Lithuanian became tributary to the Mongol.
Still the relation was only a tributary one; Russia was never
incorporated in the Mongol dominion, as Servia and Bulgaria
were incorporated in the Ottoman dominion. But Kief was
overthrown; Vladimir became dependent; Novgorod remained the
true representative of free Russia in the Baltic lands."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 11, section 2._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1235.
Formation of the grand-duchy of Lithuania,
embracing a large area of Russian territory.
See LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1239.
Mongol conquest.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.
Prosperity and greatness of Novgorod as a commercial republic.
Two centuries of Tartar domination.
Growing power of Lithuania and Poland.
Rise of the Duchy of Moscow,
the nucleus of the future Russian Empire.
"Alone among the cities the ancient Novgorod has boasted its
exemption from plunder [at the hands of the Tartars]. The
great city, though fallen since the days of Rurik from being
the capital of an Empire, had risen to the dignity of a
Republic. It had found wealth in trade; and at successive
epochs had introduced the riches of Constantinople to the
North, the merchandise of the great Hanse Towns to the South.
It had profited by the example, and had emulated the
prosperity, of the rich cities of Germany. It had striven also
to attain their freedom; and, though still continuing to
acknowledge a vague allegiance to the Russian Princes, it had
been able, by its wealth and its remoteness from control, to
win or to assume privileges, until it had resembled Bremen or
Lubeck in the sovereignty of its assemblies, and had surpassed
those cities by the assumption of a style declaratory of its
independence. It boasted further of a prince, St. Alexander
Nevsky, to whom a glorious victory over the Swedes had already
given a name, and whose virtues were hereafter to enrol him
among the Saints; and it had a defence in the marshes and
forests which surrounded it and which had already once
deterred the invaders. But even the great city could not
continue to defy the Tartar horde, and its submission is at
once the last and most conclusive proof of the supremacy of
their power. Thenceforth the nation felt the bitterness of
servitude. The Tartars did not occupy the country they had
conquered; they retired to establish their settlements upon
the Volga, where they became known as the Golden Horde: but
they exacted the tribute and the homage of the Russian
Princes. …
{2757}
Five centuries have been unable to obliterate the traces which
this period has imprinted upon the national character. The
Tartars oppressed and extorted tribute from the Russian
princes; the princes in their turn became the oppressors and
extortioners of their people. Deceit and lying, the refuge of
the weak, became habitual. Increasing crime and increasing
punishments combined to brutalise the people. The vice of
drunkenness was universal. Trade indeed was not extinguished;
and religion prospered so abundantly that of all the many
monasteries of Russia there are but few that do not owe their
origin to this time. … Meanwhile the provinces of the West
were falling into the hands of other enemies. The Tartar wave
had swept as far as Poland, but it had then recoiled, and had
left the countries westward of the Dnieper to their fate. All
links of the connection that had bound these regions to the
Princes of Vladimir, were now broken. Vitepsk, Polotsk,
Smolensk, and even provinces still nearer Moscow, were
gradually absorbed by the growing power of Lithuania, which,
starting from narrow limits between the Dwina and the Niemen,
was destined to overshadow Russia.
See LITHUANIA: A. D. 1235.
The provinces of the South for a time maintained a certain
unity and independence under the name of the Duchy of Halicz
or Kief; but these also, through claims of inheritance or
feudal right, became eventually merged in the dominions of
their neighbours. Poland obtained Black Russia, which has
never since returned to its earlier masters. Lithuania
acquired Volhynia and Red Russia, and thus extended her wide
empire from the Baltic as far as the Red Sea. Then came the
union of these powers by the acceptance in 1383 of the Grand
Duke Jagellon as King of Poland; and all hopes for the Russian
princes of recovering their possessions seemed lost. The
ancient empire of Yaroslaf was thus ended; and its history is
parted from that of mediæval Russia by the dark curtain of two
centuries in which the Russian people were a race but not a
nation. The obscure descendants of Rurik still occupied his
throne, and ruled with some appearance of hereditary
succession. They even chose this period of their weakness to
solace their vanity by the adoption of the style of Sovereigns
of All the Russias. But they were the mere vassals of the
Golden Horde. … It was not until the reign of Dimitry IV.,
that any sign was shown of reviving independence. Time, by
weakening the Tartars, had then brought freedom nearer to the
Russians. The Horde, which had been united under Bati, when it
had first precipitated itself upon Europe, had become divided
by the ambition of rebellious Khans, who had aspired to
establish their independent power; and the Russians had at
length a prince who was able to profit by the weakness of his
enemies. Dimitry, who reigned from 1362 to 1389, is celebrated
as having checked the divisions which civil strife and
appanages had inflicted upon his country, and as having also
gloriously repulsed the Lithuanians from the walls of Moscow,
now rising to be his capital. But his greatest deed, and that
by which he lives in the remembrance of every Russian, is his
victory upon the Don, which gave to him thenceforth the name
of Donskoi. The Tartars, indignant at his prominence, had
united with the Lithuanians. For the first time the Russians
turned against their tyrants, and found upon the field of
Khoulikof [1383] that their freedom was still possible. They
did not achieve indeed for many years what they now began to
hope. Their strength was crippled by renewed attacks of
Tartars from the south and of Lithuanians from the west; and
they could not dare to brave the revengeful enmity of the
Horde. For a hundred years they still paid tribute, and the
successors of Dimitry still renewed their homage at the camp
upon the Volga. But progress gradually was made. The Grand
Prince Vassili Dimitrievitch [1389-1425] was able to extend
his rule over a territory that occupied the space of six or
seven of the modern governments round Moscow; and though the
country, under Vassili Vassilievitch [1425-1462], became
enfeebled by a renewal of civil strife, the increasing
weakness of the Tartar power continued to prepare the way for
the final independence that was accomplished by the close of
the 15th century. The reign of Ivan III. became the opening of
a new epoch in Russian history. He restored his people, long
sunk out of the gaze of Europe, to a place among its nations,
and recalled them in some degree from the barbarism of the
East to the intercourse and civilization of the West. The
Russia of old time was now no more; but the Grand Prince, or
Duke of Moscow, as he was called, was still the heir of Rurik
and of Yaroslaf, and in the growth of his Duchy their Empire
reappeared. … Without the fame of a warrior, but with the
wisdom of a statesman, with a strong hand and by the help of a
long reign, he built up out of the fragments that surrounded
Him an Empire that exceeded vastly that of his immediate
predecessor. … The fall of the republic of Novgorod [1478] and
the final extinction of the Golden Horde, are the events which
are most prominent. Riches had been the bane of the great
city. They had fostered insolence, but they had given a
distaste for war. The citizens had often rebelled; they had
accepted the protection of Lithuania, and had later meditated,
and even for a time accomplished, a union with Poland. But
they had had no strength to defend the liberty to which they
had aspired. … When Ivan advanced, determined, as he said, to
reign at Novgorod as he reigned at Moscow, they were unable to
repel or to endure a siege, and they surrendered themselves
into his hand. Once he had pardoned them; now their
independence was taken from them. Their assembly was
dissolved; their great bell, the emblem of their freedom, was
carried to Moscow. The extinction of the Golden Horde was due
to time and policy, rather than to any deeds which have
brought glory to the Russian people.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
Released in this manner from the most dangerous both of
domestic and of foreign foes the power of Ivan rapidly
advanced. The broad province of Penn, that had begun to boast
a half accomplished independence, had been early forced to
acknowledge her subjection. The Khan of Kazan was now made
tributary; and the rule of Ivan was extended from the Oural to
the Neva. Provinces, as important, though less extensive, were
acquired in the south. The Russian princes and cities that had
preserved their independence were all, with the one exception of
Riazan, compelled to acknowledge the sovereignty of Moscow. …
{2758}
At the same time the Lithuanians were thrust back. Their
greatness had gone by; and the territories of Tula, Kalouga,
and Orel now ceasing to own allegiance to a declining power,
were incorporated with the rising Empire. That Empire had
already reached the Dnieper, and was already scheming to
recover the ancient capital of its princes."
_C. F. Johnstone,
Historical Abstracts,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
chapters 8-14 (volume 1)._
RUSSIA: 15th Century.
Effects of the Tartar domination.
Sources of autocracy.
"The invasion of the Mongols, in the beginning of the 13th
century, snapped the thread of Russia's destinies. … Nature,
after preparing the invasion, herself marked its bounds. The
Tatars, now masters of the steppes in the southeast, which
felt to them very much like home, grew ill at ease as soon as
they began to lose themselves in the forests of the north.
They did not settle there. These regions were too European to
suit their half-nomadic habits, and they cared more for
tribute-payers than for subjects. So the 'kniazes' received
their principalities back from the hands of the Mongols—as
fiefs. They had to submit to the presence near their person of
a sort of Tatar 'residents,'—the 'baskàks,' whose duty it was
to take the census and to collect the taxes. They were
compelled to take the long, long journey to the 'Horde,' often
encamped in the heart of Asia, in order to receive their
investiture from the successors of Djinghiz, and ended by
becoming the vassals of a vassal of the 'Great-Khan.' At this
price Russia retained her religion, her dynasties, and—thanks
to her clergy and her princes—her nationality. Never yet was
nation put through such a school of patience and abject
submission. … Under this humiliating and impoverishing
domination the germs of culture laid in the old principalities
withered up. … The Tatar domination developed in the Russians
faults and faculties of which their intercourse with Byzance
had already brought them the germs, and which, tempered by
time, have since contributed to develop their diplomatic
gifts. … The oppression by man, added to the oppression by the
climate, deepened certain traits already sketched in by nature
in the Great-Russian's soul. Nature inclined him to
submission, to endurance, to resignation; history confirmed
these inclinations. Hardened by nature, he was steeled by
history. One of the chief effects of the Tatar domination and
all that makes up Russian history, is the importance given to
the national worship. … The domination of an enemy who was a
stranger to Christianity fortified the sufferers' attachment
to their worship. Religion and native land were merged into
one faith, took the place of nationality and kept it alive. It
was then that the conception sprang up which still links the
quality of Russian to the profession of Greek orthodoxy, and
makes of the latter the chief pledge of patriotism. … Upon
Russia's political sovereignty the Tatar domination had two
parallel effects: it hastened national unity and it
strengthened autocracy. The country which, under the appanage
system, was falling to pieces, was bound together by foreign
oppression as by a chain of iron. Having constituted himself
suzerain of the 'Grand-Kniazes,' whom he appointed and
dethroned at will, the Khan conferred on them his authority.
The Asiatic tyranny of which they were the delegates empowered
them to govern tyrannically. Their despotism over the Russians
was derived from their servitude under the Tatars. … Every
germ of free government, whether aristocratic or democratic,
was stifled. Nothing remained but one power, the
'Velíki-Kniaz,' the autocrat,—and such now, after more than
500 years, still is the basis of the state."
_A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
The Empire of the Tsars and the Russians,
part 1, book 4, chapter 3._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
From Ivan the Terrible to Peter the Great.
The Poles at Moscow.
Origin of the dynasty of the Romanoffs.
"Apart from the striking and appalling character of Ivan
himself, whom Mickiewicz, the Polish poet, calls, in his
lectures on the Slavonians, 'the most finished tyrant known in
history—frivolous and debauched like Nero, stupid and
ferocious like Caligula, full of dissimulation like Tiberius
or Louis XI.,' the reign of Ivan the Terrible is interesting
as marking the beginning of the intercourse between Russia and
Western Europe, and especially between Russia and England. The
natural approach to Russia from the west was, of course,
through Poland; but the Poles impeded systematically, and for
political reasons, the introduction of arts and artificers
into Russia, and Sigismund wrote a letter to Elizabeth,
warning her against the Muscovite power as a danger to
civilization, only not formidable for the moment because it
was still semi-barbarous. Ivan the Terrible was the third of
the independent Tsars; and already under Ivan, sometimes
called the 'Great'—to whom indeed belongs the honour of having
finally liberated Russia from the Tartar yoke—endeavours had
been made to enter into relations with various European
nations. Foreigners, too, were encouraged to visit Russia and
settle there. The movement of foreigners towards Russia
increased with each succeeding reign; and beginning with the
first Tsar of Muscovy it became much more marked under the
third, that Ivan the Terrible, under whose reign the mariners
in the service of the English company of 'merchant
adventurers' entered the White Sea, and, in their own
language, 'discovered' Russia. Russia was, indeed, until that
time, so far as Western Europe was concerned, an unknown land,
cut off from Western civilization for political and warlike
reasons by the Poles, and for religious reasons by the
Catholic Church. On the 18th of March, 1584, Ivan was sitting
half dressed, after his bath, 'solacing himself and making
merie with pleasant songs, as he used to doe.' He called for
his chess-board, had placed the men, and was just setting up
the king, when he fell back in a swoon and died. … The death
of Ivan was followed by strong dislike against the English at
Moscow; and the English diplomatist and match-maker, Sir
Jerome Bowes, after being ironically informed that 'the
English king was dead,' found himself seized and thrown into
prison. He was liberated through the representations of
another envoy, who pointed out that it would be imprudent to
excite Elizabeth's wrath; and though for a time intercourse
between Russia and Western Europe was threatened, through the
national hatred of foreigners as manifested by the councillors
of the Tsar, yet when the weak-minded Feodor fell beneath the
influence of his brother-in-law Boris Godounoff, the previous
policy, soon to become traditional, of cultivating relations
with Western Europe, was resumed. …
{2759}
Nineteen years have yet to pass before the election of the
first of the Romanoffs to the throne; for strange as it may
seem, the first member of the dynasty of the Romanoffs was
chosen and appointed to the imperial rule by an assembly
representing the various estates. Meanwhile the order of
succession had been broken. Several pretenders to the throne
had appeared, one of whom, Demetrius, distinctively known as
the 'Imposter,' attained for a time supreme power. Demetrius,
married to a Polish lady, Marina Mniszek, was aided by her
powerful family to maintain his position in Moscow; for the
Mniszeks assembled and sent to the Russian capital a body of
4,000 men. Then Ladislas [son of the king] of Poland
interfered, and after a time [1610] Moscow fell beneath the
power of the Poles.
See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
Soon, however, the national feeling of Russia was aroused. A
butcher, or cattle dealer of Nijni Novgorod, named Minin,
whose patriotism has made him one of the most popular figures
in Russian history, got together the nucleus of a national
army, and called upon the patriotic nobleman, Prince Pojarski,
to place himself at its head. Pojarski and Minin marched
together to Moscow, and their success in clearing the capital
of the foreign invaders [1612] is commemorated by a group of
statuary which stands in the principal square of Moscow. …
Among the tombs of the metropolitans buried in … [the
cathedral of the Assumption at Moscow] are those of Philaret
and Hermogenes, who were thrown into prison by the Poles for
refusing to consent to the accession of Ladislas, the Polish
prince, to the Russian throne. Hermogenes died soon after his
arrest. Philaret, at the expulsion of the Poles, was carried
away captive by them in their retreat from Moscow (1612), and
was kept nine years a prisoner in Poland. On his return to
Russia, he found his son, Michael Feodorovitch, elected to the
throne. The belief, then, of the Russian people in Michael's
patriotism, seems to have been founded on a knowledge of the
patriotism of his father. The surname of the metropolitan who
had defied the Polish power and had suffered nine years'
imprisonment in Poland was Romanoff; Philaret was the name he
had adopted on becoming a monk. His baptismal name was Feodor,
and hence the patronymic Feodorovitch attached to the name of
Michael, the first of the Romanoffs. There is little to say
about the reign of Michael Feodorovitch, the circumstances
having once been set forth under which he was elected to the
vacant throne; and his son and successor, Alexis
Michailovitch, is chiefly remembered as father of Peter the
Great."
_H. S. Edwards,
The Romanoffs,
chapters 1-2._
ALSO IN:
_W. K. Kelly,
History of Russia,
chapters 13-19 (volume 1)._
_P. Mérimée,
Demetrius the Imposter._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.
Assumption of the title, Czar, or Tzar,
by the Grand Prince of Moscow.
"In January 1547, Ivan [IV., known as Ivan the Terrible]
ordered the Metropolitan Macarius to proceed with his
coronation. He assumed at the ceremony not only the title of
Grand Prince, but that of Tzar. The first title no longer
answered to the new power of the sovereign of Moscow, who
counted among his domestics, princes and even Grand Princes.
The name of Tzar is that which the books in the Slavonic
language, ordinarily read by Ivan, give to the kings of Judæa,
Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, and to the emperors of Rome and
Constantinople. Now, was not Ivan in some sort the heir of the
Tzar Nebuchadnezzar, the Tzar Pharaoh, the Tzar Ahasuerus, and
the Tzar David, since Russia was the sixth empire spoken of in
the Apocalypse? Through his grandmother Sophia Palæologus, he
was connected with the family of the Tzars of Byzantium;
through his ancestor Vladimir Monomachus, he belonged to the
Porphyrogeniti; and through Constantine the Great, to Cæsar. …
We may imagine what prestige was added to the dignity of the
Russian sovereign by this dazzling title, borrowed from
Biblical antiquity, from Roman majesty, from the orthodox
sovereigns of Byzantium."
_A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 1, chapter 15._
"This title [Czar] … is not a corruption of the word 'Cæsar,'
as many have supposed [see CÆSAR, THE TITLE], but is an old
Oriental word which the Russians acquired through the Slavonic
translation of the Bible, and which they bestowed at first on
the Greek emperors, and afterwards on the Tartar Khans. In
Persia it signifies throne, supreme authority; and we find it
in the termination of the names of the kings of Assyria and
Babylon, such as Phalassar, Nabonasser, &c.—Karamsin."
_W. K. Kelly,
History of Russia,
volume 1, page 125, foot-note._
"Von Hammer, in his last note to his 31st book, says, 'The
title Czar or Tzar is an ancient title of Asiatic sovereigns.
We find an instance of it in the title 'The Schar,' of the
sovereign of Gurdistan; and in that of Tzarina … of the
Scythians.'"
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
page 213, foot-note._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.
First collision with the Turks.
Their repulse from Astrakhan.-
Moscow stormed and sacked by the Crim Tartars.
Peace with the Porte.
At the time (1566) of the accession of Selim II. to the
Ottoman throne, the Russians "had been involved in fierce and
frequent wars with the Sultan's vassals, the Crim Tartars; but
the Porte had taken no part in these contests. But the bold
genius of the Vizier Sokolli now attempted the realisation of
a project, which, if successful, would have barred the
southern progress of Russia, by firmly planting the Ottoman
power on the banks of the Don and the Volga, and along the
shores of the Caspian Sea. … Sokclli proposed to unite the
rivers Don and Volga by a canal, and then send a Turkish
armament up the sea of Azoph and the Don, thence across by the
intended channel to the Volga, and then down the latter river
into the Caspian; from the southern shores of which sea the
Ottomans might strike at Tabriz and the heart of the Persian
power. … Azoph already belonged to the Turks, but in order to
realise the great project entertained it was necessary to
occupy Astrakhan also. Accordingly, 3,000 Janissaries and
20,000 horse were sent [1569] to besiege Astrakhan, and a
cooperative force of 30,000 Tartars was ordered to join them,
and to aid in making the canal. 5,000 Janissaries and 3,000
pioneers were at the same time sent to Azoph to commence and
secure the great work at its western extremity. But the
generals of Ivan the Terrible did their duty to their stern
master ably in this emergency. The Russian garrison of
Astrakhan sallied on its besiegers, and repulsed them with
considerable loss.
{2760}
And a Russian army, 15,000 strong, under Prince Serebinoff,
came suddenly on the workmen and Janissaries near Azoph, and
put them to head-long flight. It was upon this occasion that
the first trophies won from the Turks came into Russian hands.
An army of Tartars, which marched to succour the Turks, was
also entirely defeated by Ivan's forces; and the Ottomans,
dispirited by their losses and reverses, withdrew altogether
from the enterprise. … Russia was yet far too weak to enter on
a war of retaliation with the Turks. She had subdued the
Tartar Khanates of Kasan and Astrakhan; but their kinsmen of
the Crimea were still formidable enemies to the Russians, even
without Turkish aid. It was only two years after the Ottoman
expedition to the Don and Volga that the Khan of the Crimea
made a victorious inroad into Russia, took Moscow by storm,
and sacked the city (1571). The Czar Ivan had, in 1570, sent
an ambassador, named Nossolitof, to Constantinople, to
complain of the Turkish attack on Astrakhan, and to propose
that there should be peace, friendship, and alliance between
the two empires. … The Russian ambassador was favourably
received at the Sublime Porte, and no further hostilities
between the Turks and Russians took place for nearly a
century."
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 11._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1577-1580.
Conquests by the Poles.
See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1578-1579.
Yermac's conquest of Siberia.
See SIBERIA.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1613-1617.
War with Sweden.
Cession of territory, including the site of St. Petersburg.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1652.
Allegiance of the Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred from the
King of Poland to the Czar.
See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.
The great schism, known as the Rascol.
"In the reign of Alexis took place the great revision of the
Bible, carried out by the energy of Nicon, the Patriarch, who,
finding that the church-books were full of ridiculous blunders
caused by ignorant copyists, procured a quantity of the best
Greek manuscripts from Mount Athos, and other places. In 1655,
and the following year, he summoned two councils of the
church, at which the newly translated service-books were
promulgated and the old ones called in. In consequence of this
change, a great schism took place in the Russian Church, a
number of people attaching a superstitious veneration to the
old books, errors and all. Thus was formed the large sect of
the Staro-obriadtsi or Raskolniks, still existing in Russia,
who have suffered great persecutions at many periods of her
history."
_W. R. Morfill,
The Story of Russia,
chapter 6._
"The most important innovation, which afterwards became the
symbol and the war-cry of the religious rebellion, referred to
the position of the fingers in making the sign of the cross.
The Russians of Nicon's time when they crossed themselves held
two fingers together, while the Oriental churches and the
Greeks enjoined their adherents to cross themselves with three
fingers united into one point. The two-fingered cross of the
Muscovites was used in the Orient only for giving the priestly
benediction. … Patriarch Nicon was anxious to return to
ancient traditions. Reserving the two-fingered cross for
priestly benedictions only, he re-established the
three-fingered Greek cross, or, as his opponents called it,
'the pinch-of-snuff cross,' for the private act of devotion.
Then, too, in certain cases, for instance in stamping the
round wafers, he introduced the use of the equilateral,
four-sided cross. … The Russians celebrated the mass on seven
wafers, while the Greeks and Orientals used only five. In the
processions of the Church the Russians were in the habit of
first turning their steps westward—going with the sun; the
Greeks marched eastward—against the sun. In all these points
Patriarch Nicon conformed to the traditions of the Greek
mother-church. In conformity with this rule, moreover, he
directed that the hallelujahs should be 'trebled,' or sung
thrice, as with the Greeks, the Russians having up till then
only 'doubled' it—singing, instead of the third hallelujah,
its Russian equivalent, 'God be praised.' Finally, or we
should rather say above all, Nicon introduced a fresh spelling
of the name of Jesus. The fact is that, probably in
consequence of the Russian habit of abbreviating some of the
commonest scriptural names, the second letter in the name
Jesus had been dropped altogether; it was simply spelt Jsus,
without any sign of abbreviation. Patriarch Nicon corrected
this orthographical error, replacing the missing letter. Was
this all? Yes, this was all. As far as doctrinal matters were
concerned, nothing more serious was at stake in the great
religious schism of the 17th century, known by the name of the
Rascol. And yet it was for these trifles—a letter less in a
name, a finger more in a cross, the doubling instead of the
trebling of a word—that thousands of people, both men and
women, encountered death on the scaffold or at the stake. It
was for these things that other scores of thousands underwent
the horrible tortures of the knout, the strappado, the rack,
or had their bodies mutilated, their tongues cut, their hands
chopped off."
_Stepniak,
The Russian Peasantry
(American edition),
pages 237-239._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1686-1696.
War of the Holy League against the Turks.
Capture of Azov.
First foothold on the Black Sea acquired.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1689.
Accession of Peter the Great.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1697-1704.
Peter the Great: his travels in pursuit of knowledge;
his apprenticeship to the useful arts;
his civilizing work in Muscovy.
"Many princes before [Peter the Great] had renounced crowns,
wearied out with the intolerable load of public affairs; but
no man had ever divested himself of the royal character, in
order to learn the art of governing better: this was a stretch
of heroism which was reserved for Peter the Great alone. He
left Russia in [1697], having reigned as yet but [a few]
years, and went to Holland disguised under a common name, as
if he had been a menial servant of that same Lefort, whom he
sent in quality of ambassador-extraordinary to the
States-General. As soon as he arrived at Amsterdam, he
enrolled his name among the shipwrights of the admiralty of
the Indies, and wrought in the yard like the other mechanics.
At his leisure hours he learned such parts of the mathematics
as are useful to a prince,—fortification, navigation, and the
art of drawing plans. He went into the workmen's shops, and
examined all their manufactures: nothing could escape his
observation.
{2761}
From thence he passed over into England, where having
perfected himself in the art of ship-building, he returned to
Holland, carefully observing every thing that might turn to
the advantage of his country. At last, after two years of
travel and labor, to which no man but himself would have
willingly submitted, he again made his appearance in Russia,
with all the arts of Europe in his train. Artists of every
kind followed him in abundance. Then were seen, for the first
time, large Russian ships in the Baltic, and on the Black Sea
and the ocean. Stately buildings, of a regular architecture,
were raised among the Russian huts. He founded colleges;
academies, printing-houses, and libraries. The cities were
brought under a regular police. The dress and customs of the
people were gradually changed, though not without some
difficulty; and the Muscovites learned by degrees the true
nature of a social state. Even their superstitious rites were
abolished; the dignity of the patriarch was suppressed; and
the czar declared himself the head of the Church. This last
enterprise, which would have cost a prince less absolute than
Peter both his throne and his life, succeeded almost without
opposition, and insured to him the success of all his other
innovations. After having humbled an ignorant and a barbarous
clergy, he ventured to make a trial of instructing them,
though, by that means, he ran the risk of rendering them
formidable. … The czar not only subjected the Church to the
State, after the example of the Turkish emperors, but, what
was a more masterly stroke of policy, he dissolved a militia
of much the same nature with that of the janizaries: and what
the sultans had attempted in vain, he accomplished in a short
time: he disbanded the Russian janizaries, who were called
Strelitz, and who kept the czars in subjection. These troops,
more formidable to their masters than to their neighbors,
consisted of about 30,000 foot, one half of which remained at
Moscow, while the other was stationed upon the frontiers. The
pay of a Strelitz was no more than four roubles a year; but
this deficiency was amply compensated by privileges and
extortions. Peter at first formed a company of foreigners,
among whom he enrolled his own name, and did not think it
below him to begin the service in the character of a drummer,
and to perform the duties of that mean office; so much did the
nation stand in need of examples! By degrees he became an
officer. He gradually raised new regiments; and, at last,
finding himself master of a well-disciplined army, he broke
the Strelitz, who durst not disobey. The cavalry were nearly
the same with that of Poland, or France, when this last
kingdom was no more than an assemblage of fiefs. The Russian
gentlemen were mounted at their own expense, and fought
without discipline, and sometimes without any other arms than
a sabre or a bow, incapable of obeying, and consequently of
conquering. Peter the Great taught them to obey, both by the
example he set them and by the punishments he inflicted; for
he served in the quality of a soldier and subaltern officer,
and as czar he severely punished the Boyards, that is, the
gentlemen, who pretended that it was the privilege of their
order not to serve but by their own consent. He established a
regular body to serve the artillery, and took 500 bells from
the churches to found cannon. … He was himself a good
engineer; but his chief excellence lay in his knowledge of
naval affairs: he was an able sea-captain, a skilful pilot, a
good sailor, an expert shipwright, and his knowledge of these
arts was the more meritorious, as he was born with a great
dread of the water. In his youth he could not pass over a
bridge without trembling. … He caused a beautiful harbor to be
built at the mouth of the Don, near Azof, in which he proposed
to keep a number of galleys; and some time after, thinking
that these vessels, so long, light, and flat, would probably
succeed in the Baltic, he had upwards of 300 of them built at
his favorite city of Petersburg. He showed his subjects the
method of building ships with fir only, and taught them the
art of navigation. He had even learned surgery, and, in a case
of necessity, has been known to tap a dropsical person. He was
well versed in mechanics, and instructed the artists. … He was
always travelling up and down his dominions, as much as his
wars would allow him; but he travelled like a legislator and
natural philosopher, examining nature everywhere, endeavoring
to correct or perfect her; sounding with his own hands the
depths of seas and rivers, repairing sluices, visiting docks,
causing mines to be searched for, assaying metals, ordering
accurate plans to be drawn, in the execution of which he
himself assisted. He built, upon a wild and uncultivated spot,
the imperial city of Petersburg. … He built the harbor of
Cronstadt, on the Neva, and Sainte-Croix, on the frontiers of
Persia; erected forts in the Ukraine and Siberia; established
offices of admiralty at Archangel, Petersburg, Astrakhan, and
Azof; founded arsenals, and built and endowed hospitals. All
his own houses were mean, and executed in a bad taste; but he
spared no expenses in rendering the public buildings grand and
magnificent. The sciences, which in other countries have been
the slow product of so many ages, were, by his care and
industry, imported into Russia in full perfection. He
established an academy on the plan of the famous societies of
Paris and London. … Thus it was that a single man changed the
face of the greatest empire in the universe. It is however a
shocking reflection, that this reformer of mankind should have
been deficient in that first of all virtues, the virtue of
humanity. Brutality in his pleasures, ferocity in his manners,
and cruelty in his punishments, sullied the lustre of so many
virtues. He civilized his subjects, and yet remained himself a
barbarian. He would sometimes with his own hands execute
sentences of death upon the unhappy criminals; and, in the
midst of a revel, would show his dexterity in cutting off
heads."
_Voltaire,
History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,
book 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. L. Motley,
Peter the Great._
_E. Schuyler,
Peter the Great,
volume 1._
_A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
The Empire of the Tsars,
part 1, book 4, chapter 4._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1699.
The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.
Possession of Azov confirmed.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1700.
Aggressive league with Poland and Denmark
against Charles XII. of Sweden.
Defeat at Narva.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1701-1706.
War with Charles XII. of Sweden in Poland and Livonia.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
{2762}
RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.
The founding of St. Petersburg.
"Immediately after the capture of Nyenskanz [1703], a council
of war was convened to consider the question of defending and
utilising the mouth of the Neva, and whether it would be
better to strengthen the little fort which had just been
taken, or to seek a fit site for a commercial town nearer the
sea. The latter course was decided upon. Near its mouth the
Neva takes a sharp turn and divides into three or four
branches, which by subsequent redivision form a number of
islands, large and small. These marshy islands, overgrown with
forests and thickets, and liable to be covered with water
during the westerly winds, were inhabited by a few Finnish
fishermen, who were accustomed to abandon their mud huts at
the approach of high water, and seek a refuge on the higher
ground beyond. It was on the first of these islands, called by
the Finns Yanni-Saari, or Hare Island, where the river was
still broad and deep, that Peter laid the foundation of a
fortress and a city, named St. Petersburg, after his patron
saint. … For this work many carpenters and masons were sent
from the district of Novgorod, who were aided by the soldiers.
Wheelbarrows were unknown (they are still little used in
Russia), and in default of better implements the men scraped
up the earth with their hands, and carried it to the ramparts
on pieces of matting or in their shirts. Peter wrote to
Ramodanofsky, asking him to send the next summer at least
2,000 thieves and criminals destined for Siberia, to do the
heavy work under the direction of the Novgorod carpenters. At
the same time with the construction of the bastions, a church
was built in the fortress and dedicated to St. Peter and St.
Paul. … Just outside of the fortress Peter built for himself a
small hut, which he called his palace. It was about fifty-five
feet long by twenty wide, built of logs roofed with shingles,
and contained only three rooms, lighted by little windows set
in leaden frames. In respect for this, his earliest residence
in St. Petersburg, Peter subsequently had another building
erected outside of it to preserve it from the weather, and in
this state it still remains, an object of pilgrimage to the
curious and devout. … In spite of disease and mortality among
the men, in spite of the floods, which even in the first year
covered nearly the whole place and drowned some who were too
ill to move, the work went on. But in its infancy St.
Petersburg was constantly in danger from the Swedes, both by
sea and land. … St. Petersburg was the apple of Peter's eye.
It was his 'paradise,' as he often calls it in his letters. It
was always an obstacle, and sometimes the sole obstacle, to
the conclusion of peace. Peter was willing to give up all he
had conquered in Livonia and Esthonia, and even Narva, but he
would not yield the mouth of the Neva. Nevertheless, until the
war with Sweden had been practically decided by the battle of
Poltava, and the position of St. Petersburg had been thus
secured, although it had a certain importance as a commercial
port, and as the fortress which commanded the mouth of the
Neva, it remained but a village. The walls of the fortress
were finally laid with stone, but the houses were built of
logs at the best, and for many years, in spite of the marshy
soil, the streets remained unpaved. If fate had compelled the
surrender of the city, there would not have been much to
regret. Gradually the idea came to Peter to make it his
capital. In 1714 the Senate was transported thither from
Moscow, but wars and foreign enterprises occupied the Tsar's
attention, and it was not until 1718 that the colleges or
ministries were fully installed there, and St. Petersburg
became in fact the capital of the Empire."
_E. Schuyler,
Peter the Great,
chapter 46 (volume 2)._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1707-1718.
Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
His intrigues with the Turks.
Unlucky expedition of the Czar into Moldavia.
Russian conquests in the north.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1721.
The Peace of Nystad with Sweden.
Livonia and other conquests of Peter the Great secured.
Finland given up.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
[IMAGE:
CENTRAL EUROPE IN 1715
AFTER THE TREATIES OF UTRECHT AND RASTADT.
FRANCE.[IN 1643]
ACQUIRED BY FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XIV.
HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.
HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.
DANISH POSSESSIONS.
HOUSE OF HOLSTEEN-GOTTORP.
ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
STATES OF THE CHURCH.
THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]
[IMAGE:
EASTERN EUROPE IN 1715.
SHOWING SOME PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES.
HABSBURG POSSESSIONS.
HOHENZOLLERN POSSESSIONS.
VENETIAN POSSESSIONS.
DANISH AND NORWEGIAN POSSESSIONS.
SWEDISH POSSESSIONS.
RUSSIA.
POLAND.
THE EASTERN BOUNDARY UP THE EMPIRE IS SHOWN
BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]
RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
The reigns of Catherine I., Peter II., and Anne Ivanovna.
Fruitless war with Turkey.
Depredations in the Crimea.
"The death of Peter found the Russian Court divided into two
powerful factions. The reactionary party, filled with Russians
of the old school, who had looked upon the reforms of Peter
with no favourable eye, such as the Golitsins and the
Dolgorukis, were anxious to raise to the throne Peter, the son
of Alexis [Peter the Great's son, whom he had caused to be put
to death], a mere boy; whereas the party of progress, led by
Menshikov, wished that Catherine, the Tsar's widow, should
succeed. … The party of reform finally triumphed. Catherine
was elected the successor of her husband, and the chief
authority fell into the hands of Alexander Menshikov. … The
brief reign of Catherine is distinguished only by two events
which added any glory to Russia. The Academy of Sciences was
founded in 1726, and Behring, a Dane, was sent on an exploring
expedition to Kamchatka. He has left his name indelibly
written on the geography of the world. … The Empress died on
the 17th of May, 1727, a little more than two years after her
accession to the throne, aged about 39 years. … A ukase of
Peter permitted Catherine to choose her successor. She
accordingly nominated Peter, the son of the unfortunate
Alexis, and, in default of Peter and his issue, Elizabeth and
Anne, her daughters. Anne died in 1728, the year after her
mother; she had married Karl Friedrich, the Duke of Holstein,
… and was the mother of the unfortunate Peter III. Menshikov
was appointed the guardian of the young Tsar till he had
reached the age of 17." In four months Menshikov was in
disgrace and the young Tsar had signed a ukase which condemned
him to Siberian banishment. He died in 1729, and was followed
to the grave a year later by the boy autocrat whose fiat had
been his ruin. On the death of Peter II., the will of
Catherine, in favor of her daughters, was set aside, and the
Council of the Empire conferred the crown on Anne [Anne
Ivanovna], the widowed Duchess of Courland, who was a daughter
of Ivan, elder brother of Peter the Great. An attempt was made
to impose on her a constitution, somewhat resembling the Pacta
Conventa of the Poles, but she evaded it. "The Empress threw
herself entirely into the hands of German favourites,
especially a Courlander of low extraction, named Biren, said
to have been the son of a groom. … The Empress was a woman of
vulgar mind, and the Court was given up to unrefined orgies. …
{2763}
Her reign was not an important one for Russia either as
regards internal or foreign affairs. The right of
primogeniture which had been introduced into the Russian law
of real property by Peter the Great, was abolished; it was
altogether alien to the spirit of Slavonic institutions. A
four years' war with Turkey led to no important results."
_W. R. Morfill,
The Story of Russia,
chapter 8._
"The Russians could have no difficulty in finding a pretence
for the war [with Turkey], because the khan of the Turkish
allies and dependents, the Tatars on the coast of the Black
Sea and the Sea of Asof, and in the Crimea, could never wholly
restrain his wandering hordes from committing depredations and
making incursions into the neighbouring pasture-lands of
Russia. … In 1735 a Russian corps marched into the Crimea,
ravaged a part of the country, and killed a great number of
Tatars; but having ventured too far without a sufficient stock
of provisions, they were obliged to retreat, and sustained so
great a loss in men that what had been accomplished bore no
proportion to this misfortune. The almost total failure of
this first attempt, which had cost the Russians 10,000 men, by
no means deterred them from pursuing their designs of
conquest. Count Munich marched with a large army from the
Ukraine into the Crimea (1730). The Tatars … suffered the
Russian troops to advance unmolested, thinking themselves safe
behind their entrenchments. … But entrenchments of that kind
were unable to resist the impetuosity of the Russian troops.
They were surmounted; the Tatars repulsed; and a great part of
the Crimea lay at the mercy of the conquerors. In the month of
June they entered the Crimean fortress of Perekop. The Russian
troops now retaliated the devastations committed by the Tatars
in the Empire; but they found it impossible to remain long. …
Whatever the army was in want of had to be fetched with
extreme difficulty from the Ukraine; so that Munich at length
found himself, towards autumn, under the necessity of
withdrawing with his troops by the shortest way to the
Ukraine. … While Munich was in the Crimea, endeavouring to
chastise the Tatars for their depredations, Lascy had
proceeded with another army against Asof. The attack proved
successful; and on the 1st of July the fort of Asof had
already submitted to his arms. … The Ottomans published a
manifesto against Russia, but they were neither able
afterwards to protect the Crimea nor Moldavia, for they were
soon threatened with an attack from Austria also. By the
treaty with Russia, the emperor was bound to furnish 30,000
auxiliaries in case of a war with the Turks; but a party in
the Austrian cabinet persuaded the emperor that it would be
more advantageous to make war himself. … In the year 1737 a
new expedition was undertaken from the Ukraine at an immense
cost. … A new treaty had been concluded with Austria before
this campaign, in which the two empires agreed to carry on the
war in common, according to a stipulated plan. In order to
gain a pretence for the war, Austria had previously acted as
if she wished to force her mediation upon the Turks. The first
year's campaign was so unfortunate that the Austrians were
obliged to give up all idea of prosecuting their operations,
and to think of the protection and defence of their own
frontiers." But "the Russians were every where victorious, and
made the names of their armies a terror both in the east and
the west. Lascy undertook a new raid into the Crimea. Munich
first threatened Bender, then reduced Otchakof without much
difficulty, and left a few troops behind him when he withdrew
… who were there besieged by a large combined army of Turks
and Tatars, supported by a fleet. The Russians not only
maintained the fortress, which was, properly speaking,
untenable, but they forced the Turks to retire with a loss of
10,000 men. The Russian campaign in 1738 was as fruitless, and
cost quite as many men, as the Austrian, but it was at least
the means of bringing them some military renown." In 1739, the
Russians, under Munich, advanced in the direction of Moldavia,
violating Polish territory. "The Turkish and Tatar army which
was opposed to the Russians was beaten and routed [at
Stavoutchani] on the first attack. … Immediately afterwards
the whole garrison, struck with a panic, forsook the fortress
of Khotzim, which had never been once attacked, and it was
taken possession of by the Russians, who were astonished at
the ease of the conquest. Jassy was also taken, and Munich
even wished to attack Bender, when the news of the peace of
Belgrade … made him infuriate, because he saw clearly enough
that Russia alone was not equal to carry on the war. … By the
peace of Belgrade, Austria not only suffered shame and
disgrace, but lost all the possessions which had been gained
by Eugene in the last war, her best military frontier, and her
most considerable fortresses. … By virtue of this treaty,
Austria restored to Turkey Belgrade, Shabacz, the whole of
Servia, that portion of Bosnia which had been acquired in the
last war, and Austrian Vallachia. Russia was also obliged to
evacuate Khotzim and Otchakof; the fortifications of the
latter were, however, blown up; as well as those of Perekop;
Russia retained Asof, and a boundary line was determined,
which offered the Russians the most favourable opportunities
for extending their vast empire southward, at the cost of the
Tatars and Turks."
_W. K. Kelly,
History of Russia,
chapter 33 (volume 1)._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1726-1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1732-1733.
Interference in the election of king of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
Two regencies and two revolutions.
The reign of Empress Elizabeth.
The Empress Anne died in 1740. Her deceased sister, Catherine,
had left a daughter, Anna, married to Anthony Ulrich, Prince
of Brunswick, and this daughter had an infant son, Ivan. By
the will of the Empress the child Ivan was named as her
successor, and Biren was appointed Regent. He enjoyed the
regency but a short time, when he was overcome by a palace
conspiracy and sent in banishment to Siberia. The mother of
the infant Czar was now made Regent; but her rule was brief.
Another revolution, in the latter part of 1741, consigned her,
with her son and husband, to a prison, and raised the Princess
Elizabeth, second daughter of Peter the Great, to the Russian
throne. "The Empress Anna might have ruled without control,
and probably have transmitted the throne to her son Ivan, had
Elizabeth been left to the quiet enjoyment
of her sensual propensities.
{2764}
Elizabeth indulged without concealment or restraint in amours
with subalterns, and even privates of the guard whose barracks
lay near her residence; she was addicted, like them, to strong
drink, and had entirely gained their favour by her good humour
and joviality. Her indolence made her utterly averse to
business, and she would never have thought of encumbering
herself with the cares of government had she not been
restricted in her amusements, reproved for her behaviour, and,
what was worst of all, threatened with a compulsory marriage
with the ugly and disagreeable Anthony Ulrich, of Brunswick
Bevern, brother of the Regent's husband. At the instigation,
and with the money, of the French ambassador, La Chétardie, a
revolution was effected. … Elizabeth, in the manifest which
she published on the day of her accession, declared that the
throne belonged to her by right of birth, in face of the
celebrated ukase issued by her father in 1722, which empowered
the reigning sovereign to name his successor. … On
communicating her accession to the Swedish Government [which
had lately declared war and invaded Finland with no success],
she expressed her desire for peace, and her wish to restore
matters to the footing on which they had been placed by the
Treaty of Nystadt. The Swedes, who took credit for having
assisted the revolution which raised her to the throne,
demanded from the gratitude of the Empress the restitution of
all Finnland, with the town of Wiborg and part of Carelia; but
Elizabeth, with whom it was a point of honour to cede none of
the conquests of her father, would consent to nothing further
than the re-establishment of the Peace of Nystadt. On the
renewal of the war the Swedes were again unsuccessful in every
rencounter, as they had been before."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 3 (volume 3)._
"This war had no result except to show the weakness of the
Sweden of Charles XII. against regenerate Russia. The
Scandinavian armies proved themselves very unworthy of their
former reputation. Elizabeth's generals, Lascy and Keith,
subdued all the forts in Finland. At Helsingfors 17,000 Swedes
laid down their arms before a hardly more numerous Russian
force. By the treaty of Abo [August 17, 1743], the Empress
acquired South Finland as far as the river Kiümen, and caused
Adolphus Frederic, Administrator of the Duchy of Holstein, and
one of her allies, to be elected Prince Royal of Sweden, in
place of the Prince Royal of Denmark. … In her internal policy
… Elizabeth continued the traditions of the great Emperor. She
developed the material prosperity of the country, reformed the
legislation, and created new centres of population; she gave
an energetic impulse to science and the national literature;
she prepared the way for the alliance of France and Russia,
emancipated from the German yoke; while in foreign affairs she
put a stop to the threatening advance of Prussia." Elizabeth
died in January, 1762.
_A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 6._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1743.
Acquisition of part of Finland from Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1755.
Intrigue with Austria and Saxony against Frederick the Great.
Causes of the Seven Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1758.
Invasion of Prussia.
Defeat at Zorndorf.
Retreat.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1759.
Renewed invasion of Prussia.
Victory at Kunersdorf.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.
Brief reign of Peter III.
His peace with Frederick the Great.
His deposition and death.
His queen, Catherine II., on the throne.
"Charles Peter Ulric, duke of Holstein Gottorp, whom Elizabeth
had nominated her successor, who had embraced the Greek
religion, and who, at his baptism, had received the name of
Peter Fedorovitch, had arrived at St. Petersburg immediately
after her accession: he was then in his fourteenth year. The
education of this unfortunate prince was neglected. … Military
exercises were the only occupation for which he had any
relish, and in them he was indulged. … His potations, which
were frequent and long, were encouraged by his companions;
and, in a few years, he became a complete bacchanalian." In
1744 the young prince was married to "Sophia Augusta, daughter
of the prince of Anhalt Zerbst, who, on her conversion to the
Greek faith,—a necessary preliminary to her marriage,—had
received the baptismal name of Catherine. This union was
entitled to the more attention, as in its consequences it
powerfully affected, not only the whole of Russia, but the
whole of Europe. Shortly before its completion, Peter was
seized with the small-pox, which left hideous traces on his
countenance. The sight of him is said so far to have affected
Catherine that she fainted away. But though she was only in
her sixteenth year, ambition had already over her more
influence than the tender passion, and she smothered her
repugnance. Unfortunately, the personal qualities of the
husband were not of a kind to remove the ill impression: if he
bore her any affection, which appears doubtful, his manners
were rude, even vulgar. … What was still worse, she soon
learned to despise his understanding; and it required little
penetration to foresee that, whatever might be his title after
Elizabeth's death, the power must rest with Catherine. Hence
the courtiers in general were more assiduous in their
attentions to her than to him,—a circumstance which did not
much dispose him for the better. Finding no charms in his new
domestic circle, he naturally turned to his boon companions;
his orgies became frequent; and Catherine was completely
neglected. Hence her indifference was exchanged into absolute
dislike. … Without moral principles; little deterred by the
fear of worldly censure, in a court where the empress herself
was any thing but a model of chastity; and burning with hatred
towards her husband,—she soon dishonoured his bed." Elizabeth
died on the 29th of December, 1761, and Peter III. succeeded
to the throne without opposition. The plotting against him on
behalf of his wife, had long been active, but no plans were
ripe for execution. He was suffered to reign for a year and a
half; but the power which he received at the beginning slipped
quickly away from him. He was humane in disposition, and
adopted some excellent measures. He suppressed the secret
chancery—an inquisitorial court said to be as abominable as
the Spanish inquisition. He emancipated the nobles from the
servility to the crown which Peter the Great had imposed on
them.
{2765}
He improved the discipline of the army, and gave encouragement
to trade. But the good will which these measures might have
won for him was more than cancelled by his undisguised
contempt for Russia and the Russians, and especially for their
religion, and by his excessive admiration for Frederick the
Great, of Prussia, with whom his predecessor had been at war
[but with whom he entered into alliance.]
See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.
The clergy and the army were both alienated from him, and were
easily persuaded to support the revolution, which Catherine
and her favorites planned for his overthrow. Their scheme was
carried out on the morning of the 19th of July, 1762, when
Peter was in the midst of one of his orgies at Oranienbaum,
some miles from the capital. Catherine went to the barracks of
the troops, and regiment after regiment declared for her.
"Accompanied by about 2,000 soldiers, with five times that
number of citizens, who loudly proclaimed her sovereign of
Russia, she went to the church of Our Lady of Kasan. Here
every thing was prepared for her reception: the archbishop of
Novogorod, with a host of ecclesiastics, awaited her at the
altar; she swore to observe the laws and religion of the
empire; the crown was solemnly placed on her head; she was
proclaimed sole monarch of Russia, and the grand-duke Paul her
successor." The dethroned czar, when the news of these events
reached him, doubted and hesitated until he lost even the
opportunity to take to flight. On the day following
Catherine's coronation he signed an act of abdication. Within
a week he was dead. According to accounts commonly credited,
he was poisoned, and then strangled, because the poison did
its deadly work too slowly. "Whether Catherine commanded this
deed of blood, has been much disputed. There can be little
doubt that she did. None of the conspirators would have
ventured to such an extremity unless distinctly authorised by
her." Two years later Catherine added another murder to her
crimes by directing the assassination of Ivan, who had been
dethroned as an infant by Elizabeth in 1741, and who had grown
to manhood in hopeless imprisonment.
_History of Russia
(Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopedia),
volume 2, chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_History of the Reign of Peter III. and Catherine II.,
volume 1._
_A. Rabbe and J. Duncan,
History of Russia,
volume 1, pages 203-221._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796.
Character and reign of Catherine II.
Partition of Poland.
Wars with the Turks.
Acquisition of the Crimea and part of the Caucasus.
Extension of boundaries to the Dnieper.
"Thus was inaugurated the reign of Catherine II., a woman
whose capacities were early felt to be great, but were great
for evil as well as for good. … She was without scruple in the
gratification of her passions, and without delicacy in their
concealment; and a succession of lovers, installed
ostentatiously in her palace, proclaimed to the world the
shamelessness of their mistress. Yet she was great undoubtedly
as a sovereign. With a clear and cultivated intellect, with
high aims and breadth of views, and fearless because despising
the opinions of others, she could plan and she could achieve
her country's greatness; and in the extended dominions and
improved civilization which she bequeathed to her successor is
found a true claim to the gratitude of her subjects. The
foreign transactions of the reign begin with the history of
Poland. With Frederick of Prussia, Catherine may be said to
have shared both the scheme of partition and the spoils that
followed.
See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
If it is doubtful which originated the transaction, there is
at least no doubt but that Russian policy had prepared the way
for such a measure. … The war with Turkey [see TURKS: A. D.
1768-1774] was closed with equal profit and yet greater glory
to the Russian Empire. The Russian armies had fought and
conquered upon the soil of Moldavia, and had invaded and
occupied the Crimea. At the same time the Russian fleets, no
longer confining themselves to the Baltic or Black Seas, had
sailed round Europe, and had appeared in the Archipelago. An
insurrection of the Greeks had aided their design; and for a
time the Bosphorus and Constantinople had been threatened. The
great Empress of the North had dazzled Europe by the vastness
of her power and designs; and Turkey, exhausted and unequal to
further contest, was constrained to purchase peace. The
possession of Azof, Kertch, Yenikale, and Kinburn, the free
navigation of the Euxine and the Mediterranean, were the
immediate gains of Russia. A stipulation for the better
treatment of the Principalities, and for the rights of
remonstrance, both in their behalf, and in that of the Greek
church at Constantinople, gave the opening for future
advantages. Another clause assured the independence of the
Khan of the Crimea, and of the Tartars inhabiting the northern
shores of the Black Sea. Under the name of liberty, these
tribes were now, like Poland, deprived of every strength
except their own; and the way was prepared for their
annexation by Russia. The Peace of Kainardji, as this
settlement was called, was signed in 1774. Within ten years
dissensions had arisen within the Crimea, and both Turks and
Russians had appeared upon the scene. The forces of Catherine
passed the isthmus as allies of the reigning Khan; but they
remained to receive his abdication, and to become the masters
of his country.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
At the same time the Kuban was entered and subdued by
Souvarof, and thus already the Caucasus was reached. Catherine
was now at the height of her power. In a triumphant progress
she visited her new dominions, and gave the august name of
Sebastopol to a new city which was already destined to be the
scourge of the Turkish Empire. She believed herself to be upon
the road to Constantinople; and, in the interviews which she
held with the Emperor Joseph II., she began to scheme for the
partition of Turkey, as she had done for that of Poland. … The
Empress now found herself assailed in two distinct quarters.
Gustavus III. of Sweden, allying with the Sultan, invaded
Finland; and in her palace at St. Petersburg the Empress heard
the Swedish guns.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.
She was relieved, however, on the north by the dissension in
the Swedish army, which compelled the King to an inglorious
retreat; and she became able to give an undivided attention to
the affairs of the south. While an Austrian army, which
supported her, was threatening the north-west of Turkey, her
own forces conquered in the north-east. Under Souvarof the
town of Oczakof was taken, and the battle of Rimnik was won.
{2766}
Ismail, that gave the key of the Danube, next fell, and in the
horrors of its fall drew forth a cry from Europe. The triumph
of Catherine was assured; but already the clouds of revolution
had risen in the west; Austria, too busy with the affairs of
the Netherlands, had withdrawn from the fight; and the Empress
herself, disquieted, and satisfied for the time with her
successes, concluded the Peace of Jassy, which extended her
frontiers to the Dniester, and gave her the coast on which so
soon arose the rich city of Odessa. The acquisitions of
Catherine upon the south were completed. Those upon the west
had still to receive important additions. Poland, already once
partitioned was again to yield new provinces to Russia.
See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792, and 1793-1796.
The internal government of the Empire was meant undoubtedly to
rival these foreign successes, but unhappily fell short of
them. … The long meditated secularization of the estates of
the clergy was at last accomplished; the freedom of the serfs
was now first urged; and, as a unique experiment in Russian
history, the convoking of a kind of States General was made to
discuss the project. But both project and parliament came to
nothing. … There was much that was unreal in everything, and
Europe, as well as the great Empress herself, was deceived.
And so it came to pass that at the close of the reign there
was the spectacle of much that had been begun but little
finished. Before the death of Catherine [1796], in fact, her
greatness may be said to have passed away."
_C. F. Johnstone,
Historical Abstracts,
chapter 6._
"The activity of Catherine was prodigious, and her autocratic
instincts extremely strong, and these impulses, affected by
the French doctrines, which we must not forget set up
despotism, if enlightened, as the perfection of wisdom, made
her government attempt to accomplish all things and to meddle
in every department of the national life. She tried to force
civilisation into premature growths; established modern
institutions of many kinds in a backward and half-barbaric
empire; arranged industrial and economic projects and works in
the minutest details; and rigidly prescribed even court dress
and fashions. Ségur thus describes this omni-present and
ubiquitous interference:—'It is sought to create at the same
time a third estate, to attract foreign commerce, to establish
all kinds of manufactures, to extend agriculture, to increase
paper money, to raise the exchanges, to reduce the interest of
money, to found cities, to people deserts, to cover the Black
Sea with a new navy, to conquer one neighbour and circumvent
another, and finally to extend Russian influence all over
Europe.' These liberal reforms and grand aspirations came,
however, for the most part to nothing; and Catherine's
internal government grew by degrees into a grievous, cruel and
prying despotism. … The antithesis of the liberalism in words
and of the tyranny in deeds in Catherine's reign may be
attributed to four main causes. She gradually found out that
reform and progress were impossible in the Russian Empire—half
Asiatic, backward and corrupt—and she swung back to the old
tyranny of the past. The great rising of the serfs under
Pugacheff, too—a servile outbreak of the worst kind —changed
to a great extent the type of her government, and gave it a
harsh and cruel complexion:—'The domestic policy of Catherine
bore, until the end, the traces of those terrible years, and
showed, as it were, the bloody cicatrices of the blows given
and received in a death struggle.' … The foreign policy of
Catherine was more successful than her government and
administration at home, and the reasons are sufficiently
plain. She found grand opportunities to extend her power in
the long quarrels between France and England, in the alliance
she maintained with Frederick the Great—an alliance she clung
to, though she felt the burden—in the instability and weakness
of the Austrian councils, in the confusion and strife of the
French Revolution, above all in the decay of Islam; and
Russia justly hailed her as a great conqueror. … The
Muscovite race would not see her misdeeds in the march of
conquest she opened for it; and her reputation has steadily
increased in its eyes. 'The spirit of the people passes, in
its fulness, into her. It was this that enabled her to make a
complete conquest of her empire, and by this we do not mean
the power which she wrested from the weakness, the cowardice,
and the folly of Peter III.; but the position which this
German woman attained at the close of her life, and especially
after her death, in the history, and the national life, and
development of a foreign and hostile race. For it may be said
that it is since her death, above all, that she has become
what she appears now—the sublime figure, colossal alike and
splendid, majestic and attractive, before which incline, with
an equal impulse of gratitude, the humble Moujik and the man
of letters, who shakes the dust of reminiscences and legends
already a century old.' In one particular, Catherine gave
proof of being far in advance of the ideas of her day, and of
extraordinary craft and adroitness. She anticipated the
growing power of opinion in Europe, and skilfully turned it to
her side by the patronage of the philosophers of France. In
Napoleon's phrase, she did not spike the battery, she seized
it and directed its fire; she had Voltaire, Diderot, and
D'Alembert, admiring mouthpieces, to apologise for, nay to
extol, her government. This great force had prodigious
influence in throwing a glamour over the evil deeds of her
reign, and in deceiving the world as to parts of her conduct:
—'All this forms part of a system—a system due to the
wonderful intuition of a woman, born in a petty German court,
and placed on the most despotic throne of Europe; due, too—and
so better—to her clear apprehension of the great power of the
modern world—public opinion. It is, we do not hesitate to
believe and affirm, because Catherine discovered this force,
and resolved to make use of it, that she was able to play the
part she played in history. Half of her reputation in Europe
was caused by the admiration of Voltaire, solicited, won,
managed by her with infinite art, nay, paid for when
necessary.'"
_The Empress Catherine II.
(Edinburgh Review, July, 1893)._
"In 1781 Catherine had already sent to Grimm the following
resume of the history of her reign, set forth by her new
secretary and factotum, Besborodko, in the fantastic form of
an inventory:
Governments instituted according to the new form, 29;
Towns built, 144;
Treaties made, 30;
Victories won, 78;
Notable edicts, decreeing laws, 88;
Edicts on behalf of the people, 123;
Total, 492.
{2767}
Four hundred and ninety-two active measures! This astonishing
piece of book-keeping, which betrays so naïvely all that there
was of romantic, extravagant, childish, and very feminine, in
the extraordinary genius that swayed Russia, and in some sort
Europe, during thirty-four years, will no doubt make the
reader smile. It corresponds, however, truly enough, to a
sum-total of great things accomplished under her direct
inspiration. … In the management of men … she is simply
marvellous. She employs all the resources of a trained
diplomatist, of a subtle psychologist, and of a woman who
knows the art of fascination; she employs them together or
apart, she handles them with unequalled 'maestria.' If it is
true that she sometimes takes her lovers for generals and
statesmen, it is no less true that she treats on occasion her
generals and statesmen as lovers. When the sovereign can do
nothing, the Circe intervenes. If it avails nothing to
command, to threaten, or to punish, she becomes coaxing and
wheedling. Towards the soldiers that she sends to death,
bidding them only win for her victory, she has delicate
attentions, flattering forethought, adorable little ways. …
Should fortune smile upon the efforts she has thus provoked
and stimulated, she is profusely grateful: honours, pensions,
gifts of money, of peasants, of land, rain upon the artisans
of her glory. But she does not abandon those who have had the
misfortune to be unlucky. … Catherine's art of ruling was not,
however, without its shortcomings, some of which were due to
the mere fact of her sex, whose dependences and weaknesses she
was powerless to overcome. 'Ah!' she cried one day, 'if heaven
had only granted me breeches instead of petticoats, I could do
anything. It is with eyes and arms that one rules, and a woman
has only ears.' The petticoats were not solely responsible for
her difficulties. We have already referred to a defect which
bore heavily upon the conduct of affairs during her reign:
this great leader of men, who knew so well how to make use of
them, did not know how to choose them. … It seems that her
vision of men in general was disturbed, in this respect, by
the breath of passion which influenced all her life. The
general, the statesman, of whom she had need, she seemed to
see only through the male whom she liked or disliked. … These
mistakes of judgment were frequent. But Catherine did more
than this, and worse. With the obstinacy which characterised
her, and the infatuation that her successes gave her, she came
little by little to translate this capital defect into a
'parti pris,' to formulate it as a system; one man was worth
another, in her eyes, so long as he was docile and prompt to
obey. … And her idea that one man is worth as much as another
causes her, for a mere nothing, for a word that offends her,
for a cast of countenance that she finds unpleasing, or even
without motive, for the pleasure of change and the delight of
having to do with some one new, as she avows naïvely in a
letter to Grimm, to set aside, disgraced or merely cashiered,
one or another of her most devoted servants."
_R. Waliszewski,
Romance of an Empress,
volume 2, book 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_W. Tooke,
Life of Catherine II._
_Memoirs of Catherine II., by herself._
_Princess Daschkaw,
Memoirs._
_S. Menzies,
Royal Favourites._
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volumes 4-7._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1786.
Establishment of the Jewish Pale.
See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1791-1793.
Joined in the Coalitions against Revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1796.
Accession of Paul.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1798-1799.
The war of the Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1799.
Suwarrow's victorious campaign in Italy
and failure in Switzerland.
Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland.
Its disastrous ending.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER);
(AUGUST-DECEMBER); and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1800.
Desertion of the Coalition by the Czar.
His alliance with Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (JUNE-FEBRUARY).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1800-1801.
War with England.
The Northern Maritime League and its sudden overthrow
at Copenhagen by the British fleet.
Peace with England.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.
Paul's despotism and assassination.
Accession of Alexander I.
The Emperor Paul's "choice of his Ministers was always
directed by one dominant idea—that of surrounding himself with
servants on whom he could entirely rely; for from the moment
of his accession he foresaw and dreaded a Palace revolution. …
He erred in the selection, and especially in the extent, of
the means which he employed to save his life and his power;
they only precipitated his deplorable end. Among the men whom
he suspected, he persecuted some with implacable rigour, while
he retained others at their posts and endeavoured to secure
their fidelity by presents; this, however, only made them
ungrateful. Never was there a sovereign more terrible in his
severity, or more liberal when he was in a generous mood. But
there was no certainty in his favour. A single word uttered
intentionally or by accident in a conversation, the shadow of
a suspicion, sufficed to make him persecute those whom he had
protected. The greatest favourites of to-day feared to be
driven from the Court on the morrow, and banished to a distant
province. Yet the Emperor wished to be just. … All who
belonged to the Court or came before the Emperor were thus in
a state of continual fear." This fear, and the hatred which it
inspired, produced in due time a conspiracy, headed by Counts
Panin and Pahlen, of the Emperor's Council. Purporting to have
for its object only the deposition of the Czar, the conspiracy
was known and acquiesced in by the heir to the throne, the
Grand-Duke Alexander, who had been persuaded to look upon it
as a necessary measure for rescuing Russia from a demented
ruler. "Paul was precipitating his country into incalculable
disasters, and into a complete disorganisation and
deterioration of the Government machine. … Although everybody
sympathised with the conspiracy, nothing was done until
Alexander had given his consent to his father's deposition."
Then it was hurried to its accomplishment. The conspirators,
including a large number of military and civil officials,
supped together, on the evening of March 3, 1801. At midnight,
most of them being then intoxicated, they went in a body to
the palace, made their way to the Emperor's
bed-chamber—resisted by only one young valet—and found him, in
his night-clothes, hiding in the folds of a curtain. "They
dragged him out in his shirt, more dead than alive; the terror
he had inspired was now repaid to him with usury. …
{2768}
He was placed on a chair before a desk. The long, thin, pale,
and angular form of General Bennigsen [a Hanoverian officer,
just admitted to the conspiracy, but who had taken the lead
when others showed signs of faltering], with his hat on his
head and a drawn sword in his hand, must have seemed to him a
terrible spectre. 'Sire,' said the General, 'you are my
prisoner and have ceased to reign; you will now at once write
and sign a deed of abdication in favour of the Grand-Duke
Alexander.' Paul was still unable to speak, and a pen was put
in his hand. Trembling and almost unconscious, he was about to
obey, when more cries were heard. General Bennigsen then left
the room, as he has often assured me, to ascertain what these
cries meant, and to take steps for securing the safety of the
palace and of the Imperial family. He had only just gone out
when a terrible scene began. The unfortunate Paul remained
alone with men who were maddened by a furious hatred of him. …
One of the conspirators took off his official scarf and tied
it round the Emperor's throat. Paul struggled. … But the
conspirators seized the hand with which he was striving to
prolong his life, and furiously tugged at both ends of the
scarf. The unhappy emperor had already breathed his last, and
yet they tightened the knot and dragged along the dead body,
striking it with their bands and feet." When Alexander learned
that an assassination instead of a forced abdication had
vacated the throne for him, he "was prostrated with grief and
despair. … The idea of having caused the death of his father
filled him with horror, and he felt that his reputation had
received a stain which could never be effaced. … During the
first years of his reign, Alexander's position with regard to
his father's murderers was an extremely difficult and painful
one. For a few months he believed himself to be at their
mercy, but it was chiefly his conscience and a feeling of
natural equity which prevented him from giving up to justice
the most guilty of the conspirators. … The assassins all
perished miserably."
_Prince Adam Czartoryski,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapters 9 and 11._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.
The Third Coalition against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1805.
The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1806-1807.
War with Napoleon in aid of Prussia.
Battle of Eylau.
Treaty of Bartenstein with Prussia.
Decisive defeat at Friedland.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
1806-1807; and 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1807.
Ineffective operations of England as an ally against Turkey.
Treaty of Tilsit.
Secret understandings of Napoleon with the Czar.
See TURKS: A. D.1806-1807;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1807-1810.
Northern fruits of the Peace of Tilsit.
English seizure of the Danish fleet.
War with England and Sweden.
Conquest of Finland.
Peculiar annexation of the Grand Duchy to the Empire.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1808.
Imperial conference and Treaty of Erfurt.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1809.
Cession of Eastern Galicia by the Emperor of Austria.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1809-1812.
War with Turkey.
Treaty of Bucharest.
Acquisition of Bessarabia.
See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1810.
Grievances against France.
Desertion of the Continental System.
Resumption of commerce with Great Britain.
Rupture with Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (June-September).
Napoleon's invasion.
Battles of Smolensk and Borodino.
The French advance to Moscow.
"With the military resources of France, which then counted 130
departments, with the contingents of her Italian kingdoms, of
the Confederation of the Rhine, of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw,
and with the auxiliary forces of Prussia and Austria, Napoleon
could bring a formidable army into the field. On the first of
June the Grand Army amounted to 678,000 men, 356,000 of whom
were French, and 322,000 foreigners. It included not only
Belgians, Dutchmen, Hanoverians, Hanseats, Piedmontese, and
Romans, then confounded under the name of Frenchmen, but also
the Italian army, the Neapolitan army, the Spanish regiments,
natives of Germany. … Besides Napoleon's marshals, it had at
its head Eugene, Viceroy of Italy; Murat, King of Naples;
Jerome, King of Westphalia; the princes royal and heirs of
nearly all the houses in Europe. The Poles alone in this war,
which recalled to them that of 1612, mustered 60,000 men under
their standards. Other Slavs from the Illyrian provinces,
Carinthians, Dalmatians, and Croats, were led to assault the
great Slav empire. It was indeed the 'army of twenty nations,'
as it is still called by the Russian people. Napoleon
transported all these races from the West to the East by a
movement similar to that of the great invasions, and swept
them like a human avalanche against Russia. When the Grand
Army prepared to cross the Niemen, it was arranged thus:—To
the left, before Tilsit, Macdonald with 10,000 French and
20,000 Prussians under General York of Wartenburg; before
Kovno, Napoleon with the corps of Davoust, Oudinot, Ney, the
Guard commanded by Bessières, the immense reserve cavalry
under Murat—in all a total of 180,000 men; before Pilony,
Eugène with 50,000 Italians and Bavarians; before Grodno,
Jerome Bonaparte, with 60,000 Poles, Westphalians and Saxons,
&c. We must add to these the 30,000 Austrians of
Schwartzenberg, who were to fight in Gallicia as mildly
against the Russians as the Russians had against the Austrians
in 1809. Victor guarded the Vistula and the Oder with 30,000
men, Augereau the Elbe with 50,000. Without reckoning the
divisions of Macdonald, Schwartzenberg, Victor, and Augereau,
it was with about 290,000 men, half of whom were French, that
Napoleon marched to cross the Niemen and threaten the centre
of Russia. Alexander had collected on the Niemen 90,000 men,
commanded by Bagration; on the Bug, tributary to the Vistula,
60,000 men, commanded by Barclay de Tolly; those were what
were called the Northern army and the army of the South. On
the extreme right, Wittgenstein with 30,000 men was to oppose
Macdonald almost throughout the campaign; on the extreme left,
to occupy the Austrian Schwartzenberg as harmlessly as
possible, Tormassof was placed with 40,000.
{2769}
Later this latter army, reinforced by 50,000 men from the
Danube, became formidable, and was destined, under Admiral
Tchitchagof, seriously to embarrass the retreat of the French.
In the rear of all these forces was a reserve of 80,000
men—Cossacks and militia. … In reality, to the 290,000 men
Napoleon had mustered under his hand, the Emperor of Russia
could only oppose the 150,000 of Bagration and Barclay de
Tolly. … At the opening of the campaign the head-quarters of
Alexander were at Wilna. … They deliberated and argued much.
To attack Napoleon was to furnish him with the opportunity he
wished; to retire into the interior, as Barclay had advised in
1807, seemed hard and humiliating. A middle course was sought
by adopting the scheme of Pfühl—to establish an intrenched
camp at Drissa, on the Dwina, and to make it a Russian Torres
Vedras. The events in the Peninsula filled all minds. Pfühl
desired to act like Wellington at Torres Vedras." But his
intrenched camp was badly placed; it was easily turned, and
was speedily abandoned when Napoleon advanced beyond the
Niemen, which he did on the 24th of June. The Russian armies
fell back. "Napoleon made his entry into Wilna, the ancient
capital of the Lithuanian Gedimin. He had said in his second
proclamation, 'The second Polish war has begun!' The Diet of
Warsaw had pronounced the re-establishment of the kingdom of
Poland, and sent a deputation to Wilna to demand the adhesion
of Lithuania, and to obtain the protection of the Emperor. …
Napoleon, whether to please Austria, whether to preserve the
possibility of peace with Russia, or whether he was afraid to
make Poland too strong, only took half measures. He gave
Lithuania an administration distinct from that of Poland. … A
last attempt to negotiate a peace had failed. … Napoleon had
proposed two unacceptable conditions—the abandonment of
Lithuania, and the declaration of war against Great Britain.
If Napoleon, instead of plunging into Russia, had contented
himself with organising and defending the ancient principality
of Lithuania, no power on earth could have prevented the
reestablishment of the Polish-Lithuanian State within its
former limits. The destinies of France and Europe would have
been changed. … Napoleon feared to penetrate into the
interior; he would have liked to gain some brilliant success
not far from the Lithuanian frontier, and seize one of the two
Russian armies. The vast spaces, the bad roads, the
misunderstandings, the growing disorganisation of the army,
caused all his movements to fail. Barclay de Tolly, after
having given battle at Ostrovno and Vitepsk, fell back on
Smolensk; Bagration fought at Mohilef and Orcha, and in order
to rejoin Barclay retreated to Smolensk. There the two Russian
generals held council. Their troops were exasperated by this
continual retreat, and Barclay, a good tactician, with a clear
and methodical mind, did not agree with Bagration, impetuous,
like a true pupil of Souvorof. The one held firmly for a
retreat, in which the Russian army would become stronger and
stronger, and the French army weaker and weaker, as they
advanced into the interior; the other wished to act on the
offensive, full of risk as it was. The army was on the side of
Bagration, and Barclay, a German of the Baltic provinces, was
suspected and all but insulted. He consented to take the
initiative against Murat, who had arrived at Krasnoé, and a
bloody battle was fought (August 14). On the 16th, 17th, and
18th of August, another desperate fight took place at
Smolensk, which was burnt, and 20,000 men perished. Barclay
still retired, drawing with him Bagration. In his retreat
Bagration fought Ney at Valoutina; it was a lesser Eylau:
15,000 men of both armies remained on the field of battle.
Napoleon felt that he was being enticed into the interior of
Russia. The Russians still retreated, laying waste all behind
them. … The Grand Army melted before their very eyes. From the
Niemen to Wilna, without ever having seen the enemy, it had
lost 50,000 men from sickness, desertion and marauding; from
Wilna to Mohilef nearly 100,000. … In the Russian army, the
discontent grew with the retreating movement; … they began to
murmur as much against Bagration as against Barclay. It was
then that Alexander united the two armies under the supreme
command of Koutouzof. … Koutouzof halted at Borodino. He had
then 72,000 infantry, 18,000 regular cavalry, 7,000 Cossacks,
10,000 opoltchénié or militiamen, and 640 guns served by
14,000 artillerymen or pioneers; in all, 121,000 men. Napoleon
had only been able to concentrate 86,000 infantry, 28,000
cavalry, and 587 guns, served by 16,000 pioneers or
artillerymen. … On the 5th of September the French took the
redoubt of Chevardino; the 7th was the day of the great
battle: this was known as the battle of Borodino among the
Russians, as that of the Moskowa in the bulletins of Napoleon,
though the Moskowa flows at some distance from the field of
carnage. … The battle began by a frightful cannonade of 1,200
guns, which was heard 30 leagues round. Then the French, with
an irresistible charge, took Borodino on one side and the
redoubts on the other; Ney and Murat crossed the ravine of
Semenevskoé, and cut the Russian army nearly in two. At ten
o'clock the battle seemed won, but Napoleon refused to carry
out his first success by employing the reserve, and the
Russian generals had time to bring up new troops in line. They
recaptured the great redoubt, and Platof, the Cossack, made an
incursion on the rear of the Italian army; an obstinate fight
took place at the outworks. At last Napoleon made his reserve
troops advance; again Murat's cavalry swept the ravine;
Caulaincourt's cuirassiers assaulted the great redoubt from
behind, and flung themselves on it like a tempest, while
Eugène of Italy scaled the ramparts. Again the Russians had
lost their outworks. Then Koutouzof gave the signal to
retreat. … The French had lost 30,000 men, the Russians
40,000. … Koutouzof retired in good order, announcing to
Alexander that they had made a steady resistance, but were
retreating to protect Moscow." But after a council of war, he
decided to leave Moscow to its fate, and the retreating
Russian army passed through and beyond the city, and the
French entered it at their heels.
_A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 12._
{2770}
"The facts prove beyond doubt that Napoleon did not foresee
the danger of an advance upon Moscow, and that Alexander I.
and the Russian generals never dreamed of trying to draw him
into the heart of the country. Napoleon was led on, not by any
plan,—a plan had never been thought of,—but by the intrigues,
quarrels, and ambition of men who unconsciously played a part
in this terrible war and never foresaw that the result would
be the safety of Russia. … Amid these quarrels and intrigues,
we are trying to meet the French, although ignorant of their
whereabouts. The French encounter Neverovski's division, and
approach the walls of Smolensk. It is impossible not to give
battle at Smolensk. We must maintain our communications. The
battle takes place, and thousands of men on both sides are
killed. Contrary to the wishes of the tsar and the people, our
generals abandon Smolensk. The inhabitants of Smolensk,
betrayed by their governor, set fire to the city, and, with
this example to other Russian towns, they take refuge in
Moscow, deploring their losses and sowing on every side the
seeds of hate against the enemy. Napoleon advances and we
retreat, and the result is that we take exactly the measures
necessary to conquer the French."
_Count L. Tolstoi,
The Physiology of War: Napoleon and the Russian Campaign,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 2, chapter 4._
_Baron Jomini,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 18 (volume 3)._
_Count P. de Segur,
History of the Expedition to Russia,
books 1-8 (volumes 1-2)._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (September).
The French in Moscow.
The burning of the city.
"With rapid steps the French army advanced towards the heights
whence they hoped to perceive at length the great city of
Moscow; and, if the Russians were filled with the utmost
sadness, the hearts of the French were equally inspired with
feelings of joy and triumph, and the most brilliant illusions.
Reduced from 420,000 (which was its number at the passage of
the Niemen) to 100,000, and utterly exhausted, our army forgot
all its troubles on its approach to the brilliant capital of
Muscovy. … Imagination … was strongly excited within them at
the idea of entering Moscow, after having entered all the
other capitals of Europe with the exception of London,
protected by the sea. Whilst Prince Eugene advanced on the
left of the army, and Prince Poniatowski on its right, the
bulk of the army, with Murat at its head, Davout and Ney in
the centre, and the Guard in the rear, followed the great
Smolensk road. Napoleon was in the midst of his troops, who,
as they gazed upon him and drew near to Moscow, forgot the
days of discontent, and uttered loud shouts in honour of his
glory and their own. The proposal submitted by Miloradovitch
was readily accepted, for the French had no desire to destroy
Moscow, and it was agreed that not a shot should be fired
during the evacuation, on condition that the Russian army
should continue to defile across the city without a moment's
halt. … The Russian rear-guard defiled rapidly to yield the
ground to our advanced guard, and the King of Naples, followed
by his staff and a detachment of cavalry, plunged into the
streets of Moscow, and, traversing by turns the humblest
quarters and the wealthiest, perceived everywhere the most
profound solitude, and seemed to have entered a city of the
dead. … The information which was now obtained—that the whole
population of the city had fled—saddened the exultation of the
commanders of our advanced guard, who had flattered themselves
that they would have had the pleasure of surprising the
inhabitants by their kindness. … On the morning of the 15th
September, Napoleon entered Moscow, at the head of his
invincible legions, but passed through a deserted city, and
his soldiers were now, for the first time on entering a
capital, the sole witnesses of their own glory. Their feelings
on the occasion were sad ones. As soon as Napoleon had reached
the Kremlin, he hastened to ascend the lofty tower of the
great Ivan, and to survey from its elevation the magnificent
city he had conquered. … A sullen silence, broken only by the
tramp of the cavalry, had replaced that populous life which
during the very previous evening had rendered the city one of
the most animated in the world. The army was distributed
through the various quarters of Moscow, Prince Eugene
occupying the northwest quarter, Marshal Davout the southwest,
and Prince Poniatowski the southeast. Marshal Ney, who had
traversed Moscow from west to east, established his troops in
the district comprised between the Riazan and Wladimir roads;
and the Guard was naturally posted at the Kremlin and in its
environs. The houses were full of provisions of every kind,
and the first necessities of the troops were readily
satisfied. The Superior officers were received at the gates of
palaces by numerous servants in livery, eager in offering a
brilliant hospitality; for the owners of these palaces,
perfectly unaware that Moscow was about to perish, had taken
great pains, although they fully shared the national hatred
against the French, to procure protectors for their rich
dwellings by receiving into them French officers. … From their
splendid lodgings, the officers of the French army wandered
with equal delight through the midst of the city, which
resembled a Tartar camp sown with Italian palaces. They
contemplated with wonder the numerous towns of which the
capital is composed, and which are placed in concentric
circles, the one within the other. … A few days before, Moscow
had contained a population of 300,000 souls, of whom scarcely
a sixth part now remained, and of these the greater number
were concealed in their houses or prostrated at the foot of
the altars. The streets were deserts, and only echoed with the
footsteps of our soldiers. … But although the solitude of the
city was a source of great vexation to them, they had no
suspicion of any approaching catastrophe, for the Russian
army, which alone had hitherto devastated their country, had
departed, and there appeared to be no fear of fire. The French
army hoped, therefore, to enjoy comfort in Moscow, to obtain,
probably, peace by means of its possession, and at least good
winter-cantonments in case the war should be prolonged. But,
on the afternoon they had entered, columns of flame arose from
a vast building containing … quantities of spirits, and just
as our soldiers had almost succeeded in mastering the fire in
this spot, a violent conflagration suddenly burst forth in a
collection of buildings called the Bazaar, situated to the
northeast of the Kremlin, and containing the richest
magazines, abounding in stores of the exquisite tissues of
India and Persia, the rarities of Europe, colonial produce,
and precious wines. The troops of the Guard immediately
hastened up and attempted to subdue the flames; but their
energetic efforts were unfortunately unsuccessful, and the
immense riches of the establishment fell a prey to the fire,
with the exception of some portions which our men were able to
snatch from the devouring element.
{2771}
This fresh accident was again attributed to natural causes,
and considered as easily explicable in the tumult of an
evacuation. During the night of the 15th of September,
however, a sudden change came over the scene; for then as
though every species of misfortune were to fall at the same
moment on the ancient Muscovite capital, the equinoctial gales
suddenly arose with the extreme violence usual to the season
and in countries where widespread plains offer no resistance
to the storm. This wind, blowing first from the east, carried
the fire to the west into the streets comprised between the
Iwer and Smolensk routes, which were the most beautiful and
the richest in all Moscow. Within some hours the fire,
spreading with frightful rapidity, and throwing out long
arrows of flame, spread to the other westward quarters. And
soon rockets were observed in the air, and wretches were
seized in the act of spreading the conflagration. Interrogated
under threat of instant death, they revealed the frightful
secret,—the order given by Count Rostopschin for the burning
of the city of Moscow as though it had been a simple village
on the Moscow route. This information filled the whole army
with consternation. Napoleon ordered that military commissions
should be formed in each quarter of the city for the purpose
of judging, shooting, and hanging incendiaries taken in the
act, and that all the available troops should be employed in
extinguishing the flames. Immediate recourse was had to the
pumps, but it was found they had been removed; and this latter
circumstance would have proved, if indeed any doubt on the
matter had remained, the terrible determination with which
Moscow had been given to the flames. In the mean time, the
wind, increasing in violence every moment, rendered the
efforts of the whole army ineffectual, and, suddenly changing,
with the abruptness peculiar to equinoctial gales, from the
east to the northwest, it carried the torrent of flame into
quarters which the hands of the incendiaries had not yet been
able to fire. After having blown during some hours from the
northwest, the wind once more changed its direction, and blew
from the southwest, as though it had a cruel pleasure in
spreading ruin and death over the unhappy city, or, rather,
over our army. By this change of the wind to the southwest the
Kremlin was placed in extreme peril. More than 400 ammunition
wagons were in the court of the Kremlin, and the arsenal
contained some 400,000 pounds of powder. There was imminent
danger, therefore, that Napoleon with his Guard, and the
palace of the Czars, might be blown up into the air. …
Napoleon, therefore, followed by some of his lieutenants,
descended from the Kremlin to the quay of the Moskowa, where
he found his horses ready for him, and had much difficulty in
threading the streets, which, towards the northwest (in which
direction he proceeded), were already in flames. The terrified
army set out from Moscow. The divisions of Prince Eugene and
Marshal Ney fell back upon the Zwenigarod and St. Petersburg
roads, those of Marshal Davout fell back upon the Smolensk
route, and, with the exception of the Guard, which was left
around the Kremlin to dispute its possession with the flames,
our troops drew back in horror from before the fire, which,
after flaming up to heaven, darted back towards them as though
it wished to devour them. The few inhabitants who had remained
in Moscow, and had hitherto lain concealed in their dwellings,
now fled, carrying away such of their possessions as they
valued most highly, uttering lamentable cries of distress,
and, in many instances, falling victims to the brigands whom
Rostopochin had let loose, and who now exulted in the midst of
the conflagration, as the genius of evil in the midst of
chaos. Napoleon took up his quarters at the Château of
Petrowskoié, a league's distance from Moscow on the St.
Petersburg route, in the centre of the cantonments of the
troops under Prince Eugene, awaiting there the subsidence of
the conflagration, which had now reached such a height that it
was beyond human power either to increase or extinguish it. As
a final misfortune the wind changed on the following day from
southwest to direct west, and then the torrents of flame were
carried towards the eastern quarters of the city, the streets
Messnitskaia and Bassmanaia, and the summer palace. As the
conflagration reached its terrible height, frightful crashes
were heard every moment,—roofs crushing inward, and stately
façades crumbling headlong into the streets as their supports
became consumed in the flames. The sky was scarcely visible
through the thick cloud of smoke which overshadowed it, and
the sun was only apparent as a blood-red globe. For three
successive days—the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th of
September—this terrific scene continued, and in unabated
intensity. At length, after having devoured four-fifths of the
city, the fire ceased, gradually quenched by the rain, which,
as is usually the case, succeeded the violence of the
equinoctial gales. As the flames subsided, only the spectre,
as it were, of what had once been a magnificent city was
visible; and, indeed, the Kremlin, and about a fifth part of
the city, were alone saved,—their preservation being chiefly
due to the exertions of the Imperial Guard. As the inhabitants
of Moscow themselves entered the ruins, seeking what property
still remained in them undestroyed, it was scarcely possible
to prevent our soldiers from acting in the same manner. … Of
this horrible scene the chiefest horror of all remains to be
told: the Russians had left 15,000 wounded in Moscow, and,
incapable of escaping, they had perished, victims of
Rostopschin's barbarous patriotism."
_A. Thiers,
History of the] Consulate and the Empire,
book 44 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_General Count M. Dumas,
Memoirs,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._
_J. Philippart,
Northern Campaigns, 1812-1813,
volume 1, pages 81-115._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (October-December).
The retreat from Moscow.
Its horrors.
"Napoleon waited in vain for propositions from the Czar; his
own were scornfully rejected. Meanwhile the Russians were
reorganizing their armies, and winter set in. On the 13th of
October, the first frost gave warning that it was time to
think of the retreat, which the enemy, already on the French
flank, was threatening to cut off. Leaving Mortier with 10,000
men in the Kremlin, the army quitted Moscow on the 19th of
October, thirty-five days after it had entered the city. It
still numbered 80,000 fighting men and 600 cannons, but was
encumbered with camp-followers and vehicles. At
Malo-Jaroslavetz a violent struggle took place on the 24th.
The town was captured and recaptured seven times. It was
finally left in the hands of the French. Here, however, the
route changed.
{2772}
The road became increasingly difficult, the cold grew intense,
the ground was covered with snow, and the confusion in the
quartermaster's department was terrible. When the army reached
Smolensk, there were only 50,000 men in the ranks (November
9). Napoleon had taken minute precautions to provide supplies
and reinforcements all along his line of retreat; but the
heedlessness of his subalterns, and the difficulty of being
obeyed at such distances and in such a country, rendered his
foresight useless. At Smolensk, where he hoped to find
provisions and supplies, everything had been squandered.
Meanwhile there was not a moment to lose; Wittgenstein, with
the army of the North, was coming up on the French right.
Tchitchagof was occupying Minsk behind the Beresina, with the
army which had just come from the banks of the Danube. Kutusof
was near at hand. The three Russian armies proposed to unite
and bar the Beresina, which the French were obliged to cross.
The French began their march, but the cold became suddenly
intense; all verdure had disappeared, and there being no food
for the horses, they died by the thousand. The cavalry was
forced to dismount; it became necessary to destroy or abandon
a large portion of the cannon and ammunition. The enemy
surrounded the French columns with a cloud of Cossacks, who
captured all stragglers. On the following days the temperature
moderated. Then arose another obstacle,—the mud, which
prevented the advance; and the famine was constant. Moreover,
the retreat was one continuous battle. Ney, 'the bravest of
the brave,' accomplished prodigies of valor. At Krasnoi the
Emperor himself was obliged to charge at the head of his
guard. When the Beresina was reached, the army was reduced to
40,000 fighting men, of whom one-third were Poles. The
Russians had burned the bridge of Borisof, and Tchitchagof, on
the other shore, barred the passage. Fortunately a ford was
found. The river was filled with enormous blocks of ice;
General Eblé and his pontoniers, plunged in the water up to
their shoulders, built and rebuilt bridges across it. Almost
all the pontoniers perished of cold or were drowned. Then,
while on the right of the river Ney and Oudinot held back the
army of Tchitchagof, and Victor on the left that of
Wittgenstein, the guard, with Napoleon, passed over. Victor,
after having killed or wounded 10,000 of Wittgenstein's
Russians, passed over during the night. When, in the morning,
the rear-guard began to cross the bridges, a crowd of
fugitives rushed upon them. They were soon filled with a
confused mass of cavalry, infantry, caissons, and fugitives.
The Russians came up and poured a shower of shells upon the
helpless crowd. This frightful scene has ever since been
famous as the passage of the Beresina. The governor of Minsk
had 24,000 dead bodies picked up and burned. Napoleon
conducted the retreat towards Wilna, where the French had
large magazines. At Smorgoni he left the army, to repair in
all haste to Paris, in order to prevent the disastrous effects
of the last events, and to form another army. The army which
he had left struggled on under Murat. The cold grew still more
intense, and 20,000 men perished in three days. Ney held the
enemy a long time in check with desperate valor; be was the
last to recross the Niemen (December 20). There the retreat
ended, and with it this fatal campaign. Beyond that river the
French left 300,000 soldiers, either dead or in captivity."
_Victor Duruy,
History of France,
chapter 66._
"Thousands of horses soon lay groaning on the route, with
great pieces of flesh cut off their necks and most fleshy
parts by the passing soldiery for food; whilst thousands of
naked wretches were wandering like spectres, who seemed to
have no sight or sense, and who only kept reeling on till
frost, famine, or the Cossack lance put an end to their power
of motion. In that wretched state no nourishment could have
saved them. There were continual instances, even amongst the
Russians, of their lying down, dozing, and dying within a
quarter of an hour after a little bread had been supplied. All
prisoners, however, were immediately and invariably stripped
stark naked and marched in columns in that state, or turned
adrift to be the sport and the victims of the peasantry, who
would not always let them, as they sought to do, point and
hold the muzzles of the guns against their own heads or hearts
to terminate their suffering in the most certain and
expeditious manner; for the peasantry thought that this
mitigation of torture 'would be an offence against the
avenging God of Russia, and deprive them of his further
protection.' A remarkable instance of this cruel spirit of
retaliation was exhibited on the pursuit to Wiazma.
Milaradowitch, Beningsen, Korf, and the English General, with
various others, were proceeding on the high-road, about a mile
from the town, where they found a crowd of peasant-women, with
sticks in their hands, hopping round a felled pine-tree, on
each side of which lay about sixty naked prisoners, prostrate,
but with their heads on the tree, which those furies were
striking in accompaniment to a national air or song which they
were yelling in concert; while several hundred armed peasants
were quietly looking on as guardians of the direful orgies.
When the cavalcade approached, the sufferers uttered piercing
shrieks, and kept incessantly crying 'La mort, la mort, la
mort!' Near Dorogobouche a young and handsome Frenchwoman lay
naked, writhing in the snow, which was ensanguined all around
her. On hearing the sound of voices she raised her head, from
which extremely long black, shining hair flowed over the whole
person. Tossing her arms about with wildest expression of
agony, she kept frantically crying, 'Rendez moi mon
enfant'—Restore me my babe. When soothed sufficiently to
explain her story, she related, 'That on sinking from
weakness, a child newly born had been snatched away from her;
that she had been stripped by her associates, and then stabbed
to prevent her falling alive into the hands of their
pursuers.' … The slaughter of the prisoners with every
imaginable previous mode of torture by the peasantry still
continuing, the English General sent off a despatch to the
Emperor Alexander' to represent the horrors of these outrages
and propose a check.' The Emperor by an express courier
instantly transmitted an order 'to prohibit the parties under
the severest menaces of his displeasure and punishment;' at
the same time he directed 'a ducat in gold to be paid for any
prisoner delivered up by peasant or soldier to any civil
authority for safe custody.' The order was beneficial as well
as creditable, but still the conductors were offered a higher
price for their charge, and frequently were prevailed on to
surrender their trust, for they doubted the justifiable
validity of the order.
{2773}
Famine also ruthlessly decimated the enemy's ranks. Groups
were frequently overtaken, gathered round the burning or burnt
embers of buildings which had afforded cover for some wounded
or frozen; many in these groups were employed in peeling off
with their fingers and making a repast of the charred flesh of
their comrades' remains. The English General having asked a
grenadier of most martial expression, so occupied, 'if this
food was not loathsome to him?' 'Yes,' he said, 'it was; but
he did not eat it to preserve life—that he had sought in vain
to lose—only to lull gnawing agonies.' On giving the grenadier
a piece of food, which happened to be at command, he seized it
with voracity, as if he would devour it whole; but suddenly
checking himself, he appeared suffocating with emotion:
looking at the bread, then at the donor, tears rolled down his
cheeks; endeavouring to rise, and making an effort as if he
would catch at the hand which administered to his want, he
fell back and had expired before he could be reached.
Innumerable dogs crouched on the bodies of their former
masters, looking in their faces, and howling their hunger and
their loss; whilst others were tearing the still living flesh
from the feet, hands, and limbs of moaning wretches who could
not defend themselves, and whose torment was still greater, as
in many cases their consciousness and senses remained
unimpaired. The clinging of the dogs to their masters' corpses
was most remarkable and interesting. At the commencement of
the retreat, at a village near Selino, a detachment of fifty
of the enemy had been surprised. The peasants resolved to bury
them alive in a pit: a drummer boy bravely led the devoted
party and sprang into the grave. A dog belonging to one of the
victims could not be secured; every day, however, the dog went
to the neighbouring camp, and came back with a bit of food in
his mouth to sit and moan over the newly-turned earth. It was
a fortnight before he could be killed by the peasants, afraid
of discovery. The peasants showed the English General the spot
and related the occurrence with exultation, as if they had
performed a meritorious deed. The shots of the peasantry at
stragglers or prisoners rang continuously through the woods;
and altogether it was a complication of misery, of cruelty, of
desolation, and of disorder, that can never have been exceeded
in the history of mankind. Many incidents and crimes are
indeed too horrible or disgusting for relation."
_General Sir R. Wilson,
Narrative of Events during the Invasion of Russia,
pages 255-261._
_General Sir R. Wilson,
Private Journal,
volume 1, page 202-257._
When Napoleon abandoned the army, at Smorghoni, on the 6th of
December, the King of Naples was left in command. "They
marched with so much disorder and precipitation that it was
only when they arrived at Wilna that the soldiers were
informed of a departure as discouraging as it was unexpected.
'What!' said they among themselves, 'is it thus that he
abandons those of whom he calls himself the father? Where then
is that genius, who, in the height of prosperity, exhorted us
to bear our sufferings patiently? He who lavished our blood,
is he afraid to die with us? Will he treat us like the army of
Egypt, to whom, after having served him faithfully, he became
indifferent, when, by a shameful flight, he found himself free
from danger?' Such was the conversation of the soldiers, which
they accompanied by the most violent execrations. Never was
indignation more just, for never were a class of men so worthy
of pity. The presence of the emperor had kept the chiefs to
their duty, but when they heard of his departure, the greater
part of them followed his example, and shamefully abandoned
the remains of the regiments with which they had been
intrusted. … The road which we followed presented, at every
step, brave officers, covered with rags, supported by branches
of pine, their hair and beards stiffened by the ice. These
warriors, who, a short time before, were the terror of our
enemies, and the conquerors of Europe, having now lost their
fine appearance, crawled slowly along, and could scarcely
obtain a look of pity from the soldiers whom they had formerly
commanded. Their situation became still more dreadful, because
all who had not strength to march were abandoned, and every
one who was abandoned by his comrades, in an hour afterwards
inevitably perished. The next day every bivouac presented the
image of a field of battle. … The soldiers burnt whole houses
to avoid being frozen. We saw round the fires the
half-consumed bodies of many unfortunate men, who, having
advanced too near, in order to warm themselves, and being too
weak to recede, had become a prey to the flames. Some
miserable beings, blackened with smoke, and besmeared with the
blood of the horses which they had devoured, wandered like
ghosts round the burning houses. They gazed on the dead bodies
of their companions, and, too feeble to support themselves,
fell down, and died like them. … The route was covered with
soldiers who no longer retained the human form, and whom the
enemy disdained to make prisoners. Every day these miserable
men made us witnesses of scenes too dreadful to relate. Some
had lost their hearing, others their speech, and many, by
excessive cold and hunger, were reduced to a state of frantic
stupidity, in which they roasted the dead bodies of their
comrades for food, or even gnawed their own hands and arms.
Some were so weak that, unable to lift a piece of wood, or
roll a stone towards the fires which they had kindled, they
sat upon the dead bodies of their comrades, and, with a
haggard countenance, steadfastly gazed upon the burning coals.
No sooner was the fire extinguished, than these living
spectres, unable to rise, fell by the side of those on whom
they had sat. We saw many who were absolutely insane. To warm
their frozen feet, they plunged them naked into the middle of
the fire. Some, with a convulsive laugh, threw themselves into
the flames, and perished in the most horrid convulsions, and
uttering the most piercing cries; while others, equally
insane, immediately followed them, and experienced the same
fate."
_E. Labaume,
Circumstantial Narrative of the Campaign in Russia,
part 2, book 5._
ALSO IN:
_Count P. de Segur,
History of the Expedition to Russia,
books 9-12 (volume 2)._
_C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 2, chapter 5._
_Earl Stanhope,
The French Retreat from Moscow
(Historical Essays;
and, also,
Quarterly Review., October 1867, volume 123)._
_Baron de Marbot,
Memoirs, volume 2, chapters 28-32._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1812-1813.
Treaty of Kalisch with Prussia.
The War of Liberation in Germany.
Alliance of Austria.
The driving of the French beyond the Rhine.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1814.
{2774}
RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (January-April).
The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
Fall of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and (MARCH-APRIL).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1814 (May).
The Treaty of Paris.
Evacuation of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Congress of Vienna.
Acquisitions in Poland.
Surrender of Eastern Galicia.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
Napoleon's return from Elba.
The Quadruple Alliance.
The Waterloo campaign and its results.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815, to 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
The Allies again in France.
Second Treaty of Paris.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
RUSSIA: A. D. 1815.
The Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1817.
Expulsion of Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1820-1822.
The Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1825.
Accession of Nicholas.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1827-1829.
Intervention on behalf of Greece.
Battle of Navarino.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1830-1832.
Polish revolt and its suppression.
Barbarous treatment of the insurgents.
See POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1831-1846.
Joint occupation of Cracow.
Extinction of the republic.
Its annexation to Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1833-1840.
The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1839-1859.
Subjugation of the Caucasus.
See CAUCASUS.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1849.
Aid rendered to Austria against the Hungarian patriots.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854.
Causes of the Crimean War with Turkey, England and France.
"The immediate cause of the war which broke out in 1853 was a
dispute which had arisen between France and Russia upon the
custody of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. The real cause was
the intention of Russia to hasten the dismemberment of the
Turkish Empire. Nicholas, in a memorable conversation,
actually suggested to the British ambassador at St. Petersburg
that England should receive Egypt and Crete as her own portion
of the spoil. This conversation, which took place in January
1853, was at once reported to the British Government. It
undoubtedly prepared the way for future trouble. … It had the
effect of rendering the British Ministry suspicious of his
intentions, at a moment when a good understanding with this
country was of the first importance to the Czar of Russia.
There can, then, be very little doubt that Nicholas committed
a grave error in suggesting a partition, which may have seemed
reasonable enough to Continental statesmen, but which was
regarded with horror by England. Almost at the same moment he
affronted France by declining to call Napoleon 'Monsieur mon
frère.' … Nicholas had the singular indiscretion to render a
British ministry suspicious of him, and a French emperor angry
with him, in the same month. Napoleon could easily avenge the
affront. … The Greek and Latin Churches both claimed the right
of protecting the Holy Places of Palestine. Both appealed to a
Mahometan arrangement in support of their claim: each declined
to admit the pretensions of the other. The Latin Church in
Palestine was under the protection of France; the Greek Church
was under the protection of Russia; and France and Russia had
constantly supported, one against the other, these rival
claims. In the beginning of 1853 France renewed the
controversy. She even threatened to settle the question by
force. The man whom Nicholas would not call 'mon frère' was
stirring a controversy thick with trouble for the Czar of
Russia. It happened, moreover, that the controversy was one
which, from its very nature, was certain to spread. Nearly
eighty years before, by the Treaty of Kainardji, the Porte had
undertaken to afford a constant protection to its Christian
subjects, and to place a new Greek Church at Constantinople,
which it undertook to erect, 'and the ministers who officiated
at it under the specific protection of the Russian Empire.'
The exact meaning of this famous article had always been
disputed. In Western Europe it had been usually held that it
applied only to the new Greek Church at Constantinople, and
the ministers who officiated at it. But Russian statesmen had
always contended that its meaning was much wider; and British
statesmen of repute had supported the contention. The general
undertaking which the Porte had given to Russia to afford a
constant protection to its Christian subjects gave Russia —so
they argued—the right to interfere when such protection was
not afforded. In such a country as Turkey, where chronic
misgovernment prevailed, opportunity was never wanting for
complaining that the Christians were inadequately protected.
The dispute about the Holy Places was soon superseded by a
general demand of Russia for the adequate protection of the
Christian subjects of the Porte; In the summer of 1853 the
demand took the shape of an ultimatum; and, when the Turkish
ministers declined to comply with the Russian demand, a
Russian army crossed the Pruth and occupied the
Principalities. In six months a miserable quarrel about the
custody of the Holy Places had assumed dimensions which were
clearly threatening war. At the advice of England the Porte
abstained from treating the occupation of the Principalities
as an act of war; and diplomacy consequently secured an
interval for arranging peace. The Austrian Government framed a
note, which is known as the Vienna Note, as a basis of a
settlement. England and the neutral powers assented to the
note; Russia accepted it; and it was then presented to the
Porte. But Turkey, with the obstinacy which has always
characterised its statesmen, declined to accept it. War might
even then have been prevented if the British Government had
boldly insisted on its acceptance, and had told Turkey that if
she modified the conditions she need not count on England's
assistance. One of the leading members of Lord Aberdeen's
Ministry wished to do this, and declared to the last hour of
his life that this course should have been taken.
{2775}
But the course was not taken. Turkey was permitted, or,
according to Baron Stockmar, encouraged to modify the Vienna
Note; the modifications were rejected by Russia; and the
Porte, on the 26th of September, delivered an ultimatum, and
on the 4th of October 1853 declared war. These events excited
a very widespread indignation in this country. The people,
indeed, were only imperfectly acquainted with the causes which
had produced the quarrel; many of them were unaware that the
complication had been originally introduced by the act of
France; others of them failed to reflect that the refusal of
the Porte to accept a note which the four Great Powers—of
which England was one—had agreed upon was the immediate cause
of hostilities. Those who were better informed thought that
the note was a mistake, and that the Turk had exercised a wise
discretion in rejecting it; while the whole nation
instinctively felt that Russia, throughout the negotiations,
had acted with unnecessary harshness. In October 1853,
therefore, the country was almost unanimously in favour of
supporting the Turk. The events of the next few weeks turned
this feeling into enthusiasm. The Turkish army, under Omar
Pasha, proved its mettle by winning one or two victories over
the Russian troops. The Turkish fleet at Sinope was suddenly
attacked and destroyed. Its destruction was, undoubtedly, an
act of war: it was distorted into an act of treachery; a
rupture between England and Russia became thenceforward
inevitable; and in March 1854 England and France declared
war."
_S. Walpole,
Foreign Relations,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_A. W. Kinglake,
The Invasion of the Crimea,
volume l._
_J. Morley,
Life of Richard Cobden,
volume 2, chapter 6._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September).
The Crimean War: Landing of the Allies.
Battle of the Alma.
Sufferings of the invading army.
"England, then, and France entered the war as allies. Lord
Raglan, formerly Lord Fitzroy Somerset, an old pupil of the
Great Duke in the Peninsular War, and who had lost his right
arm serving under Wellington at Waterloo, was appointed to
command the English forces. Marshal St. Arnaud, a bold,
brilliant soldier of fortune, was intrusted by the Emperor of
the French with the leadership of the soldiers of France. The
allied forces went out to the East and assembled at Varna, on
the Black Sea shore, from which they were to make their
descent on the Crimea. The war, meantime, had gone badly for
the Emperor of Russia in his attempt to crush the Turks. The
Turks had found in Omar Pasha a commander of remarkable
ability and energy; and they had in one or two instances
received the unexpected aid and counsel of clever and
successful Englishmen. … The invasion of the Danubian
provinces was already, to all intents, a failure. Mr. Kinglake
and other writers have argued that but for the ambition of the
Emperor of the French and the excited temper of the English
people the war might well have ended then and there. The
Emperor of Russia had found, it is contended, that he could
not maintain an invasion of European Turkey; his fleet was
confined to its ports in the Black Sea, and there was nothing
for him but to make peace. But we confess we do not see with
what propriety or wisdom the allies, having entered on the
enterprise at all, could have abandoned it at such a moment,
and allowed the Czar to escape thus merely scotched. … The
allies went on. They sailed from Varna for the Crimea. … There
is much discussion as to the original author of the project
for the invasion of the Crimea. The Emperor Napoleon has had
it ascribed to him; so has Lord Palmerston; so has the Duke of
Newcastle; so, according to Mr. Kinglake, has the 'Times'
newspaper. It does not much concern us to know in whom the
idea originated, but it is of some importance to know that it
was essentially a civilian's and not a soldier's idea. It took
possession almost simultaneously, as far as we can observe, of
the minds of several statesmen, and it had a sudden
fascination for the public. The Emperor Nicholas had raised
and sheltered his Black Sea fleet at Sebastopol. That fleet
had sallied forth from Sebastopol to commit what was called
the massacre of Sinope. Sebastopol was the great arsenal of
Russia. It was the point from which Turkey was threatened;
from which, it was universally believed, the embodied ambition
of Russia was one day to make its most formidable effort of
aggression. Within the fence of its vast sea-forts the fleet
of the Black Sea lay screened. From the moment when the
vessels of England and France entered the Euxine the Russian
fleet had withdrawn behind the curtain of these defences, and
was seen upon the open waves no more. If, therefore,
Sebastopol could be taken or destroyed, it would seem as if
the whole material fabric, put together at such cost and labor
for the execution of the schemes of Russia, would be shattered
at a blow. … The invasion of the Crimea, however, was not a
soldier's project. It was not welcomed by the English or the
French commander. It was undertaken by Lord Raglan out of
deference to the recommendations of the Government; and by
Marshal St. Arnaud out of deference to the Emperor of the
French, and because Lord Raglan, too, did not see his way to
decline the responsibility of it. The allied forces were,
therefore, conveyed to the south-western shore of the Crimea,
and effected a landing in Kalamita Bay, a short distance north
of the point at which the river Alma runs into the sea.
Sebastopol itself lies about 30 miles to the south; and then,
more southward still, divided by the bulk of a jutting
promontory from Sebastopol, is the harbor of Balaklava. The
disembarkation began on the morning of September 14th, 1854.
It was completed on the fifth day; and there were then some
27,000 English, 30,000 French, and 7,000 Turks landed on the
shores of Catherine the Great's Crimea. The landing was
effected without any opposition from the Russians. On
September 19th, the allies marched out of their encampments
and moved southward in the direction of Sebastopol. They had a
skirmish or two with a reconnoitring force of Russian cavalry
and Cossacks; but they had no business of genuine war until
they reached the nearer bank of the Alma. The Russians, in
great strength, had taken up a splendid position on the
heights that fringed the other side of the river. The allied
forces reached the Alma about noon on September 20th. They
found that they had to cross the river in the face of the
Russian batteries armed with heavy guns on the highest point
of the hills or bluffs, of scattered artillery, and of dense
masses of infantry which covered the hills. The Russians were
under the command of Prince Mentschikoff.
{2776}
It is certain that Prince Mentschikoff believed his position
unassailable, and was convinced that his enemies were
delivered into his hands when he saw the allies approach and
attempt to effect the crossing of the river. … The attack was
made with desperate courage on the part of the allies, but
without any great skill of leadership or tenacity of
discipline. It was rather a pell-mell sort of fight, in which
the headlong courage and the indomitable obstinacy of the
English and French troops carried all before them at last. A
study of the battle is of little profit to the ordinary
reader. It was an heroic scramble. There was little coherence
of action between the allied forces. But there was happily an
almost total absence of generalship on the part of the
Russians. The soldiers of the Czar fought stoutly and
stubbornly, as they have always done; but they could not stand
up against the blended vehemence and obstinacy of the English
and French. The river was crossed, the opposite heights were
mounted, Prince Mentschikoff's great redoubt was carried, the
Russians were driven from the field, the allies occupied their
ground; the victory was to the Western Powers. … The Russians
ought to have been pursued. They themselves fully expected a
pursuit. They retreated in something like utter confusion. …
But there was no pursuit. Lord Raglan was eager to follow up
the victory; but the French had as yet hardly any cavalry, and
Marshal St. Arnaud would not agree to any further enterprise
that day. Lord Raglan believed that he ought not to persist;
and nothing was done. … Except for the bravery of those who
fought, the battle was not much to boast of. … At this
distance of time it is almost touching to read some of the
heroic contemporaneous descriptions of the great scramble of
the Alma. … Very soon, however, a different note came to be
sounded. The campaign had been opened under conditions
differing from those of most campaigns that went before it.
Science had added many new discoveries to the art of war.
Literature had added one remarkable contribution of her own to
the conditions amidst which campaigns were to be carried on.
She had added the 'special correspondent.' … When the
expedition was leaving England it was accompanied by a special
correspondent from each of the great daily papers of London.
The 'Times' sent out a representative whose name almost
immediately became celebrated—Mr. William Howard Russell, the
'preux chevalier' of war correspondents in that day, as Mr.
Archibald Forbes of the 'Daily News' is in this. … Mr. Russell
soon saw that there was confusion; and he had the soundness of
judgment to know that the confusion was that of a
breaking-down system. Therefore, while the fervor of delight
in the courage and success of our army was still fresh in the
minds of the public at home, while every music-hall was
ringing with the cheap rewards of valor, in the shape of
popular glorifications of our commanders and our soldiers, the
readers of the 'Times' began to learn that things were faring
badly indeed with the conquering army of the Alma. The ranks
were thinned by the ravages of cholera. The men were pursued
by cholera to the very battle-field, Lord Raglan himself said.
… The hospitals were in a wretchedly disorganized condition.
Stores of medicines and strengthening food were decaying in
places where no one wanted them or could well get at them,
while men were dying in hundreds among our tents in the Crimea
for lack of them. The system of clothing, of transport, of
feeding, of nursing—everything had broken down. Ample
provisions had been got together and paid for; and when they
came to be needed no one knew where to get at them. The
special correspondent of the 'Times' and other correspondents
continued to din these things into the ears of the public at
home. Exultation began to give way to a feeling of dismay. The
patriotic anger against the Russians was changed for a mood of
deep indignation against our own authorities and our own war
administration. It soon became apparent to everyone that the
whole campaign had been planned on the assumption that it was
to be like the career of the hero whom Byron laments, 'brief,
brave, and glorious.' Our military authorities here at home—we
do not speak of the commanders in the field—had made up their
minds that Sebastopol was to fall, like another Jericho, at
the sound of the war-trumpets' blast. Our commanders in the
field were, on the contrary, rather disposed to overrate than
to underrate the strength of the Russians. … It is very likely
that if a sudden dash had been made at Sebastopol by land and
sea, it might have been taken almost at the very opening of
the war. But the delay gave the Russians full warning, and
they did not neglect it. On the third day after the battle of
the Alma the Russians sank seven vessels of their Black Sea
fleet at the entrance of the harbor of Sebastopol. This was
done full in the sight of the allied fleets, who at first,
misunderstanding the movements going on among the enemy,
thought the Russian squadron were about to come out from their
shelter and try conclusions with the Western ships. But the
real purpose of the Russians became soon apparent. Under the
eyes of the allies the seven vessels slowly settled down and
sank in the water, until at last only the tops of their masts
were to be seen; and the entrance of the harbor was barred as
by sunken rocks against any approach of an enemy's ship. There
was an end to every dream of a sudden capture of Sebastopol."
_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 27 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_General Sir E. Hamley,
The War in the Crimea,
chapters 2-3._
_W. H. Russell,
The British Expedition to the Crimea,
books 1-2._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (September-October).
Opening of the siege of Sebastopol.
Four days after the battle of the Alma the allies reached the
Belbek, so close to Sebastopol that "it became a matter of
necessity to decide upon their next step. It appears to have
been the wish of the English at once to take advantage of
their victory and assault the north side. It is now known that
such a step would almost certainly have been successful. … But
again St. Arnaud offered objections." It was then determined
"to undertake a flank march round the head of the harbour, and
to take possession of the heights on the south. It was a
difficult operation, for the country was unknown and rough,
and while in the act of marching the armies were open to any
assault upon their left flank. It was however carried out
unmolested. … On the 26th the English arrived at the little
landlocked harbour of Balaclava, at the foot of the steep
hills forming the eastern edge of the plateau. The fleet, duly
warned of the operation, had already arrived. …
{2777}
Canrobert … had now succeeded the dying St. Arnaud. … A
similar question to that which had arisen on the 24th now
again rose. Should Sebastopol be attacked at once or not?
Again it would appear that Lord Raglan, Sir Edmund Lyons, and
others, were desirous of immediate assault. Again the French,
more instructed in the technical rules of war, and supported
by the opinion of Sir John Burgoyne, who commanded the English
Engineers, declined the more vigorous suggestion, and it was
determined at least to wait till the siege guns from the fleet
were landed, and the artillery fire of the enemy weakened, in
preparation for the assault. In the light of subsequent
knowledge, and perhaps even with the knowledge then obtainable
if rightly used, it appears that in all the three instances
mentioned the bolder less regular course would have been the
true wisdom. For Menschikoff had adopted a somewhat strange
measure of defence. He had given up all hopes of using his
fleet to advantage. He had caused some of his vessels to be
sunk at the entrance of the harbour, which was thus closed;
and having drawn the crews, some 18,000 in number, from the
ships, he had intrusted to them the defence of the town, and
had marched away with his whole army. The garrison did not now
number more than 25,000, and they were quite unfit—being
sailors—for operations in the field. The defences were not
those of a regular fortress, but rather of an entrenched
position. … There were in Sebastopol two men who, working
together, made an extraordinary use of their opportunities.
Korniloff, the Admiral, forcing himself to the front by sheer
nobleness of character and enthusiasm, found in Colonel von
Todleben, at that time on a voluntary mission in the town, an
assistant of more than common genius. … The decision of the
allies to await the landing of their siege train was more
far-reaching than the generals at the time conceived, although
some few men appear to have understood its necessary result.
It in fact changed what was intended to be a rapid coup de
main into a regular siege—and a regular siege of an imperfect
and inefficient character, because the allied forces were not
strong enough to invest the town. … Preparation had not been
made to meet the change of circumstances. The work thrown upon
the administration was beyond its powers; the terrible
suffering of the army during the ensuing winter was the
inevitable result. … The bombardment of the suburb, including
the Malakoff and the Redan, fell to the English; the French
undertook to carry it out against the city itself, directing
their fire principally against the Flagstaff battery. … Slowly
the siege trains were landed and brought into position in the
batteries marked out by the engineers. … It was not till the
16th of October that these preparations were completed. … The
energy of Korniloff and the skill of Todleben had by this time
roused the temper of the garrison, and had rendered the
defences far more formidable; and in the beginning of October
means had been taken to persuade Menschikoff to allow
considerable bodies of troops to return to the town. … On the
17th the great bombardment began. The English batteries gained
the mastery over those opposed to them, but the efforts of the
French, much reduced by the fire of the besieged, were brought
to a speedy conclusion by a great explosion within their
lines. Canrobert sent word to Lord Raglan that he should be
unable to resume the fire for two days. The attack by the
fleet had been to little purpose. … Every day till the 25th of
October the fire of the allies was continued. But under cover
of this fire (always encountered by the ceaseless energy of
Todleben) the change had begun, and the French were attacking
the Flagstaff bastion by means of regular approaches. On that
day the siege was somewhat rudely interrupted. The presence of
the Russian army outside the walls and the defect in the
position of the allies became evident."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England, 1837-1880,
pages 251-256._
ALSO IN:
_A. W. Kinglake,
The Invasion of the Crimea,
volumes 3-4._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (October-November).
The Crimean War: Balaclava and Inkermann.
"The Russian general soon showed that he was determined not to
allow the allies to carry on their operations against the town
undisturbed. Large parties of Russian soldiers had for some
time been reconnoitring in the direction of Balaclava, showing
that an attack in that quarter was meditated. At length, on
the 25th of October, an army of 30,000 Russians advanced
against the English position, hoping to get possession of the
harbours and to cut the allies off from their supplies, or at
any rate to destroy the stores which had already been landed.
The part of the works on which the Russian troops first came
was occupied by redoubts, defended by a body of Turkish
recruits, recently arrived from Tunis, who, after offering a
very feeble resistance, fled in confusion. But when the
Russians, flushed with this first success, attempted to pursue
the advantage they had gained, they soon encountered a very
different foe in the Highlanders, commanded by Sir Colin
Campbell, who bore the brunt of the Russian attack with great
firmness. The British cavalry particularly distinguished
themselves in this action, routing a far superior force of
Russian cavalry. It was in the course of this engagement that
the unfortunate blunder occurred, in consequence of which 607
men [the 'Light Brigade' immortalized by Tennyson] galloped
forth against an army, and only 198 came back, the rest having
been killed, wounded, or made prisoners. A long,
unsatisfactory controversy was carried on some time after,
having for its object to decide who was to blame for throwing
away, in this foolish manner, the lives of so many gallant
men. It seems that the orders were not very clearly expressed,
and that the general—Lord Lucan—by whom they were received,
misapprehended them more completely than a man in his position
ought to have done. In the end, the Russians were forced to
retire, without having effected their object: but as they
retained some portion of the ground that had been occupied by
the allies at the commencement of the battle, they too claimed
the victory, and Te-Deums were sung all over Russia in honour
of this fragmentary success. However, the Russian commander
did not abandon the hope of being able to obtain possession of
Balaclava. On the very day following the affair which has just
been related, the Russians within the town made a sortie with
a force of about 6,000 men: but near the village of Inkermann
they encountered so strong a resistance from a far inferior
force, that they were obliged to retreat.
{2778}
The Russian army at Balaclava had been prepared to coöperate
with them; but the promptitude and vigour with which the
allies repelled the sortie prevented the Russians from
entrenching themselves at Inkermann, and thus frustrated the
plan of a combined attack on the allied position which had
probably been formed. The village of Inkermann, which was the
scene of this skirmish, shortly after witnessed a more deadly
and decisive contest. It was on the morning of Sunday,
November 5th, that the approach of the Russian army was heard,
while it was still concealed from view by the mists which
overhung the British position. That army had been greatly
increased by the arrival of large reinforcements, and every
effort had been made to exalt the courage of the soldiers:
they had been stimulated by religious services and
exhortations, as well as by an abundant supply of ardent
spirits; and they came on in the full confidence that they
would be able to sweep the comparatively small British force
from the position it occupied. That position was the centre of
a grand attack made by the whole Russian army. The obscurity
prevented the generals of the allies from discovering what was
going on, or from clearly discerning, among a series of
attacks on different parts of their position, which were real,
and which were mere feints. There was a good deal of confusion
in both armies; but the obscurity, on the whole, favoured the
Russians, who had received their instructions before they set
out, and were moving together in large masses. It was, in
fact, a battle fought pell-mell, man against man, and regiment
against regiment, with very little guidance or direction from
the commanding officers, and consequently one in which the
superior skill of the British gave them little advantage. The
principal point of attack throughout was the plateau of
Inkermann, occupied by the Guards and a few British regiments,
who maintained a long and unequal struggle against the main
body of the Russian army. It was, in fact, a hand-to-hand
contest between superior civilization on the one hand, and
superior numbers on the other, in which it is probable that
the small British force would have been eventually swept off
the field. Bosquet, the ablest of the French generals, with a
soldier's instinct at once divined, amid all the obscurity,
turmoil, and confusion, that the British position was the real
point of attack; and therefore, leaving a portion of his force
to defend his own position, he marched off to Inkermann, and
never halted till his troops charged the Russians with such
fury that they drove them down the hill, and decided the fate
of the battle in favour of the allies. … Meanwhile Mr. Sidney
Herbert, the minister at war, had succeeded in inducing Miss
Florence Nightingale, well known in London for her skilful and
self-denying benevolence, to go out and take charge of the
military hospitals in which the wounded soldiers were
received. Everything connected with the hospitals there was in
a state of the most chaotic confusion. The medical and other
stores which had been sent out were rotting in the holds of
vessels, or in places where they were not wanted. Provisions
had been despatched in abundance, and yet nothing could be
found to support men who were simply dying from exhaustion.
The system of check and counter-check, which had been devised
to prevent waste and extravagance in the time of peace, proved
to be the very cause of the most prodigious waste,
extravagance, and inefficiency in the great war in which
England was now embarked. The sort of dictatorial authority
which had been conferred on Miss Nightingale, supported by her
own admirable organising and administrative ability, enabled
her to substitute order for confusion, and procure for the
multitudes of wounded men who came under her care the comforts
as well as the medical attendance they needed. She arrived at
Scutari with her nurses on the very day of the battle of
Inkermann. Winter was setting-in in the Crimea with unusual
rigour and severity."
_W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 3, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_E. H. Nolan,
Illustrated History of the War against Russia,
chapters 40-48 (volume 1)._
_Chambers' Pictorial History of the Russian War,
chapters 7-8._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855.
Siege and capture of Kars.
"Everywhere unsuccessful in Europe, the Russians were more
fortunate in Asia. Towards the close of 1854, the Turkish army
at Kars was in a wretched and demoralised condition. Its
unsatisfactory state, and the reverses it had experienced,
resulting, it was well known, from the misconduct of the
Turkish officials, induced the British government to appoint
Colonel Williams as a commissioner to examine into the causes
of previous failures, and endeavour to prevent a repetition of
them. … Colonel Williams, attended only by major Teesdale and
Dr. Sandwith, arrived at Kars at the latter end of September,
1854, where he was received with the honour due to his
position. Kars, in past times considered the key of Asia
Minor, is 'a true Asiatic town in all its picturesque
squalor,' and has a fortress partly in ruins, but once
considered most formidable. On inspecting the Turkish army
there, Colonel Williams found the men in rags; their pay
fifteen and even eighteen months in arrear; the horses
half-starved; discipline so relaxed that it could be scarcely
said to exist; and the officers addicted to the lowest vices
and most disorderly habits. … Though treated with an
unpardonable superciliousness and neglect by Lord Stratford de
Redcliffe, the British ambassador at Constantinople, Colonel
Williams succeeded in promoting a proper discipline, and in
securing the men from being plundered by their officers. In
the January of 1855, the Turkish government granted Colonel
Williams the rank of terik, or general in the Ottoman army,
together with the title of Williams Pasha. The inactivity of
the Russian army at Gumri excited much surprise; but
notwithstanding the condition of the Turks, they permitted
spring to pass away, and summer to arrive, before active
hostilities were resumed. … During this period, the Turks at
Kars had been employed, under the direction of colonel Lake,
in throwing up fortifications around the town, which gradually
assumed the appearance of a formidably intrenched camp. Early
in June the Russians left Gumri, and encamped within five
leagues of Kars. They were estimated at 40,000 men; while the
Turkish troops amounted to about 15,000 men, who had been
familiarised with defeat, and scourged by fever and the
scurvy. In addition to this, their provisions were
insufficient to enable them to sustain a siege of any
considerable duration, and their stock of ammunition was very
low The Russians made a partial attack on the town on the 16th
of June, but they met with a repulse. … The road to Erzeroum
was in their possession, and the supplies intended for the
Turks fell into their hands.
{2779}
In effect, they had blockaded Kars by drawing a cordon of
troops around it. A period of dreary inaction followed this
movement of the Russians, broken only by trivial skirmishes at
the outposts. Want was already felt within the town, and the
prospect of surrender or starvation was imminent. … Omar
Pasha, and a large body of Turkish troops from the Crimea, had
landed at Batoum, and it was expected that they would soon
arrive to raise the siege of Kars. This circumstance,
occurring shortly after the arrival of the news of the fall of
Sebastopol, induced many of the officers of the besieged army
to believe that the Russians were about to retire. This
surmise was strengthened by the fact, that, for several days,
large convoys of heavily laden waggons were observed leaving
the Russian camp. General Williams, however, was not deceived
by this artifice, and correctly regarded it as the prelude to
an extensive attack upon Kars. An hour before dawn on the 29th
of September, the tramp of troops and the rumble of artillery
wheels was heard in the distance, and the Turkish garrison
made hurried preparations to receive the foe. Soon the dim
moonlight revealed a dark moving mass in the valley. It was an
advancing column of the enemy, who had hoped to take the Turks
by surprise. In this they were deceived; for no sooner were
they within range, than a crushing shower of grape informed
them that the Moslems were on the alert. The battle commenced
almost immediately. The assailants rushed up the hill with a
shout, and advanced in close column on the breastworks and
redoubts. From these works a murderous fire of musketry and
rifles was poured forth, aided by showers of grape from the
great guns. This told with terrible effect upon the dense
masses of the foe, who fell in heaps. … Riddled with shot, the
Russians were completely broken, and sent headlong down the
hill, leaving hundreds of dead behind them. … Had not the
Turkish cavalry been destroyed by starvation—a circumstance
which rendered pursuit impossible—the Russian army might have
been almost annihilated. The Turks had obtained an unequivocal
victory, after a battle of nearly seven hours' duration. Their
loss did not exceed 463 killed, of whom 101 were townspeople,
and 631 wounded. That of the Russians was enormous; 6,300 of
them were left dead upon the field, and it is said that they
carried 7,000 wounded off the ground. Though the Russians had
suffered a severe reverse, they were not driven from the
position they held prior to the battle … and were enabled to
resume the blockade of the city with as much strictness as
before. The sufferings of the unhappy garrison and inhabitants
of Kars form one of the most terrible pictures incidental to
this war. Cholera and famine raged within the town; and those
who were enfeebled by the last frequently fell victims to the
first. The hospitals were crowded with the sick and wounded,
but the nourishment they required could not be obtained. The
flesh of starved horses had become a luxury, and the rations
of the soldiers consisted only of a small supply of coarse
bread, and a kind of broth made merely of flour and water. …
Children dropt and died in the streets; and every morning
skeleton-like corpses were found in various parts of the camp.
The soldiers deserted in large numbers, and discipline was
almost at an end. … As all hope of relief from Selim Pasha or
Omar Pasha had expired, general Williams resolved to put an
end to these miseries by surrendering the town to the foe. …
Articles of surrender were signed on the 25th of November. …
The fall of Kars was a disgrace and a scandal to all who might
have contributed to prevent it."
_T. Gaspey,
History of England, George III.-Victoria,
chapter 56 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_T. H. Ward,
Humphrey Sandwith,
chapter 9._
_S. Lane-Poole,
Life of Stratford Canning,
chapter 31 (volume 2)._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
Unfruitful peace negotiations at Vienna.
Renewed bombardment of Sebastopol.
Battle of the Tchernaya.
Repulse of the English from the Redan.
Taking of the Malakhoff by the French.
The congress at Paris.
Peace.
In November, 1854, the Czar, Nicholas I., authorized
Gortschakoff, his Minister at Vienna, to signify to the
Western Powers his willingness to conclude peace on the basis
of "the four points" which the latter had laid down in the
previous spring. These "four points" were as follows:
"(1) The protectorate which Russia had hitherto exercised over
the Principalities was to be replaced by a collective
guarantee;
(2) the navigation of the mouths of the Danube was to be freed
from all impediments;
(3) the treaty of 1841 was to be revised in the interests of
the European equilibrium; and
(4) Russia was to renounce all official protectorate over the
Sultan's subjects, of whatever religion they might be. …
The Czar's new move was not entirely successful. It did not
prevent Austria from concluding a close arrangement with the
Western Powers, and it induced her, in concert with France and
England, to define more strictly the precise meaning attached
to the four points. With some disappointment, Russia was
doomed to find that every successive explanation of these
points involved some fresh sacrifice on her own part. The
freedom of the lower Danube, she was now told, could not be
secured unless she surrendered the territory between that
river and the Pruth which she had acquired at the treaty of
Adrianople; the revision of the treaty of 1841, she was
assured, must put an end to her preponderance in the Black
Sea. These new exactions, however, did not deter the Czar from
his desire to treat. By no other means was it possible to
prevent Austria from taking part against him; and a
conference, even if it ultimately proved abortive, would in
the interim confine her to neutrality. Under these
circumstances, Nicholas consented to negotiate. … The
conference which it was decided to hold in December did not
assemble till the following March. The negotiation which had
been agreed to by Aberdeen, was carried out under Palmerston;
and, with the double object of temporarily ridding himself of
an inconvenient colleague, and of assuring the presence of a
statesman of adequate rank at the conference, Palmerston
entrusted its conduct to Russell. While Russell was on his way
to Vienna, an event occurred of momentous importance. Sore
troubled at the events of the war, alarmed at the growing
strength of his enemies, the Emperor of Russia had neither
heart nor strength to struggle against a slight illness. His
sudden death [March 2, 1855] naturally made a profound
impression on the mind of Europe. …
{2780}
Alexander, his successor, a monarch whose reign commenced with
disaster and ended with outrage, at once announced his
adherence to the policy of his father. His accession,
therefore, did not interrupt the proceedings of the
Conference; and, in the first instance, the diplomatists who
assembled at Vienna succeeded in arriving at a welcome
agreement. On the first two of the four points all the Powers
admitted to the Conference were substantially in accord. On
the third point no such agreement was possible. The Western
Powers were determined that an effectual limitation should be
placed on the naval strength of Russia in the Black Sea; and
they defined this limit by a stipulation that she should not
add to the six ships of war which they had ascertained she had
still afloat. Russia, on the contrary, regarded any such
condition as injurious to her dignity and her rights, and
refused to assent to it. Russia, however, did not venture on
absolutely rejecting the proposal of the allies. Instead of
doing so, she offered either to consent to the opening of the
Dardanelles and the Bosphorus to the ships of war of all
nations, or to allow the Sultan a discretion in determining
whether he would open them to the vessels either of the
Western Powers or of Russia. The Western Powers, however, were
firm in their determination to prevent the fleets of Russia
from passing into the Mediterranean, and refused the
alternative. With its rejection the Conference practically
terminated. After its members separated, however, Buol, the
Austrian Minister, endeavoured to evolve from the Russian
offer a possible compromise. …The rejection of the Austrian
alternative necessitated the continuance of the war. But the
struggle was resumed under conditions very different from
those on which it had previously been conducted. Austria,
indeed, considered that the rejection of her proposal released
her from the necessity of actively joining the Western Powers,
and, instead of taking part in the war, reduced her armaments.
But the Western Powers obtained other aid. The little State of
Sardinia sent a contingent to the Crimea; later on in the year
Sweden joined the alliance. Fresh contingents of troops
rapidly augmented the strength of the French and English
armies, and finer weather as well as better management
banished disease from the camp. Under these circumstances the
bombardment was renewed in April. In May a successful attack
on Kertch and Yenikale, at the extreme east of the Crimea,
proved the means of intercepting communication between
Sebastopol and the Caucasian provinces, and of destroying vast
stores intended for the sustenance of the garrison. In June
the French, to whose command Pelissier, a Marshal of more
robust fibre than Canrobert, had succeeded, made a successful
attack on the Mamelon, while the English concurrently seized
another vantage-ground. Men at home, cheered by the news of
these successes, fancied that they were witnessing the
beginning of the end. Yet the end was not to come immediately.
A great assault, delivered on the 18th of June, by the French
on the Malakhoff, by the English on the Redan, failed; and its
failure, among other consequences, broke the heart· of the old
soldier [Lord Raglan] who for nine months had commanded the
English army. … His capacity as a general does not suffer from
any comparison with that of his successor, General Simpson.
That officer had been sent out to the Crimea in the preceding
winter; he had served under Raglan as chief of the staff; and
he was now selected for the command. He had, at least, the
credit which attaches to any military man who holds a
responsible post in the crisis of an operation. For the crisis
of the campaign had now come. On both sides supreme efforts
were made to terminate the struggle. On the 16th of August the
Russian army in force crossed the Tchernaya, attacked the
French lines, but experienced a sharp repulse. On the 8th of
September the assault of June was repeated; and though the
British were again driven back from the Redan, the French
succeeded in carrying the Malakhoff. The Russians, recognising
the significance of the defeat, set Sebastopol and their
remaining ships on fire, and retreated to the northern bank of
the harbour. After operations, which had lasted for nearly a
year, the allies were masters of the south side of the city.
It is, perhaps, unnecessary to prolong any further the
narrative of operations which had little influence on history.
The story of the defence of Kars and of the bombardment of
Sweaborg have an interest of their own. But they had no effect
on the events which followed or on the peace which ensued.
Soon after, the Vienna Conference was dissolved, indeed, it
became evident that the war was approaching its close. The
cost and the sacrifices which it involved were making the
French people weary of the struggle, and the accidental
circumstances, which gave them in August and September the
chief share in the glory, disposed them to make peace. The
reasons which made the French, however, eager for peace, did
not apply to the English. They, on the contrary, were
mortified at their failures. Their expectations had been
raised by the valour of their army at Alma, at Balaklava, and
at Inkerman. But, since the day of Inkerman, their own share
in the contest had added no new page of splendour to the
English story. The English troops had taken no part in the
battle of the Tchernaya; their assaulting columns had been
driven back on the 18th of June; they had been repulsed in the
final attack on the Redan; and the heroic conduct of their own
countrymen at Kars had not prevented the fall of that
fortress. Men at home, anxious to account for the failure of
their expectations, were beginning to say that England is like
the runner, never really ripe for the struggle till he has
gained his second wind. They were reluctant that she should
retire from the contest at the moment when, having repaired
her defective administration and reinforced her shattered
army, she was in a position to command a victory. Whatever
wishes, however, individual Englishmen might entertain,
responsible statesmen, as the autumn wore on, could not
conceal from themselves the necessity of finding some
honourable means for terminating the war. In October the
British Cabinet learned with dismay that the French Emperor
had decided on withdrawing 100,000 men from the Crimea. About
the same time the members of the Government learned with equal
alarm that, if war were to be continued at all, the French
public were demanding that France should secure some advantage
in Poland, in Italy, and on the left bank of the Rhine. In
November the French ministry took a much more extreme course,
and concerted with Austria terms of peace without the
knowledge of England. …
{2781}
It was impossible any longer to depend on the co-operation of
France, and … it was folly to continue the struggle without
her assistance. The protocol which Austria had drawn up, and
to which France had assented, was, with some modifications,
adopted by Britain and presented, as an ultimatum, to Russia
by Austria. In the middle of January, 1856, the ultimatum was
accepted by Russia; a Congress at which Clarendon, as Foreign
Minister, personally represented his country, was assembled at
Paris. The plenipotentiaries, meeting on the 25th of February,
at once agreed on a suspension of hostilities. Universally
disposed towards peace, they found no difficulty in
accommodating differences which had proved irreconcilable in
the previous year, and on the 30th of March, 1856, peace was
signed. The peace which was thus concluded admitted the right
of the Porte to participate in the advantages of the public
law of Europe; it pledged all the contracting parties, in the
case of any fresh misunderstanding with the Turk, to resort to
mediation before using force. It required the Sultan to issue
and to communicate to the Powers a firman ameliorating the
condition of his Christian subjects; it declared that the
communication of the firman gave the Powers no right, either
collectively or separately, to interfere between the Sultan
and his subjects; it neutralised the Black Sea, opening its
waters to the mercantile marine of every nation, but, with the
exception of a few vessels of light draught necessary for the
service of the coast, closing them to every vessel of war; it
forbade the establishment or maintenance of arsenals on the
shores of the Euxine; it established the free navigation of
the Danube; it set back the frontier of Russia from the
Danube; it guaranteed the privileges and immunities of the
Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia; it similarly
guaranteed the privileges of Servia, though it gave the Sultan
the right of garrison in that province; and it undertook that
Russia and Turkey should restore the conquests which they had
made in Asia [Kars, etc.] one from another during the war.
Such were the terms on which the war was terminated. Before
the plenipotentiaries separated they were invited by Walewski,
the Foreign Minister and first representative of France, to
discuss the condition of Greece, of the Roman States, and of
the two Sicilies; to condemn the licence to which a free press
was lending itself in Belgium; and to concert measures for the
mitigation of some of the worst evils of maritime war."
See DECLARATION OF PARIS.
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 24. _
ALSO IN:
_E. Hertslet,
The Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 2, documents 263-272._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1855.
Accession of Alexander II.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1859.
Improved treatment of the Jews.
See JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
Conquests in Central Asia.
Subjugation of Bokhara, Khiva and Khokand.
"The original cause of Russia's appearance in Central Asia or
Turkestan may be considered either the turbulence of the
Kirghiz tribes, or the ambitions and clearly defined policy of
Peter the Great. … Although the Czarina Anne received in 1734
the formal surrender of all the Kirghiz hordes, it was not
until the present century had far advanced that the Russian
Government could so much as flatter itself that it had
effectually coerced them. … When the Kirghiz were subjugated
Russia found no difficulty in reaching the lower course of the
Jaxartes, on which [in 1849] … she established her advanced
post at Kazala, or Fort No. 1. With her ultimate task thus
simplified, nothing but the Crimean War prevented Russia's
immediate advance up the Jaxartes into Turkestan. … The
conquest of the Khanate of Turkestan began with the siege and
capture of the forts Chulak Kurgan and Yani Kurgan in 1859;
its successful progress was shown by the fall of the fortified
towns of Turkestan and Auliata in 1864; and it was brought to
a conclusion with the storming of Tashkent in 1865. The
conquest of this Khanate, which had been united early in the
century with that of Khokand, was thus speedily achieved, and
this rapid and remarkable triumph is identified with the name
of General Tchernaieff."
_D. C. Boulger,
Central Asian Questions,
chapter 1._
"Khudayar Khan, the ruler of Khokand, a noted coward even in
Central Asia, had soon lost his spirits, and implored
Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan for assistance. Bokhara, reputed at that
time the very stronghold of moral and material strength in
Central Asia, was soon at hand with an army outnumbering the
Russian adventurers ten or fifteen times; an army in name
only, but consisting chiefly of a rabble, ill-armed, and
devoid of any military qualities. By dint of preponderating
numbers, the Bokhariots succeeded so far as to inflict a loss
upon the daring Russian general at Irdjar, who, constrained to
retreat upon Tashkend, was at once deposed by his superiors in
St. Petersburg, and, instead of praises being bestowed upon
him for the capture of Tashkend, he had to feel the weight of
Russian ingratitude. His successor, General Romanovsky, played
the part of a consolidator and a preparer, and as soon as this
duty was fulfilled he likewise was superseded by General
Kauffmann, a German from the Baltic Russian provinces, uniting
the qualities of his predecessors in one person, and doing
accordingly the work entrusted to him with pluck and luck in a
comparatively short time. In 1868 the Yaxartes valley,
together with Samarkand, the former capital of Timur, fell
into the hands of Russia, and General Kauffmann would have
proceeded to Bokhara, and even farther, if
Muzaffar-ed-din-Khan … had not voluntarily submitted and
begged for peace. At the treaty of Serpul, the Emir was
granted the free possession of the country which was left to
him, beginning beyond Kermineh, as far as Tchardjui in the
south. … Of course the Emir had to pledge himself to be a true
and faithful ally of Russia. He had to pay the heavy war
indemnity. … he had to place his sons under the tutorship of
the Czar in order to be brought up at St. Petersburg. … and
ultimately he had to cede three points on his southern
frontier—namely, Djam, Kerki, and Tchardjui. … Scarcely five
years had elapsed when Russia … cast her eyes beyond the Oxus
upon the Khan of Khiva. … A plea for a 'casus belli' was soon
unearthed. … The Russian preparations of war had been ready
for a long time, provisions were previously secured on
different points, and General Kauffmann, notoriously fond of
theatrical pageantries, marched through the most perilous
route across bottomless sands from the banks of the Yaxartes
to the Oxus [1873]. …
{2782}
Without fighting a single battle, the whole country on the
Lower Oxus was conquered. Russia again showed herself
magnanimous by replacing the young Khan upon the paternal
throne, after having taken away from him the whole country on
the right bank of the Oxus, and imposed upon his neck the
burden of a war indemnity which will weigh him down as long as
he lives, and cripple even his successors, if any such are to
come after him. Three more years passed, when Russia … again
began to extend the limits of her possessions in the Yaxartes
Valley towards the East. In July, 1876, one of the famous
Russian embassies of amity was casually (?) present at the
Court of Khudayar Khan at Khokand, when suddenly a rebellion
broke out, endangering not only the lives of the Russian
embassy but also of the allied ruler. No wonder, therefore,
that Russia had to take care of the friend in distress. An
army was despatched to Khokand, the rebellion was quelled,
and, as a natural consequence, the whole Khanate incorporated
into the dominions of the Czar. The Khokandians, especially
one portion of them called the Kiptchaks, did not surrender so
easily as their brethren in Bokhara and Khiva. The struggle
between the conquerer and the native people was a bloody and
protracted one; and the butchery at Namangan, an engagement in
which the afterwards famous General Skobeleff won his spurs,
surpasses all the accounts hitherto given of Russian cruelty.
Similar scenes occurred in Endidjan and other places, until
the power of the Kiptchaks, noted for their bravery all over
Central Asia, was broken, and 'peace,' a pendant to the famous
tableau of Vereshtchagin, 'Peace at Shipka,' prevailed
throughout the valleys of Ferghana, enabling the Russian eagle
to spread his wings undisturbedly over the whole of Central
Asia, beginning from the Caspian Sea in the west to the Issyk
Kul in the east, and from Siberia to the Turkoman sands in the
south."
_A. Vambéry,
The Coming Struggle for India,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_F. von Hellwald,
The Russians in Central Asia,
chapters 7-11. _
_J. Hutton,
Central Asia,
chapters 12 and 18._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1860-1880.
The rise, spread and character of Nihilism.
See NIHILISM.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1861.
Emancipation of serfs.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN:
RUSSIAN SERFDOM.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1864.
Organization of Public Instruction.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—RUSSIA.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1867.
Sale of Alaska to the United States.
See ALASKA: A. D. 1867.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1869·1881.
Advance in Central Asia from the Caspian.
Capture of Geok Tepe.
Subjugation of the Turkomans.
Occupation of Merv.
"Down to 1869 the Russian advance into Central Asia was
conducted from Orenburg and the various military posts of
Western Siberia. Year by year the frontier was pushed to the
southward, and the map of the Asiatic possessions of Russia
required frequent revision. The long chain of the Altai
Mountains passed into the control of the Czar; the Aral Sea
became a Russian lake; and vast territories with a sparse
population were brought under Russian rule. … The Turcoman
country extends westward as far as the Caspian Sea. To put a
stop to the organized thieving of the Turcomans, and more
especially to increase the extent of territory under their
control, and open the land route to India, the Russians
occupied the eastern shore of the Caspian in 1869. A military
expedition was landed at Krasnovodsk, where it built a fort,
and took permanent possession of the country in the name of
the Czar. Points on the eastern coast of the Caspian had been
occupied during the time of Peter the Great, and again during
the reign of Nicholas I., but the occupation of the region was
only temporary. The force which established itself at
Krasnovodsk consisted of a few companies of infantry, two
sotnias of Cossacks, and half a dozen pieces of artillery.
Three men who afterwards obtained considerable prominence in
the affairs of Central Asia, and one of whom gained a
world-wide reputation as a soldier, were attached to this
expedition. The last was Skobeleff, the hero of Plevna and the
Russo-Turkish campaign of 1877-78. The others were Stolietoff'
and Grodekoff. … The Yomut Turcomans in the Caspian region
made no resistance; they are far less warlike than the Tekke
Turcomans farther to the east, who afterwards became the
defenders of Geok Tepe. … From 1869 to 1873 there were
numerous skirmishes and reconnoitrings, during which the
steppes were pretty well explored as far as Kizil-Arvat.
General Stolietoff' was in command until 1872, when he was
succeeded by Colonel Markusoff, who pushed his explorations to
the wells of Igdy, then bending to the southwest, he passed
Kizil·Arvat on his return to Krasnovodsk. There appeared to be
no obstacle to a Russian advance into the heart of the
country. But when General Lomakin was ordered there during the
years between 1873 and 1879, he found that beyond Kizil-Arvat
were the Tekke Turcomans, who seemed determined to make a
decided opposition to the Muscovite designs. … He advanced
with 4,000 men and reached Geok Tepe without resistance, but
no sooner was he in front of it than the Turcomans fell upon
him. He was severely defeated and made a hasty retreat to
Krasnovodsk with the remnant of his army. General Tergukasoff
was next appointed to the command, but when he saw the
difficulties confronting him he resigned. He was succeeded by
General Petrussovitch under the chief command of Skobeleff.
Thus from Stolietoff to Skobeleff there were no fewer than
seven generals who had tried to conquer the Tekke Turcomans.
Skobeleff, seeing the vast difficulties of the situation,
matured a skilful and scientific plan of operations, for which
he obtained the imperial sanction. … Skobeleff's first work
[1880] was to secure a safe transport, establish a regular
line of steamers across the Caspian, to build suitable docks,
secure 20,000 camels, and build a railway from Michaelovsk to
Kizil-Arvat. Michaelovsk is a small bay near Krasnovodsk and
better suited as a harbor than the latter place. Skobeleff's
first reconnoitring convinced him that Geok Tepe could only be
taken by a regular siege. … Geok Tepe, sometimes called Goek
Tepe ('The Green Hills'), is situated on the Akhal oasis, in
the Turcoman steppes, 387 versts (250 miles), east of the
Caspian Sea. The chain of hills called the Kopet·Dag, lies
south and southwest of Geok Tepe, and on the other side it
touches the sandy desert of Kara Kum, with the hill of Geok on
the east. The Turcomans, or rather the Tekke Turcomans, who
held it are the most numerous of the nomad tribes in that
region.
{2783}
They are reported to count about 100,000 kibitkas, or tents;
reckoning 5 persons to a kibitka, this would give them a
strength of half a million. Their great strength in numbers
and their fighting abilities enabled them to choose their
position and settle on the most fertile oases along the
northern border of Persia for centuries. These oases have been
renowned for their productiveness, and in consequence of the
abundance of food, the Tekkes were a powerful race of men, and
were feared throughout all that part of Asia. … The fortress
of Geok Tepe at the time of the Russian advance consisted of
walls of mud 12 or 15 feet high towards the north and west,
and 6 or 8 feet thick. In front of these walls was a ditch, 6
feet deep, supplied by a running stream, and behind the walls
was a raised platform for the defenders. The space between the
first and second interior wall was from 50 to 60 feet wide,
and occupied by the kibitkas of the Tekke Turcomans and their
families. The second wall was exactly like the outer one." The
Russian siege was opened at the beginning of the year 1881.
"The first parallel, within 800 yards of the walls, was
successfully cut by January 4th. From that date it was a
regular siege, interrupted occasionally by sallies of the
Tekkes within the fort or attacks by those outside. In one of
these fights General Petrussovitch was killed. The besieging
army was about 10,000 strong, while the besieged were from
30,000, to 40,000. … Throughout the siege the Turcomans made
frequent sallies and there was almost continuous fighting.
Sometimes the Turcomans drove the Russians from the outposts,
and if they had been as well armed as their besiegers it is
highly probable that Skobeleff would have fared no better than
did Lomakin in his disastrous campaign. … The storming columns
were ordered to be ready for work on January 24th. … At 7
o'clock in the morning of the 24th, Gaidaroff advanced to
attack the first fortification on the south front, supported
by 36 guns. The wall had already been half crumbled down by an
explosion of powder and completely broken by the firing of a
dynamite mine. At 11.20 the assault took place, and during the
action the mine on the east front was exploded. It was laid
with 125 cwt: of gunpowder, and in its explosion completely
buried hundreds of Tekkes. … About 1.30 P. M. Gaidaroff
carried the southwestern part of the walls, and a battle raged
in the interior. Half an hour later the Russians were in
possession of Denghil-Tepe, the hill redoubt commanding the
fortress of Geok Tepe. The Tekkes then seemed to be
panic-stricken, and took to flight leaving their families and
all their goods behind. … The ditches to Geok Tepe were filled
with corpses, and there were 4, 000 dead in the interior of
the fortress. The loss of the enemy was enormous. In the
pursuit the Russians are said to have cut down no less than
8,000 fugitives. The total loss of the Tekkes during the
siege, capture, and pursuit was estimated at 40,000. …
Skobeleff pushed on in pursuit as far as Askabad, the capital
of the Akhal Tekkes, 27 miles east of Geok Tepe, and from
Askabad he sent Kuropatkin with a reconnoitring column
half-way across the desert to Merv. Skobeleff wanted to
capture Merv; but … he did not feel strong enough to make the
attempt. Kuropatkin was recalled to Askabad, which remained
the frontier post of the Russians for several months, until
circumstances favored the advance upon Sarakhs and the Tejend,
and the subsequent swoop upon Merv, with its bloodless capture
[February, 1884]. The siege and capture of Geok Tepe was the
most important victory ever achieved by the Russians in
Central Asia. It opened the way for the Russian advance to the
frontier of India, and carried the boundaries of the empire
southward to those of Persia. In the interest of humanity, it
was of the greatest importance, as it broke up the system of
man-stealing and its attendant cruelties, which the Turcomans
had practised for centuries. The people of Northern Persia no
longer live in constant terror of Turcoman raids; the slave
markets of Central Asia are closed, and doubtless forever."
_T. W. Knox,
Decisive Battles since Waterloo,
chapter 22._
"There is a vast tract of country in Central Asia that offers
great possibilities for settlement. Eastern Afghan, and
Western Turkestan, with an area of 1,500,000 square miles,
have a population which certainly does not exceed 15,000,000,
or ten to the square mile. Were they peopled as the Baltic
provinces of Russia are—no very extreme supposition—they would
support 90,000,000. It is conceivable that something like this
may be realized at no very distant date, when railroads are
carried across China, and when water—the great want of
Turkestan—is provided for by a system of canalisation and
artesian wells. Meanwhile it is important to observe that
whatever benefit is derived from an increase of population in
these regions will mostly fall to China. That empire possesses
the better two-thirds of Turkestan, and can pour in the
surplus of a population of 400,000,000. Russia can only
contribute the surplus of a population of about 100,000,000;
and though the Russian is a fearless and good colonist, there
are so many spaces in Russia in Europe to be filled up, so
many growing towns that need workmen, so many
counter-attractions in the gold bearing districts of Siberia,
that the work of peopling the outlying dependencies of the
empire is likely to be very gradual. Indeed it is reported
that Russia is encouraging Chinese colonists to settle in the
parts about Merv."
_C. H. Pearson,
National Life and Character,
pages 43-44._
ALSO IN:
_General Skobeleff,
Siege and Assault of Denghil-Tépé
(Geok-Tépé): Official Report._
_C. Marvin,
The Russians at the Gates of Herat,
chapter 1-2._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1877-1878.
Successful war with Turkey.
Siege and reduction of Plevna.
Threatening advance towards Constantinople.-
Treaty of San Stefano.
Congress and Treaty of Berlin.
See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877; 1877-1878; and 1878.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1878-1880.
Movements in Afghanistan.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
{2784}
RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.
Nihilist attempts against the life of the Czar Alexander II.
His assassination.
In November, 1879, "the Czar paid his annual visit to the
memorial church at Sevastopol, when a requiem was celebrated,
and he left the Crimea on November 30. The following
evening, as his train was entering Moscow, followed by another
carrying his baggage, an explosion took place under the
baggage train from a mine of dynamite below the rails, which
destroyed one carriage, and threw seven more off the line: He
was informed of the cause of the noise he had just heard, as
he stepped on to the platform at Moscow, and it proved to be
another Nihilist outrage [see NIHILISM], designed chiefly by
an ex-Jew, who escaped to France, and by Sophia Perovsky, who
was afterwards concerned in the Emperor's death. A similar
mine, of which the wire was accidentally cut by a passing cart
before the train arrived, had been laid further south at
Alexandrovsk; and another nearer to Odessa was discovered in
time by the officials, who reversed the usual position of the
Imperial trains, thereby probably saving the Czar's life. He
telegraphed the same night to the Empress at Cannes that he
had arrived safely at Moscow, but did not mention his escape,
which she learned from the newspapers, and from her
attendants. In her weak, nervous state, it is not surprising
that the effect was most injurious. … Another plot was
discovered to blow up the landing stage at Odessa when the
Emperor embarked for Yalta on his way from Warsaw in
September; but the arrest of the conspirators frustrated a
scheme by which hundreds as well as the sovereign might have
perished. … The Revolutionary Committee put forth a circular
acknowledging their part in the explosion, and calling on the
people to aid them against the Czar. … A formal sentence of
death was forwarded to him at Livadia by the Revolutionary
Committee in the autumn of 1879; and December 1 was evidently
selected for the Moscow attempt, being the anniversary of the
death of Alexander I.; therefore a fatal day for monarchs in
the eyes of the Nihilists. The Empress continued very ill, and
her desire to return to Russia increased. At last it was
decided to gratify her, as her case was pronounced hopeless. …
The Emperor joined her in the train three stations before she
arrived at St. Petersburg, and drove alone with her in the
closed carriage, in which she was removed from the station to
the Winter Palace. Only a fortnight later [February 17, 1880],
a diabolical attempt was made to destroy the whole Imperial
family. The hours when they assembled in the dining-room were
well known. … The Empress was confined to her room, only kept
alive by an artificial atmosphere being preserved in her
apartment, which was next to the dining-room. Her only
surviving brother, Prince Alexander of Hesse-Darmstadt, had
arrived the same evening on a visit, and his letter to his
wife on the occasion describes the result of the plot: … 'We
were proceeding through a large corridor to His Majesty's
rooms, when suddenly a fearful thundering was heard. The
flooring was raised as if by an earthquake, the gas lamps were
extinguished, and we were left in total darkness. At the same
time a horrible dust and the smell of gunpowder or dynamite
filled the corridor. Some one shouted to us that the
chandelier had fallen down in the saloon where the table was
laid for the dinner of the Imperial family. I hastened thither
with the Czarovitz and the Grand-Duke Vladimir, while Count
Adlerberg, in doubt as to what might happen next, held back
the Emperor. We found all the windows broken, and the walls in
ruins. A mine had exploded under the room. The dinner was
delayed for half an hour by my arrival, and it was owing to
this that the Imperial family had not yet assembled in the
dining-hall.' One of the Princes remarked that it was a gas
explosion; but the Emperor, who fully retained his composure,
said, 'O no, I know what it is;' and it was subsequently
stated that for several weeks past he had found a sealed
black-bordered letter on his table every morning, always
containing the same threat, that he should not survive the 2nd
of March, the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession. His
first care was to see that his daughter was safe, and he then
asked her to go to the Empress, and prevent her from being
alarmed, while he personally inspected the scene of the
catastrophe. General Todleben was of opinion that 144 lbs. of
dynamite must have been used; and one of the cooks —a
foreigner—and another official disappeared; but none of those
concerned in the plot was arrested at that time. Subsequent
information showed that the explosion was intended for the 2nd
of March, but hastened on account of the arrest of some one
acquainted with the plot. It was caused by machinery placed in
the flue, and set for 6 P. M. It killed and wounded two
servants and thirty-three brave soldiers of the Finnish Guard,
who were assembled in the hall under the dining-room and above
the flue where the dynamite was laid. … The Russian and
foreign newspapers teemed with advice to the Emperor to grant
a constitution, or abdicate in order to save his life; and it
is reported that in a Council of his Ministers and relations
he offered to hand over the sceptre at once to his eldest son,
if they agreed that it would be best for their own safety, and
for Russia; but that he was earnestly requested to continue in
power. However this might be, he took an extraordinary and
decisive step. He appointed an Armenian, General Melikof, a
man of 56 years of age, distinguished in the war with Turkey,
and subsequently as Governor of Charkof, to be the temporary
dictator of the Empire, with almost absolute powers, and over
the six Governors-General who in 1879 were established
throughout Russia. The Commission was for six months. … The
explosion in the Winter Palace caused the greatest panic in
St. Petersburg, and people would no longer take tickets for
the opera, till they ascertained that the Emperor was not
likely to be there. … The sad condition of the Empress, who
lingered, hardly conscious, between life and death, the
incessant Nihilist circulars which day after day were found
among his clothes, or on his writing table, with the real
attempts made to poison him in letters and other ways, and of
assassins to penetrate into the Palace under the guise of
sweeps, petitioners, fire-lighters, and guards, the danger to
which his nearest relations were exposed, and the precautions
which he looked upon as a humiliation that were taken to
ensure his safety, added to the cares of Empire, must have
rendered his [the Emperor's] existence hardly tolerable. It is
not surprising that at last he desired to be left to take his
chance. … He was again seen driving in the streets in an open
droschky, with only his coachman and one Cossack. … In May the
Court usually repaired to Gateschina for the summer manœuvres
of the troops. … The Empress, having somewhat rallied, desired
to go as usual to Gateschina. … But early in the morning of
June 3, she passed quietly away in her sleep. …
{2785}
It has been since ascertained that the Nihilists had planned
to blow up the bridge over which the funeral procession must
pass, so as to destroy all the mourners, including the foreign
princes, the Imperial hearse, and the numerous guards and
attendants; but a tremendous storm of rain and wind on the
previous night and morning, which raised the Neva to a level
with its banks, and threatened to postpone the ceremony,
prevented the last measures being taken to secure the success
of the plot. … On March 2, the Emperor, as usual, attended the
Requiem Mass for his father, and the service to celebrate his
own accession to the throne. During the last week of his life,
he lived in comparative retirement, as it was Lent, and he was
preparing for the Holy Communion, which he received with his
sons on the morning of Saturday, March 12. At 12 that day,
Melikof came to tell him of the capture of one of the
Nihilists concerned in the explosion in the Winter Palace.
This man refused to answer any questions, except that his
capture would not prevent the Emperor's certain assassination,
and that his Majesty would never see another Easter. Both
Melikof and the Czarovitz begged the Emperor in vain not to
attend the parade the next day. … After the Parade [Sunday,
March 13, 1881] the Emperor drove with his brother Michael to
the Michael Palace, the abode of their cousin, the widowed
Grand-Duchess Catherine; and, leaving his brother there, he
set off about two o'clock by the shortest way to the Winter
Palace, along the side of the Catherine Canal. There, in the
part where the road runs between the Summer Garden and the
Canal, a bombshell was hurled under the Imperial carriage, and
exploded in a shower of snow, throwing down two of the horses
of the escort, tearing off the back of the carriage, and
breaking the glass, upsetting two lamp-posts, and wounding one
of the Cossacks, and a baker's boy who was passing with a
basket on his head. As soon as he saw the two victims lying on
the pavement, the Emperor called to the coachman to stop, but
the last only drove on faster, having received private orders
from the Emperor's family to waive all ceremony, and to
prevent his master from going into dangerous situations, or
among crowds. However, the Emperor pulled the cord round the
coachman's arm till he stopped; and then, in spite of the
man's request to let himself be driven straight home, got out
to speak to the sufferers, and to give orders for their prompt
removal to the hospital, as the thermometer was below zero. …
The Emperor gave his directions, and seeing the man who had
thrown the bomb in the grasp of two soldiers, though still
struggling to point a revolver at his sovereign, he asked his
name, on which the aid-de-camp replied: 'He calls himself
Griaznof, and says he is a workman.' The Emperor made one or
two more remarks, and then turned to go back to his carriage.
It was observed he was deadly pale, and walked very slowly;
and as splashes of blood were found in the carriage, it was
afterwards supposed that he had already received slight
wounds. Several men had been placed at different points of the
road with explosive bombs, and hearing the first explosion,
two of these hurried up to see the effect. One of them flung a
bomb at the Emperor's feet when he had gone a few paces
towards his carriage, and it exploded, blowing off one leg,
and shattering the other to the top of the thigh, besides
mortally wounding the assassin himself, who fell with a shriek
to the ground, and injuring twenty foot passengers. The other
accomplice, according to his own evidence, put down his bomb,
and instinctively ran forward to help the Emperor, who did not
utter a sound, though his lips moved as if in prayer. He was
supporting himself with his back against a buttress by
grasping the rails on the canal. His helmet was blown off, his
clothes torn to rags, and his orders scattered about on the
snow, while the windows of houses 150 yards distant were
broken by the explosion, which raised a column of smoke and
snow, and was heard even at the Anitchkof Palace. … Besides
his shattered limbs, the Emperor had a frightful gash in the
abdomen, his left eyelid was burnt, and his sight gone, his
right hand was crushed, and the rings broken. … The Emperor
expired from loss of blood at five-and-twenty minutes to four.
… More than twenty persons were killed and injured by the two
bombs."
_C. Joyneville,
Life of Alexander II.,
chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_Annual Register, 1879-1881._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1881.
Accession of Alexander III.
RUSSIA: A. D. 1881-1894.
Character and reign of Alexander III.
Persecution of Jews and unorthodox Christians.
Hostility to western civilization.
"According to an apparently authentic report in the Cracow
paper 'Czas,' confirmed by later publications, the Emperor
Alexander II. had signed the very morning of the day on which
he was murdered a Ukase addressed to the Senate, by which a
committee was to be appointed for realising Count Loris
Melikow's project of a general representative assembly
composed of delegates from the provincial assemblies. On March
20th Alexander III. convoked a grand council of the principal
dignitaries, asking their opinion on Loris Melikow's proposal.
A lively discussion took place, of which the 'Czas' gives a
detailed account. … The Emperor, thanking the members, said
that the majority had declared for the convening of an
assembly elected by the nation for discussing the affairs of
the State, adding, 'I share this opinion of the majority, and
wish that the reform Ukase shall be published as under the
patronage of my father, to whom the initiative of this reform
is due.' The Ukase, however, was not published, Podobenoszew
and Ignatiew having succeeded in discrediting it in the eyes
of the Czar, asserting that it would only create excitement
and increase the existing fermentation. On May 13th a
manifesto appeared, in which the Czar declared his will 'to
keep firmly the reins in obedience to the voice of God, and,
in the belief in the force and truth of autocratic power, to
fortify that power and to guard it against all encroachments.'
A few days later Count Ignatiew, the head of the Slavophil
party, was appointed Minister of the Interior, and by-and-by
the other more liberal Ministers of Alexander II. disappeared.
By far the most important personage under the present
government is Podobenoszew, High Procurator of the Holy Synod,
an office equivalent to a Minister of Public Worship for the
State Church. Laborious and of unblemished integrity, this man
is a fanatic by conviction. Under Alexander II., who was too
much of a European to like him, he had but a secondary
position, but under his pupil, the present Emperor, he has
become all-powerful, the more so because his orthodoxy wears
the national garb, and he insists that the break-down of the
Nicolas I. system was only caused through governing with
Ministers of German origin.
{2786}
He is seconded by Count Tolstoi, the Minister of Internal
Affairs (who replaced the more liberal Saburow), to whom
belong the questions concerning the foreign, i. e.,
non-orthodox, confessions. These two, supported by the
Minister of Justice, Manasseïn, have enacted persecutions
against Catholics, Uniates, Protestants, and Jews [see JEWS:
19TH CENTURY], which seem incredible in our age, but which are
well attested. Thousands of persons who have committed no
wrong other than that of being faithful to their inherited
creed have been driven from their homes, and exiled to
Siberia, or to distant regions without any means of
livelihood. As regards Catholics, these measures are
principally directed against the clergy; but the Uniates, i.
e., the Catholics who have the Slav liturgy, are unsparingly
deported if they refuse to have their children baptised by an
orthodox Pope, and this is done with men, women, and children,
peasants and merchants. Twenty thousand Uniates alone have
been removed from the western provinces to Szaratow. Those who
remain at home have Cossacks quartered upon them, and all
sorts of compulsory means are used to stamp out this sect. …
It is pretty certain that Alexander III. is ignorant of the
atrocities committed in his name, for he is not a man to
sanction deliberate injustice or to tolerate persons of
manifest impurity in important offices. Though the Czar
insists upon having personally honest Ministers, mere honesty
is not sufficient for governing a great empire. Truth does not
penetrate to the ear of the autocrat; the Russian Press does
not reflect public opinion with its currents, but is simply
the speaking-tube of the reigning coterie, which has
suppressed all papers opposed to it, while the foreign Press
is only allowed to enter mutilated by the censorship. Some
people have, indeed, the privilege to read foreign papers in
their original shape, but the Autocrat of All the Russias does
not belong to them. … The Emperor is peaceful and will not
hear of war: he has, in fact, submitted to many humiliations
arising from Russia's conduct towards Bulgaria. … With all
this, however, he is surrounded by Panslavists and allows them
to carry on an underground warfare against the Balkan States.
… He is strongly opposed to all Western ideas of civilisation,
very irritable, and unflinching in his personal dislikes, as
he has shown in the case of Prince Alexander of Battenberg;
and, with his narrow views, he is unable to calculate the
bearing of his words and actions, which often amount to direct
provocation against his neighbours. If, nevertheless,
tolerable relations with England, Austria, and Germany have
been maintained, this is for the most part the merit of M. de
Giers, the Foreign Secretary, an unpretending, cautious, and
personally reliable man of business, whose influence with the
Czar lies in the cleverness with which he appears not to
exercise any."
_Professor Geffcken,
Russia under Alexander III.
(New Review, September, 1891)._
ALSO IN:
_H. von Samson-Himmelstierna,
Russia under Alexander III._
RUSSIA: A. D. 1894.
Death of Alexander III.
Accession of Nicholas II.
The Czar Alexander III. died on the 1st of November, 1894, at
Livadia, and the accession of his eldest son, who ascends the
throne as Nicholas II., was officially proclaimed at St.
Petersburg on the following day. The new autocrat was born in
1868. He is to wed the Princess Alix of Hesse Darmstadt.
----------RUSSIA: End--------
RUSSIA, Great, Little, White, and Black.
"Little Russia consists of the governments of Podolia,
Volhynia, Kief, Tchernigof, Poltava, and Kharkof. … To protect
Poland from Tartar raids, the Polish king entrusted to the
keeping of the Cossacks the whole south-east frontier of
Poland, the former Grand Duchy of Kief, which acquired the
name of Ukraine, 'borderland,' and also of Little Russia, in
contradistinction to the Grand Duchy of Moscow or Great
Russia. …
See COSSACKS.
The provinces of Moghilef, Minsk, and Vitebsk are popularly
known by the name of White Russia. … The peaceful,
industrious, good tempered White Russians are descendants of
the old Slav race of the Krevitchi. … The name of 'the land
of the Krevitchi,' by which White Russia was called in the
11th century, died out on the rise of the Principalities of
Polotsk, Misteslavsk, and Minsk, which belonged first to
Kief, next to Lithuania, and later still to Poland."
_H. M. Chester,
Russia, Past and Present,
pages 225. 228, 270-271._
"The epithet of 'White,' applied also to the Muscovite
Russians in the sense of 'free,' at the time when they were
rescued from the Tatar yoke, has been the special designation
of the Russians of the Upper Dnieper only since the end of the
14th century. At first applied by the Poles to all the
Lithuanian possessions torn from the Muscovites, it was
afterwards used in a more restricted sense. Catherine II. gave
the name of White Russia to the present provinces of Vitebsk
and Moghilov, and Nicholas abolished the expression
altogether, since when it has lost all its political
significance, while preserving its ethnical value. … The term
'White' is generally supposed to refer to the colour of their
dress in contradistinction to the 'Black Russians,' between
the Pripet and Niemen, who form the ethnical transition from
the Little to the White Russians. … The terms Little Russia
(Malo-Russia, Lesser Russia), Ukrania, Ruthenia, have never
had any definite limits, constantly shifting with the
vicissitudes of history, and even with the administrative
divisions. … The name itself of Little Russia appears for the
first time in the Byzantine chronicles of the 13th century in
association with Galicia and Volhynia, after which it was
extended to the Middle Dnieper, or Kiyovia. In the same way
Ukrania—that is 'Frontier'—was first applied to Podolia to
distinguish it from Galicia, and afterwards to the southern
provinces of the Lithuanian state, between the Bug and
Dnieper."
_É. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
volume 5. pages 282-290._
RUSSIAN AMERICA.
See ALASKA.
RUSTCHUK, Battle of (1594).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).
RUTENI, The.
The Ruteni were a Gallic tribe, who bordered on the Roman
Gallia Provincia, between the Cevennes and the Cadurci
occupying the district of France called Rouergue before the
Revolution.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 17._
RUTENNU, The.
See ROTENNU.
{2787}
RÜTLI,
GRÜTLI, The Meadow of.
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
RUTULIANS, The.
See LATIUM.
RUTUPIÆ.
The principal Kentish seaport of Roman Britain; now
Richborough. It was celebrated for its oysters.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_C. Roach Smith,
Antiquities of Richborough._
See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.
RUWARD OF BRABANT.
"This office was one of great historical dignity, but somewhat
anomalous in its functions. … A Ruward was not exactly
dictator, although his authority was universal. He was not
exactly protector, nor governor, nor stadholder. His functions
… were commonly conferred on the natural heir to the
sovereignty—therefore more lofty than those of ordinary
stadholders."
_J. L. Motley,
The Rise of the Dutch Republic;
part 5, chapter 4._
RYE-HOUSE PLOT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
RYOTS OF BENGAL, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
RYSWICK, The Peace of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696; and 1697.
S
SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN: United to France (1680).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
SAARBRÜCK, OR SAARBRÜCKEN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
SABÆANS, The.
See ARABIA: ANCIENT SUCCESSION
AND FUSION OF RACES.
SABANA DE LA CRUZ, Battle of (1859).
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
SABBATHAISTS.
A Jewish sect, believers in the Messianic pretensions of one
Sabbathai Sevi, of Smyrna, who made an extraordinary commotion
in the Jewish world about the middle of the 17th century, and
who finally embraced Mahometanism.
_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 28._
SABELLIANS, The.
See SABINES;
also, ITALY: ANCIENT.
SABELLIANS, The sect of the.
See NOËTIANS.
SABINE CROSS ROADS, OR MANSFIELD, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
SABINE WARS, The.
The Roman historians—Dionysius, Plutarch, Livy, and others—
gave credit to traditions of a long and dangerous war, or
series of wars, with the Sabines, following the expulsion of
the Tarquins from Rome and the founding of the Republic. But
modern skeptical criticism has left little ground for any part
of the story of these wars. It seems to have been derived from
the chronicles of an ancient family, the Valerian family, and,
as a recent writer has said, it is suspicious that "a Valerius
never holds a magistracy but there is a Sabine war." Ihne
conjectures that some annalist of the Valerian family used the
term Sabine in relating the wars of the Romans with the
Latins, and with the Tarquins, struggling to regain their lost
throne, and that this gave a start to the whole fictitious
narrative of Sabine wars.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 12._
SABINE WOMEN, The Rape of the.
See ROME: B. C. 753-510.
SABINES, OR SABELLIANS, The.
"The greatest of the Italian nations was the Sabellian. Under
this name we include the Sabines, who are said by tradition to
have been the progenitors of the whole race, the Samnites, the
Picenians, Vestinians, Marsians, Marrucinians, Pelignians, and
Frentanians. This race seems to have been naturally given to a
pastoral life, and therefore fixed their early settlements in
the upland valleys of the Apennines. Pushing gradually along
this central range, they penetrated downwards towards the Gulf
of Tarentum; and as their population became too dense to find
support in their native hills, bands of warrior youths issued
forth to settle in the richer plains below. Thus they mingled
with the Opican and Pelasgian races of the south, and formed
new tribes known by the names of Apulians, Lucanians, and
Campanians. These more recent tribes, in turn, threatened the
Greek colonies on the coast. … It is certain that the nation
we call Roman was more than half Sabellian. Traditional
history … attributes the conquest of Rome to a Sabine tribe.
Some of her kings were Sabine; the name borne by her citizens
was Sabine; her religion was Sabine; most of her institutions
in war and peace were Sabine; and therefore it may be
concluded that the language of the Roman people differed from
that of Latium Proper by its Sabine elements, though this
difference died out again as the Latin communities were
gradually absorbed into the territory of Rome.'
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
introduction, section 2._
See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT; and LATIUM.
SABINIAN, Pope, A. D. 604-606.
SABRINA.
The ancient name of the Severn river.
SAC AND SOC.
A term used in early English and Norman times to signify
grants of jurisdiction to individual land-owners. The
manorial court-leets were the products of these grants.
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7, section 73._
See, also, MANORS.
SAC, OR SAUK, INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, FOXES, ETC.
SACÆ, The.
"The Sacæ were neighbours of the Hyrcanians, the Parthians,
and the Bactrians in the steppes of the Oxus. Herodotus tells
us that the Sacæ were a nation of the tribe of the Scyths, and
that their proper name was Amyrgians; the Persians called all
the Scythians Sacæ."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 2 (volume 5)._
See, also, SCYTHIANS.
SACERDOTES.
These were the public priests of the ancient Romans, who
performed the 'sacra publica' or religious rites for the
people, at public expense.
_E. Guhl and W. Koner.
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 103. _
SACHEM.
SAGAMORE.
"Each totem of the Lenape [or Delaware Indians of North
America] recognized a chieftain, called sachem, 'sakima,' a
word found in most Algonkin dialects, with slight variations
(Chip., 'ogima,' Cree, 'okimaw, Pequot, 'sachimma '), and
derived from a root 'ŏki,' signifying above in space, and, by
a transfer frequent in all languages, above in power. …
{2789}
It appears from Mr. Morgan's inquiries, that at present and of
later years, 'the office of sachem is hereditary in the gens,
but elective among its members.' Loskiel, however, writing on
the excellent authority of Zeisberger, states explicitly that
the chief of each totem was selected and inaugurated by those
of the remaining two. By common and ancient consent, the chief
selected from the Turtle totem was head chief of the whole
Lenape nation. The chieftains were the 'peace chiefs.' They
could neither go to war themselves, nor send nor receive the
war belt—the ominous string of dark wampum, which indicated
that the tempest of strife was to be let loose. … War was
declared by the people at the instigation of the 'war
captains,' valorous braves of any birth or family who had
distinguished themselves by personal prowess."
_D. G. Brinton,
The Lenape and their Legends,
chapter 3._
"At the institution of the League [of the Iroquois] fifty
permanent sachemships were created, with appropriate names;
and in the sachems who held these titles were vested the
supreme powers of the confederacy. … The sachems themselves
were equal in rank and authority, and instead of holding
separate territorial jurisdictions, their powers were joint,
and coextensive with the League. As a safeguard against
contention and fraud, each sachem was 'raised up' and invested
with his title by a council of all the sachems, with suitable
forms and ceremonies. … The sachemships were distributed
unequally between the five nations, but without thereby giving
to either a preponderance of political power. Nine of them
were assigned to the Mohawk nation, nine to the Oneida,
fourteen to the Onondaga, ten to the Cayuga and eight to the
Seneca. The sachems united formed the Council of the League,
the ruling body, in which resided the executive, legislative
and judicial authority."
_L. H. Morgan,
The League of the Iroquois,
book 1, chapter 3._
"The New England Indians had functionaries; … the higher class
known as sachems, the subordinate, or those of inferior note
or smaller jurisdiction, as sagamores. … This is the
distinction commonly made (Hutchinson, Massachusetts, I. 410).
But Williamson Maine, I. 494) reverses it; Dudley (Letter to
the Countess of Lincoln) says, 'Sagamore, so are the kings
with us called, as they are sachems southward' (that is, in
Plymouth); and Gookin (Massachusetts Historical Collection.,
1. 154) speaks of the two titles of office as equivalent."
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note._
SACHEVERELL, Henry: Impeachment of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
SACKETT'S HARBOR:
Naval headquarters in the war of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
SÄCKINGEN: Capture by Duke Bernhard (1637).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
SACRAMENTARIANS.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.
SACRED BAND OF CARTHAGE.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
SACRED BAND OF THEBES.
See THEBES, GREECE: B. C. 378.
SACRED MONTH OF THE CHARTISTS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842.
SACRED MOUNT AT ROME, The.
See ROME: B. C. 494-492.
SACRED PROMONTORY, The.
The southwestern extremity of Spain—Cape St. Vincent—was
anciently called the Sacred Promontory, and supposed by early
geographers to be the extreme western point of the known
world.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 28, part 1 (volume 2)._
SACRED ROADS IN GREECE.
"After the chariot races came into vogue [at the sacred
festivals and games] these equally necessitated good carriage
roads, which it was not easy to make in a rocky locality like
Delphi. Thus arose the sacred roads, along which the gods
themselves were said to have first passed, as Apollo once came
through pathless tracks to Delphi. … Hence the art of
road-making and of building bridges, which deprived the wild
mountain streams of their dangers, took its first origin from
the national sanctuaries, especially from those of Apollo.
While the foot-paths led across the mountain ridges, the
carriage-roads followed the ravines which the water had
formed. The rocky surface was leveled, and ruts hollowed out
which, carefully smoothed, served as tracks in which the
wheels rolled on without obstruction. This style of roads made
it necessary, in order to a more extended intercourse, to
establish an equal gauge, since otherwise the festive as well
as the racing chariots would have been prevented from visiting
the various sanctuaries. And since as a matter of fact, as far
as the influence of Delphi extended in the Peloponnesus and in
central Greece, the same gauge of 5 ft. 4 in. demonstrably
prevailed, not merely the extension, but also the
equalization, of the net-work of Greek roads took its origin
from Delphi."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 4._
SACRED TRUCE, The.
See OLYMPIC GAMES.
----------SACRED WAR: Start--------
SACRED WAR, The First.
See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586,
and DELPHI.
SACRED WAR: The Second.
The Phocians, B. C. 449, counting on the support of Athens,
whose allies they were, undertook to acquire possession of the
sacred and wealthy city of Delphi. The Spartans sent an army
to the defense of the sanctuary and expelled them;· whereupon
the Athenians sent another and restored them.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 45._
SACRED WAR: The Ten Years.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
----------SACRED WAR: End--------
SACRED WAY AT ATHENS.
The road which led from the great gate of Athens called
Dipylum straight to Eleusis, along which the festive
processions moved, was called the Sacred Way.
_W. M. Leake,
Topography of Athens,
section 2._
SACRED WAY AT ROME, The.
See VIA SACRA.
SACRIPORTUS, Battle of (B. C. 83).
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
{2789}
SADDUCEES, The.
"There is a tradition that the name of Sadducee was derived
from Zadok, a disciple of Antigonus of Socko. But the
statement is not earlier than the seventh century after the
Christian Era, and the person seems too obscure to have
originated so widespread a title. It has been also ingeniously
conjectured that the name, as belonging to the whole priestly
class, is derived from the famous high priest of the time of
Solomon. But of this there is no trace in history or
tradition. It is more probable that, as the Pharisees derived
their name from the virtue of Isolation (pharishah) from the
Gentile world on which they most prided themselves, so the
Sadducees derived theirs from their own special virtue of
Righteousness (zadikah), that is, the fulfillment of the Law,
with which, as its guardians and representatives of the law,
they were specially concerned. The Sadducees—whatever be the
derivation of the word—were less of a sect than a class."
_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 49._
"At the time when we first meet with them [the Sadducees] in
history, that is to say, under Jonathan the Asmonean [B. C.
159-144—see JEWS: B. C. 166-40], they were, though in a
modified form, the heirs and successors of the Hellenists [see
JEWS: B. C. 332-167]. … Hellenism was conquered under the
Asmoneans, and beaten out of the field, and a new gush of
Jewish patriotism and zeal for the law had taken its place.
The Sadducees, who from the first appear as a school suited
for the times, including the rich and educated statesmen,
adopted the prevailing tone among the people. They took part
in the services and sacrifices of the temple, practised
circumcision, observed the Sabbath, and so professed to be
real Jews and followers of the law, but the law rightly
understood, and restored to its simple text and literal sense.
They repudiated, they said, the authority of the new teachers
of the law (now the Pharisees), and of the body of tradition
with which they had encircled the law. In this tradition they
of course included all that was burdensome to themselves. …
The peculiar doctrines of the Sadducees obviously arose from
the workings of the Epicurean philosophy, which had found
special acceptance in Syria. They admitted indeed the
creation, as it seems, but denied all continuous operation of
God in the world. … The Sadducees proved they were real
followers of Epicurus, by denying the life of the soul after
death. The soul, they said, passes away with the body. … The
mass of the people stood aloof from the Sadducees, whom they
regarded with mistrust and aversion."
_J. J. I. Döllinger,
The Gentile and the Jew in the
Courts of the Temple of Christ,
volume 2, page 302-303._
ALSO IN:
_E. Schürer,
History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ,
section 26 (division 2, volume 2). _
SADOWA, OR KÖNIGGRÄTZ, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
SAFFARY DYNASTY, The.
See SAMANIDES.
SAGAMORE.
See SACHEM.
SAGAMOSO, Battle of (1819).
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
SAGARTIANS, The.
A nomadic people, described by Herodotus, who wandered on the
western borders of the great Iranian desert—the desert region
of modern Persia.
SAGAS.
See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100.
SAGGENASH, The.
See YANKEE.
SAGUENAY.
See CANADA: NAMES.
SAGUNTUM, Capture of, by Hannibal.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
SAHAPTINS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.
SAHAY, Battle of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
SAILOR'S CREEK, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL: VIRGINIA).
SAIM.
See TIMAR.
SAINT ALBANS (England).
Origin of.
See VERULAMIUM.
SAINT ALBANS (England): A. D. 1455-1461.
Battles of York and Lancaster.
The town of St. Albans, in England, was the scene of two
battles in the lamentable Wars of the Roses. The first
collision of the long conflict between Lancaster and York
occurred in its streets on the 23d of May, 1455, when King
Henry VI. was taken prisoner by the Duke of York and 5,000 to
8,000 of his supporters were slain. Six years later, on the
17th of February, 1461, the contending forces met again in the
streets of St. Albans with a different result. The Yorkists
were put to flight by the Lancastrians under Queen Margaret.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
SAINT ALBANS CONFEDERATE RAID.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER) THE ST. ALBANS RAID.
SAINT ALBANS FENIAN RAID.
See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.
SAINT ANDREW, The Russian order of.
An order of knighthood instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.
SAINT ANDREW, The Scottish order of.
"To keep pace with other sovereigns, who affected forming
orders of knighthood, in which they themselves should preside,
like Arthur at his round table, or Charlemagne among his
paladins, James [IV. of Scotland, A. D. 1488-1513] established
the order of Saint Andrew, assuming the badge of the thistle,
which since that time has been the national emblem of
Scotland."
_Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 21._
SAINT ANDREWS, Siege of the Castle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
SAINT ANGELO, Castle.
See CASTLE ST. ANGELO.
SAINT AUGUSTINE, Canons of.
See AUSTIN CANONS.
----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: Start--------
SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1565.
Founded by the Spaniards.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565.
SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1701.
Attack from South Carolina.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.
SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1740.
Unsuccessful attack by the English of Georgia and Carolina.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: A. D. 1862.
Temporary occupation by Union forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).
----------SAINT AUGUSTINE, Florida: End--------
SAINT BARTHOLOMEW'S DAY, The Massacre of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST).
SAINT BRICE'S DAY, The Massacre of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.
SAINT CHRISTOPHER, The Island:
Ceded to England (1713).
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
{2790}
SAINT CLAIR, General Arthur.
Campaign against the Indians, and defeat.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.
SAINT CLOUD DECREE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.
SAINT DENIS (France), Battle of (1567).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
SAINT DENIS (Belgium), Battle of (1678).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
SAINT DIDIER, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).
SAINT DOMINGO, OR HAYTI, The Island.
See HAYTI.
SAINT DOMINGO, The Republic.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
SAINT GEORGE, Bank of.
See MONEY AND BANKING: GENOA;
also GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.
SAINT GEORGE, The order of.
Founded by Catherine II. of Russia in 1769.
SAINT GERMAIN-EN-LAYE, Peace of (1570).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
SAINT GERMAINS, The French court.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648.
SAINT GERMAINS, The Jacobite court.
When James II., driven from England by the Revolution of 1688,
took refuge in France, he was received with great hospitality
by Louis XIV., who assigned to the exiled king the palace of
Saint-Germains for his residence, with a pension or allowance
which enabled him to maintain a regal court of imposing
splendor. "There was scarcely in all Europe a residence more
enviably situated than that which the generous Lewis had
assigned to his suppliants. The woods were magnificent, the
air clear and salubrious, the prospects extensive and
cheerful. No charm of rural life was wanting; and the towers
of the greatest city of the Continent were visible in the
distance. The royal apartments were richly adorned with
tapestry and marquetry, vases of silver, and mirrors in gilded
frames. A pension of more than 40,000 pounds sterling was
annually paid to James from the French treasury. He had a
guard of honour composed of some of the finest soldiers in
Europe. … But over the mansion and the domain brooded a
constant gloom, the effect, partly of bitter regrets and of
deferred hopes, but chiefly of the abject superstition which
had taken complete possession of his own mind, and which was
affected by all those who aspired to his favour. His palace
wore the aspect of a monastery. … Thirty or forty
ecclesiastics were lodged in the building; and their
apartments were eyed with envy by noblemen and gentlemen who
had followed the fortunes of their Sovereign, and who thought
it hard that, when there was so much room under his roof, they
should be forced to sleep in the garrets of the neighbouring
town. … All the saints of the royal household were praying for
each other and backbiting each other from morning to night."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 20 (volume 4)._
SAINT GOTHARD, Battle of (1664).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
SAINT GREGORY, Order of.
Instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.
SAINT HELENA, Napoleon's captivity at.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).
SAINT ILDEFONSO, Treaty of.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
SAINT ILDEFONSO, University of.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.
SAINT JAGO, Knights of the order of.
See CALATRAVA.
SAINT JAMES, The Palace and Court of.
"Of the British Monarchy the official and diplomatic seat is
St. James', a dingy and shabby pile of brick, which by its
meanness, compared with the Tuileries and Versailles, aptly
symbolizes the relation of the power which built it to that of
the Monarchy of Louis XIV. … At St. James' are still held the
Levees. But those rooms having been found too small for the
prodigiously increasing crowds of ladies, foreign and
colonial, who pant, by passing under the eye of Royalty, to
obtain the baptism of fashion, the Drawing-Rooms are now held
in Buckingham Palace. … The modern town residence of Royalty,
Buckingham Palace, is large without being magnificent, and
devoid of interest of any kind, historical or architectural."
_Goldwin Smith,
A Trip to England,
page 54._
SAINT JAMES OF COMPOSTELLA, Knights of.
See CALATRAVA.
SAINT JEAN D'ACRE.
See ACRE.
SAINT JOHN, Knights of; or Hospitallers.
See HOSPITALLERS.
SAINT JOHN OF THE LATERAN, Order of.
An order of knighthood instituted in 1560 by Pope Pius IV.
SAINT JUST,
and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).
SAINT LAWRENCE:
Discovery and naming of the River by Jacques Cartier.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
SAINT LAZARUS, Knights of.
"Some historians of the order of St. Lazarus have traced its
origin to a supposed association of Christians in the first
century against the persecution of their Jewish and Pagan
enemies. This account is fabulous. It appears certain,
however, that in very early times Christian charity founded
establishments for the sick. … Lazarus became their tutelary
saint and the buildings were styled Lazarettos. One of those
hospitals was in existence at Jerusalem at the time of the
first crusade. It was a religious order, as well as a
charitable institution, and followed the rule of St. Augustin.
For purposes of defence against the Muselman tyrants, the
members of the society became soldiers, and insensibly they
formed themselves into distinct bodies of those who attended
the sick, and those who mingled with the world. The cure of
lepers was their first object, and they not only received
lepers into their order, for the benefit of charity, but their
grand master was always to be a man who was afflicted with the
disorder, the removal whereof formed the purpose of their
institution. The cavaliers who were not lepers, and were in a
condition to bear arms, were the allies of the Christian kings
of Palestine. … The habits of those knights is not known; it
only appears that the crosses on their breasts were always
green, in opposition to those of the knights of St. John,
which were white, and the red crosses of the Templars. … But
neither the names nor the exploits of the knights of St.
Lazarus often appear in the history of the Crusades."
_C. Mills,
History of the Crusades,
chapter 8, with foot-notes._
{2791}
SAINT LEGER'S EXPEDITION.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1764.
The founding of the city.
"St. Louis had arisen out of the transfer of the east bank of
the Mississippi to Great Britain.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
Rather than live as aliens, under English laws, many French
settlers went with Pierre Laclede, across the Mississippi, to
a place already nicknamed by them Pain Court, where, in
February, 1764, they founded a new town with the name of St.
Louis, in honor of Louis XV. These people were mostly French
Canadians."
_S. A. Drake,
The Making of the Great West,
page 179._
See, also, ILLINOIS: A. D. 1765.
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1861.
Events at the outbreak of the rebellion.
The capture of Camp Jackson.
See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI: A. D. 1864.
General Price's attempt against.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).
SAINT LOUIS, The Order of.
An order of knighthood instituted in 1693 by Louis XIV. of
France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).
SAINT MAHÉ, Battle of.
A fierce naval fight, April 24, 1293, off St. Mahé, on the
coast of Brittany, between English and French fleets, both of
which were put afloat without open authority from their
respective governments. The French were beaten with a loss of
8,000 men and 180 ships.
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2, chapter 13._
SAINT MALO: Abortive English expeditions against.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).
SAINT MARK, The winged lion of.
See LION OF ST. MARK,
and VENICE: A. D. 829.
SAINT MARKS, Jackson's capture of.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.
SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in France.
"Louis XI. [of France] determined on instituting an order of
chivalry himself. It was to be select in its membership,
limited in its number, generous in its professions, and he
fondly hoped the Garter and Fleece would soon sink into
insignificance compared to the Order of Saint Michael. The
first brethren were named from the highest families in France;
the remaining great feudatories, who had preserved some relics
of their hereditary independence, were fixed upon to wear this
mark of the suzerain's friendship. But when they came to read
the oaths of admission, they found that the Order of St.
Michael was in reality a bond of stronger obligation than the
feudal laws had ever enjoined. It was a solemn association for
the prevention of disobedience to the sovereign. … The
brotherhood of noble knights sank, in the degrading treatment
of its founder, into a confederation of spies."
_J. White,
History of France,
chapter 7._
SAINT MICHAEL, Knights of the Order of, in Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
SAINT MICHAEL AND SAINT GEORGE, The Order of.
A British Order of Knighthood, founded in 1818, "for the
purpose of bestowing marks of Royal favour on the most
meritorious of the Ionians [then under the protection of Great
Britain] and Maltese, as well as on British subjects who may
have served with distinction in the Ionian Isles or the
Mediterranean Sea."
_Sir B. Burke,
Book of the Orders of Knighthood,
page 107._
SAINT OMER: A. D. 1638.
Unsuccessful siege by the French.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
SAINT OMER: A. D. 1677.
Taken by Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
SAINT OMER: A. D. 1679.
Ceded to France.
See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.
SAINT PATRICK, The order of.
An order of knighthood instituted in 1783 by George III. of
England.
SAINT PAUL, Republic of.
See BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.
SAINT PAUL'S SCHOOL.
See EDUCATION, RENAISSANCE: ENGLAND.
SAINT PETER'S CHURCH AT ROME.
"The first church which existed on or near the site of the
present building was the oratory founded in A. D. 90, by
Anacletus, bishop of Rome, who is said to have been ordained
by St. Peter himself, and who thus marked the spot where many
Christian martyrs had suffered in the circus of Nero, and
where St. Peter was buried after his crucifixion. In 306
Constantine the Great yielded to the request of Pope
Sylvester, and began the erection of a basilica on this spot,
labouring with his own hands at the work. … Of the old
basilica, the crypt is now the only remnant. … Its destruction
was first planned by Nicholas V. (1450), but was not carried
out till the time of Julius II., who in 1506 began the new St.
Peter's from designs of Bramante. … The next Pope, Leo X.,
obtained a design for a church in the form of a Latin cross
from Raphael, which was changed, after his death (on account
of expense) to a Greek cross, by Baldassare Peruzzi, who only
lived to complete the tribune. Paul III. (1534) employed
Antonio di Sangallo as an architect, who returned to the
design of a Latin cross, but died before he could carry out
any of his intentions. Giulio Romano succeeded him and died
also. Then the pope, 'being inspired by God,' says Vasari,
sent for Michael Angelo, then in his seventy-second year, who
continued the work under Julius III., returning to the plan of
a Greek cross, enlarging the tribune and transepts, and
beginning the dome on a new plan, which he said would 'raise
the Pantheon in the air.' … The present dome is due to Giacomo
della Porta, who brought the great work to a conclusion in
1590, under Sixtus V. … The church was dedicated by Urban
VIII., November 18th, 1626; the colonnade added by Alexander
VII., 1667, the sacristy by Pius VI., in 1780. The building of
the present St. Peter's extended altogether over 176 years,
and its expenses were so great that Julius II. and Leo X. were
obliged to meet them by the sale of indulgences, which led to
the Reformation. The expense of the main building alone has
been estimated at £10,000,000. The annual expense of repairs
is £6,300."
_A. J. C. Hare,
Walks in Rome,
chapter 15._
_ALSO IN:
H. Grimm,
Life of Michael Angelo,
chapters 15-16._
{2792}
SAINT PETERSBURG: The founding of the city.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1703-1718.
SAINT PRIVAT, OR GRAVELOTTE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
SAINT QUENTIN: Origin of the town.
See BELGÆ.
SAINT QUENTIN,
Battle and siege of (1557).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
Battle of (1871).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.
SAINT SEBASTIAN, Siege and capture of (1813).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
SAINT STEPHEN, The Apostolic order.
This, the Hungarian national order of knighthood, was founded
by Maria Theresa, on the day (May 5, 1764) when the Archduke,
afterwards the Emperor Joseph II., was crowned King of Rome.
SAINT STEPHEN, The Crown of.
The crown of Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.
SAINT STEPHEN'S CHAPEL.
The Chamber of the House of Commons.
See WESTMINSTER PALACE.
SAINT THOMAS OF ACRE, The Knights of.
"This was a little body of men who had formed themselves into
a semi-religious order on the model of the Hospitallers. In
the third Crusade, one William, an English priest, chaplain to
Ralph de Diceto, Dean of S. Paul's, had devoted himself to the
work of burying the dead at Acre, as the Hospitallers had
given themselves at first to the work of tending the sick. He
had built himself a little chapel there, and bought ground for
a cemetery; like a thorough Londoner of the period, he had
called it after S. Thomas the Martyr; and, somehow or other,
as his design was better known, the family of the martyr seem
to have approved of it; the brother-in-law and sister of
Becket became founders and benefactors, and a Hospital of S.
Thomas the Martyr of Canterbury, of Acre, was built in London
itself on the site of the house where the martyr was born. …
They [the knights] had their proper dress and cross: according
to Favin their habit was white, and the cross a full red cross
charged with a white scallop; but the existing cartulary of
the order describes the habit simply as a mantle with a cross
of red and white. … The Chronicle of the Teutonic knights, in
relating the capture of Acre, places the knights of S. Thomas
at the head of the 5,000 soldiers whom the king of England had
sent to Palestine, and Herman Corner, who however wrote a
century later, mentions them amongst the defenders of Acre. We
know from their cartulary that they had lands in Yorkshire,
Middlesex, Surrey, and Ireland."
_W. Stubbs,
Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History,
lecture 8._
SAINT VALERY.
The port, at the mouth of the Somme, from which the fleet of
William the Conqueror sailed for England, September 27, A. D.
1066.
SAINT VINCENT, Naval battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
SAINTONGE, Origin of the name of.
See PICTONES.
SAIONES.
"The Saiones were apparently a class of men peculiar to the
Ostrogothic monarchy [of Theodoric, in Italy]. More honoured
than the Roman lictor (who was but a menial servant of the
magistrate), but hardly perhaps rising to the dignity of a
sheriff or a marshal, they were, so to speak, the arms by
which Royalty executed its will. If the Goths had to be
summoned to battle with the Franks, a Saio carried round the
stirring call to arms. If a Prætorian Prefect was abusing his
power to take away his neighbour's lands by violence, a Saio
was sent to remind him that under Theodoric not even Prætorian
Prefects should be allowed to transgress the law. … The
Saiones seem to have stood in a special relation to the King.
They are generally called 'our Saiones,' sometimes 'our brave
Saiones,' and the official virtue which is always credited to
them (like the 'Sublimity' or the 'Magnificence' of more
important personages) is 'Your Devotion.' One duty which was
frequently entrusted to the Saio was the 'tuitio' of some
wealthy and unwarlike Roman. It often happened that such a
person, unable to protect himself against the rude assaults of
sturdy Gothic neighbours, appealed to the King for protection.
… The chief visible sign of the King's protection, and the
most effective guarantee of its efficiency, was the stout
Gothic soldier who as Saio was quartered in the wealthy
Roman's house."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 7 (volume 3)._
SAJO, Battle of the (1241).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
SAKKARAH, Necropolis of.
The most ancient and important cemetery of Memphis, Egypt.
_A. Mariette,
Monuments of Upper Egypt,
page 86._
SAKKARAH, Tablet of.
An important list of Egyptian kings, found by M. Mariette and
now preserved in the Museum of Cairo.
_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
SALADIN: The Empire of.
Among the revolutions which attended the breaking up of the
empire of the Seljuk Turks was one that brought about the rise
to power in Syria and Mesopotamia of a vigorous and capable
soldier named Zenghi or Zengui. Zenghi and his son Noureddin
acquired a wide dominion, with its capital, as it enlarged,
shifting from Mossoul to Aleppo, from Aleppo to Damascus, and
they were the first formidable enemies with whom the
Christians of the Crusade settlements in Syria had to contend.
The dynasty of sultans which they founded was one of those
called Atabecks, or Atabegs, signifying "governors of the
prince." Having found an opportunity (A. D. 1162-1168) to
interfere in the affairs of Egypt, where the Fatimite caliphs
were still nominally reigning, Noureddin sent thither one of
his most trusted officers, Shiracouh, or Shirkoh, a Koord, and
Shiracouh's nephew, Saladin,—then a young man, much addicted
to elegant society and the life of pleasure, at Damascus.
Shiracouh established his master's authority in Egypt—still
leaving the puppet caliph of the Fatimites on his throne—and
he was succeeded by Saladin, as the representative of the
sultan Noureddin, and grand vizier of the caliph. But in 1171,
the latter, being on his death-bed, was quietly deposed and
the sovereignty of the Abbaside caliph of Bagdad was
proclaimed. "This great 'coup d'etat,' which won Egypt over to
the Orthodox Mohammedan sect, and ultimately enabled Saladin
to grasp the independent sovereignty of the country, was
effected, as an Arab historian quaintly observes, 'so quietly,
that not a brace of goats butted over it.'"
{2793}
Saladin had now developed great talents as a ruler, and great
ambitions, as well. On the death of Nouraddin, in 1174, he was
prepared to seize the sultan's throne, and succeeded, after a
short period of civil war, in making himself master of the
whole Atabeg dominion. From that he went on to the conquest of
Jerusalem, and the expulsion of the Christians from all
Palestine, except Tyre and a small strip of coast. By his
defense of that conquest against the crusaders of the Third
Crusade, and by the decided superiority of character which he
evinced, compared with his Christian antagonists, Richard Cœur
de Lion and the rest, Saladin acquired surpassing renown in
the western world and became a great figure in history. He
died at Damascus, in March, 1193, in his fifty-seventh year.
The dynasty which he founded was called the Ayoubite (or
Aiyubite) dynasty, from the name of Saladin's father, Ayoub
(Job), a native Koord of Davin.
_W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapter 16._
"Saladin gave no directions respecting the order of
succession, and by this want of foresight prepared the ruin of
his empire. One of his sons, Alaziz, who commanded in Egypt,
caused himself to be proclaimed sultan of Cairo; another took
possession of the sovereignty of Aleppo, and a third of the
principality of Amath. Malek-Adel [called Seïf Eddin, the
Sword of Religion, by which latter name, in the corrupted form
Saphadin, he was known commonly to the crusaders], the brother
of Saladin, assumed the throne of Mesopotamia and the
countries in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates. The principal
emirs, and all the princes of the race of the Ayoubites, made
themselves masters of the cities and provinces of which they
held the command. Afdhal [Almelek Alafdhal], eldest son of
Saladin, was proclaimed sultan of Damascus. Master of Syria,
and of the capital of a vast empire, sovereign of Jerusalem
and Palestine, he appeared to have preserved something of the
power of his father; but all fell into disorder and
confusion." After some years of disorder and of war between
the brothers, Malek Adel, or Saphadin, the more capable uncle
of the young princes, gathered the reins of power into his
hands and reunited most of the provinces of Saladin's empire.
On his death, in 1217, the divisions and the disorder
reappeared. The Ayoubite dynasty, however, held the throne at
Cairo (to the dominion of which Palestine belonged) until
1250, when the last of the line was killed by his Mamelukes.
The lesser princes of the divided empire were swept away soon
after by the Mongol invasion.
_J. F. Michaud,
History of the Crusades,
books 9, 12-14._
See, also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
SALADIN, The Tithe of.
"In England and in France, in order to defray expenses [of the
Third Crusade], a tax called the Tithe of Saladin, consisting
of a tenth part of all their goods, was levied on every person
who did not take the Cross. … In every parish the Tithe of
Saladin was raised in the presence of a priest, a Templar, a
Hospitaller, a king's man, a baron's man and clerk, and a
bishop's clerk."
_W. Besant and E. H. Palmer,
Jerusalem,
chapter 15._
SALADO, OR GUADACELITO, Battle of (1340).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
SALAMANCA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
SALAMANCA, University of.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.
SALAMIS, Cyprus,
Battle of (B. C. 449).
See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
Battle of (B. C. 306).
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.
SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 610-600.
War of Athens and Megara for possession of the island.
See ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.
SALAMIS, Greece: B. C. 480.
Great battle between Greeks and Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 480.
SALANKAMENT, Battle of (1691).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
SALCES, OR SALSAS: A. D. 1639-1640.
Siege and capture by the French.
Recovery by the Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1628.
The first settlement.
See MASSACHUSETTS:
A. D. 1623-1629 THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
Ministry and banishment of Roger Williams.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.
The Witchcraft madness.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692; and 1692-1693.
SALERNO, Principality of.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.
SALERNO, School of Medicine.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 12-17TH CENTURIES.
SALIAN FRANKS, The.
See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.
----------SALIC LAW: Start--------
SALIC LAW, The.
"A greatly exaggerated importance has been attributed to the
Salic Law. You are acquainted with the reason of this error;
you know that at the accession of Philippe-le-Long, and during
the struggle of Philippe· de-Valois and Edward III. for the
crown of France, the Salic law was invoked in order to prevent
the succession of women, and that, from that time, it has been
celebrated by a crowd of writers as the first source of our
public law, as a law always in vigor, as the fundamental law
of monarchy. Those who have been the most free from this
illusion, as, for example, Montesquieu, have yet experienced,
to some degree, its influence, and have spoken of the Salic
law with a respect which it is assuredly difficult to feel
towards it when we attribute to it only the place that it
really holds in our history. … I pray you to recall that which
I have already told you touching the double origin and the
incoherence of the barbarous laws; they were, at once,
anterior and posterior to the invasion; at once, German and
Germano-Roman: they belonged to two different conditions of
society. This character has influenced all the controversies
of which the Salic law has been the object; it has given rise
to two hypotheses: according to one, this law was compiled in
Germany, upon the right bank of the Rhine, long before the
conquest, and in the language of the Franks. … According to
the other hypothesis, the Salic law was, on the contrary,
compiled after the conquest, upon the left bank of the Rhine,
in Belgium or in Gaul, perhaps in the seventh century, and in
Latin. … I believe, however, that the traditions which,
through so many contradictions and fables, appear in the
prefaces and epilogues annexed to the law, … indicate that,
from the eighth century, it was a general belief, a popular
tradition, that the customs of the Salian Franks were
anciently collected. …
{2794}
We are not obliged to believe that the Salic law, such as we
have it, is of a very remote date, nor that it was compiled as
recounted, nor even that it was ever written in the German
language; but that it was connected with customs collected and
transmitted from generation to generation, when the Franks
lived about the mouth of the Rhine, and modified, extended,
explained, reduced into law, at various times, from that epoch
down to the end of the eighth century—this, I think, is the
reasonable result to which this discussion should lead. … At
the first aspect it is impossible not to be struck with the
apparent utter chaos of the law. It treats of all things—of
political law, of civil law, of criminal law, of civil
procedure, of criminal procedure, of rural jurisdiction, all
mixed up together without any distinction or classification. …
When we examine this law more closely, we perceive that it is
essentially a penal regulation. … I say nothing of the
fragments of political law, civil law, or civil procedure,
which are found dispersed through it, nor even of that famous
article which orders that 'Salic land shall not fall to woman;
and that the inheritance shall devolve exclusively on the
males.' No person is now ignorant of its true meaning. … When,
in the fourteenth century, they invoked the Salic law, in
order to regulate the succession to the crown, it had
certainly been a long time since it had been spoken of, except
in remembrance, and upon some great occasion."
_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
volume 2 (France, volume 1), lecture 9._
ALSO IN:
_W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 10._
_E. F. Henderson,
Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,
book 2, number 1._
SALIC LAW:
Applied to the regal succession in France.
Louis X., surnamed Hutin, king of France, died in 1316,
leaving a daughter, Jeanne, and his queen with child. The late
king's brother, Philip the Long, became regent; but when the
queen bore a son and the child died, this Philip "hastened to
Rheims, filled the Cathedral with his own followers, and
compelled the archbishop to consecrate him King [Philip V.].
Thence he returned to Paris, assembled the citizens, and, in
the presence of a great concourse of barons and notables of
the realm, declared that no female could succeed to the crown
of France. Thus began the so-called Salic Law of France,
through the determined violence of an unscrupulous man. The
lawyers round the throne, seeking to give to the act of might
the sanction of right, bethought them of that passage in the
law of the Salian Franks which declares 'That no part or
heritage of Salic land can fall to a woman'; and it is from
this that the law obtained the name of 'the Salic Law.'"
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 11, sections 1-2._
"In this contest [after the death of Louis X., as mentioned
above], every way memorable, but especially on account of that
which sprung out of it, the exclusion of females from the
throne of France was first publicly discussed. … It may be
fairly inferred that the Salic law, as it was called, was not
so fixed a principle at that time as has been contended. But
however this may be, it received at the accession of Philip
the Long a sanction which subsequent events more thoroughly
confirmed. Philip himself leaving only three daughters, his
brother Charles [IV.] mounted the throne; and upon his death
the rule was so unquestionably established, that his only
daughter was excluded by the count of Valois, grandson of
Philip the Bold. This prince first took the regency, the
queen-dowager being pregnant, and, upon her giving birth to a
daughter, was crowned king [Philip of Valois]. No competitor
or opponent appeared in France; but one more formidable than
any whom France could have produced was awaiting the occasion
to prosecute his imagined right with all the resources of
valour and genius, and to carry desolation over that great
kingdom with as little scruple as if he was preferring a suit
before a civil tribunal." This was King Edward III. of
England, whose mother Isabel was the sister of the last three
French kings, and who claimed through her a right to the
French crown.
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Age,
chapter 1, part 1._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339.
SALICE, Battle of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
SALICES, Ad, Battle of.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378.
SALINÆ.
A Roman town in Britain, celebrated for its salt-works and
salt-baths. Its site is occupied by modern Droitwich.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
SALINAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SALINAN FAMILY.
SALISBURY, Gemot of.
William the Conqueror, while establishing feudalism in
England, "broke into its 'most essential attribute, the
exclusive dependence of a vassal upon his lord,' by requiring
in accordance with the old English practice, that all
landowners, mesne tenants as well as tenants-in-chief, should
take the oath of fealty to the King. This was formally decreed
at the celebrated Gemot held on Salisbury Plain, on the 1st of
August, 1086, at which the Witan and all the landowners of
substance in England whose vassals soever they were, attended,
to the number, it is reported, of 60,000. The statute, as soon
as passed, was carried into immediate effect."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
page 55._
SALISBURY MINISTRIES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1885; 1885-1886; and 1892-1893.
SALISHAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: FLATHEADS.
SALLUVIANS.
See SALYES.
SALON, Origin of the French.
See RAMBOUILLET, HÔTEL DE.
SALONA, Ancient.
"Amidst the decay of the empire in the third century Dalmatia
suffered comparatively little; indeed, Salonae probably only
reached at that time its greatest prosperity. This, it is
true, was occasioned partly by the fact that the regenerator
of the Roman state, the emperor Diocletian, was by birth a
Dalmatian, and allowed his efforts, aimed at the
decapitalising of Rome, to redound chiefly to the benefit of
the capital of his native land; he built alongside of it the
huge palace from which the modern capital of the province
takes the name Spalato, within which it has for the most part
found a place, and the temples of which now serve it as
cathedral and as baptistery. Diocletian, however, did not make
Salonae a great city for the first time, but, because it was
such, chose it for his private residence; commerce,
navigation, and trade must at that time in these waters have
been concentrated chiefly at Aquileia and at Salonae, and the
city must have been one of the most populous and opulent towns
of the west."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 6._
ALSO IN;
_E. A. Freeman,
Subject and Neighbor Lands of Venice._
_T. G. Jackson,
Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,
chapters 1-2 and 10-12 (volumes 1-2). _
{2795}
SALONICA.
The modern name of ancient Thessalonica.
See THESSALONICA.
SALONIKI, The kingdom of.
The kingdom obtained by Boniface, Marquis of Montferrat, in
the partition of the Byzantine Empire after its conquest by
the Crusaders, A. D. 1204, comprised the province of
Macedonia, with Thessalonica for its capital, and was called
the kingdom of Saloniki. Its duration was brief. In 1222 the
neighboring Greek despot of Epirus took Thessalonica and
conquered the whole kingdom. He then assumed the title of
emperor of Thessalonica, in rivalry with the Greek emperors of
Nicæa and Trebizond. The title of king of Saloniki was
cherished by the family of Montferrat for some generations;
but those who claimed it never made good their title by
possession of the kingdom.
_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from the Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 5._
See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
SALOPIAN WARE.
Pottery manufactured by the Romans in Britain from the clay of
the Severn valley. Two sorts are found in considerable
abundance—one white, the other a light red color.
_L. Jewitt,
Grave-Mounds,
page 164. _
SALSBACH, Death of Turenne at (1675).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
SALT, French tax on.
See TAILLE AND GABELLE.
SALT LAKE CITY: The founding of (1847).
See MORMONS: A. D. 1846-1848.
SALYES,
SALLUVIANS.
The Salyes or Saluvii or Salluvians, named Salvii Yalli in
Livy's Epitome, "were Ligurians or a mixed race of Celts
and Ligurians. They perhaps occupied part of the coast east
of Massilia: they certainly extended inland behind that
town to the Rhone on the west and to the north as far as
the river Druentia (Durance). They occupied the wide plain
which you may see from the highest point of the great
amphitheatre of Arelate (Arles) stretching east from
Tarascon and the Rhone as far as the eye can reach." The
Salyes were dangerous to Massilia and in 125 B. C. the
latter appealed to the Romans, as allies. The latter
responded promptly and sent Flaccus, one of the consuls, to
deal with the Salyes. He defeated them; but in two or three
years they were again in arms, and consul C. Sextius
Calvinius was sent against them. "The Salyes were again
defeated and their chief city taken, but it is uncertain
whether this capital was Arelate (ArIes) or the place
afterwards named Aquae Sextiae (Aix). … The Roman general
found in this arid country a pleasant valley well supplied
with water from the surrounding hills, and here he
established the colony named Aquae Sextiae." The chiefs of
the conquered Salyes took refuge with the Allobroges, and
that led to the subjugation of the latter (see ALLOBROGES).
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapters 17 and 21._
SALZBURG, Origin of.
"The foundation of a colony [by Hadrian] at Juvavium, or
Salzburg, which received the name of Forum Hadriani, attests
the vigilance which directed his view from the Rhine to the
Salza, and the taste, I would willingly add, which selected
for a town to bear his name the most enchanting site in
central Europe."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 66._
SALZBURGERS, The.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.
SALZWEDEL.
See BRANDENBURG.
SAM ADAMS REGIMENTS, The.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1770.
SAMANA, The proposed cession of.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.
SAMANIDES OR SAMANIANS, The.
"As the vigour of the Khalifate began to pass away, and
effeminate luxury crept imperceptibly into the palaces of
Baghdad, the distant lieutenants gradually aspired to
independence. At length, in 868 A. D., one Ya' kub-bin-Lais,
the son of a brasier in Sistan, rose in rebellion, subdued
Balkh, Kabul, and Fars, but died on his march to Baghdad. In
former days he would have been treated as an audacious rebel
against the authority of the Vicar of God; now the degenerate
Khalifah appointed his brother 'Amr his lieutenant on the
death of Ya' kub [A. D. 877], and allowed him to govern Fars,
as the founder of the Saffary, or Brasier, dynasty. Ever
fearful of the power of 'Amr, the Khalifah at length
instigated a Tatar lord, named Isma'il Samany, to raise an
army against the Saffaris, in Khurasan. 'Amr marched against
him, and crossed the Oxus, but he was entirely defeated; and
laughed heartily at a dog, who ran away with the little pot
that was preparing the humble meal of the fallen king. That
morning it had taken thirty camels to carry his kitchen
retinue. 'Amr was sent to Baghdad, and put to death in 901 A.
D. Isma'il, who traced his descent from a Persian noble who
had rebelled against Khusru Parviz, now founded the Samany [or
Samanide] dynasty, which ruled over Khurasan and the north of
Persia, with their capital at Bukhara. The Dailamy [or
Dilemite or Bouide] dynasty ruled in Fars and the south of
Persia during the same period. To the Samanians Persia owes
the restoration of its nationality, which had been oppressed
and trodden under foot by the Arabian conquerors." The
Samanide dynasty was overthrown in 998 by the founder of the
Gaznevide Empire, which succeeded.
_C. R. Markham,
General Sketch of the History of Persia,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN;
_Sir J. Malcolm,
History of Persia,
volume 1, chapter 6_
See, also, TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
SAMARAH, Battle of.
This was the battle in which the Roman emperor Julian was
killed (June 26, A. D. 363), during the retreat from his
ill·starred expedition beyond the Tigris, against the
Persians.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 10._
----------SAMARCAND: Start--------
SAMARCAND.
Ancient Maracanda, the capital city of Sogdiana.
See SOGDIANA;
and BOKHARA.
SAMARCAND: 6th Century.
Taken from the White Huns by the Turks.
See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.
SAMARCAND: A. D. 1209-1220.
Capital of the Khuarezmian empire.
See KHUAREZM.
{2796}
SAMARCAND: A. D. 1221.
Conquest and destruction by Jingis Khan.
When Jingis Khan, the Mongol conqueror and devastator of
Central Asia, invaded the Khahrezmian Empire, Samarkand was
its capital and its most important city. "The fugitive
Khahrezmian prince had left behind him for the defence 110,000
men—i. e., 60,000 Turks and 50,000 Tadjiks—with twenty
elephants." But the Turkish mercenaries deserted in a body and
the town was surrendered after a siege of three days. "The
flourishing city of Samarkand and the fortress were laid even
with the ground; and the inhabitants; stripped of all they
possessed, shared the fate of their brethren of Bokhara. Those
who had contrived to escape were lured back by false promises;
all capable of bearing arms were compulsorily enrolled in the
Mongolian army; the artistic gardeners of the place were sent
off to the far East, where they were wanted to adorn the
future Mongolo-Chinese capital with pleasure-grounds, after
the fashion of those of Samarkand, and the celebrated
artisans, especially the silk and cotton weavers, were either
distributed as clever and useful slaves amongst the wives and
relations of Djenghiz, or else carried with him to Khorasan. A
few were sent as slaves to his sons Tchagatai and Oktai, who
were then marching on Khahrezm. This was the end, in the year
618 (1221), of Samarkand, which Arabian geographers have
described as the most brilliant and most flourishing spot on
the face of the earth."
_A. Vámbéry,
History of Bokhara,
chapter 8._
"Samarkand was not only the capital of Trans-Oxiana, but also
one of the greatest entrepots of commerce in the world. Three
miles in circumference, it was surrounded with a wall having
castles at intervals, and pierced by twelve iron gates."
_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, page 79._
SAMARCAND: A. D. 1371-1405.
The capital of Timour.
See TIMOUR, THE CONQUESTS OF.
SAMARCAND: A. D. 1868.
Seizure by the Russians.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
----------SAMARCAND: End--------
SAMARIA.
SAMARITANS:
Early history.
The Kingdom of Israel.
Overthrow by the Assyrians.
See JEWS: KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.
SAMARITANS:
Repopulation of the city and district by the Assyrian conqueror.
After the capture of the city of Samaria (B. C. 722) and the
deportation of a large part of its inhabitants by the Assyrian
conqueror (see as above), "these districts remained for many
years in a condition of such desolation that they were overrun
with wild beasts. In the meantime King Asarhaddon, whom we
suppose to be Asarhaddon II., having reduced afresh several
refractory towns about twenty years after the death of
Sennacherib, and wishing to inflict on their inhabitants the
favourite punishment of his predecessors, transported large
bodies of their heathen populations into these deserted
regions. … A great number of the settlers in Samaria, the
former capital, appear to have come from the Babylonian city
of Cuthah, from which arose the name of Cutheans, often
applied in derision to the Samaritans by the later Jews. Other
settlers were sent from Babylon itself," and "from the cities
on the west of the Euphrates, Hamath, Ivah, and Sepharvaim."
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
volume 4, pages 215-216._
SAMARIA:
After the Exile.
In the second and third generations after the return of the
Judæans from exile, there began to be connections formed by
marriage with the neighboring peoples. These peoples,
"particularly the Samaritans, had given up idolatry, and were
longing earnestly and truly to take part in the divine service
at Jerusalem. They were, in fact, proselytes to the religion
of Judæa; and were they always to be sternly repulsed? The
principal Judæan families determined to admit the foreigners
into the community, and the high priest of that time, either
Jehoiakim or his son Eliashib, was ready to carry these wishes
into effect. Marriages were therefore contracted with the
Samaritans and other neighbouring people." But when Ezra and
his party came from Babylon (B. C. 459-458) bringing an access
of religious zeal and narrower interpretations of the law,
these marriages were condemned, and those who had contracted
them were forced to repudiate their foreign wives and the
children borne by such. This cruelly fanatical action changed
the friendly feeling of the Samaritans to hatred. Their
leader, Sanballat, was a man of power, and he began against
the restored Judæans a war which drove them from Jerusalem. It
was not until Nehemiah came from Susa, with the authority of
King Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls, that they recovered the
city. "The strict observance of the Law enjoined by Ezra was
followed out by Nehemiah; he strengthened the wall of
separation between Judæans and Gentiles so securely that it
was almost impossible to break through it." Sanballat, whose
son-in-law, a priest, had been exiled on account of his
Samaritan marriage, now "cunningly conceived the plan of
undermining the Judæan community, by the help of its own
members. How would it be were he to raise a temple to the God
of Israel, in rivalry to the one which held sway in
Jerusalem?" He executed his plan and the Samaritan temple was
raised on Mount Gerizim. Thus "the Samaritans had their
temple, around which they gathered; they had priests from the
house of Aaron; they compared Mount Gerizim … to Mount Moriah;
they drew the inference from the Book of the Law that God had
designed Mount Gerizim as a site for a sanctuary, and they
proudly called themselves Israelites. Sanballat and his
followers being intent upon attracting a great many Judæans to
their community, tempted them with the offer of houses and
land, and in every way helped to support them. Those who had
been guilty of crime and who feared punishment, were received
with open arms by the Samaritans. Out of such elements a new
semi-Judæan community or sect was formed. Their home was in
the somewhat limited district of Samaria, the centre of which
was either the city that gave its name to the province or the
town of Shechem. The members of the new community became an
active, vigorous, intelligent people, as if Sanballat, the
founder, had breathed his spirit into them. … They actually
tried to argue away the right of the Judæans to exist as a
community. They declared that they alone were the descendants
of Israel, and they denied the sanctity of Jerusalem and its
Temple, affirming that everything achieved by the Judæan
people was a debasement of the old Israelite character. … Upon
the Judæan side, the hatred against their Samaritan neighbours
was equally great. … The enmity between Jerusalem and Samaria
that existed in the time of the two kingdoms blazed out anew;
it no longer bore a political character, but one of a
religious tendency."
_H. Graetz,
History of the Jews,
chapters 19-20 (volume 1)._
{2797}
"While the Hebrew writers unanimously represent the Samaritans
as the descendants of the Cuthæan colonists introduced by
Esarhaddon, a foreign and idolatrous race, their own
traditions derive their regular lineage from Ephraim and
Manasseh, the sons of Joseph. The remarkable fact, that this
people have preserved the book of the Mosaic law in the ruder
and more ancient character, while the Jews, after the return
from Babylonia, universally adopted the more elegant Chaldean
form of letters, strongly confirms the opinion that, although
by no means pure and unmingled, the Hebrew blood still
predominated in their race. In many other respects, regard for
the Sabbath and even for the sabbatic year, and the payment of
tithes to their priests, the Samaritans did not fall below
their Jewish rivals in attachment to the Mosaic polity. The
later events in the history of the kings of Jerusalem show
that the expatriation of the ten tribes was by no means
complete and permanent: is it then an unreasonable
supposition, that the foreign colonists were lost in the
remnant of the Israelitish people, and, though perhaps slowly
and imperfectly weaned from their native superstitions, fell
by degrees into the habits and beliefs of their adopted
country? … Whether or not it was the perpetuation of the
ancient feud between the two rival kingdoms, from this period
[of the return from the captivity in Babylonia] the hostility
of the Jews and Samaritans assumed its character of fierce and
implacable animosity. No two nations ever hated each other
with more unmitigated bitterness."
_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 9. _
SAMARIA:
Change of population by Alexander the Great.
After the submission of Palestine to Alexander the Great (B.
C. 332), Samaria "rebelled and murdered the Macedonian
governor, Andromachus. Alexander expelled the inhabitants, and
planted a Macedonian colony in their room—another heathen
element in the motley population of Samaria."
_P. Smith,
History of the World: Ancient,
volume 3, chapter 34._
SAMARIA:
Rebuilding of the city by Herod.
One of the measures of King Herod, for strengthening himself
outside of Jerusalem, was "the rebuilding of Samaria, which he
did (B. C. 25) on a scale of great magnificence and strength,
and peopled it partly with his soldiers, partly with the
descendants of the old Samaritans, who hoped to see their
temple likewise restored." He changed the name of Samaria,
however, to Sebaste—the August.
_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 11._
SAMARIA:
Justinian's War.
The Christian zeal of the Emperor Justinian [A. D. 527-565]
induced him to undertake the forcible conversion of all
unbelievers in his empire. Among others, the Samaritans of
Palestine were offered "the alternative of baptism or
rebellion. They chose the latter: under the standard of a
desperate leader they rose in arms, and retaliated their
wrongs on the lives, the property, and the temples of a
defenceless people. The Samaritans were finally subdued by the
regular forces of the East; 20,000 were slain, 20,000 were
sold by the Arabs to the infidels of Persia and India, and the
remains of that unhappy nation atoned for the crime of treason
by the sin of hypocrisy. It has been computed that 100,000
Roman subjects were extirpated in the Samaritan war, which
converted the once fruitful province into a desolate and
smoking wilderness."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47._
----------SAMARIA: End--------
SAMARKAND.
See SAMARCAND.
SAMBUCA, The.
A great military engine, in ancient sieges, was a species of
huge covered ladder, supported by two ships lashed together
and floated up against the sea wall of the besieged town. The
Greeks called it a Sambuca. Mithridates brought one into use
when besieging Rhodes, B. C. 88, but with disastrous failure.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapter 20._
SAMIAN WARE.
An elegant species of Roman pottery, red in color, which was
in great repute among the ancients.
SAMMARINESI, The.
The citizens of San Marino.
See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.
SAMNITE WARS, The.
See ROME: B. C. 343-290.
SAMNITES, The.
"The Samnite nation [see ITALY: ANCIENT], which, at the time
of the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome, had doubtless
already been for a considerable period in possession of the
hill-country which rises between the Apulian and Campanian
plains and commands them both, had hitherto found its further
advance impeded on the one side by the Daunians, … on the
other by the Greeks and Etruscans. But the fall of the
Etruscan power towards the end of the third, and the decline
of' the Greek colonies in the course of' the fourth century
[B. C.], made room for them towards the west and south; and
now one Samnite host after another marched down to, and even
moved across, the south Italian seas. They first made their
appearance in the plain adjoining the bay, with which the name
of the Campanians has been associated from the beginning of
the fourth century; the Etruscans there were suppressed, and
the Greeks were confined within narrower bounds; Capua was
wrested from the former [B. C. 424] Cumæ from the latter [B.
C. 420]. About the same time, perhaps even earlier, the
Lucanians appeared in Magna Graecia. … Towards the end of the
fourth century mention first occurs of the separate
confederacy of the Bruttii, who had detached themselves from
the Lucanians—not, like the other Sabellian stocks, as a
colony, but through a quarrel—and had become mixed up with
many foreign elements. The Greeks of Lower Italy tried to
resist the pressure of the barbarians. … But even the union of
Magna Graecia no longer availed; for the ruler of Syracuse,
Dionysius the Elder, made common cause with the Italians
against his countrymen. … In an incredibly short time the
circle of flourishing cities was destroyed or laid desolate.
Only a few Greek settlements, such as Neapolis, succeeded with
difficulty, and more by means of treaties than by force of
arms, in preserving their existence and their nationality.
Tarentum alone remained thoroughly independent and powerful. …
About the period when Veii and the Pomptine plain came into
the hands of Rome, the Samnite hordes were already in
possession of all Lower Italy, with the exception of a few
unconnected Greek colonies, and of the Apulo-Messapian coast."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 5._
SAMO, The Kingdom of.
See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.
{2798}
SAMOA.
Samoa is the native name of the group of twelve volcanic
islands in central Polynesea formerly known as the Navigator
Islands. Their place on the chart is between the parallels of
13° and 15° south latitude, and 168° and 173° west longitude.
The total area of the islands is about 1,700 square miles. The
population consists of about 36,000 natives and a few hundred
foreigners, English, American and German. The islands are said
to have been first visited by the Dutch navigator, Roggewein,
in 1722. A Christian mission was first established upon them
in 1830, by the London Missionary Society. After some years
the trade of the islands became important, and German traders
acquired an influence which they seem to have used to bring
about a state of civil war between rival kings. The United
States, Great Britain and Germany, at length, in 1879, by
joint action, intervened, and, after ten years more of
disturbed and unsatisfactory government, the affairs of Samoa
were finally settled at a conference of the three Powers held
in Berlin in 1889. A treaty was signed by which they jointly
guarantee the neutrality of the islands, with equal rights of
residence, trade and personal protection to the citizens of
the three signatory Powers. They recognize the independence of
the Samoan Government, and the free right of the natives to
elect their chief or king and choose the form of their
government. The treaty created a supreme court, with
jurisdiction over all questions arising under it. It stopped
the alienation of lands by the natives, excepting town lots in
Apia, the capital town; and it organized a municipal
government for Apia, with an elected council under the
presidency of a magistrate appointed by the three Powers.
Other articles impose customs duties on foreign importations,
and prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to the natives.
_Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1888 and 1889._
ALSO IN:
_The Statesman's Year-Book, 1894._
_R. L. Stevenson,
A Foot-note to History._
_G. H. Bates,
Some Aspects of the Samoan Question,
and Our Relations to Samoa
(The Century, April and May, 1889)._
----------SAMOS: Start--------
SAMOS.
SAMIANS.
The island now called Samo, lying close to the coast of Asia
Minor, in the part of the Ægean Sea which was anciently known
as the Icarian Sea. It is of considerable size, being about
eighty miles in circumference. The narrow strait which
separates it from the mainland is only about three-fourths of
a mile wide. The ancient Samians were early and important
members of the Ionian confederacy [see ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK
COLONIES] and acquired an early prominence among Greek
communities in navigation, commerce, colonizing enterprise and
advancement in the arts. Shortly before the Persian wars, in
the last half of the sixth century B. C. the island became
subject to a profoundly able and ambitious usurper,
Polycrates, the most famous of all the Greek "tyrants" of the
age, and under whom Samos rose to great power and great
splendor of development. "Samos was at that time the brilliant
centre of all Ionia, as far as the latter was yet untouched by
the barbarians. For such a position she was preeminently
fitted: for nowhere had the national life of the Ionians
attained to so many-sided and energetic a development as on
this particular island. … An unwearying impulse for inventions
was implanted in these islanders, and at the same time a manly
and adventurous spirit of discovery, stimulated by the dangers
of unknown seas. … Under Polycrates, Samos had become a
perfectly organized piratical state; and no ship could quietly
pursue its voyages without having first purchased a
safe-conduct from Samos. … But Polycrates intended to be
something more than a freebooter. After he had annihilated all
attempts at resistance, and made his fleet the sole naval
power of the Archipelago, he began to take steps for creating
a new and lasting establishment. The defenceless places on the
coast had to buy security by the regular payment of tribute;
under his protection they united into a body, the interests
and affairs of which came more and more to find their centre
in Samos, which from a piratical state became the federal
capital of an extensive and brilliant empire of coasts and
islands."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2)._
Two of the great works of Polycrates in Samos, the aqueduct,
for which a mountain was tunnelled, and the harbor breakwater,
were among the wonders of antiquity. The Heræum, or temple of
Here, was a third marvel. After the death of Polycrates,
treacherously murdered by the Persians, Samos became subject
to Persia. At a later time it came under the sovereignty of
Athens, and its subsequent history was full of vicissitudes.
It retained considerable importance even to Roman times.
SAMOS: B. C. 440.
Revolt from Athens.
Siege and subjugation.
See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
SAMOS: B. C. 413.
Overthrow of the oligarchy.
Concession of freedom and alliance by Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
SAMOS: B. C. 33-32.
Antony and Cleopatra.
The winter of B. C. 33-32. before the battle of Actium, was
passed by Mark Antony at Samos, in company with Cleopatra, the
Queen of Egypt. "The delicious little island was crowded with
musicians, dancers and stage players; its shores resounded
with the wanton strains of the flute and tabret."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 28._
SAMOS: A. D. 1824.
Defeat of the Turks by the Greeks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
----------SAMOS: End--------
SAMOSATA.
See COMMAGENE.
SAMOTHRACE.
A mountainous island in the northern part of the Ægean sea, so
elevated that its highest point is over 5,000 feet above the
sea level. In ancient times it derived its chief importance
from the mysteries of the little understood worship of the
Cabiri, of which it seems to have been the chief seat.
_G. S. Faber,
Mysteries of the Cabiri_
"The temple and mysteries of Samothrace formed a point of
union for many men from all countries: for a great portion of
the world at that time, the temple of Samothrace was like the
Caaba of Mecca, the tomb of the prophet at Medina, or the Holy
Sepulchre at Jerusalem. Samothrace and Dodona were to the
Pelasgian nations what perhaps Delphi and Delos were to the
Hellenic world."
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on the History of Rome,
lecture 1._
SAN.
See ZOAN.
SAN ANTONIO, Battle of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
SAN CARLOS, Battle of.
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
SAN DOMINGO, OR HAYTI.
See HAYTI.
{2799}
----------SAN FRANCISCO: Start--------
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1579.
Supposed visit by Drake.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781;
and AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1772-1776.
First exploration and naming of the Bay.
Founding of the Mission.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.
Possession taken by the Americans.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1846.
The naming of the Golden Gate.
The great Bay.
See GOLDEN GATE.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1848.
On the eve of the Gold discoveries.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1856.
The Vigilance Committee.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.
SAN FRANCISCO: A. D. 1877-1880.
Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
----------SAN FRANCISCO: End--------
SAN FRANCISCO, Battle of (1879).
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
SAN JACINTO, Battle of (1836).
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN
WATER-BOUNDARY QUESTION.
The treaty of 1846 which settled the Oregon boundary question
left still in dispute the water-boundary between the territory
of the United States and Vancouver's Island. Provision for
submitting the determination of this San Juan water-boundary
question, as it was called, to the Emperor of Germany was made
in the Treaty of Washington.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.
"The Emperor, it appears, referred the arguments on both sides
to three experts, Dr. Grimm, Dr. Kiepert, and Dr. Goldschmidt,
personages among the most eminent of his subjects in
jurisprudence and in science, upon whose report he decided, on
the 21st of October, 1872, in the terms of the reference, that
the claim of the United States to have the line drawn through
the Canal de Haro is most in accordance with the true
interpretation of the treaty concluded on the 15th of June,
1846, between Great Britain and the United States. 'This
Award,' says the President's Message of December 2, 1872,
'confirms the United States in their claim to the important
archipelago of islands lying between the continent and
Vancouver's Island, which for more than 26 years … Great
Britain had contested, and leaves us, for the first time in
the history of the United States as a nation, without a
question of disputed boundary between our territory and the
possessions of Great Britain on this continent.'"
_C. Cushing,
The Treaty of Washington,
page 222._
The Haro Archipelago, which formed the subject of dispute, is
a group of many islands, mostly small, but containing one of
considerable importance, namely the island of San Juan. The
combined area of the islands is about 170 square miles. The
archipelago is bounded on the north by the Canal de Haro and
the Gulf of Georgia, on the east by Rosario Strait, on the
west by the Canal de Haro, on the south by the Straits of
Fuca. The entrance to the strait called the Canal de Haro is
commanded by the Island of San Juan, which has, therefore,
been called "'the Cronstadt of the Pacific.' Its position is
such that a few batteries, skilfully placed, would render it
almost impregnable." Hence the importance attached to the
possession of this island, and especially on the part of Great
Britain, looking to the future of British Columbia. By the
decision of the Emperor of Germany the entire Archipelago
became part of the recognized territory of the United States.
_Viscount Milton,
History of the San Juan Water Boundary Question [to 1869]._
SAN MARINO, The Republic of.
"The Republic of San Marino is a survival unique in the
political world of Europe. … The sovereign independence of San
Marino is due to a series of happy accidents which were
crystallised into a sentiment. The origin of the State is
ascribed to a Dalmatian saint who fled from the early
persecutions at Rome and dwelt in a hermitage on Mount
Titanus. But it is impossible to believe that there was no
earlier population. The mountain is a detached block standing
free of the Apennines,—a short twelve miles from the
sea-coast, easily defensible and commanding a fertile
undulating district. The hill-villages must have existed
before the towns of the coast. As old as Illyrian pirates were
the highland townships of Verrucchio, San Leo, Urbino, Osimo,
Loretto, and above all San Marino. Yet, but for the saint and
his noble benefactress Felicitá, San Marino would have shared
the fate of other highland communes. This lady was a Countess
Matilda on a small scale. She gave to the young congregation
the proprietorship of the mountain, and the lower table-land
was acquired by subsequent purchase and by the generosity of
Pope Æneas Sylvius. But Felicitá could not give
sovereignty,—she could give no more than she possessed. The
sovereignty had rested with the Roman Republic—the Empire—the
Goths —the Greeks—the Germans. The Papacy itself had as much
claim to San Marino as to anything which it possessed. It was
included at all events in the donation of Pepin. In the
Pontificate of John XXII. the Bishop of Feltro, who claimed
the ownership of the town, proposed to sell it, partly because
he needed money to restore his church, partly because the
Sammarinesi were rebellious subjects,—'not recognising
superiors here on earth, and perchance not believing upon a
superior in heaven.' Yet the Papacy appears in the 13th
century to have accepted a judicial decision as to the
sovereign independence of the Republic, and Pius II.
considerably increased its territory in 1463 at the expense of
Sigismund Malatesta. The sovereignty of San Marino is
therefore almost as complete a puzzle as that of the
mysterious Royaume d' Yvetot. … The Malatestas, originally
lords of the neighboring upland fortress of Verrucchio would
willingly have made the whole ridge the backbone of their
State of Rimini. But this very fact secured for the
Sammarinesi the constant friendship of the lords of Urbino. …
Neither power could allow the other to appropriate so
invaluable a strategic position. … The existing constitution
is a living lesson on medieval history. … Theoretically,
sovereignty in the last resort belongs to the people, and of
old this was practically exercised by the Arengo, which thus
has some correspondence in meaning and functions to the
Florentine Parlamento. The Sammarinesi, however, were wiser
than the Florentines. When the increase of population and
territory rendered a gathering of the whole people an
incompetent engine of legislation, the Arengo was not allowed
to remain as a mischievous survival with ill-defined authority
at the mercy of the governmental wire-pullers. The prerogatives
which were reserved to the Arengo were small but definite. …
It was after the accession of territory granted by Pius II. in
1465 that the constitution of the State was fundamentally
altered. …
{2800}
The people now delegated its sovereignty to the Council, which
was raised to 60 members. … In 1600 an order of Patricians was
established, to which was given one-third of the
representation, and the Council now consists of 20 'nobili,'
20 'artisti,' artisans and shopkeepers, and 20 'contadini,'
agriculturists. The harmony of the Republic is undisturbed by
general elections, for the Council is recruited by
co-optation. … At the head of the Executive stand the two
Captains Regent. To them the statutes assign the sovereign
authority and the power of the sword. … They draw a small
salary, and during their six months of office are free from
all State burdens."
_E. Armstrong,
A Political Survival
(Macmillan's Magazine, Jan., 1891)._
"Between this miniature country and its institutions there is
a delicious disproportion. The little area of thin soil has
for centuries maintained a complicated government. … There is
a national post-office; there is an army of nine hundred and
fifty men and eight officers; there are diplomatic agents in
Paris and Montevideo, and consuls in various European cities.
Services rendered to the State or to science may be rewarded
by knighthood, and so late as 1876 San Marino expressed its
gratitude to an English lady for her gift of a statue of
liberty, by making her Duchess of Acquaviva. Titles are by no
means the most undemocratic part of the republic. On
examination it is seen to be in fact an oligarchy. … Yet an
oligarchy among yeoman farmers is a very different thing from
an oligarchy among merchant princes. San Marino may be
compared with colonial Massachusetts. The few voters have
always really represented the mass of the people. It has been
a singularly united, courageous, honorable, public·spirited,
and prudent people. Union was possible because it was and is a
poor community, in which there were no powerful families to
fight and expel each other, or exiles to come back with an
enemy's army. The courage of the people is shown by their
hospitality to Garibaldi when he was fleeing after his defeat
of 1849. An excellent moral fibre was manifested when, in
1868, the Republic refused to receive the gambling
establishments which had been made illegal in other countries.
The new town-hall is a monument to the enlightened public
spirit of the San Marinese, as well as to their taste. That
the State is prudent is shown by its distinction, almost
unique in Europe, of having no public debt. Other little
states in Europe have had similar good qualities, yet have
long since been destroyed. Why has San Marino outlived them
all? … The perpetuation of the government is due in the first
place to it singular freedom from any desire to extend its
borders. The outlying villages have been added by gift or by
their own free will; and when, in 1797, General Bonaparte
invited the San Marinese to make their wishes known, 'if any
part of the adjacent territory is absolutely necessary to
you,' the hard-headed leaders declined 'an enlargement which
might in time compromise their liberty.' On the other hand,
the poor town had nothing worth plundering, and annexation was
so difficult a task that Benedict XIV. said of Cardinal
Alberoni's attempt in 1739: 'San Marino is a tough
bread-crust; the man who tries to bite it gets his teeth
broken.' Nevertheless, even peaceful and inoffensive
communities were not safe during the last twelve centuries,
without powerful protectors. The determining reason for the
freedom of San Marino since 1300 has been the friendship of
potentates, first of the neighboring Dukes of Urbino, then of
the Popes, then of Napoleon, then of Italy. … When the kingdom
of Italy was formed in 1860, no one cared to erase from the
map a state which even the Pope had spared, and in which
Europe was interested. Hence the San Marinese retained a
situation comparable with that of the native states in India.
A 'consolato' of the Italian Government resides in the town;
the schools are assimilated to the Italian system; appeals may
be had from the courts to the Italian upper courts, and
precautions are taken to prevent the harboring of refugee
criminals. Yet of the old sovereignty four important incidents
are retained. San Marino has a post-office, a kind of national
plaything; but the rare and beautiful stamps are much prized
by collectors, and doubtless the sale helps the coffers of the
state. The San Marinese manage, and well manage, their own
local affairs, without any annoying interference from an
Italian prefect. They owe no military service to Italy, and
their own militia is no burden. Above all, they pay no taxes
to Italy. If I were an Italian, I should like to be a San
Marinese."
_A. B. Hart,
The Ancient Commonwealth of San Marino
(The Nation, February 1, 1894)._
SAN MARTIN, General Jose de,
The liberation of Chile and Peru.
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
SAN MARTINO, Battle of (1859).
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
SAN SALVADOR, Bahamas.
The name given by Columbus to the little island in the Bahama
group which he first discovered, and the identity of which is
in dispute.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
SAN SALVADOR, Central America: A. D. 1821-1871.
Independence of Spain.
Brief annexation to Mexico.
Attempted Federations and their failure.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
SAN STEFANO, Treaty of.
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.
SANCHO I., King of Aragon, A. D. 1063-1094;
SANCHO IV. of Navarre, A. D. 1076-1094.
SANCHO I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, 955-967.
SANCHO I., King of Navarre, 905-925.
SANCHO I., King of Portugal, 1185-1211.
SANCHO II., King of Castile, 1065-1072.
SANCHO II. (called The Great), King of Navarre, 970-1035;
and I. of Castile, 1026-1035.
SANCHO II., King of Portugal, 1223-1244.
SANCHO III., King of Castile, 1157-1158.
Sancho III., King of Navarre, 1054-1076.
SANCHO IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1284-1295.
SANCHO V., King of Navarre, 1150-1194.
SANCHO VI., King of Navarre, 1194-1236.
SAND LOT PARTY, The.
See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.
{2801}
SANDEMANIANS.
Robert Sandeman "was a Scotchman who held peculiar religious
views: such as—that an intellectual belief would ensure
salvation, without faith; and that this intellectual belief
was certain to induce Christian virtues. He held these so
strongly and urgently that he made a small sect; and in 1764
he came to Connecticut, and founded churches at Danbury and at
some other places, where his followers were called
'Sandemanians,' and where some traces of them exist still. …
The followers of Robert Sandeman were nearly all Loyalists [at
the time of the American Revolution], and many of them
emigrated from Connecticut to New Brunswick."
_C. W. Elliott,
The New England History.,
volume 2. page 370._
SANDJAKS,
SANJAKS.
See BEY; also TIMAR.
SANDJAR, Seljuk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1116-1157.
SANDWICH ISLANDS, The.
See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.
SANGALA.
An ancient city in the Punjab, India, which was the
easternmost of all the conquests of Alexander the Great. He
took the town by storm (B. C. 326), slaying 17,000 of the
inhabitants and taking 70,000 captives.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 94._
SANHEDRIM, The.
"Beside the priesthood [of the Jewish church], ever since the
time of Ezra, there had been insensibly growing a body of
scholars, who by the time of Herod had risen to a distinct
function of the State. Already under John Hyrcanus there was a
judicial body known as the House of Judgment (Beth Din). To
this was given the Macedonian title of Synedrion [or
Synhedrion], transformed into the barbarous Hebrew word
Sanhedrim, or Sanhedrin."
_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 50._
"The Sanhedrin was the great court of judicature; it judged of
all capital offences against the law; it had the power of
inflicting punishment by scourging and by death. … The Great
Sanhedrin was a court of appeal from the inferior Sanhedrins
of twenty-three judges established in the other towns. The
Sanhedrin was probably confined to its judicial duties —it was
a plenary court of justice, and no more during the reigns of
the later Asmonean princes, and during those of Herod the
Great and his son Archelaus. … When Judæa became a Roman
province, the Sanhedrin either, as is more likely, assumed for
the first time, or recovered its station as a kind of senate
or representative body of the nation. … At all events, they
seem to have been the channel of intercourse between the Roman
rulers and the body of the people. It is the Sanhedrin, under
the name of the chief priests, scribes, and elders of the
people, who take the lead in all the transactions recorded in
the Gospels. Jesus Christ was led before the Sanhedrin, and by
them denounced before the tribunal of Pilate."
_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 12._
SANHIKANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
SANITARY COMMISSION,
and Christian Commission, The United States.
"Soon after Mr. Lincoln issued his proclamation [April 15,
1861, at the outbreak of the American Civil War] … calling for
75,000 soldiers, many good men and women instituted what they
termed 'Soldiers' Aid Societies.' At first the government did
not look upon these with approval, under an apprehension that
they might interfere with the discipline and efficiency of the
armies. Certain physicians and clergymen who had interested
themselves in these charitable undertakings perceived how much
good could be accomplished by a more extensive and thorough
organization. Seeking no remuneration, they applied to the
government to give them recognition and moral support, and,
after some difficulty, this being secured, they organized
themselves and were recognized as 'the United States Sanitary
Commission.' The Reverend Henry W. Bellows, D. D., was its
president. Their intention was to aid by their professional
advice the medical department of the government service; but
soon, the field opening out before them, their operations were
greatly enlarged. From being simply an advisory, they became
more and more an executive body. … The Sanitary Commission now
entered on an extraordinary career of usefulness. It ranged
itself in affiliation with the government medical bureau. It
gathered supporters from all classes of the people. … Soon the
commission had an independent transportation of its own. It
had hospital transports, wagons, ambulances, railroad
ambulances, cars. Ingenious men devised for it inventions of
better litters, better stretchers, better ambulances. It
secured comfortable transportation for the wounded soldier
from the battle-field to the hospital. On the railroad it soon
had its hospital cars, with kitchen, dispensary, and a
surgeon's car in the midst. As its work increased, so did its
energies and the singular efficiency of its organization. It
divided its services into several departments of duty.
(1.) Its preventive service, or sanitary inspection
department, had a corps of medical inspectors, who examined
thoroughly troops in the field, and reported their condition
and needs to its own officers and to the government. It had
also a corps of special hospital inspectors, who visited the
general hospitals of the army, nearly 300 in number, their
reports being confidential, and sent to the surgeon general of
the army.
(2.) Its department of general relief. This consisted of
twelve branches of the general commission, having depots in
the large towns, each branch having from 150 to 1,200
auxiliaries engaged in obtaining supplies. These were sent to
the main depot, and there assorted, repacked, and dispatched.
One of these branches, the 'Woman's Central Association,'
collected stores to the value of over a million of dollars;
another, the Northwestern, at Chicago, furnished more than a
quarter of a million. Care was taken to have no waste in the
distribution. Soldiers of all the states were equally
supplied; and even wounded enemies left on the field, or sick
and abandoned in the hospitals, were tenderly cared for.
(3.) Its department of special relief. This took under its
charge soldiers not yet under, or just out of the care of the
government; men on sick leave, or found in the streets, or
left by their regiments. For such it furnished 'homes.' About
7,500 men were, on an average, thus daily or nightly
accommodated. It also had 'lodges' wherein a sick soldier
might stay while awaiting his pay from the paymaster general,
or, if unable to reach a hospital, might stop for a time.
Still more, it had 'Homes for the Wives, Mothers, and Children
of Soldiers.' where those visiting the wounded or sick man to
minister to his necessities might find protection, defense,
food, shelter. It had its 'Feeding Stations,' where a tired
and hungry soldier passing by could have a gratuitous meal. On
the great military lines these stations were permanently
established. On the chief rivers, the Mississippi, the
Cumberland, the Potomac, it had 'sanitary steamers' for
transmitting supplies and transporting the sick and wounded.
It established 'agencies' to see that no injustice was done to
any soldier; that the soldier, his widow, his orphan, obtained
pensions, back pay, bounties, or whatever money was due; that
any errors in their papers were properly corrected, and
especially that no sharper took advantage of them. It
instituted hospital directories by which the friends of a
soldier could obtain information without cost as to his place
and condition, if within a year he had been an inmate of any
hospital. It had such a record of not less than 900,000 names.
Whenever permitted to do so, it sent supplies to the United
States prisoners of war in confinement at Andersonville,
Salisbury, Richmond. …
{2802}
(4.) Its department of field relief. The duty of this was to
minister to the wounded on the field of battle; to furnish
bandages, cordials, nourishment; to give assistance to the
surgeons, and to supply any deficiencies it could detect in
the field hospitals. It had a chief inspector for the armies
of the East; another for the Military Department of the
Mississippi, with a competent staff for each.
(5.) Its auxiliary relief corps. This supplied deficiencies in
personal attendance and work in the hospitals, or among the
wounded on the field. Between May, 1864, when it was first
organized, and January, 1865, it gave its services to more
than 75,000 patients. It waited on the sick and wounded; wrote
letters for them, gave them stationery, postage stamps,
newspapers, and whiled away the heavy hours of suffering by
reading magazines and books to them. To the Sanitary
Commission the government gave a most earnest support; the
people gave it their hearts. They furnished it with more than
three millions of dollars in money, of which one million came
from the Pacific States; they sent it nine millions' worth of
supplies. From fairs held in its interest very large sums were
derived. One in New York yielded a million and a quarter of
dollars; one in Philadelphia more than a million. In towns
comparatively small, there were often collected at such fairs
more than twenty thousand dollars. … The Christian Commission
emulated the noble conduct of the United States Sanitary
Commission. It, too, received the recognition and countenance
of the government. Its object was to promote the physical and
spiritual welfare of soldiers and sailors. Its central office
was in Philadelphia, but it had agencies in all the large
towns. 'It aided the surgeon, helped the chaplain, followed
the armies in their marches, went into the trenches and along
the picket-line. Wherever there was a sick, a wounded, a dying
man, an agent of the Christian Commission was near by.' It
gave Christian burial whenever possible; it marked the graves
of the dead. It had its religious services, its little
extemporized chapels, its prayer-meetings. The American Bible
Society gave it Bibles and Testaments; the Tract Society its
publications. The government furnished its agents and supplies
free transportation; it had the use of the telegraph for its
purposes. Steamboat and railroad companies furthered its
objects with all their ability. It distributed nearly five
millions of dollars in money and supplies."
_J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
chapter 87 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_L. P. Brockett,
Woman's Work in the Civil War._
_Mrs. M, A. Livermore,
My Story of the War._
_K. P. Wormeley,
The Other Side of the War._
_The Sanitary Commission: its Works and Purposes._
_J. S. Newberry,
The U. S. Sanitary Commission in the Mississippi Valley._
_L. Moss,
Annals of the United States Christian Commission._
SANITARY SCIENCE AND LEGISLATION.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY.
SANJAKS,
SANDJAKS.
See BEY; also TIMAR.
SANQUHAR DECLARATION, The.
The Declaration affixed by the Cameronians to the market-cross
of Sanquhar, in 1680, renouncing allegiance to King Charles
II.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
SANS ARCS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
SANSCULOTTES.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).
SANSCULOTTIDES. of the French Republican Calendar, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.
SANSKRIT.
"The name Sanskrit as applied to the ancient language of the
Hindus is an artificial designation for a highly elaborated
form of the language originally brought by the Indian branch
of the great Aryan race into India. This original tongue soon
became modified by contact with the dialects of the aboriginal
races who preceded the Aryans, and in this way converted into
the peculiar language ('bhasha') of the Aryan immigrants who
settled in the neighbourhood of the seven rivers of the Panjab
and its outlying districts ('Sapta-Sindhavas'=in Zand 'Hapta
Hendu'). The most suitable name for the original language thus
moulded into the speech of the Hindus is Hindu-i (= Sindhu-i),
its principal later development being called Hindi, just as
the Low German dialect of the Saxons when modified in England
was called Anglo-Saxon. But very soon that happened in India
which has come to pass in all civilized countries. The spoken
language, when once its general form and character had been
settled, separated into two lines, the one elaborated by the
learned, the other popularized and variously provincialized by
the unlearned. In India, however, … this separation became
more marked, more diversified, and progressively intensified.
Hence, the very grammar which with other nations was regarded
only as a means to an end, came to be treated by Indian
Pandits as the end itself, and was subtilized into an
intricate science, fenced around by a bristling barrier of
technicalities. The language, too, elaborated 'pari passu'
with the grammar, rejected the natural name of Hindu-i, or
'the speech of the Hindus,' and adopted an artificial
designation, viz. Sanskrita, 'the perfectly constructed
speech,' … to denote its complete severance from vulgar
purposes, and its exclusive dedication to religion and
literature; while the name Prakrita—which may mean 'the
original' as well as 'the derived' speech—was assigned to the
common dialect."
_M. Williams,
Indian Wisdom.,
introduction, page xxviii._
SANTA ANNA, The career of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826, to 1848-1861,
and TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
SANTA HERMANDAD.
See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.
SANTA INES, Battle of (1859).
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
{2803}
SANTA LUCIA, Battle of (1848).
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
SANTALS, The.
See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
SANTAREM, Battle of (1184).
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
SANTEES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
SANTIAGO, The founding of the city (1541).
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
SANTIAGO. OR ST. JAGO, Knights of the Order of.
See CALATRAVA.
SANTONES, The.
See PICTONES.
SAPAUDIA.
The early name of Savoy.
See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.
SAPEIRES, The.
See IBERIANS, EASTERN.
SAPIENZA, OR PORTOLONGO; Battle of (1354).
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
SARACENIC EMPIRE.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.
SARACENIC SCHOOLS.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.
SARACENS, The name.
"From Mecca to the Euphrates, the Arabian tribes were
confounded by the Greeks and Latins under the general
appellation of Saracens. … The name which, used by Ptolemy and
Pliny in a more confined, by Ammianus and Procopius in a
larger, sense, has been derived, ridiculously, from Sarah, the
wife of Abraham, obscurely from the village of Saraka, … more
plausibly from the Arabic words which signify a thievish
character, or Oriental situation. … Yet the last and most
popular of these etymologies is refuted by Ptolemy (Arabia, p.
2. 18. in Hudson, tom. iv.), who expressly remarks the western
and southern position of the Saracens, then an obscure tribe
on the borders of Egypt. The appellation cannot, therefore,
allude to any national character; and, since it was imposed by
strangers, it must be found, not in the Arabic, but in a
foreign language."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 50, and note._
"Dr. Clarke (Travels, volume ii., page 391) after expressing
contemptuous pity for Gibbon's ignorance, derives the word
from Zara, Zaara, Sara, the Desert, whence Saraceni, the
children of the Desert. De Marlès adopts the derivation from
Sarrik, a robber, History des Arabes, volume 1, page 36; St.
Martin from Scharkioun, or Sharkün, Eastern, volume xi., page
55."
_H. Milman,
note to Gibbon, as above._
The Kadmonites "are undoubtedly what their name expresses,
Orientals, Saracens, otherwise B'ne Kedem,' or Suns of the
East; a name restricted in practice to the cast contiguous to
Palestine, and comprising only the Arabian nations dwelling
between Palestine and the Euphrates. … The name Saraceni was
in use among the Romans long before Islam, apparently from the
time of Trajan's and Hadrian's wars."
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
introduction, section 4, with foot-note (volume 1)._
In the Middle Ages the term Saracen became common in its
application to the Arabs, and, in fact, to the Mahometan races
pretty generally.
See ROME: A. D. 96-138.
----------SARAGOSSA: Start--------
SARAGOSSA:
Origin.
See CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 543.
Siege by the Franks.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.
SARAGOSSA: A. D, 713.
Siege and conquest by the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D.711-713.
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 778.
Siege by Charlemagne.
See SPAIN: A. D. 778.
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1012-1146.
The seat of a Moorish kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1710.-
Defeat of the Spaniards by the Allies.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808.
Fruitless siege by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1808-1809.
Siege and capture by the French.
Extraordinary defense of the city.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.
Siege by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
SARAGOSSA: A. D. 1809.
Battle and Spanish defeat.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
----------SARAGOSSA: End--------
SARANGIANS.
The name given by Herodotus to a warlike people who dwelt
anciently on the shores of the Hamun and in the Valley of the
Hilmend—southwestern Afghanistan. By the later Greeks they
were called Zarangians and Drangians; by the Persians Zaraka.
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5). _
SARATOGA, Burgoyne's surrender at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
SARATOGA, The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
SARCEES (TINNEH).
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
BLACKFEET, AND ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
----------SARDINIA: Start--------
SARDINIA (The Island): Name and early history.
"The name of the island 'Sardo' is derived with probability
from the Phœnician, and describes its resemblance to the human
footstep. … Diodorus reckons this island among the places to
which the Phœnicians sent colonies, after they had enriched
themselves by the silver of Spain. … What the primitive
population of the island was, which the Phœnicians found there
when they touched at its southern ports on their way to Spain,
whether it had come from the coast of Italy, or Africa, we can
only conjecture. In historical times it appears to have been
derived from three principal sources,—immigrations from
Africa, represented by the traditions of Sardus and Aristæus;
from Greece, represented by Iolaus, and from the south and
south-east of Spain, represented by Norax. … The name Norax
has evidently a reference to those singular remains of ancient
architecture, the Nuraghi of Sardinia,—stone towers in the
form of a truncated cone, with a spiral staircase in the
thickness of the wall, which to the number of 3,000 are
scattered over the island, chiefly in the southern and western
parts. Nothing entirely analogous to these has been found in
any other part of the world; but they resemble most the
Athalayas [or Talajots] of Minorca, whose population was
partly Iberian, partly Libyan. … The Carthaginians, at the
time when their naval power was at its height, in the sixth
and fifth centuries B. C., subdued all the level country, the
former inhabitants taking refuge among the mountains, where
their manners receded towards barbarism."
_J. Kenrick,
Phœnicia,
chapter 4, section 3._
SARDINIA: A. D. 1017.
Conquest from the Saracens by the Pisans and Genoese.
See PISA: ORIGIN OF THE CITY.
{2804}
SARDINIA: A. D. 1708.
Taken by the Allies.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
SARDINIA: A. D. 1713.
Ceded to the Elector of Bavaria with the title of King.
See UTRECHT: A.D. 1712-1714.
SARDINIA: A. D. 1714.
Exchanged with the emperor for the Upper Palatinate.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
SARDINIA: A. D. 1717.
Retaken by Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
SARDINIA: A. D. 1719.
Given up by Spain and acquired by the Duke of Savoy in
exchange for Sicily, giving its name to his kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
----------SARDINIA: End--------
----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): Start--------
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1742.
The king joins Austria in the War of the Austrian Succession.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
Treaty of Worms, with Austria and England.
See ITALY: A. D. 1743.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1743.
The Bourbon Family Compact against the king.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1774.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
French and Spanish invasion of Piedmont.
See ITALY: A. D. 1744.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1745.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Overwhelming reverses.
See ITALY: A. D. 1745.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1746-1747.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
The French and Spaniards driven out.
See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1792.
Annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1793.
Joined in the Coalition against Revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1794.
Passes of the Alps secured by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1795.
French victory at Loano.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1796.
Submission to the French under Bonaparte.
Treaty of peace.
Cession of Savoy to the Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1798.
Piedmont taken by the French.
Its sovereignty relinquished by the king.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1799.
French evacuation of Piedmont.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1800.
Recovery of Piedmont by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1802.
Annexation of part of Piedmont to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1814-1815.
The king recovers his kingdom.
Annexation of Genoa.
Cession of part of Savoy to France.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF:
also FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1815.
Accession to the Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1820-1821.
Abortive revolutionary rising and war with Austria.
The defeat at Novara.
See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1831.
Death of Charles Felix.
Accession of Charles Albert.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1848-1849.
Alliance with insurgent Lombardy and Venetia.
War with Austria.
Defeat.
Abdication of Charles Albert.
Accession of Victor Emmanuel II.
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1855.
In the Alliance of the Crimean War against Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
SARDINIA (The Kingdom): A. D. 1856-1870.
The great work of Count Cavour and King Victor Emmanuel.
Liberation of the whole Peninsula and
creation of the kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, to 1867-1870.
----------SARDINIA (The Kingdom): End--------
SARDIS.
When Cyrus the Great founded the Persian empire by the
overthrow of that of the Medes, B. C. 558, his first
enterprise of conquest, outside of the Median dominion, was
directed against the kingdom of Lydia, then, under its famous
king Crœsus, dominant in Asia Minor and rapidly increasing in
wealth and power. After an indecisive battle, Crœsus retired
to his capital city, Sardis, which was then the most splendid
city of Asia Minor, and was followed by Cyrus, who captured
and plundered the town, at the end of a siege of only fourteen
days. The fall of Sardis was the fall of the Lydian kingdom,
which was absorbed into the great empire of Persia.
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 7._
Fifty-eight years later (about 500 B. C.) at the beginning of
the Ionian Revolt, when the Greek cities of Asia Minor
attempted to throw off the Persian yoke, Sardis was again
plundered and burned by an invading force of Ionians and
Athenians.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 14._
See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
SARGASSO SEA, The.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
SARISSA, The.
See PHALANX.
SARK, Battle of (1448).
This was a severe defeat inflicted by the Scots upon an
English force, invading Scottish territory, under Lord Percy.
The English lost 3,000 men and Percy was taken prisoner.
_Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland.
chapter 19._
SARMATIA.
SARMATIANS.
"The Scythians of the time of Herodotus were separated only by
the river Tanais [modern Don] from the Sarmatians, who
occupied the territory for several days' journey north-cast of
the Palus Mæôtis; on the south, they were divided by the
Danube from the section of Thracians called Getæ. Both these
nations were nomadic, analogous to the Scythians in habits,
military efficiency, and fierceness. Indeed, Herodotus and
Hippokrates distinctly intimate that the Sarmatians were
nothing but a branch of Scythians, speaking a Scythian
dialect, and distinguished from their neighbours on the other
side of the Tanais chiefly by this peculiarity,—that the women
among them were warriors hardly less daring and expert than
the men."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 17._
The Sarmatians ultimately gave their name to the whole region
of northeastern Europe, and some writers have considered them
to be, not Scythic or Mongolic in race, but progenitors of the
modern Slavonic family. "By Sarmatia [Tacitus] seems to have
understood what is now Moldavia and Wallachia, and perhaps
part of the south of Russia."
_Church and Brodribb,
Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
{2805}
SARMATIAN AND MARCOMANNIAN WARS OF MARCUS AURELIUS.
It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus that the
inroads of the barbarians along the Danubian frontier of the
Roman Empire began to be seriously frequent and bold. "It is
represented as a simultaneous, and even a combined attack, of
all the races on the northern frontier, who may be ranged
under the three national divisions of Germans, Scythians, and
Sarmatians; though we may question the fact of an actual
league among tribes so many, so various, and so distant." The
Marcomanni and the Quadi on the upper Danube, and the
Sarmatian tribes on the lower, were the prominent intruders,
and the campaigns which Aurelius conducted against them, A. D.
167-180, are generally called either the Marcomannian or the
Sarmatian Wars. During these thirteen years, the noblest of
all monarchs surrendered repeatedly the philosophic calm which
he loved so well, and gave himself to the hateful business of
frontier war, vainly striving to arrest in its beginning the
impending flood of barbaric invasion. Repeatedly, he won the
semblance of a peace with the unrelenting foe, and as
repeatedly it was broken. He died in his soldier's harness, at
Vindobona (Vienna), and happily did not live to witness the
peace . which Rome, in the end, stooped to buy from the foes
she had no more strength to overcome.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 68._
ALSO IN:
_P. B. Watson,
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
chapters 4-6._
See, also, THUNDERING LEGION.
SARN HELEN, The.
A Roman road running through Wales, called by the Welsh the
Sarn Helen, or road of Helen, from a notion that the Empress
Helena caused it to be made.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
SARPI, Fra Paolo, and the contest of Venice with the Papacy.
See VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.
SARRE-LOUIS: A. D. 1680.
The founding of the city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
SARUS, Battle of the.
One of the victories of the Emperor Heraclius,
A. D. 625, in his war with the Persians.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 24._
SASKATCHEWAN, The district of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.
SASSANIAN DYNASTY.
Artaxerxes I., who resurrected the Persian empire, or called a
new Persian empire into existence, A. D. 226, by the overthrow
of the Parthian monarchy and the subjection of its dominions,
founded a dynasty which took the name of the Sassanian, or the
family of the Sassanidæ, from one Sasan, who, according to
some accounts was the father, according to others a remoter
progenitor of Artaxerxes. This second Persian monarchy is,
itself, often called the Sassanian, to distinguish it from the
earlier Achæmenian Persian empire.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy._
See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
SASTEAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.
SATOLLI, Apostolic Delegate in America.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1892.
SATRAP.
SATRAPIES.
Darius Hystaspis "has been well called 'the true founder of
the Persian state.' He found the Empire a crude and
heterogeneous mass of ill-assorted elements, hanging loosely
together by the single tie of subjection to a common head; he
left it a compact and regularly organized body, united on a
single well-ordered system, permanently established
everywhere. … It was the first, and probably the best,
instance of that form of government which, taking its name
from the Persian word for provincial ruler, is known generally
as the system of 'satrapial' administration. Its main
principles were, in the first place, the reduction of the
whole Empire to a quasi-uniformity by the substitution of one
mode of governing for several; secondly, the substitution of
fixed and definite burthens on the subject in lieu of variable
and uncertain calls; and thirdly, the establishment of a
variety of checks and counterpoises among the officials to
whom it was necessary that the crown should delegate its
powers. … The authority instituted by Darius was that of his
satraps. He divided the whole Empire into a number of separate
governments—a number which must have varied at different
times, but which seems never to have fallen short of twenty.
Over each government he placed a satrap, or supreme civil
governor, charged with the collection and transmission of the
revenue, the administration of justice, the maintenance of
order, and the general supervision of the territory. These
satraps were nominated by the king at his pleasure from any
class of his subjects, and held office for no definite term,
but simply until recalled, being liable to deprivation or
death at any moment, without other formality than the
presentation of the royal 'firman.' While, however, they
remained in office they were despotic—they represented the
Great King, and were clothed with a portion of his majesty. …
They wielded the power of life and death. They assessed the
tribute on the several towns and villages within their
jurisdiction at their pleasure, and appointed deputies—called
sometimes, like themselves, satraps—over cities or districts
within their province, whose office was regarded as one of
great dignity. … Nothing restrained their tyranny but such
sense of right as they might happen to possess, and the fear
of removal or execution if the voice of complaint reached the
monarch."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 7._
SATTAGYDÆ, The.
See GEDROSIANS.
SATURNALIA, The Roman.
"The Saturnalia, first celebrated in Rome at the dedication
[of the temple of Saturn, on the southern slope of the
Capitoline Hill] … extended originally over three, but finally
over seven days, during which all social distinctions were
ignored; slaves were admitted to equality with their masters;
and the chains which the emancipated from slavery used to
hang, as thanksgiving, on or below the statue of the god, were
taken down to intimate that perfect freedom had been enjoyed
by all alike under the thrice-happy Saturnian reign. Varro
mentions the practice of sending wax tapers as presents during
this festival; and when we remember the other usage of
suspending wax masks, during the Saturnalia, in a chapel
beside the temple of the beneficent Deity, the analogies
between these equalizing fêtes and the modern Carnival become
more apparent."
_C. I. Hemans,
Historic and Monumental Rome,
chapter 6. _
SAUCHIE BURN, Battle of (1488).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.
{2806}
SAUCY CASTLE.
See CHÂTEAU GAILLARD.
SAUK, OR SAC, Indians.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS.
SAULCOURT, Battle of (A. D. 881).
A notable defeat inflicted upon the invading Northmen or Danes
in 881 by the French king Louis III., one of the last of the
Carolingian line. The battle is commemorated in a song which
is one of the earliest specimens of Teutonic verse.
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._
SAULT STE. MARIE, The Jesuit mission at.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
SAULTEUR, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAYS.
SAUMUR: Stormed by the Vendeans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE).
SAUROMATÆ, The.
See SCYTHIANS.
SAVAGE STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1732.
The founding of the city.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1775-1776.
Activity of the Liberty Party.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1778.
Taken and occupied by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH.
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1779.
Unsuccessful attack by the French and Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1861.
Threatened by the Union forces, in occupation of the islands
at the mouth of the river.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH
CAROLINA-GEORGIA).
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1862.
Reduction of Fort Pulaski by the national forces,
and sealing up of the port.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).
SAVANNAH: A. D. 1864.
Confederate evacuation.
Sherman in possession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
SAVANNAHS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
SAVENAY, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) THE CIVIL WAR.
SAVERNE:
Taken by Duke Bernhard (1636).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
SAVERY, Thomas, and the Steam Engine.
See STEAM ENGINE.
SAVONA, The Pope at.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
SAVONAROLA, in Florence.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT:
The founding of the Burgundian kingdom in Savoy.
See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11th Century.
The founders of the House of Savoy.
See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11-15th Centuries.
Rise and growth of the dominions of the Savoyard princes,
in Italy and the Burgundian territory.
Creation of the duchy.
Assumption of the title of Princes of Piedmont.
"The cradle of the Savoyard power lay in the Burgundian lands
immediately bordering upon Italy and stretching on both sides
of the Alps. It was to their geographical position, as holding
several great mountain passes, that the Savoyard princes owed
their first importance, succeeding therein in some measure to
the Burgundian kings themselves. The early stages of the
growth of the house are very obscure; and its power does not
seem to have formed itself till after the union of Burgundy
with the Empire. But it seems plain that, at the end of the
11th century, the Counts of Maurienne, which was their
earliest title, held rights of sovereignty in the Burgundian
districts of Maurienne, Savoy strictly so called, Tarantaise,
and Aosta. … The early Savoyard possessions reached to the
Lake of Geneva, and spread on both sides of the inland mouth
of the Rhone. The power of the Savoyard princes in this region
was largely due to their ecclesiastical position as advocates
of the abbey of Saint Maurice. Thus their possessions had a
most irregular outline, nearly surrounding the lands of
Genevois and Faucigny. A state of this shape, like Prussia in
a later age and on a greater scale, was, as it were,
predestined to make further advances. But for some centuries
those advances were made much more largely in Burgundy than in
Italy. The original Italian possessions of the House bordered
on their Burgundian counties of Maurienne and Aosta, taking in
Susa and Turin. This small marchland gave its princes the
sounding title of Marquesses in Italy. … In the 12th and 13th
centuries, the princes of Savoy were still hemmed in, in their
own corner of Italy, by princes of equal or greater power, at
Montferrat, at Saluzzo, at Iverea, and at Biandrate. And it
must be remembered that their position as princes at once
Burgundian and Italian was not peculiar to them. … The Italian
dominions of the family remained for a long while quite
secondary to its Burgundian possessions. … The main object of
Savoyard policy in this region was necessarily the acquisition
of the lands of Faucigny and the Genevois. But the final
incorporation of those lands did not take place till they were
still more completely hemmed in by the Savoyard dominions
through the extension of the Savoyard power to the north of
the Lake. This began early in the 13th century [1207] by a
royal grant of Moudon to Count Thomas of Savoy. Romont was
next won, and became the centre of the Savoyard power north of
the Lake. Soon after, through the conquests of Peter of Savoy
[1263-1268], who was known as the Little Charlemagne and who
plays a part in English as well as in Burgundian history,
these possessions grew into a large dominion, stretching along
a great part of the shores of the Lake of Neufchâtel and
reaching as far north as Murten or Morat. … This new dominion
north of the Lake was, after Peter's reign, held for a short
time by a separate branch of the Savoyard princes as Barons of
Vaud; but in the middle of the 14th century, their barony came
into the direct possession of the elder branch of the house.
The lands of Faucigny and the Genevois were thus altogether
surrounded by the Savoyard territory. Faucigny had passed to
the Dauphins of the Viennois, who were the constant rivals of
the Savoyard counts, down to the time of the practical
transfer of their dauphiny to France. Soon after that
annexation, Savoy obtained Faucigny, with Gex and some other
districts beyond the Rhone, in exchange for some small
Savoyard possessions within the dauphiny.
{2807}
The long struggle for the Genevois, the county of Geneva, was
ended by its purchase in the beginning of the 15th century
[1401]. This left the city of Geneva altogether surrounded by
Savoyard territory, a position which before long altogether
changed the relations between the Savoyard counts and the
city. Hitherto, in the endless struggles between the Genevese
counts, bishops, and citizens, the Savoyard counts … had often
been looked on by the citizens as friends and protectors. Now
that they had become immediate neighbours of the city, they
began before long to be its most dangerous enemies. The
acquisition of the Genevois took place in the reign of the
famous Amadeus, the Eighth, the first Duke of Savoy, who
received that rank by grant of King Siegmund [1417], and who
was afterwards the Anti-pope Felix.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.
In his reign the dominions of Savoy, as a power ruling on both
sides of the Alps, reached their greatest extent. But the
Savoyard power was still pre-eminently Burgundian, and
Chambery was its capital. The continuous Burgundian dominion
of the house now reached from the Alps to the Saône,
surrounding the lake of Geneva and spreading on both sides of
the lake of Neufchâtel. Besides this continuous Burgundian
dominion, the House of Savoy had already become possessed
[1388] of Nizza, by which their dominions reached to the sea.
… After the 15th century, the Burgundian history of that house
consists of the steps spread over more than 300 years by which
this great dominion was lost. The real importance of the house
of Savoy in Italy dates from much the same time as the great
extension of its power in Burgundy. … During the 14th century,
among many struggles with the Marquesses of Montferrat and
Saluzzo, the Angevin counts of Provence, and the lords of
Milan, the Savoyard power in Italy generally increased. …
Before the end of the reign of Amadeus [the Eighth—1391-1451],
the dominions of Savoy stretched as far as the Sesia, taking
in Biella, Santhia and VerceIli. Counting Nizza and Aosta as
Italian, which they now practically were, the Italian
dominions of the House reached from the Alps of Wallis to the
sea. But they were nearly cut in two by the dominions of the
Marquesses of Montferrat, from whom however the Dukes of Savoy
now claimed homage. … Amadeus, the first Duke of Savoy, took
the title of Count of Piedmont, and afterwards that of Prince.
His possessions were now fairly established as a middle state,
Italian and Burgundian, in nearly equal proportions."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 7._
ALSO IN:
_A. Gallenga,
History of Piedmont,
volume 1, chapters 6-9,
volume 2, chapters 1-6._
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1452-1454.
Alliance with Venice and Naples.
War with Milan and Florence.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1504-1535.
Struggles with the independent burghers of Geneva.
Loss of the Vidommate.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1536-1544.
Conquest by the French and restoration to
the Duke by the Treaty of Crespy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.
End of the French occupation.
Recovery of his dominions by Emanuel Philibert.
His reconstruction of the state.
Treaties with the Swiss.
War with the Waldenses.
Tolerant Treaty of Cavour.
Settlement of government at Turin.
"The history of Piedmont begins where the history of Italy
terminates. At the Peace of Chateau-Cambresis], in 1559,
Piedmont was born again.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
Under Amadeus VIII. Savoy bade fair to become a State of the
very first order. In the course of a century it had sunk to a
third-rate power. … Piedmont, utterly prostrated by
five-and-twenty years of foreign occupation, laid waste by the
trampling of all the armies of Europe, required now the work
of a constructive genius, and Emanuel Philibert was
providentially fitted for the task. No man could better afford
to be pacific than the conqueror of St. Quintin. …
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
After the battle of St. Quintin, Emanuel Philibert had France
at his discretion. Had his counsels been instantly followed,
the Spanish army would have dictated its own terms before or
within the walls of Paris. … The reconciliation of France with
the hero who had alarmed and humbled her seemed, nevertheless,
to be sincere." Under the terms of the treaty, the Duke of
Savoy's dominions, occupied by the French, were to be restored
to him, except that Turin, Chieri, Chivasso, Pinerolo, and
Villanova d' Asti, with part of their territories, "were to be
occupied for three years, or until the settlement of the
differences between the two Courts, chiefly with regard to the
dowry of Louisa of Savoy, mother of Francis I., the original
cause of dispute. … So long as France insisted on keeping the
five above-mentioned places, Spain was also empowered to
retain Asti and Vercelli." Philip II., however, gave up
VerceIli and "contented himself with the occupation of Asti
and Santia." The differences with France proved hard of
settlement, and it was not until 1574 that "Emanuel Philibert
found himself in possession of all his Subalpine dominions. No
words can describe the meanness and arrogance by which the
French aggravated this prolonged usurpation of their
neighbour's territories. … Had Emanuel Philibert put himself
at the head of one of [the factions which fought in France at
this time] … he might have paid back … the indignities he had
had to endure; but his mission was the restoration of his own
State, not the subjugation of his neighbour's. … The same
moderation and longanimity which enabled Emanuel Philibert to
avoid a collision with France, because be deemed it
unreasonable, equally distinguished him in his relations with
his neighbours of Italy. There was now, alas! no Italy; the
country had fallen a prey to the Spanish branch of the House
of Austria, and the very existence of Mantua, Parma, Tuscany,
etc., was at the mercy of Philip II. … This 'most able and
most honest of all the princes of his line' was fully aware of
the importance of his position as the 'bulwark of Italy,' and
felt that on his existence hung the fate of such states in the
Peninsula as still aspired to independence. 'I know full
well,' he said in a moment of cordial expansion, 'that these
foreigners are all bent on the utter destruction of Italy, and
that I may be the first immolated; but my fall can be
indifferent to no Italian state, and least of all to Venice.'
Full of these thoughts, he was unwearied in his endeavours to
secure the friendship of that republic. … The same instinctive
dread of the crushing ascendancy of Spain and France, which
made Emanuel Philibert cling to the Venetian alliance, equally
urged him to settle, no matter at what cost, the differences
with the other old allies of his house—the Swiss. The Pays de
Vaud, Gex, Chablais, and Lower Valais were still in the power
of the confederates.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
{2808}
It was not without a murmur that the Duke of Savoy could part
with so fair a portion of his forefathers' inheritance; but it
was not long ere he learnt to resign all hope of its recovery.
A new generation had sprung up in those provinces, amongst
whom all loyalty to Savoy had died off. The Bernese had
introduced the Reformation into the conquered lands. …
Political freedom went hand in hand with religious innovation.
… Geneva was the very head-quarters of reform; it was proud of
the appellation of the 'Rome of Calvinism.' … Emanuel
Philibert, ill-supported by Spain and thwarted by France, laid
aside all ideas of an appeal to force, and trusted his cause
to negotiation. There was happily division in the enemy's
camp; religious difference had set the old forest cantons into
opposition with Berne and her Protestant associates. The Duke
of Savoy made a treaty at Lucerne (November 11, 1560) with
Schwytz, Uri, Unterwald, Zug, Lucerne, Soleure, and even
Zurich; and these promised their good offices with their
Protestant brethren in behalf of Savoy. Lengthy and somewhat
stormy conferences ensued, the result of which was the treaty
of Lausanne (October 30, 1564); by the terms of which Berne
retained Vaud, and Friburg Romont, and Savoy only recovered
Gex and Chablais. At a later period (March 4th, 1569) Valais
also came to terms at Thonon; it gave up its own share of
Chablais, but remained in possession of Lower Valais. By the
recovery of Gex and Chablais Savoy now encompassed Geneva on
all sides, and caused that town incessant uneasiness; but the
Duke … was … earnestly bent on peace, and he reassured the
Genevese by new treaties, signed at Berne (May 5th, 1570), by
which he engaged to give no molestation to Geneva. These same
treaties bound Savoy to allow freedom of conscience and
worship to those of her subjects who had embraced
Protestantism during the Swiss occupation; and we hear, in
fact, of no persecutions in the provinces round the Leman in
Emanuel Philibert's lifetime; but it is important to inquire
how that Prince dealt in these matters with his subjects in
general. … We hear from several authorities that 'the
Piedmontese were more than half Protestants.' The Waldensian
ministers reckoned their sectaries at the foot of the Alps at
800,000. … The Waldenses considered the prevalence of the new
tenets as their own triumph. From 1526 to 1530 they entered
into communication with the Reformers, and modified their own
creed and worship in accordance with the new ideas,
identifying themselves especially with the disciples of
Calvin. … Their valleys became a refuge for all persecuted
sectaries, amongst whom there were turbulent spirits, who
stirred up those simple and loyal mountaineers to mutiny and
revolt. Although they thus called down upon themselves the
enmity of all the foes to Protestantism, these valleys
continued nevertheless to be looked upon as a privileged
district, and their brethren of other provinces found there a
safe haven from the storms which drove them from their homes."
In 1559, the Duke issued his edict of Nice, "intended not so
much to suppress heresy as to repress it." The Waldenses
"assumed a mutinous attitude," and "applied for succour to the
Huguenot chiefs of the French provinces." Then the Duke sent
4,000 foot and 200 horse into the valleys, under the Count de
la Trinita, and a fierce and sanguinary war ensued. "Its
horrors were aggravated by foreign combatants, as the ranks of
La Trinita were swelled by both French and Spanish marauders;
and the Huguenots of France, and even some Protestant
volunteers from Germany, fought with the Waldenses. … But it
was not for the interest of the Duke of Savoy that his
subjects should thus tear each other to pieces. After repeated
checks La Trinita met with, … a covenant was signed at Cavour
on the 5th of June, 1561. The Waldenses were allowed full
amnesty and the free exercise of their worship within their
own territory. … Within those same boundaries they consented
to the erection of Catholic churches, and bound themselves to
a reciprocal toleration of Roman rites. … The Treaty of Cavour
satisfied neither party. It exposed the Duke to the loud
reprimands of Rome, France and Spain, no less than to the
bitter invectives of all his clergy …; and, on the other hand
the Waldenses … again and again placed themselves in
opposition to the authorities deputed to rule over them. … In
his leniency towards the sectaries of the valleys, Emanuel
Philibert was actuated by other motives besides the promptings
of a naturally generous soul. … His great schemes for the
regeneration of the country could only find their development
in a few years of profound peace. … Whatever may be thought of
the discontent to which his heavy taxes gave rise among the
people, or his stern manners among the nobles, it is a
beautiful consoling fact that the establishment of despotism
in Piedmont did not cost a single drop of blood, that the
prince subdued and disciplined his people by no other means
than the firmness of his iron will. … The great work for which
Piedmont will be eternally indebted to the memory of this
great prince was the nationalization of the State. He
established the seat of government at Turin, recalled to that
city the senate which had been first convoked at Carignano,
and the university which had been provisionally opened at
Mondovi. Turin, whose bishop had been raised to metropolitan
honours in 1515, had enjoyed comparative security under the
French, who never lost possession of it from 1536 to 1562. It
dates its real greatness and importance from Emanuel
Philibert's reign, when the population … rose to 17,000 souls.
… It was not without great bitterness that the transalpine
provinces of Savoy submitted to the change, and saw the
dignity and ascendancy of a sovereign state depart from them."
Emanuel Philibert died in 1580, and was succeeded by his son,
Charles Emanuel.
_A. Gallenga,
History of Piedmont,
volume 3, chapter 1._
{2809}
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.
Vicissitudes of a century and a quarter.
Profitable infidelities in war.
The Duke wins Sicily and the title of King.
Emanuel Philibert, by his "well-timed policy of peace, … was
enabled to leave his duchy immensely strengthened to his son
Charles Emanuel (1580-1630). The new duke was much more active
in his policy. His marriage with a daughter of Philip II. bound
him to the side of Spain and he supported the cause of the
League in France. With the help of the Catholic party he
seized the vacant marquisate of Saluzzo, and thus involved
himself in a long quarrel with Henry IV. In 1601 the pence of
Lyons confirmed the duke in the possession of Saluzzo, in
exchange for which he ceded Bresse on the Rhone frontier to
Henry. All attempts made to recover Geneva for Savoy proved
unsuccessful. Before his death the restless Charles Emanuel
brought forward another claim to the marquisate of Montferrat.
This had been held since 1533 by the dukes of Mantua, whose
male line became extinct in 1627. The duke did not live to see
the settlement of the Mantuan succession, but his son, Victor
Amadeus I., obtained great part of Montferrat by the treaty of
Cherasco (1631). Richelieu had now acquired Pinerolo and
Casale for France and this effected a complete change in the
policy of Savoy. Victor Amadeus was married to Christine, a
daughter of Henry IV., and he and his successor remained till
nearly the end of the century as faithful to France as his
predecessors had been to Spain. Charles Emanuel II., who
succeeded as a minor on the early death of his father, was at
first under the guardianship of his mother, and when he came
of age remained in the closest alliance with Louis XIV. His
great object was to secure the Italian position which Savoy
had assumed, by the acquisition of Genoa. But the maritime
republic made a successful resistance both to open attack and
to treacherous plots. Victor Amadeus II., who became duke in
1675, was married to a daughter of Philip of Orleans. But
Louis XIV. had begun to treat Savoy less as an ally than as a
dependency, and the duke, weary of French domination, broke
off the old connexion, and in 1690 joined the League of
Augsburg against Louis. His defection was well-timed and
successful, for the treaty of Ryswick (1697) gave him the
great fortresses of Pinerolo and Casale, which had so long
dominated his duchy. In the war of the Spanish succession he
first supported Louis and afterwards turned against him. His
faithlessness was rewarded in the peace of Utrecht [1713] with
the island of Sicily and the title of king. Within a few
years, however, he was compelled to exchange Sicily for
Sardinia."
_R. Lodge,
History of Modern Europe,
chapter 12, section 9._
See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713,
and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1592.
French invasion of the Vaudois.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1597-1598.
Invasion by the French.
Peace with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1600.
French invasion.
Cession of territory to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1602-1603.
Abortive attempt upon Geneva.
Treaty of St. Julien with that city.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1620-1626.
The Valtelline War.
Alliance with France.
Unsuccessful attempt against Genoa.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1627-1631.
War over the succession to the duchy of Mantua.
French invasion.
Extension of territory.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635.
Alliance with France against Spain.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1630.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635-1659.
Alliance with France against Spain.
Civil war and foreign war.-
Sieges of Turin.
Territory restored.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1655.
Second persecution of the Waldenses.
See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690.
Joins the Grand Alliance against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690-1691.
Overrun by the armies of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1691.
Toleration granted to the Vaudois.
See WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1693.
French victory at Marsaglia.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (OCTOBER).
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1695-1696.
Desertion of the Grand Alliance by the Duke.
Treaty with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1713.
Acquisition of Sicily from Spain.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1717-1719.
Sicily exchanged by the Duke for Sardinia,
with the title of King.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1792.
Savoy annexed to the French Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1796.
Savoy ceded by Sardinia to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1798.
Piedmont taken by the French.
Its sovereignty relinquished by the King of Sardinia.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1815.
Cession of a part of Savoy to France.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1860.
Final cession of Savoy to France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
----------SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: End--------
SAVOY CONFERENCE, The.
See ENGLAND: A: D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).
SAWÂD, THE.
"The name Sawâd is given by the Arab writers to the whole
fertile tract between the Euphrates and the Desert, from Hit
to the Persian Gulf."
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 26, foot-note._
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.
SAXA RUBRA, Battle of (A. D. 312).
See ROME: A. D. 305-323.
SAXE-COBURG,
SAXE-GOTHA,
SAXE-WEIMAR, etc.
See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553;
and WEIMAR.
SAXON HEPTARCHY.
See ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
SAXON SHORE, Count of the (Comes Littoris Saxonici).
The title of the Roman officer who had military command of the
coast of Britain, between the Wash and the Isle of Wight,
which was most exposed to the ravages of the Saxons.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.
----------SAXONS: Start--------
SAXONS, The.
"In the reign of Caracalla [A. D. 212-217] Rome first heard of
the Goths and Alemanni; a little more than half a century
later the Franks appear; and about the same time the Saxons,
who had been named and placed geographically by Ptolemy [A. D.
130-160], make their first mark in history. They are found
employed in naval and piratical expeditions on the coasts of
Gaul in A. D. 287. Whatever degree of antiquity we may be
inclined to ascribe to the names of these nations, and there
is no need to put a precise limit to it, it can scarcely be
supposed that they sprang from insignificance and obscurity to
strength and power in a moment.
{2810}
It is far more probable that under the names of Frank and
Saxon in the fourth century had been sunk the many better
known earlier names of tribes who occupied the same seats. …
The Cherusci, the Marsi, the Dulgibini and the Chauci may have
been comprehended under the name of Saxons. … Whilst the
nations on the Lower Rhine were all becoming Franks, those
between the Rhine and the Oder were becoming Saxons; the name
implied as yet no common organisation, at the most only an
occasional combination for attack or defence."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
"The hypothesis respecting the Saxons is as follows: The name
Saxon was to the Kelts of Britain what German was to those of
Gaul. Or, if not, what Suevi was—a name somewhat more
specific. It probably applied to the Germans of the sea-coast,
and the water-systems of the Lower Rhine, Weser, Lower Elbe,
and Eyder; to Low Germans on the Rhine, to Frisians and Saxons
on the Elbe, and to North Frisians on the Eyder. All the
Angles were Saxons, but all the Saxons were not Angles. The
reasoning in favour of this view is as follows:—That Saxon was
a Britannic term is undenied. The Welsh and Gaels call us
Saxons at the present moment. The Romans would take their name
for certain Germans as they found it with the Britons. The
Britons and Romans using the same name would be as two to one
in favour of the Keltic name taking ground. It would be Roman
and Keltic against a German name single-handed. The only
question is whether the name Saxon was exclusively Britannic
(Keltic), i. e., not German also. … I think, upon the whole,
that Saxon was a word like 'Greek,' i. e., a term which, in
the language of the Hellenes, was so very special, partial,
and unimportant, as to have been practically a foreign term,
or, at least, anything but a native name; whilst in that of
the Romans it was one of general and widely extended import.
Hence, mutatis mutandis, it is the insignificant Saxones of
the neck of the Cimbric Chersonese, and the three Saxon
islands, first mentioned by Ptolemy, who are the analogues of
the equally unimportant Græci of Epirus; and these it was
whose name eventually comprised populations as different as
the Angles, and the Saxons of Saxony, even as the name Græcus
in the mouth of a Roman comprised Dorians, Æolians,
Macedonians, Athenians, Rhodians, &c. In this way the name was
German; but its extended import was Keltic and Roman."
_R. G. Latham,
The Germany of Tacitus: Epilegomena,
section 48._
See, also, GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAMES;
and ANGLES AND JUTES.
SAXONS:
The sea-rovers of the 5th century.
"At the end of a long letter, written by Sidonius [Apolinaris,
Bishop, at Clermont, in Auvergne, A. D. 471-488] to his friend
Nammatius [an officer of the Channel fleet of the Romans, then
chiefly occupied in watching and warding off the Saxon
pirates], after dull compliments and duller banter, we
suddenly find flashed upon us this life-like picture, by a
contemporary hand, of the brothers and cousins of the men, if
not of the very men themselves who had fought at Aylesford
under Hengest and Horsa, or who were slowly winning the
kingdom of the South Saxons: 'Behold, when I was on the point
of concluding this epistle in which I have already chattered
on too long, a messenger has suddenly arrived from Saintonge
with whom I have spent some hours in conversing about you and
your doings, and who constantly affirms that you have just
sounded your trumpet on board the fleet, and that with the
duties of a sailor and a soldier combined you are roaming
along the winding shores of the Ocean, looking out for the
curved pinnaces of the Saxons. When you see the rowers of that
nation you may at once make up your mind that everyone of them
is an arch-pirate, with such wonderful unanimity do all at
once command, obey, teach, and learn their one chosen business
of brigandage. For this reason I ought to warn you to be more
than ever on your guard in this warfare. Your enemy is the
most truculent of all enemies. Unexpectedly he attacks, when
expected he escapes, he despises those who seek to block his
path, he overthrows those who are off their guard, he always
succeeds in cutting off the enemy whom he follows, while he
never fails when he desires to effect his own escape.
Moreover, to these men a shipwreck is capital practice rather
than an object of terror. The dangers of the deep are to them,
not casual acquaintances, but intimate friends. For since a
tempest throws the invaded off their guard, and prevents the
invaders from being descried from afar, they hail with joy the
crash of waves on the rocks, which gives them their best
chance of escaping from other enemies than the elements. Then
again, before they raise the deep-biting anchor from the
hostile soil, and set sail from the Continent for their own
country, their custom is to collect the crowd of their
prisoners together, by a mockery of equity to make them cast
lots which of them shall undergo the iniquitous sentence of
death, and then at the moment of departure to slay every tenth
man so selected by crucifixion, a practice which is the more
lamentable because it arises from a superstitious notion that
they will thus ensure for themselves a safe return. Purifying
themselves as they consider by such sacrifices, polluting
themselves as we deem by such deeds of sacrilege, they think
the foul murders they thus commit are acts of worship to their
gods, and they glory in extorting cries of agony instead of
ransoms from these doomed victims.'"
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 3._
SAXONS: A. D. 451.
At the Battle of Chalons.
In the allied army of Romans and barbarians which count Aetius
brought together to encounter the Hun, Attila, on the great
and terrible battlefield of Chalons, July, 451, there is
mention of the "Saxones." "How came our fathers thither; they,
whose homes were in the long sandy levels of Holstein? As has
been already pointed out, the national migration of the Angles
and Saxons to our own island had already commenced, perhaps in
part determined by the impulse northward of Attila's own
subjects. Possibly, like the Northmen, their successors, the
Saxons may have invaded both sides of the English Channel at
once, and may on this occasion have been standing in arms to
defend against their old foe some newly-won possessions in
Normandy or Picardy."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 2, chapter 3._
SAXONS: A. D. 477-527.
Conquests in Britain.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
SAXONS: A. D. 528-729.
Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.
See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
{2811}
SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.
Conquest by Charlemagne.
"In the time of Charlemagne, the possessions of this great
league [the Saxons] were very extensive, stretching, at one
point, from the banks of the Rhine nearly to the Oder, and on
the other hand, from the North Sea to the confines of Hesse
and Thuringia. Warlike in their habits, vigorous in body,
active and impatient in mind, their geographical situation,
operating together with their state of barbarism, rendered
them pirates, extending the predatory excursions, common to
all the northern tribes, to the sea as well as to the land. …
They held, from an early period, greater part of the islands
scattered round the mouths of the German rivers; and, soon
beginning to extend their dominion, they captured, at
different times, all those on the coast of France and in the
British sea. Not contented, however, with this peculiar and
more appropriate mode of warfare, the Saxons who remained on
land, while their fellow-countrymen were sweeping the ocean,
constantly turned their arms against the adjacent continental
countries, especially after the conquest of Britain had, in a
manner, separated their people, and satisfied to the utmost
their maritime cupidity in that direction. Surpassing all
nations, except the early Huns, in fierceness, idolaters of
the most bloody rites, insatiable of plunder, and persevering
in the purpose of rapine to a degree which no other nation
ever knew, they were the pest and scourge of the north.
Happily for Europe, their government consisted of a multitude
of chiefs, and their society of a multitude of independent
tribes, linked together by some bond that we do not at present
know, but which was not strong enough to produce unity and
continuity of design. Thus they had proceeded from age to age,
accomplishing great things by desultory and individual
efforts; but up to the time of Charlemagne, no vast and
comprehensive mind, like that of Attila, had arisen amongst
them, to combine all the tribes under the sway of one monarch,
and to direct all their energies to one great object. It was
for neighbouring kings, however, to remember that such a chief
might every day appear. … Such was the state of the Saxons at
the reunion of the French [or Frank] monarchy under
Charlemagne; and it would seem that the first step he proposed
to himself, as an opening to all his great designs, was
completely to subdue a people which every day ravaged his
frontier provinces, and continually threatened the very
existence of the nations around."
_G. P. R. James,
History of Charlemagne,
book 3._
For generations before Charlemagne—from the period, in fact,
of the sons of Clovis, early in the sixth century—the Frank
kings had claimed supremacy over the Saxons and counted them
among the tributaries of their Austrasian or German monarchy.
Repeatedly, too, the Saxons had been forced to submit
themselves and acknowledge the yoke, in terms, while they
repudiated it in fact. When Charlemagne took in hand the
conquest of this stubborn and barbarous people, he seems to
have found the task as arduous as though nothing had been done
in it before him. His first expedition into their country was
undertaken in 772, when he advanced with fire and sword from
the Rhine at Mayence to the Diemel in the Hessian country. It
was on this occasion that he destroyed, near the head-waters
of the Lippe, the famous national idol and fane of the Saxons
called the Irminsul or Herminsaule supposed to be connected
with the memory of Hermann, the Cheruscan patriot chief who
destroyed the Roman legions of Varus. The campaign resulted in
the submission of the Saxons, with a surrender of hostages to
guarantee it. But in 774 they were again in arms, and the next
summer Charlemagne swept their country to beyond the Weser
with the besom of destruction. Once more they yielded and
gave hostages, who were taken to Frank monasteries and made
Christians of. But the peace did not last a twelvemonth, and
there was another great campaign in 776, which so terrified
the turbulent heathen that they accepted baptism in large
numbers, and a wholesale conversion took place at Paderborn in
May, 777. But a chief had risen at last among the Saxons who
could unite them, and who would not kneel to Charlemagne nor
bow his head to the waters of baptism. This was Wittekind, a
Westphalian, brother-in-law of the king of the Danes and
friend of the Frisian king, Ratbod. While Charlemagne was in
Spain, in 778, Wittekind roused his countrymen to a rising
which cleared their land of crosses, churches, priests and
Frank castles at one sweep. From that time until 785 there
were campaigns every year, with terrible carnage and
destruction in the Saxon country and industrious baptising of
the submissive. At Badenfield, at Bockholz, near Zutphen, and
at Detmold, there were fierce battles in which the Saxons
suffered most; but; at Sonnethal, on the Weser (the
Dachtelfield), in 782, the Franks were fearfully beaten and
slaughtered. Charlemagne took a barbarous vengeance for this
reverse by beheading no less than 4,500 Saxon prisoners at
Verden, on the Aller. Three years later, the country of the
Saxons having been made, for the most part, a famine-smitten
desert, they gave up the struggle. Even Wittekind accepted
Christianity, became a monk—a missionary—a canonized saint—
and disappeared otherwise from history. According to legend,
the blood of more than 200,000 Saxons had "changed the very
color of the soil, and the brown clay of the Saxon period gave
way to the red earth of Westphalia." For seven years the
Saxons were submissive and fought in Charlemagne's armies
against other foes. Then there was a last despairing attempt
to break the conqueror's yoke, and another long war of twelve
years' duration. It ended in the practical annihilation of the
Saxons as a distinct people in Germany. Many thousands of them
were transplanted to other regions in Gaul and elsewhere;
others escaped to Denmark and were absorbed into the great
rising naval and military power of the Northmen. The survivors
on their own soil were stripped of their possessions. "The
Saxon war was conducted with almost unparalleled ferocity."
_J. I. Mombert,
History of' Charles the Great,
book 2, chapters 3-4._
ALSO IN:
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapters 16-17._
----------SAXONS: End--------
{2812}
SAXONS OF BAYEUX.
"The district of Bayeux, occupied by a Saxon colony in the
latest days of the old Roman Empire, occupied again by a
Scandinavian colony as the result of its conquest by Rolf [or
Rollo, the Northman], has retained to this day a character
which distinguishes it from every other Romance-speaking
portion of the Continent. The Saxons of Bayeux preserved their
name and their distinct existence under the Frankish dominion;
we can hardly doubt that the Scandinavian settlers found some
parts at least of the district still Teutonic, and that
nearness of blood and speech exercised over them the same
influence which the same causes exercised over the
Scandinavian settlers in England. Danes and Saxons coalesced
into one Teutonic people, and they retained their Teutonic
language and character long after Rouen had become, in speech
at least, no less French than Paris. With their old Teutonic
speech, the second body of settlers seem to have largely
retained their old Teutonic religion, and we shall presently
find Bayeux the centre of a heathen and Danish party in the
Duchy, in opposition to Rouen, the centre of the new speech
and the new creed. The blood of the inhabitants of the Bessin
must be composed of nearly the same elements, mingled in
nearly the same proportions, as the blood of the inhabitants
of the Danish districts of England."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 4._
----------SAXONY: Start--------
SAXONY:
The old Duchy.
"The great duchy of Saxony [as it existed under the
Carolingian empire and after the separation of Germany from
France] consisted of three main divisions, Westfalia, Engern
or Angria, and Eastfalia. Thuringia to the south-east, and the
Frisian lands to the north-west, may be looked on as in some
sort appendages to the Saxon duchy. The duchy was also capable
of any amount of extension towards the east, and the lands
gradually won from the Wends on this side were all looked on
as additions made to the Saxon territory. But the great Saxon
duchy was broken up at the fall of Henry the Lion [A. D.
1191]. The archiepiscopal Electors of Köln received the title
of Dukes of Westfalia and Engern. But in the greater part of
those districts the grant remained merely nominal, though the
ducal title, with a small actual Westfalian duchy, remained to
the electorate till the end. From these lands the Saxon name
may be looked on as having altogether passed away. The name of
Saxony, as a geographical expression, clave to the Eastfalian
remnant of the old duchy, and to Thuringia and the Slavonic
conquests to the east. In the later division of Germany these
lands formed the two circles of Upper and Lower Saxony; and it
was within their limits that the various states arose which
have kept on the Saxon name to our own time. From the
descendants of Henry the Lion himself, and from the allodial
lands which they kept, the Saxon name passed away, except so
far as they became part of the Lower-Saxon circle. They held
their place as princes of the Empire, no longer as Dukes of
Saxony, but as Dukes of Brunswick, a house which gave Rome one
Emperor and England a dynasty of kings. After some of the
usual divisions, two Brunswick principalities finally took
their place on the map, those of Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel,
the latter having the town of Brunswick for its capital. The
Lüneburg duchy grew. Late in the seventeenth century it was
raised to the electoral rank, and early in the next century it
was finally enlarged by the acquisition of the bishoprics of
Bremen and Verden. Thus was formed the Electorate, and
afterwards Kingdom, of Hannover, while the simple ducal title
remained with the Brunswick princes of the other line."
_E. A. Freeman,
History Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 1._
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.
SAXONY: A. D. 911-1024.
The Imperial House.
See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936; 936-973; and 973-1122.
SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.
Revolt against Henry IV.
The Saxons were still unreconciled to the transfer of the
imperial dignity from their own ducal family to the House of
Franconia, when the third of the Franconian emperors, Henry
IV., came to the throne while still a boy. His long minority
encouraged them to a habit of independent feeling, while his
rash and injudicious measures when he grew to manhood provoked
their raging enmity. They were still a turbulent, wild people,
and he undertook to force the yoke of the empire on their
necks, by means of garrisoned fortresses and castles,
distributed through their land. The garrisons were insolent,
the people were not meek, and in 1073 a furious revolt broke
out. "'All Saxony,' says a chronicler, 'revolted, as one man,
from the king,' and marched, 80,000 strong, to the Hartzburg,
a stately citadel near Goslar, which the king had built for a
residence upon a commanding height. After useless
negotiations, Henry made a narrow escape by flight. When he
then summoned his princes around him, no one came; and here
and there it began to be said that he must be entirely
abandoned and another monarch chosen. In this extremity, the
cities alone remained faithful to the emperor, who for some
time lay sick almost to death in his loyal city of Worms."
Henry's energy, and the great abilities which he possessed,
enabled him to recover his command of resources and to bring a
strong army into the field against the Saxons, in the early
summer of 1075. They offered submission and he might have
restored peace to his country in an honorable way; but his
headstrong passions demanded revenge. "After a march of
extraordinary rapidity, he fell suddenly upon the Saxons and
their allies, the Thuringians, on the meadows of the Unstrutt,
at Langensalza, near Hohenburg. His army drawn up in an order
resembling that which Otto the Great had formed on the Lech
[against the Hungarians], obtained, after a fierce
hand-to-hand fight of nine hours, a bloody victory. When the
Saxons finally yielded and fled, the battle became a massacre.
… It is asserted that of the foot-soldiers, who composed the
mass of the Saxon army of 60,000, hardly any escaped; though
of the noblemen, who had swift horses, few were slain. But it
was a battle of Germans with Germans, and on the very evening
of the struggle, the lamentations over so many slain by
kindred hands could not be suppressed in the emperor's own
camp. Yet for the time the spirit of Saxon independence was
crushed. Henry was really master of all Germany, and seemed to
have established the imperial throne again." But little more
than a year afterwards, Henry, under the ban of the great Pope
Gregory VII., with whom he had quarrelled, was again deserted
by his subjects. Again he recovered his footing and maintained
a civil war until his own son deposed him, in 1105. The next
year he died.
_C. T. Lewis,
History of Germany,
book 2, chapter 7, sections 13-20._
ALSO IN:
_W. Menzel,
History of Germany,
chapter 142._
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.
SAXONY: A. D. 1125-1152.
The origin of the electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
{2813}
SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.
The dissolution of the old duchy.
In an account given elsewhere of the origin of the Guelf and
Ghibelline parties and their names (see GUELFS AND
GHIBELLINES), the circumstances under which Henry the Proud,
in 1138, was stripped of the duchy of Saxony, and the duchy of
Bavaria, have been briefly related. This Duke Henry the Proud
died soon after that event, leaving a son who acquired the
name of Henry the Lion. The Emperor Conrad, whose hostility to
the father had been the cause of his ruin, now restored to the
son, Henry the Lion, his duchy of Saxony, but required him to
renounce the Bavarian duchy. But Conrad, dying in 1152, was
succeeded on the imperial throne by his nephew, Frederick
Barbarossa, who entertained a friendly feeling for the young
Duke of Saxony, and who restored to him, in 1156, the whole of
his father's forfeited possessions, Bavaria included. By his
own warlike energies, Henry the Lion extended his dominions
still further, making a conquest of the Obotrites, one of the
tribes of heathen Slaves or Wends who occupied the Mecklenburg
region on the Baltic. He was, now, the most powerful of the
princes of the Germanic empire, and one of the most powerful
in Europe. But he used his power haughtily and arbitrarily and
raised up many enemies against himself. At length there arose
a quarrel between the Emperor and Duke Henry, which the latter
embittered by abruptly quitting the emperor's army, in Italy,
with all his troops, at a time when (A. D. 1175) the latter
was almost ruined by the desertion. From that moment Henry the
Lion was marked, as his father had been, for ruin. Accusations
were brought against him in the diet; he was repeatedly
summoned to appear and meet them, and he obstinately refused
to obey the summons. At length, A. D. 1178, he was formally
declared to be a rebel to the state, and the "imperial ban"
was solemnly pronounced against him. "This sentence placed
Henry without the pale of the laws, and his person and his
states were at the mercy of everyone who had the power of
injuring them. The archbishop of Cologne, his ancient enemy,
had the ban promulgated throughout Saxony, and at his command
Godfrey, Duke of Brabant; Philip, Count of Flanders; Otho,
Count of Guelders; Thierry, Lord of Cleves; William of
Juliers, with the Lords of Bonn Senef, Berg, and many others,
levied forces, and joining the archbishop, entered Westphalia,
which they overran and laid waste, before he was aware of
their intentions." This was the beginning of a long struggle,
in which Henry made a gallant resistance; but the odds were
too heavily against him. His friends and supporters gradually
fell away, his dominions were lost, one by one, and in 1183 he
took refuge in England, at the court of Henry II., whose
daughter Matilda he had married. After an exile of three years
he was permitted to return to Germany and his alodial estates
in Saxony were restored to him. The imperial fiefs were
divided. The archbishop of Cologne received the greater part
of Westphalia, and Angria. Bernard, Count of Anhalt, got the
remainder of the old Saxon duchy, with its ducal title. When
Henry the Lion died, in 1195, the alodial possessions that he
had recovered were divided between his three sons.
_Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
book 4 (volume 1)._
Fifty years afterwards these were converted into imperial
fiefs and became the two duchies of the house of Brunswick,
—Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel, afterwards Hanover and
Brunswick—the princes of which represented the old house of
Saxony and inherited the name of Guelf.
ALSO IN:
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 5._
See, also,
SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY; GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.
SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.
The later Duchy and Electorate.
The House of Wettin.
Its Ernestine and Albertine lines, and their many branches.
"When Henry the Lion was deprived of the Duchy of Saxony in
1180, it [reduced to a small district around Lauenberg] was
given to Bernhard, the youngest son of Albert the Bear,
Elector of Brandenburg, and it continued with his descendants
in the male line till 1422, when it was sold by the Emperor
Sigismond to Frederick, surnamed the Warlike, Margrave of
Misnia, descended in the female line from the Landgraves of
Thuringen."
_Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
volume 1, page 426._
This line has been known as the House of Wettin, taking that
name from Dedo, count of Wettin, who was the first margrave of
Misnia, or Meissen; being invested with the dignity in 1048.
"The Wettin line of Saxon princes, the same that yet endures
[1855], known by sight to every English creature (for the high
individual, Prince Albert, is of it), had been lucky enough to
combine in itself, by inheritance, by good management, chiefly
by inheritance and mere force of survival, all the Three
separate portions and divided dignities of that country: the
Thüringen Landgraviate, the Meissen Markgraviate, and the
ancient Duchy and Electorate of Saxony; and to become very
great among the Princes of the German Empire. … Through the
earlier portion of the 15th century, this Saxon House might
fairly reckon itself the greatest in Germany, till Austria,
till Brandenburg gradually rose to overshadow it. Law of
primogeniture could never be accepted in that country; nothing
but divisions, redivisions, coalescings, splittings, and
never-ending readjustments and collisions were prevalent in
consequence; to which cause, first of all, the loss of the
race by Saxony may be ascribed." In 1464, Frederick II. was
succeeded by his two sons, Ernest and Albert. These princes
governed their country conjointly for upwards of 20 years, but
then made a partition from which began the separation of the
Ernestine and Albertine lines that continued ever afterwards
in the House of Saxony. "Ernest, the elder of those two …
boys, became Kurfürst (Elector); and got for inheritance,
besides the 'inalienable properties' which lie round
Wittenberg, … the better or Thuringian side of the Saxon
country—that is, the Weimar, Gotha, Altenburg, &c.
Principalities: —while the other youth, Albert, had to take
the 'Osterland (Easternland), with part of Meissen,' what we
may in general imagine to be (for no German Dryasdust will do
you the kindness to say precisely) the eastern region of what
is Saxony in our day. These Albertines, with an inferior
territory, had, as their main towns, Leipzig and Dresden, a
Residenz-Schloss (or sublime enough Ducal Palace) in each
city, Leipzig as yet the grander and more common one. There,
at Leipzig chiefly, I say, lived the august younger or
Albertine Line. …
{2814}
As for Ernst, the elder, he and his lived chiefly at
Wittenberg, as I perceive; there or in the neighbourhood was
their high Schloss; distinguished among palaces. But they had
Weimar, they had Altenburg, Gotha, Coburg,—above all, they had
the Wartburg, one of the most distinguished Strong Houses any
Duke could live in, if he were of frugal and heroic turn. …
Ernst's son was Frederick the Wise, successor in the Kur
(Electorship) and paternal lands; which, as Frederick did not
marry and there was only one other brother, were not further
divided on this occasion. Frederick the Wise, born in 1463,
was that ever-memorable Kurfürst who saved Luther from the
Diet of Worms in 1521.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.
He died in 1525, and was succeeded by his brother, John the
Steadfast. … He also was a wise and eminently Protestant man.
He struggled very faithfully for the good Cause, during his
term of sovereignty; died in 1532 (14 years before Luther),
having held the Electorate only seven years. … His son was
Johann Friedrich, the Magnanimous by epithet (der
Grossmüthige), under whom the Line underwent sad destinies;
lost the Electorship, lost much; and split itself after him
into innumerable branches, who are all of a small type ever
since." In the Albertine Line, Albert's eldest son, "successor
in the eastern properties and residences, was Duke George of
Saxony,—called 'of Saxony,' as all those Dukes, big and
little, were and still are,—Herzog Georg von Sachsen: of whom,
to make him memorable, it is enough to say that he was
Luther's Duke George! Yes, this is he with whom Luther had
such wrangling and jangling. … He was strong for the old
religion, while his cousins went so valiantly ahead for the
new. … George's brother, Henry, succeeded; lived only for two
years; in which time all went to Protestantism in the eastern
parts of Saxony, as in the western. This Henry's eldest son,
and first successor, was Moritz, the 'Maurice' known in
English Protestant books; who, in the Schmalkaldic League and
War, played such a questionable game with his Protestant
cousin, of the elder or Ernestine Line,—quite ousting said
cousin, by superior jockeyship, and reducing his Line and him
to the second rank ever since.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
This cousin was Johann Friedrich the Magnanimous … whom we
left above waiting for that catastrophe. … Duke Moritz got the
Electorship transferred to himself; Electorship, with
Wittenberg and the 'inalienable lands and dignities.' … Moritz
kept his Electorship, and, by cunning jockeying, his
Protestantism too; got his Albertine or junior Line pushed
into the place of the Ernestine or first; in which
dishonourably acquired position it continues to this day
[1855]; performing ever since the chief part in Saxony, as
Electors, and now as Kings of Saxony. … The Ernestine, or
honourable Protestant line is ever since in a secondary,
diminished, and as it were, disintegrated state, a Line broken
small; nothing now but a series of small Dukes, Weimar, Gotha,
Coburg, and the like, in the Thuringian region, who, on mere
genealogical grounds, put Sachsen to their name:
Sachsen-Coburg, Sachsen-Weimar, &c. [Anglicised, Saxe-Coburg,
etc.]."
_T. Carlyle,
The Prinzenraub
(Essays, volume 6)._
ALSO IN:
_F. Shoberl,
Historical Account of the House of Saxony._
SAXONY: A. D. 1500-1512.
Formation of the Circles of Saxony and Upper Saxony.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.
SAXONY: A. D. 1516-1546.
The Reformation.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1517-1521,
1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531;
also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532, and after.
SAXONY: A. D. 1525.
The Lutheran doctrines and system formally established
in the electorate.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
SAXONY: A. D. 1539.
Succession GERMANY of a Protestant prince.
See: A. D. 1533-1546.
SAXONY: A. D. 1546-1547.
Treachery of Maurice of Saxony.
Transfer of the electorate to him.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.
SAXONY: A. D. 1619.
Adhesion of the Elector to the Emperor Ferdinand,
against Frederick of Bohemia and the Evangelical Union.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
SAXONY: A. D. 1631.
Ignoble trepidations of the Elector.
His final alliance with Gustavus Adolphus.
The battle of Breitenfeld.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.
SAXONY: A. D. 1631-1632.
The Elector and his army in Bohemia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.
SAXONY: A. D. 1633.
Standing aloof from the Union of Heilbronn.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
SAXONY: A. D. 1634.
Desertion of the Protestant cause.
The Elector's alliance with the Emperor.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
SAXONY: A. D. 1645.
Forced to a treaty of neutrality with the Swedes and French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
SAXONY: A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
SAXONY: A. D. 1686.
The League of Augsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
SAXONY: A. D. 1697-1698.
The crown of Poland secured by the Elector.
See POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.
SAXONY: A. D. 1706.
Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden.
Renunciation of the Polish crown, by the Elector Augustus.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
SAXONY: A. D. 1733.
Election of Augustus III. to the Polish throne,
enforced by Russia and Austria.
See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
SAXONY: A. D. 1740.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Claims of the Elector upon Austrian territory.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).
SAXONY: A. D. 1741.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Alliance against Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
SAXONY: A. D. 1745.
The War of the Austrian Succession: Alliance with Austria.
Subjugation by Prussia.
The Peace of Dresden.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
SAXONY: A. D. 1755.
Intrigues with Austria and Russia against Prussia.
Causes of the Seven Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.
SAXONY: A. D. 1756.
Swift subjugation by Frederick of Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.
SAXONY: A. D. 1759-1760.
Occupied by the Austrians.
Mostly recovered by Frederick.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER); and 1760.
SAXONY: A. D. 1763.
The end and results of the Seven Years War.
The electorate restored.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
{2815}
SAXONY: A. D. 1806.
The Elector, deserting Prussia, becomes the subject-ally of
Napoleon, and is made a king.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
SAXONY: A. D. 1807.
Acquisition by the king of the grand duchy of Warsaw.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
SAXONY: A. D. 1809.
Risings against the French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).
SAXONY: A. D. 1813.
Occupied by the Allies.
Regained by the French.
Humiliating submission of the king to Napoleon.
French victory at Dresden and defeat at Leipsic.
Desertion from Napoleon's army by the Saxons.
The king a prisoner in the hands of the Allies.
French surrender of Dresden.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813,
to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
SAXONY: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Saxon question in the Congress of Vienna.
The king restored, with half of his dominions lost.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
SAXONY: A. D. 1817.
Accession to the Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
SAXONY: A. D. 1848 (March).
Revolutionary outbreak.
Concessions to the people.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).
SAXONY: A. D. 1849.
Insurrection suppressed by Prussian troops.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.
SAXONY: A. D. 1866.
The Seven Weeks War.
Indemnity to Prussia.
Union with the North German Confederation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
SAXONY: A. D. 1870-1871.
Embraced in the new German Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);
1871 (JANUARY); and 1871 (APRIL).
----------SAXONY: End--------
SAXONY, The English titular Dukedom of.
See WALES, PRINCE OF.
SCALDIS, The.
The ancient name of the river Scheldt.
SCALDS, OR SKALDS, The.
"Before the introduction or general diffusion of writing, it
is evident that a class of men whose sole occupation was to
commit to memory and preserve the laws, usages, precedents,
and details of all those civil affairs and rights, and to
whose fidelity in relating former transactions implicit
confidence could be given, must of necessity have existed in
society—must have been in every locality. … This class [among
the Scandinavian peoples of the North of Europe] were the
Scalds—the men who were the living books, to be referred to in
every case of law or property in which the past had to be
applied to the present. Before the introduction of
Christianity, and with Christianity the use of written
documents, and the diffusion, by the church establishment, of
writing in every locality, the scald must have been among the
pagan landowners what the parish priest and his written record
were in the older Christianised countries of Europe. … The
scalds in these Christianised countries were merely a class of
wandering troubadours, poets, story-tellers, minnesingers. …
The scalds of the north disappeared at once when Christian
priests were established through the country. They were
superseded in their utility by men of education, who knew the
art of writing; and the country had no feudal barons to
maintain such a class for amusement only. We hear little of
the scalds after the first half of the 12th century."
_S. Laing,
The Heimskringla: Preliminary Dissertation,
chapter 1._
"At the dawn of historical times we find the skalds practising
their art everywhere in the North. … The oldest Norwegian
skalds, like 'Starkad' and 'Brage the Old,' are enveloped in
mythic darkness, but already, in the time of Harald Fairhair
(872-930), the song-smiths of the Scandinavian North appear as
thoroughly historical personages. In Iceland the art of poetry
was held in high honor, and it was cultivated not only by the
professional skalds, but also by others when the occasion
presented itself. … When the Icelander had arrived at the age
of maturity, he longed to travel in foreign lands. As a skald
he would then visit foreign kings and other noblemen, where he
would receive a most hearty welcome. … These Icelandic skalds
became a very significant factor in the literary development
of the North during the greater part of the middle ages."
_F. W. Horn,
History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North,
part 1, chapter 1._
SCALIGERI, The, or Della Scala Family.
See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338;
also, MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
SCAMANDER, The.
See TROJA.
SCANDERBEG'S WAR WITH THE TURKS.
See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.
----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: Start--------
SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
Early history.
"Those who lean implicitly on the chief props supplied by the
Old Norse literature for the early history and genealogy of
the North lean on very unsafe supports. The fact is, we must
treat these genealogies and these continuous histories as
compilations made up from isolated and detached
traditions—epics in which some individual or some battle was
described, and in which the links and the connections between
the pieces have been supplied according to the ingenuity of
the compilers; in which the arrangement and chronology are to
a large extent arbitrary; and in which it has been a great
temptation to transfer the deeds of one hero to another of the
same name. Under these circumstances what is a modern
historian to do? In the first place he must take the
contemporary chronicles—Frank, English, and Irish—as his
supreme guides, and not allow their statements to be perverted
by the false or delusive testimony of the sagas, and where the
two are at issue, sacrifice the latter without scruple, while
in those cases where we have no contemporary and independent
evidence then to construct as best we can our story from the
glimmers of light that have reached us."
_H. H. Howorth,
Early History of Sweden
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 9)._
{2816}
SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
Their relationships in language and blood.
"Scandinavia is not a very convenient word. Norway and Sweden
it suits; because, in Norway and Sweden, the geographical
boundaries coincide with the phenomena of language and blood.
But Denmark is not only divided from them by water, but is in
actual contact with Germany. More than this, it is connected
with the Empire: Holstein being German and Imperial, Sleswick
partly German though not Imperial. … Generically, a
Scandinavian is a German. Of the great German stock there are
two divisions—the Scandinavian or Norse, and the Teutonic or
German Proper. Of the Germans Proper, the nearest congeners to
the Scandinavians are the Frisians; and, after them, the
Saxons. … At present the languages of Sweden and Denmark,
though mutually intelligible, are treated as distinct: the
real differences being exaggerated by differences of
orthography, and by the use on the part of the Swedes of the
ordinary Italian alphabet, whilst the Danes prefer the old
German black-letter. The literary Norwegian is Danish rather
than Swedish. Meanwhile, the old language, the mother-tongue,
is the common property of all, and so is the old literature
with its Edda and Sagas; though … the Norwegians are the chief
heroes of it. The language in which it is embodied is
preserved with but little alteration in Iceland; so that it
may fairly be called Icelandic, though the Norwegians
denominate it Old Norse. …
See NORMANS—NORTHMEN. A. D. 960-1100.
The histories of the three countries are alike in their
general character though different in detail. Denmark when we
have got away from the heroic age into the dawn of the true
historical period, is definitely separated from Germany in the
parts about the Eyder—perhaps by the river itself. It is Pagan
and Anti-Imperial; the Danes being, in the eyes of the
Carlovingians, little better than the hated Saxons. Nor is it
ever an integral part of the Empire; though Danish and German
alliances are common. They end in Holstein being Danish, and
in its encroaching on Sleswick and largely influencing the
kingdom in general. As being most in contact with the
civilization of the South, Denmark encroaches on Sweden, and,
for a long time, holds Skaane and other Swedish districts.
Indeed, it is always a check upon the ambition of its northern
neighbour. Before, then, that Sweden becomes one and
indivisible, the Danes have to be ejected from its southern
provinces. Norway, too, when dynastic alliances begin and when
kingdoms become consolidated, is united with Denmark. … In
the way of language the Scandinavians are Germans—the term
being taken in its wider and more general sense. Whether the
blood coincide with the language is another question; nor is
it an easy one. The one point upon which most ethnologists
agree, is the doctrine that, in Norway and Sweden (at least),
or in the parts north of the Baltic, the Germans are by no
means aboriginal; the real aborigines having been congeners of
either the Laps or the Fins; who, at a time anterior to the
German immigrations, covered the whole land from the North
Cape to the Naze in Norway, and from Tornea to Ystadt in
Sweden. Towards these aborigines the newer occupants comported
themselves much as the Angles of England comported themselves
towards the Britons. At the same time, in both Britain and
Scandinavia the extent to which the two populations
intermarried or kept separate is doubtful. It may be added
that, in both countries, there are extreme opinions on each
side of the question."
_R. G. Latham,
The Nationalities of Europe,
volume 2, chapter 37._
See, also,
GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.
ALSO IN:
_A. Lefèvre,
Race and Language,
page 236._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-9th Centuries.
Explorations, ravages and conquests of the Vikings.
See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-11th Centuries.
Formation of the Three Kingdoms.
"At the end of the 8th century, … within the two Scandinavian
peninsulas, the three Scandinavian nations were fast forming.
A number of kindred tribes were settling down into the
kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which, sometimes
separate, sometimes united, have existed ever since. Of these
three, Denmark, the only one which had a frontier towards the
Empire, was naturally the first to play a part in general
European history. In the course of the 10th century, under the
half-mythical Gorm, and his successors Harold and Sven, the
Danish kingdom itself, as distinguished from other lands held
in aftertimes by its kings, reached nearly its full historical
extent in the two peninsulas and the islands between them.
Halland and Skane or Scania, it must always be remembered, are
from the beginning at least as Danish as Zealand and Jutland.
The Eider remained the frontier towards the Empire, save
during part of the 10th and 11th centuries, when the Danish
frontier withdrew to the Dannewerk, and the laud between the
two boundaries formed the Danish March of the Empire. Under
Cnut the old frontier was restored. The name of Northmen,
which the Franks used in a laxer way for the Scandinavian
nations generally, was confined to the people of Norway. These
were formed into a single kingdom under Harold Harfraga late
in the 9th century. The Norwegian realm of that day stretched
far beyond the bounds of the later Norway, having an
indefinite extension over tributary Finnish tribes as far as
the White Sea. The central part of the eastern side of the
northern peninsula, between Denmark to the south and the
Finnish nations to the north, was held by two Scandinavian
settlements which grew into the Swedish kingdom. These were
those of the Swedes strictly so called, and of the Geatas or
Gauts. This last name has naturally been confounded with that
of the Goths, and has given the title of 'King of the Goths'
to the princes of Sweden. Gothland, east and west, lay on each
side of Lake Wettern. Swithiod or Svealand, Sweden proper, lay
on both sides of the great arm of the sea whose entrance is
guarded by the modern capital. The union of Svealand and
Gothland made up the kingdom of Sweden. Its early boundaries
towards both Denmark and Norway were fluctuating. Wermeland,
immediately to the north of Lake Wenern, and Jamteland farther
to the north, were long a debatable land. At the beginning of
the 12th century Wermeland passed finally to Sweden, and
Jamteland for several ages to Norway. Bleking again, at the
southeast corner of the Peninsula, was a debatable land
between Sweden and Denmark which passed to Denmark. For a land
thus bounded the natural course of extension by land lay to
the north, along the west coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. In the
course of the 11th century at the latest, Sweden began to
spread itself in that direction over Helsingland. Sweden had
thus a better opportunity than Denmark and Norway for
extension of her own borders by land. Meanwhile Denmark and
Norway, looking to the west, had their great time of Oceanic
conquest and colonization in the 9th and 10th centuries."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 11, section 1._
{2817}
"Till about the year of Grace 860 there were no kings in
Norway, nothing but numerous jarls,—essentially kinglets,—each
presiding over a kind of republican or parliamentary little
territory; generally striving each to be on some terms of
human neighbourhood with those about him, but, in spite of
'Fylke Things' (Folk Things)—little parish parliaments —and
small combinations of these, which had gradually formed
themselves, often reduced to the unhappy state of quarrel with
them. Harald Haarfagr was the first to put an end to this
state of things, and become memorable and profitable to his
country by uniting it under one head and making a kingdom of
it; which it has continued to be ever since. His father,
Halfdan the Black, had already begun this rough but salutary
process, … but it was Harald the Fairhaired, his son, who
conspicuously carried it on and completed it. Harald's
birth-year, death-year, and chronology in general, are known
only by inference and computation; but, by the latest
reckoning, he died about the year 933 of our era, a man of 83.
The business of conquest lasted Harald about twelve years (A.
D. 860-872?), in which he subdued also the Vikings of the
out-islands, Orkneys, Shetlands, Hebrides, and Man. Sixty more
years were given him to consolidate and regulate what he had
conquered, which he did with great judgment, industry, and
success. His reign altogether is counted to have been of over
70 years. … These were the times of Norse colonization; proud
Norsemen flying into other lands, to freer scenes,—to Iceland,
to the Faroe Islands, which were hitherto quite vacant
(tenanted only by some mournful hermit, Irish Christian fakir,
or so); still more copiously to the Orkney and Shetland Isles,
the Hebrides and other countries where Norse squatters and
settlers already were. Settlement of Iceland, we say,
settlement of the Faroe Islands, and, by far the notablest of
all, settlement of Normandy by Rolf the Ganger (A. D. 876?)."
_T. Carlyle,
The Early Kings of Norway,
chapter 1._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 9th Century.
Introduction of Christianity.
See CHRISTIANITY: 9-11TH CENTURIES.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.
The empire of Canute and its dissolution.
Disturbed state of the Three Kingdoms.
The Folkungas in Sweden.
Rise of Denmark.
The reign of Queen Margaret and the Union of Calmar.
"A Northern Empire … for a time seemed possible when Canute
the Great arose. King by inheritance of England and of
Denmark, he was able by successful war to add almost the whole
of Norway to his dominions.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016, and 1016-1042
The definite incorporation of Sleswig under treaty with the
Emperor Conrad, and the submission of the Wendish tribes,
appeared to open for him a way on to the continent. … Had men
with like capacity succeeded to his throne, the world might
have beheld an Empire of the North as well as of the East and
West. But the kingdoms of the great Danish monarch fell
asunder on his death and his successors sink again into
insignificance. Another century passes before a bright page
illumines their obscure annals. The names of Waldemar the
Great [1157-1182], of Canute VI. [1182-1202] and Waldemar the
Victorious [1202-1241] his sons, are then found attracting the
attention of Europe. Again their kingdom seemed about to raise
itself to be a continental power. They sallied forth from
their peninsula, they again conquered the Wends; the southern
shores of the Baltic, even as far as Courland and Esthonia,
were made to tremble at the Danish arms. … But the greatness
was again but temporary. Waldemar the Victorious, surprised
and made a prisoner in Germany, beheld his empire returning to
its fragments. Regaining his liberty he tried to regain his
power, but a disastrous battle at Bornhoved in 1227 gave a
death-blow to his ambition. An alliance of the petty princes
who feared his greatness prevailed against him, and Denmark
relapsed again into decline. Many causes now contributed to
the downfall of the kingdom. By the fatal policy of Waldemar
it was divided among his sons. … While anarchy increased
within the country, new enemies arose around it. The
Norwegians in a war that lasted for long years harassed it.
The necessities of Christopher obliged him to pledge Scania,
Halland, and Bleking to Sweden. A formidable foe too was now
appearing in the Hanseatic League [see HANSA TOWNS], whose
rise had followed upon the fall of Waldemar's power. The rich
cities of Lubeck and Hamburg had seized the opportunity to
assert their freedom. … Harassed by foreign enemies and by
strife with his own nobles, Christopher [the Second, who came
to the throne in 1319] at last was driven from his kingdom. A
count of Holstein, known as the Black Geert, became for
fourteen years the virtual sovereign, and imposed upon the
country his nephew, Waldemar III., the heir of the rebellious
house of Sleswig, as a titular King. Dismembered and in
anarchy, the country had sunk low, and it was not until the
assassination of Black Geert, in 1340, that any hope appeared
of its recovery." In Sweden the national history had its real
beginning, perhaps, in the days of St. Eric, who reigned from
1155 to 1160. "In this reign the spread of Christianity became
the spread of power. Eric … earned his title from his definite
establishment of the new faith. … The remaining sovereigns of
his line can hardly be said to have contributed much towards
the advancement of their country, and it was reserved for a
new dynasty to carry on the work of the earlier kings. A
powerful family had risen near the throne, and, retaining the
old tribal rank of Jarls, had filled almost the position of
mayors of the palace. The death of Eric Ericson without
children removed the last obstacle to their ambition. The
infant son of Birger Jarl was elected to the vacant throne,
and the transfer of the royal title to the family [known as
the Folkungas] that had long held royal power seemed as
natural to the Swedes as it had done earlier to the Franks. As
regent for his child, Birger upheld and added to the greatness
of his country; he became the conspicuous figure of the 13th
century in the North; he is the founder of Stockholm, the
conqueror of the Finns, the protector of the exiled princes of
Russia, the mediator in differences between Norway and
Denmark. His sceptred descendants however did not equal their
unsceptred sire. The conquest of Finland was indeed completed
by Torkel Knutson at the close of the 13th century, and shed
some lustre upon the reign of King Birger, but the quarrels of
succeeding princes among themselves disgraced and distracted
the country."
{2818}
In Norway, "the conquests of Harold Harfager had secured the
crown to a long line of his descendants; but the strife of
these descendants among themselves, and the contests which
were provoked by the attempts of successive sovereigns, with
imprudent zeal, to enforce the doctrines of Christianity upon
unwilling subjects, distracted and weakened the kingdom. A
prey to anarchy, it fell also a prey to its neighbours. In the
10th century it belonged for a time to Denmark; Sweden joined
later in dismembering it; and Canute the Great was able to
call himself its King. These were times indeed in which
conquests and annexations were often more rapid than lasting,
and a King of Norway soon reigned in his turn over Denmark.
Yet there is no doubt that the Norwegians suffered more than
they inflicted, and were from the first the weakest of the
three nations. … Wars, foreign and domestic, that have now no
interest, exhausted the country; the plague of 1348 deprived
it of at least one half its population. Its decline had been
marked, upon the extinction of its royal dynasty in 1319, by
the election of Swedish princes to fill its throne; and after
the reign of two stranger Kings it sank forever from the list
of independent kingdoms. Drifting through anarchy and discord
the three kingdoms had sunk low. Denmark was first to raise
herself from the abasement, and the reign of a fourth Waldemar
not only restored her strength but gave her a pre-eminence
which she retained until the days of Gustavus Adolphus. The
new sovereign, a younger son of Christopher II., was raised to
the throne in 1340, and no competitor, now that Black Geert
was dead, appeared to dispute it with him." Waldemar gave up,
on the one hand, his claims to Scania, Halland, and Bleking
(which he afterwards reclaimed and repossessed), as well as
the distant possessions in Esthonia, while he bought back
Jutland and the Isles, on the other. "The isle of Gothland,
and Wisby its rich capital, the centre of the Hanseatic trade
within the Baltic, were plundered and annexed [1361], giving
the title thenceforward of King of the Goths to the Danish
monarchs. This success indeed was paid for by the bitter
enmity of the Hansa, and by a war in which the pride of
Denmark was humbled to the dust beneath the power of the
combined cities. Copenhagen was pillaged [1362]; and peace was
only made by a treaty [1363] which confirmed all former
privileges to the conquerors, which gave them for fifteen
years possession of the better part of Scania and its
revenues, and which humbly promised that the election of all
sovereigns of Denmark should thenceforth he submitted for
their approval. Yet Waldemar has left behind him the
reputation of a prudent and successful prince, and his policy
prepared the way for the greatness of his successors. At his
death in 1375 two daughters, on behalf of their children,
became claimants for his throne. The youngest, Margaret, had
married Hako, King of Norway, the son of a deposed King of
Sweden [the last of the Folkungas, or Folkungers]; and the
attractive prospect of a union between the two kingdoms,
supported by her own prudent and conciliatory measures,
secured the election of her son Olaf. As regent for her child,
who soon by the death of his father became King of Norway as
well as of Denmark, she showed the wisdom of a ruler, and won
the affections of her subjects; and when the death of Olaf
himself occurred in 1387 she was rewarded in both kingdoms by
the formal possession of the sceptres which she had already
shown herself well able to hold. Mistress in Denmark and in
Norway, she prepared to add Sweden to her dominions. Since the
banishment of the Folkungas, Albert Duke of Mecklenburg had
reigned as King." But Sweden preferred Margaret, and she
easily expelled Albert from the throne, defeating him and
making him a prisoner, in 1389. A few years later, "her
nephew, Eric, long since accepted in Denmark and in Norway as
her successor, and titularly King, was now [1397] at a solemn
meeting of the states at Calmar crowned Sovereign of the Three
Kingdoms. At a later meeting the Union, since known as that of
Calmar, was formally voted, and the great work of her life was
achieved."
_C. F. Johnstone,
Historical Abstracts,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_E. G. Geijer,
History of the Swedes,
volume 1, chapters 3-5._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 14-15th Centuries.
Power and influence of the Hanseatic League.
See HANSA TOWNS.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
Under the Union of Calmar until its dissolution.
The brutality of Christian II. and his overthrow.
Gustavus Vasa and his elevation to the throne of Sweden.
The introduction of the Reformation.
The most noteworthy articles of the Union of Calmar, by which
Norway, Sweden and Denmark were united together, in 1397,
under the Danish queen Margaret, were the following: "That the
right of electing a sovereign should be exercised in common by
the three kingdoms; that a son of the reigning king, if there
were any, should be preferred; that each kingdom should be
governed by its own laws; and that all should combine for the
common defence. But this confederacy, which seemed calculated
to promote the power and tranquility of Scandinavia, proved
the source of much discontent and jealousy and of several
bloody wars. Margaret was succeeded on her death in 1412 by
Eric of Pomerania, the son of her niece. … Eric's reign was
turbulent. In 1438 the Danes, and in the following year the
Swedes, renounced their allegiance; and Eric fled to the
island of Gothland, where he exercised piracy till his death.
The Danes elected in Eric's stead Christopher of Bavaria, son
of his sister Catharine; … but after Christopher's death in
1448 the union was dissolved. The Danes now elected for their
king Count Christian of Oldenburg; while the Swedes chose
Charles Knutson. But in the following year Charles was
compelled to resign Norway to Denmark, and in 1457 he lost
Sweden itself through an insurrection led by the Archbishop of
Upsala. Christian I. of Denmark was chosen in his place and
crowned at Upsala, June 19th; and in the following year all
the councillors of the three kingdoms, assembled at Skarn,
recognised Christian's son John as his successor. Christian I.
became a powerful monarch by inheriting Schleswic and Holstein
from his uncle. He had, however, to contend for a long period
with Charles Knutson for the throne of Sweden, and after
Charles's death in 1470, with Sten Sture, of a noble family in
Dalecarlia, to whom Charles, with the approbation of the
Swedes, had left the administration of the kingdom. In October
1471 a battle was fought on the Brunkeberg, a height now
enclosed in the city of Stockholm, in which the Danish King
was defeated, though he continued to hold the southern
provinces of Sweden.
{2819}
Christian died in 1481 and was succeeded by his son John. The
Swedes in 1483 acknowledged the supremacy of Denmark by
renewing the Union of Calmar; yet … John could never firmly
establish himself in that country. … King John of Denmark died
in 1513. … It was during the reign of Christian II. [his son
and successor] that Denmark first began to have any extensive
connections with the rest of Europe. In the year of his
accession, he allied himself with the Wendish, or northeastern
towns of the Hanseatic League, whose metropolis was Lübeck;
and he subsequently formed alliances with Russia, France,
England, and Scotland, with the view of obtaining their aid in
his contemplated reduction of Sweden. … In 1517 Trolle
[Archbishop of Upsala] had levied open war against the
administrator, Sten Sture, in which Christian supported him
with his fleet; but Sten Sture succeeded in capturing Trolle.
… In the next year (1518) Christian again appeared near
Stockholm with a fleet and army, in which were 2,000 French
sent by Francis I. Christian was defeated by Sten Sture in a
battle near Bränkirka. … The Archbishop of Upsala having
proceeded to Rome to complain of Sten Sture, the Pope erected
in Denmark an ecclesiastical tribunal, which deposed the
administrator and his party, and laid all Sweden under an
interdict. This proceeding, however, served to pave the way
for the acceptance in Sweden of the Lutheran reformation;
though it afforded Christian II. a pretence for getting up a
sort of crusade against that country. … Early in 1520 … Sture
was defeated and wounded in a battle fought on the ice of Lake
Asunden, near Bogesund in West Gothland. … Sten Sture, in
spite of his wound, hastened to the defence of Stockholm, but
expired on the way in his sledge on Malar Lake, February 3rd
1520. The Swedes were defeated in a second battle near Upsala,
after which a treaty was concluded to the effect that
Christian should reign in Sweden, agreeably to the Union of
Calmar, but on condition of' granting an entire amnesty.
Christian now proceeded to Stockholm, and in October was
admitted into that city by Sture's widow, who held the
command. Christian at first behaved in the most friendly
manner …; yet he had no sooner received the crown than he
took the most inhuman vengeance on his confiding subjects. …
The city was abandoned to be plundered by the soldiers like a
place taken by storm. Orders were despatched to Finland to
proceed in a similar manner; while the King's progress through
the southern provinces was everywhere marked by the erection
of gallowses. These cruelties … occasioned insurrections in
all his dominions. That in Sweden was led by Gustavus Ericson,
… a young man remarkable alike by his origin, connections,
talent and courage; whose family, for what reason is unknown,
afterwards assumed the name of Vasa, which was borne neither
by himself nor by his forefathers." Gustavus, who had been a
hostage in Christian's hands; had escaped from his captivity,
in 1519, taking refuge at Lübeck. In May, 1520, he secretly
entered Sweden, remaining in concealment. A few months later
his father perished, among the victims of the Danish tyrant,
and Gustavus fled to Dalecarlia, "a district noted for its
love of freedom and hatred of the Danes. Here he worked in
peasant's clothes, for daily wages, in hourly danger from his
pursuers, from whom he had many narrow escapes. … The news of
Christian's inhumanity procured Gustavus Vasa many followers;
he was elected as their leader by a great assembly of the
people at Mora, and found himself at the head of 5,000 men,"
out of whom he made good soldiers, although they were
wretchedly armed. "In June, 1521, he invested Stockholm; but
the siege, for want of proper artillery and engineering skill,
was protracted two years. During this period his command was
legally confirmed in a Herrendag, or assembly of the nobles,
at Wadstena, "August 24th 1521; the crown was proffered to
him, which he declined, but accepted the office of Regent. The
Danes were now by degrees almost entirely expelled from
Sweden; and Christian II., so far from being able to relieve
Stockholm, found himself in danger of losing the Danish
crown," which he did, in fact, in 1523, through a revolution
that placed on the throne his uncle, Duke Frederick of
Holstein. "The Union of Calmar was now entirely dissolved. The
Norwegians claimed to exercise the right of election like the
Danes; and when Frederick called upon the Swedish States to
recognise his title in conformity with the Union, they replied
that it was their intention to elect Gustavus Ericson for
their king; which was accordingly done at the Diet of
Strengnäs, June 7th 1523. Three weeks after Stockholm
surrendered to Gustavus." The dethroned Christian II. escaped
to the Netherlands, where he found means to equip an
expedition with which he invaded Norway, in 1531. It left him
a prisoner in the hands of the Danes, who locked him up in the
castle of Sonderburg until his death, which did not occur
until 1559. "Meanwhile, in Sweden, Gustavus was consolidating
his power, partly by moderation and mildness, partly by
examples of necessary severity. He put himself at the head of
the Reformation, as Frederick I. also did in Denmark. …
Luther's doctrines had been first introduced into Sweden in
1519, by two brothers, Olaus and Lawrence Petri, who had
studied under the great apostle of reform at Wittenberg. The
Petris soon attracted the attention of Gustavus, who gave them
his protection, and entered himself into correspondence with
Luther. … As in other parts of Europe, the nobles were induced
to join the movement from the prospect of sharing the spoils
of the church; and in a great Diet at Westeräs in 1527, the
Reformation was introduced.
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_P. B. Watson,
The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa._
_A. Alberg,
Gustavus Vasa and his Stirring Times._
{2820}
SCANDINAVIAN STATES:
(Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1523.
Accession of Frederick I.
(Sweden): A. D. 1523-1604.
The reigns of Gustavus Vasa and his sons.
Wars with Russia and Denmark.
The Baltic question.
Prince Sigismund elected king of Poland and
his consequent loss of the Swedish crown,
Resulting hostilities.
"Gustavus Vasa, the founder of his dynasty, was not a very
religious man. He had determined to make Sweden a Lutheran
country for two main reasons: first, because he wanted the
lands of the Church, both in order to enrich the crown and
also to attach the nobles to his cause; secondly, because, as
he said, the 'priests were all unionists in Sweden'—that is,
they all wished to maintain the union of the three
Scandinavian kingdoms which he had broken, and they were,
therefore, irreconcilably hostile to his dynasty. Three other
great services were rendered to Sweden by Gustavus I.:
(1) at the Diet of Westeräs, in 1544, the hereditary character
of the monarchy was definitely declared. This was a great
victory over the nobles, who in nearly all the Northern and
Eastern Kingdoms of Europe—and in Sweden itself at a later
time—succeeded in erecting an oligarchy, which oppressed the
peasants and crippled the activity of the State.
(2) Again, by his consistent favouring of the middle classes,
and his conclusion of commercial treaties with Russia, France,
and the Netherlands, he became the founder of Swedish
commerce, and dealt a serious blow at the Baltic supremacy of
the Hanseatic League.
(3) And lastly, he appears as the founder of that policy of
territorial aggression (toward the South and East), which,
however we may judge of its morality in this age of peace, was
certainly looked upon then as the prime duty of all Kings, and
which in the case of Sweden was the direct path toward the
great part which she was destined to play in the 17th century.
His first enemy was Russia, a recently consolidated State,
already bordering on the half-Polish province of Livonia and
the Swedish province of Finland; already extending her flanks
to the Caucasus and the Don on the south and to the White Sea
on the north. … The wars of Ivan the Terrible (1534-84) for
Finland and Livonia were unsuccessful, and the chief interest
which they possess for us is that in 1561, the year after the
death of Gustavus I., his son Eric acquired for Sweden the
province of Esthonia, which appears to have previously
fluctuated between dependence on Denmark and on Russia. This
was the first of the so-called 'Baltic provinces' of Sweden;
herewith began the exclusion of Russia from the 'Dominium
Maris Baltici.' But this possession brought Eric face to face
with Poland, a country which was disputing with Russia the
possession of Livonia. Poland, under the last of the great
Jaghellon line, was already displaying the fatal tendency to
anarchy which at last devoured her. … Poland turned for help
to the King of Denmark, in whom Eric, with keen insight,
recognised the most dangerous foe for Sweden. In 1563 Eric
concluded peace with Russia, and the nations of the North
began to assume their natural relation to each other. The
Baltic question rapidly became an European one. English
sympathies were with Sweden and Russia; Spain and the Emperor
as naturally took the other side, and suggested to the King of
Denmark, Frederick II. (1559-1588), that he should ask for the
hand of Mary Stuart; to counteract which King Eric indulged in
an elaborate flirtation with Elizabeth. The powers of North
Germany took sides in the war (1565), but the war itself
produced but little result. The able Eric displayed symptoms
of insanity and was extremely unpopular with the Swedish
nobles, and Denmark was as yet too powerful an enemy for
Sweden to overthrow. In 1567 Eric was deposed by a revolution,
the fruit of which was reaped by his brother John. When the
great Gustavus I. was dying, and could no longer speak, he
made a sign that he wished to write, and wrote half a sentence
of warning to his people: 'Rather die a hundred times than
abandon the Gospel. …' Then his hand failed, and he dropped
back dead. He was not, I have said, a particularly religious
man, but he marked out the true path for Sweden. Now in 1567 a
certain reaction set in: many of the nobles, who had felt the
yoke of Gustavus heavy and of Eric heavier, seemed ready to
drift back to Catholicism, and John's reign (1567-1590) was
one of reaction in many ways. John never openly went over to
Catholicism, but he cast off all the Lutheranism that he dared
to cast off. He made peace with Denmark and war with Russia;
thereby he allowed the former country to develop her trade and
foreign relations enormously and rapidly, and made the task of
his successors doubly hard. Above all, he originated, by his
marriage with Catherine Jaghellon, the disastrous connexion
with Poland. That unhappy country, 'the fatal byword for all
years to come' of genuine anarchy, had just closed its period
of prosperity. The last of the Jaghellon Kings died in 1572,
and the elected King, Stephen Bathori, died in 1586. Ivan the
Terrible sought the crown of Poland. … John of Sweden, on the
other hand, saw an opening for the House of Vasa. His son
Sigismund was, by dint of bribes and intrigue, elected King of
Poland. But he had to become a Catholic. … The union of Sweden
with Poland, which would necessarily follow, if Sigismund
succeeded his father on the Swedish throne, would be almost
certainly a Catholic union. … Sweden was still a free country,
in the sense of being governed in a parliamentary way with the
consent of the four estates, Nobles, Clergy, Citizens, and
Peasants. Whatever the Riddarhus might think upon the subject,
the three non-noble estates were red-hot Protestants and would
have no Catholic king. Even the nobles were only induced to
consent to Sigismund becoming King of Poland without
forfeiting his right to succeed in Sweden, by the grant of
extravagant privileges, practically so great, had they been
observed, as to emasculate the Vasa monarchy. Luckily the
people had a deliverer at hand. Charles, Duke of Sudermania,
the youngest of the sons of Gustavus I., lived wholly in the
best traditions of his father's policy. He might be relied
upon to head an insurrection, if necessary. Even before John's
death in 1590 murmurs began to be heard that he had been an
usurper—was his son necessarily the heir? These murmurs
increased, when in 1593, after waiting three years, Sigismund
came home to claim his kingdom, with a present of 20,000
crowns from the Pope in his pocket, 'to defray the cost of the
restoration of Catholicism in Sweden.' Duke Charles had
already prepared his plans when the King arrived; there seems
little doubt that he was playing a game, and for the crown. We
are not concerned with his motives, it is sufficient to know
that they corresponded with the interests of his country. In
1593, just before Sigismund had landed, Charles had been
chosen Regent and President of the Council of State. … When
Sigismund went back to Poland at the end of the year 1594, he
could not prevent Charles being chosen to administer the
kingdom in his absence, and Diet after Diet subsequently
confirmed the power of the Regent.
{2821}
The peasants of Dalecarlia, the great province of the centre,
which had first come forward to the support of Gustavus I. in
1520, sent up a petition to the effect that there ought to be
only one king in Sweden, and that Sigismund had forfeited the
crown. Charles himself had been unwilling to lead a
revolution, until it became apparent that Sigismund was
massing troops and raising money in Poland for an attack upon
his native land. In 1597 the civil war may be said to have
begun; in the following year Sigismund landed (with only 5,000
Polish troops) and was utterly defeated near Linköping (on
September 25, 1598). On the next day a treaty was concluded by
which Sigismund was acknowledged as King, but promised to send
away his foreign troops and maintain Protestantism. It was
obviously a mere effort to gain time, and in the following
year on failing to keep the condition, which he never had the
remotest intention of keeping, he was formally deposed (July,
1599). The contest, however, was by no means over, and it led
to that perpetual hostility between Sweden and Poland which
played such an important part in the history of Northern
Europe in the 17th century. … In 1604 Charles was solemnly
crowned King; that was the second birthday of the Vasa
monarchy; the crown was entailed upon his eldest son, Gustavus
Adolphus, and his descendants, being Protestants, and the
descendants of Sigismund were forever excluded. 'Every prince
who should deviate from the Confession of Augsburg should ipso
facto lose the crown. Anyone who should attempt to effect any
change of religion should be declared an enemy and a traitor.
Sweden should never be united with another kingdom under one
crown; the King must live in Sweden.'"
_C. R. L. Fletcher,
Gustavus Adolphus,
introduction._
ALSO IN:
_E. G. Geijer,
History of the Swedes,
volume 1, chapters 9-14._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1534.
Accession of Christian III.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1559.
Accession of Frederick II.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1588.
Accession of Christian IV.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611.
Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611-1629.
The Danish, Russian and Polish wars of Gustavus Adolphus.
On the death of Charles in 1611 his son, Gustavus Adolphus,
did not immediately assume the title of king. "Sweden remained
without a sovereign for two months; for, according to the will
of the deceased king, the queen and his nephew (Duke John),
with six councillors of state, were to rule till the wishes of
the people could be made known in the customary manner. After
an interregnum of two months, the Diet opened at Nyköping. …
Duke John was the son of Sigismund, King of Poland, had been
brought up in Sweden, and might be considered as having some
just claim to the throne. The queen-mother and Duke John laid
down the tutelage and the regency. … Nine days later the young
king, in the presence of the representatives of the estates of
Sweden, received the reins of government. … He was then in the
first month of his 18th year. He took charge of the kingdom
when it was in a critical condition. Since the death of
Gustavus Vasa, his grandfather, a period of more than 50
years, Sweden had not enjoyed a single year of peace. In that
long space of time, there had been constant dissensions and
violence. … Sweden was much constrained and embarrassed by her
boundaries, and by the jealousies and hostile feelings of her
neighbours on the north and the south. Denmark and Norway were
united in a kind of dual government under the same king; and
both alike were opposed to the growth of Swedish power, and
were in continual dispute with her in respect to territory, as
well as to the naval and commercial uses of the adjacent seas.
Those provinces in the south which are now the most productive
and valuable of Sweden, then belonged to Denmark, or were in
dispute between the two countries. On the east, Russia and
Poland embarrassed and threatened her." During the first year
of his reign Gustavus devoted his energies to the war with
Denmark. He fought at a disadvantage. His resources were
unequal to those of the Danes. His capital, Stockholm, was
once attacked by a Danish fleet and in serious peril. But he
secured an advantageous peace in the spring of 1613. "Sweden
renounced some of its conquests and pretensions, and the Danes
gave up to Sweden the city of Calmar on the Baltic, and at the
end of six years were to surrender to Sweden its city of
Elfsborg on the North Sea; the latter agreeing to pay to the
Danes 1,000,000 thalers for the surrender. … At the death of
Charles IX., and the ascension of Gustavus to the throne,
Sweden was in a state of war with Russia, and was so to
continue for several years; though hostilities were not all
the time prosecuted with vigor, and were some of the time
practically suspended. … The Swedes held possession of a large
area of what is now Russian territory, as well as important
towns and fortresses. The extensive country of Finland, which
makes to-day so important a province of Russia, had been
united with Sweden nearly five centuries, as it continued to
be nearly two hundred years longer. But towns and territory,
also a long distance within the lines of the Russian
population, were then in the power of the Swedish forces. The
troubles and dissensions relative to the succession, and
extreme dislike to the Poles, had caused a numerous party to
seek a Swedish prince for its sovereign, and to this end had
sent an embassy to Stockholm near the date of the death of
Charles IX. Finding that the young Gustavus had acceded to the
crown of his father, this Russian party desired to secure for
the Russian throne Charles Philip, a younger brother of
Gustavus. The Swedish king did not show eagerness to bring
this plan to success; but, the war being terminated with
Denmark, he was resolved to draw what advantage he could from
the weakened condition of Russia, to the advancement and
security of the interests of Sweden. In July, 1613, the
Russians chose for czar Michael Romanoff, then sixteen years
of age. … Gustavus proceeded to push military operations with
as much vigor as possible. … For four years more the war
between these two countries continued; … the advantages being
generally on the side of the Swedes, though they were not
always successful in important sieges." Finally, through the
mediation of English agents, terms of peace were agreed upon.
"The treaty was signed February, 1617. Russia yielded to
Sweden a large breadth of territory, shutting herself out from
the Baltic; the land where St. Petersburg now stands becoming
Swedish territory. …
{2822}
The next important work in hand was to deal with Poland. … At
the death of Charles IX. an armistice had been signed, which
was to continue until July, 1612. This was thrice extended,
the last time to January, 1616. The latter date had not been
reached when the Polish partisans began to intrigue actively
in Sweden, and those Swedes who still adhered to the religion
and the dynastic rights of Sigismund could not be otherwise
than secretly or openly stirred. Sigismund was not only
supported by the power of Poland, and by his strong show of
legal title to the Swedish crown, but there were strong
influences on his side in European high political and
religious quarters. He was united to the house of Hapsburg by
the bonds of relationship ns well as of theology. Philip III.
of Spain, and he who afterwards became Ferdinand II. of
Austria, were his brothers-in-law. … Sigismund came then to
the resolution to make war for the possession of Sweden. He
was promised enrolment of troops in Germany, the Spaniards had
engaged to arm a fleet in his support, and the estates of
Poland were to furnish their quota. … Efforts were made to
stir up revolt against Gustavus in his own kingdom," and he
promptly declared war. "During the year 1617 hostilities were
prosecuted on both sides with much vigor, and loss of life.
Towns and strong positions were taken, and invasions and
sudden attacks were made on both sides; the advantages being
generally with the Swedes, though not decisive. During the
winter of 1618 the Poles invaded Livonia and Esthonia,
carrying pillage and fire in their march, and then retiring."
Gustavus would not allow his generals to retaliate. "'We wish
not,' he said, 'to war against the peasant, whom we had rather
protect than ruin.'" In 1618 there was an armistice, with
peace negotiations which failed, and the war began anew. In
August, 1621, Gustavus laid siege to Riga with a strong fleet
and army, and met with an obstinate resistance; but the place
was surrendered to him at the end of nearly six weeks. Again
the belligerents agreed to an armistice, and "the year 1624 is
declared by the Swedish historians to have been the only one
in which Gustavus Adolphus was able to devote all his labors
and cares to the interior administration of his country. In
the following year the war was renewed. The third campaign of
the Swedish king against Poland was terminated by the
completion of the conquest of Livonia; and the possession of
Courland assured to him Riga, the object of his special care."
The decisive battle of the campaign was fought at Wallhof,
January 7, 1626. The king of Sweden then "resolved to
transport the theatre of war from the banks of the Duna to
those of the Vistula, to attack Poland at the heart, and
approach Germany. Here commences that part of the war of
Poland which is called also the war of Prussia. … He
[Gustavus] realized the need of a port in Eastern Prussia; and
the elector of Brandenburg, his brother-in-law, was invested,
with that duchy under the suzerainty of Poland. Gustavus did
not allow these considerations to arrest his course. … June 26
the king arrived before Pillau, and possessed himself of that
city without much resistance, the garrison being small. …
Braunsberg capitulated June 30. July I, Flanenberg
surrendered, and Elbing on the 6th, which was followed by
Marienberg on the 8th; the last a well-fortified city. Many
towns of less importance were likewise soon captured. Gustavus
rapidly pushed aside all resistance, and soon reached the
frontiers of Pomerania." In the engagements of the campaign of
1627 the king was twice wounded—once by a musket-ball in the
groin, and the second time by a ball that entered near the
neck and lodged at the upper corner of the right
shoulder-blade. In June, 1629, "there was a heated engagement
at Stum, in which Gustavus ran great danger, his force being
inferior to the enemy." In September of that year "an
armistice was concluded for six years between the belligerent
kingdoms. Five cities which had been conquered by Swedish arms
were given up to Poland, and three others delivered to the
elector of Brandenburg, to be held during the armistice.
Gustavus was to continue to occupy Pillau and three other
towns of some importance. Liberty of conscience was to be
accorded to Protestants and Catholics, and commerce was
declared free between the two nations."
_J. L. Stevens,
History of Gustavus Adolphus,
chapters 3 and 7._
ALSO IN:
_B. Chapman,
History of Gustavus Adolphus,
chapters 2-4._
See, also, POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1625-1630.
The Protestant Alliance.
Engagement of King Christian IV. in the Thirty Years War.
The Treaty of Lübeck.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626; and 1627-1629.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1627.
The country overrun by Wallenstein.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1628.
Gustavus Adolphus' first interference in the war in Germany.
The relief of Stralsund.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1630-1632.
The campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.
His death.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, to 1631-1632.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1631.
Treaty of Barwalde with France.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1632.
Full powers given to Oxenstiern in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1638-1640.
The planting of a colony in America, on the Delaware.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1640-1645.
Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1643-1645.
War between Sweden and Denmark.
Torstenson's conquest of Holstein and Schleswig.
The Peace of Bromsebro.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1644-1697.
Reign and abdication of Queen Christina.
Wars of Charles X. and Charles XI. with Poland
and Denmark and in Germany.
Establishment of absolutism.
"Christina, the only child and successor of Gustavus Adolphus,
had been brought up by her aunt, Katerina, the Princess
Palatine, until the death of the latter in 1639, and in the
year 1644, when she reached the age of eighteen, the regency
was absolved, and she began to rule in her own name. She had
inherited much of her father's talent, and was perhaps the
most learned and accomplished woman of her time.
{2823}
She had received the education of a man. … She had great taste
for the fine arts and for the pursuits of science; but while
she encouraged scientific men at her court, she also spent
money too recklessly in rewarding artistic merit of all kinds.
… As a dangerous drawback to her many splendid qualities, she
had all the waywardness, caprice, restlessness of mind,
fickleness and love of display for which her beautiful mother,
Maria Eleanora of Brandenburg, had been noted. She lavished
crown lands and the money of the state upon favourites. … In
the meanwhile the national Estates had been split up into
parties, the aristocrats being led by Axel Oxenstjerna, and
the democrats, with whom the queen sided, by Johan Skytte. The
clergy struggled to maintain their independence under the
oppressive patronage of the nobles, and the peasants agitated
to recover some of the power which the great Gustavus Vasa had
granted them, but which his successors had by degrees taken
from them. The kingdom was in a ferment, and a civil war
seemed to be unavoidable. The council urged upon the queen to
marry, and her cousin, Karl Gustaf of the Palatinate,
entreated her to fulfil the promise which she had given him in
earlier years of choosing him for her husband. At length … she
proposed him for her successor. … After much opposition, Karl
Gustaf was declared successor to the throne in the event of
the queen having no children of her own. … The few years of
Christina's reign after her solemn coronation were disquieted
by continued dissensions in the diet, attempts at revolts, and
by a general distress, which was greatly increased by her
profuse wastefulness and her reckless squandering of the
property of the crown. As ear]y as the year 1648 she had
conceived the idea of abdicating, but, being hindered by her
old friends and councillors, she deferred carrying out her
wishes till 1654." In that year the abdication was formally
accomplished, and she left the country at once, travelling
through Europe. In 1655 she renounced Protestantism and
entered the Roman Catholic Church. "At the death [1660] of her
cousin and successor, Karl X. Gustaf, as he was called by the
Swedes, and who is known to us as Charles X., she returned to
Sweden and claimed the crown for herself; but neither then,
nor in 1667, when she renewed her pretensions, would the
council encourage her hopes, and, after a final attempt to
gain the vacant throne of Poland in 1668, she gave up all
schemes of ever reigning again, and retired to Rome, where she
died in 1689 at the age of sixty-three. … The short reign of
Charles X., from 1655 to 1660, was a time of great disorder
and unquiet in Sweden. … He resolved to engage the people in
active war. … The ill-timed demand of the Polish king, Johan
Kasimir, to be proclaimed the true heir to Christina's throne,
drew the first attack upon Poland. Charles X. was born to be a
soldier and a conqueror, and the success and rapidity with
which he overran all Poland, and crushed the Polish army in a
three days' engagement at Warsaw in 1656, showed that he was a
worthy pupil and successor of his uncle, the great Gustavus
Adolphus. But it was easier for him to make conquests than to
keep them, and when the Russians, in their jealousy of the
increasing power of Sweden, took part in the war, and began to
attack Livonia and Esthonia, while an imperial army advanced
into Poland to assist the Poles, who, infuriated at the
excesses of the Swedish soldiers, had risen en masse against
them, Charles saw the expediency of retreating; and, leaving
only a few detachments of troops to watch his enemies, he
turned upon Denmark. This war, which was closed by the peace
signed at Roeskilde in 1658, enriched Sweden at the expense of
Denmark, and gave to the former the old provinces of Skaania,
Halland and Bleking, by which the Swedish monarchy obtained
natural and well-defined boundaries. The success of this first
Danish war, in which Denmark for a time lay crushed under the
power of the Swedish king, emboldened him to renew his
attacks, and between 1658 and 1660 Charles X. made war five
times on the Danish monarch; more than once laid siege to
Copenhagen; and, under his able captain, Wrangel, nearly
destroyed the Danish fleet. At the close of 1659, when it
seemed as if Denmark must be wholly subjugated by Sweden, the
English and Dutch, alarmed at the ambition of the Swedish
king, sent an allied fleet into the Cattegat to operate with
the Danes." Charles, checked in his operations, was preparing
to carry the war into Norway, when he died suddenly, in the
winter of 1660, and peace was made by the treaty of Oliva. "By
the early death of Charles X., Sweden was again brought under
the rule of a regency, for his son and successor, Charles XI.,
was only four years old when he became king. … Every
department of the government was left to suffer from
mismanagement, the army and navy were neglected, the defences
of the frontiers fell into decay, and the public servants were
unable to procure their pay. To relieve the great want of
money, the regency accepted subsidies, or payments of money
from foreign states to maintain peace towards them, and hired
out troops to serve in other countries. In this state of
things the young king grew up without receiving any very
careful education. … Charles was declared of age in his 18th
year. … He was not left long in the enjoyment of mere
exercises of amusement, for in 1674 Louis XIV. of France, in
conformity with the treaty which the regents had concluded
with him, called upon the young Swedish king to help him in
the war which he was carrying on against the German princes.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1674-1678.
Charles sent an army into Germany, which advanced without
opposition into the heart of Brandenburg, but before these
forces could form a junction with the French troops then
encamped in the Rhinelands, the Elector came upon them
unawares at Fehrbellin [June 18, 1675] and defeated them. The
losses of the Swedes on this occasion were not great, but the
result of their defeat was to give encouragement to the old
rivals of Sweden; and early in 1675 both Holland and Denmark
declared war against the Swedish king, who, finding that he
had been left by the regency almost without army, navy, or
money, resolved for the future to take the management of
public affairs entirely into his own hands." When he "began
the war by a sea engagement with the enemy off Oeland, he
found that his ships of war had suffered as much as the
land-defences from the long-continued neglect of his regents.
The Danes, under their great admiral, Niels Juel, and
supported by a Dutch squadron, beat the Swedish fleet, many of
whose ships were burnt or sunk.
{2824}
This defeat was atoned for by a victory on land, gained by
Charles himself in 1676, over the Danes on the snow-covered
hills around the town of Lund. Success was not won without
heavy cost, for after a most sanguinary fight, continued from
daybreak till night, King Charles, although master of the
field, found that more than half his men had been killed. The
Danes, who had suffered fully as much, were forced to retreat,
leaving Lund in the hands of the Swedes; and although they
several times repeated the attempt, they failed in recovering
the province of Skaania, which was the great object of their
ambition. In Germany the fortune of war did not favor the
Swedes, although they fought gallantly under their general,
Otto Königsmark; [Stettin was surrendered after a long siege
in 1677, and Stralsund in 1678] and Charles XI. was glad to
enter into negotiations for taking part in the general peace
which France was urging upon all the leading powers of Europe,
and which was signed at the palace of St. Germains, in 1679,
by the representatives of the respective princes. Sweden
recovered the whole of Pomerania, which had been occupied
during the war by Austria and Brandenburg, and all Swedish and
Danish conquests were mutually renounced. … At the close of
this war Charles XI. began in good earnest to put his kingdom
in order." By sternly reclaiming crown-lands which had been
wantonly alienated by former rulers, and by compelling other
restitutions, Charles broke the power of the nobles, and so
humbled the National Estates that they "proclaimed him, in a
diet held in 1693, to be an absolute sovereign king, 'who had
the power and right to rule his kingdom as he pleased.'" He
attained an absolutism, in fact, which was practically
unlimited. He died in 1697, leaving three children, the eldest
of whom, who succeeded him, was the extraordinary Charles XII.
_E. C. Otté,
Scandinavian History,
chapter 21._
ALSO IN:
_H. Tuttle,
History of Prussia to 1740,
chapter 5._
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapters 2 and 4 (volume 3)._
_G. B. Malleson,
Battle-Fields of Germany,
chapter 8._
See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1646-1648.
Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1648.
Accession of Frederick III.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
Acquisition of part of Pomerania and other German territory.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1655.
Conquest of the Delaware colony by the Dutch.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1668.
Triple Alliance with Holland and England against Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1670.
Accession of Christian V.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1674-1679.
In the coalition to resist Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND):
A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1686.
The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697.
Accession of Charles XII.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697-1700.
The conspiracy of three sovereigns against Charles XII.
and how he met it
First campaigns of the young king, in Denmark and Russia.
"Charles XII, at his accession to the throne, found himself
the absolute and undisturbed master, not only of Sweden and
Finland, but also of Livonia, Carelia, Ingria, Wismar, Viborg,
the Islands of Rügen and Oesel, and the finest part of
Pomerania, together with the duchy of Bremen and Verden,—all
of them the conquests of his ancestors. … The beginning of the
king's reign gave no very favorable idea of his character. It
was imagined that he had been more ambitious of obtaining the
supreme power than worthy of possessing it. True it is, he had
no dangerous passion; but his conduct discovered nothing but
the sallies of youth and the freaks of obstinacy. He seemed to
be equally proud and lazy. The ambassadors who resided at his
court took him even for a person of mean capacity, and
represented him as such to their respective masters. The
Swedes entertained the same opinion of him: nobody knew his
real character: he did not even know it himself, until the
storm that suddenly arose in the North gave him an opportunity
of displaying his great talents, which had hitherto lain
concealed. Three powerful princes, taking the advantage of his
youth, conspired his ruin almost at the same time. The first
was his own cousin, Frederick IV, king of Denmark: the second,
Augustus, elector of Saxony and King of Poland; Peter the
Great, czar of Muscovy, was the third, and most dangerous. …
The founder of the Russian empire was ambitious of being a
conqueror. … Besides, he wanted a port on the east side of the
Baltic, to facilitate the execution of all his schemes. He
wanted the province of Ingria, which lies to the northeast of
Livonia. The Swedes were in possession of it, and from them he
resolved to take it by force. His predecessors had had claims
upon Ingria, Esthonia, and Livonia; and the present seemed a
favorable opportunity for reviving these claims, which had
lain buried for a hundred years, and had been cancelled by the
sanction of treaties. He therefore made a league with the King
of Poland, to wrest from young Charles XII all the territories
that are bounded by the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea,
Poland, and Muscovy. The news of these preparations struck the
Swedes with consternation, and alarmed the council." But the
effect on the young King was instantly and strangely sobering.
He assumed the responsibilities of the situation at once, and
took into his own hands the preparations for war. From that
moment "he entered on a new course of life, from which he
never afterwards deviated in one single instance. Full of the
idea of Alexander and Cæsar, he proposed to imitate those two
conquerors in every thing but their vices. No longer did he
indulge himself in magnificence, sports, and recreations: he
reduced his table to the most rigid frugality. He had formerly
been fond of gayety and dress; but from that time he was never
clad otherwise than as a common soldier. He was supposed to
have entertained a passion for a lady of his court: whether
there was any foundation for this supposition does not appear;
certain it is, he ever after renounced all commerce with women,
not only for fear of being governed by them, but likewise to
set an example of continence to his soldiers. …
{2825}
He likewise determined to abstain from wine during the rest of
his life. … He began by assuring the Duke of Holstein, his
brother-in-law, of a speedy assistance. Eight thousand men
were immediately sent into Pomerania, a province bordering
upon Holstein, in order to enable the duke to make head
against the Danes. The duke indeed had need of them. His
dominions were already laid waste, the castle of Gottorp
taken, and the city of Tönningen pressed by an obstinate
siege, to which the King of Denmark had come in person. … This
spark began to throw the empire into a flame. On the one side,
the Saxon troops of the King of Poland, those of Brandenburg
Wolfenbüttel, and Hesse Cassel, advanced to join the Danes. On
the other, the King of Sweden's 8,000 men, the troops of
Hanover and Zell, and three Dutch regiments, came to the
assistance of the duke. While the little country of Holstein
was thus the theatre of war, two squadrons, the one from
England and the other from Holland, appeared in the Baltic. …
They joined the young King of Sweden, who seemed to be in
danger of being crushed. … Charles set out for his first
campaign on the 8th day of May, new style, in the year 1700,
and left Stockholm, whither he never returned. … His fleet
consisted of three-and-forty vessels. … He joined the
squadrons of the allies," and made a descent upon Copenhagen.
The city surrendered to escape bombardment, and in less than
six weeks Charles had extorted from the Danish King a treaty
of peace, negotiated at Travendahl, which indemnified the Duke
of Holstein for all the expenses of the war and delivered him
from oppression. For himself, Charles asked nothing. "Exactly
at the same time, the King of Poland invested Riga, the
capital of Livonia; and the czar was advancing on the east at
the head of nearly 100,000 men." Riga was defended with great
skill and determination, and Augustus was easily persuaded to
abandon the siege on the remonstrance of the Dutch, who had
much merchandise in the town. "The only thing that Charles had
now to do towards the finishing of his first campaign, was to
march against his rival in glory, Peter Alexiovitch." Peter
had appeared before Narva on the 1st of October, at the head
of 80,000 men, mostly undisciplined barbarians, "some armed
with arrows, and others with clubs. Few of them had guns; none
of them had ever seen a regular siege; and there was not one
good cannoneer in the whole army. … Narva was almost without
fortifications: Baron Horn, who commanded there, had not 1,000
regular troops; and yet this immense army could not reduce it
in six weeks. It was now the 15th of November, when the czar
learned that the King of Sweden had crossed the sea with 200
transports, and was advancing to the relief of Narva. The
Swedes were not above 20,000 strong." But the czar was not
confident. He had another army marching to his support, and he
left the camp at Narva to hasten its movements. Charles'
motions were too quick for him. He reached Narva on the 30th
of November, after a forced march, with a vanguard of only
8,000 men, and at once, without waiting for the remainder of
his army to come up, he stormed the Russian intrenchments.
"The Swedes advanced with fixed bayonets, having a furious
shower of snow on their backs, which drove full in the face of
the enemy." The victory was complete. "The Swedes had not lost
above 600 men. Eight thousand Muscovites had been killed in
their intrenchments: many were drowned; many had crossed the
river," and 30,000 who held a part of the camp at nightfall,
surrendered next morning. When czar Peter, who was pressing
the march of his 40,000 men, received news of the disaster at
Narva, he turned homeward, and set himself seriously to the
work of drilling and disciplining his troops. "The Swedes," he
said phlegmatically, "will teach us to beat them."
_Voltaire,
History of Charles XII., King of Sweden,
books 1-2._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1699.
Accession of Frederick IV.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1701-1707.
Invasion and subjugation of Poland and Saxony by Charles XII.
Deposition of Augustus from the Polish throne.
Charles at the summit of his career.
"Whilst Peter, abandoning all the provinces he had invaded,
retreated to his own dominions, and employed himself in
training his undisciplined serfs, Charles prepared to take the
field against his only remaining adversary, the King of
Poland. Leaving Narva, where he passed the winter, he entered
Livonia, and appeared in the neighbourhood of Riga, the very
place which the Poles and Saxons had in vain besieged.
Dreading the storm that now approached, Augustus had entered
into a closer alliance with the czar; and at an interview
which took place at Birsen, a small town in Lithuania, it was
agreed that each should furnish the other with a body of
50,000 mercenaries, to be paid by Russia. … The Saxon army,
having failed in their attempt on Riga, endeavoured to prevent
the Swedes from crossing the Dwina; but the passage was
effected under cover of a thick cloud of smoke from the
burning of wet straw, and by means of large boats with high
wooden parapets along the sides, to protect the soldiers from
the fire of the enemy, who were driven from their
intrenchments with the loss of 2,000 killed and 1,500
prisoners. Charles immediately advanced to Mittau, the capital
of Courland, the garrison of which, with all the other towns
and forts in the duchy, surrendered at discretion. He next
passed into Lithuania, conquering wherever he came, and
driving 20,000 Russians before him with the utmost
precipitation. On reaching Birsen, it gave him no little
satisfaction, as he himself confessed, to enter in triumph the
very town where, only a few months before, Augustus and the
czar had plotted his destruction. It was here that he formed
the daring project of dethroning the King of Poland by means
of his own subjects, whose notions of liberty could not
tolerate the measures of a despotic government. … The fate of
Augustus, already desperate, was here consummated by the
treachery of the primate Radziewiski, who caused it to be
immediately notified to all the palatines, that no alternative
remained but to submit to the will of the conqueror. The
deserted monarch resolved to defend his crown by force of
arms; the two kings met near Clissau (July 13, 1702), where
after a bloody battle fortune again declared for the Swedes.
Charles halted not a moment on the field of victory, but
marched rapidly to Cracow in pursuit of his antagonist.
{2826}
That city was taken without firing a shot, and taxed with a
contribution of 100,000 rix-dollars. The fugitive prince
obtained an unexpected respite of six weeks, his indefatigable
rival having had his thigh-bone fractured by an accidental
fall from his horse. The interval was spent in hostile
preparations, but the recovery of Charles overturned all the
schemes of his enemies, and the decisive battle of Pultusk
(May 1, 1703) completed the humiliation of the unfortunate
Augustus. At the instigation of the faithless cardinal, the
diet at Warsaw declared (February 14, 1704) that the Elector of
Saxony was incapable of wearing the crown, which was soon
after bestowed on Stanislaus Leczinski, the young palatine of
Posnania. Count Piper strongly urged his royal master to
assume the sovereignty himself. … But the splendours of a
diadem had few charms in the eyes of a conqueror who confessed
that he felt much more pleasure in bestowing thrones upon
others than in winning them for himself. Having thus succeeded
in his favourite project, Charles resumed his march to
complete the entire conquest of the kingdom. Every where had
fortune crowned the bold expeditions of this adventurous
prince. Whilst his generals and armies were pursuing their
career from province to province, he had himself opened a
passage for his victorious troops into Saxony and the imperial
dominions. His ships, now masters of the Baltic, were employed
in transporting to Sweden the prisoners taken in the wars.
Denmark, bound up by the treaty of Travendhal, was prevented
from offering any active interference; the Russians were kept
in check towards the east by a detachment of 30,000 Swedes; so
that the whole region was kept in awe by the sword of the
conqueror, from the German Ocean almost to the mouth of the
Borysthenes, and even to the gates of Moscow. The Czar Peter
in the mean time, having carried Narva by assault, and
captured several towns and fortresses in Livonia, held a
conference with Augustus at Grodno, where the two sovereigns
concerted their plans for attacking the Scandinavian invaders
in their new conquests, with a combined army of 60,000 men,
under Prince Menzikoff and General Schullemberg. Had the fate
of the contest depended on numerical superiority alone,
Charles must have been crushed before the overwhelming power
of his enemies; but his courage and good fortune prevailed
over every disadvantage. The scattered hordes of Muscovy were
overthrown with so great celerity, that one detachment after
another was routed before they learned the defeat of their
companions. Schullemberg, with all his experience and
reputation, was not more successful, having been completely
beaten by Renschild, the Parmenio of the northern Alexander,
in a sanguinary action (February 12, 1706), at the small town
of Travenstadt, near Punitz, a place already fatal to the
cause of Augustus. … The reduction of Saxony, which Charles
next invaded, obliged Augustus to implore peace on any terms.
The conditions exacted by the victor were, that he should
renounce for ever the crown of Poland; acknowledge Stanislaus
as lawful king; and dissolve his treaty of alliance with
Russia. The inflexible temper of Charles was not likely to
mitigate the severity of these demands, but their rigour was
increased in consequence of the defeat of General Meyerfeld,
near Kalisch, by Prince Menzikoff—the first advantage which
the Muscovites had gained over the Swedes in a pitched battle.
… The numerous victories of Charles, and the arbitrary manner
in which he had deposed the King of Poland, filled all Europe
with astonishment. Some states entertained apprehensions of
his power, while others prepared to solicit his friendship.
France, harassed by expensive wars in Spain, Italy, and the
Netherlands, courted his alliance with an ardour proportioned
to the distressing state of her affairs. Offended at the
declaration issued against him by the diet of Ratisbon, and
resenting an indignity offered to Baron de Stralheim, his
envoy at Vienna, he magnified these trivial affronts into an
occasion of quarrelling with the emperor, who was obliged to
succumb, and among other mortifying concessions, to grant his
Lutheran subjects in Silesia the free exercise of their
religious liberties as secured by the treaties of Westphalia.
… The ambitious prince was now in the zenith of his glory; he
had experienced no reverse, nor met with any interruption to
his victories. The romantic extravagance of his views
increased with his success. One year, he thought, will suffice
for the conquest of Russia. The court of Rome was next to feel
his vengeance, as the pope had dared to oppose the concession
of religious liberty to the Silesian Protestants. No
enterprise at that time appeared impossible to him."
_A. Crichton,
Scandinavia, Ancient and Modern,
volume 2, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Poland,
pages 219-221._
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 5 (volume 3)._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1707-1718.
Charles XII. in Russia.
His ruinous defeat at Pultowa.
His refuge among the Turks.
His fruitless intrigues.
His return to Sweden.
His death.
"From Saxony, Charles marched back into Poland [September,
1707], where Peter was making some ineffectual efforts to
revive the party of Augustus. Peter retired before his rival,
who had, however, the satisfaction of defeating an army of
20,000 Russians [at Golowstschin, in the spring of 1708],
strongly intrenched. Intoxicated by success, he rejected the
czar's offers of peace, declaring that he would treat at
Moscow; and without forming any systematic plan of operations,
he crossed the frontiers, resolved on the destruction of that
ancient city. Peter prevented the advance of the Swedes, on
the direct line, by destroying the roads and desolating the
country; Charles, after having endured great privations,
turned off towards the Ukraine, whither he had been invited by
Mazeppa, the chief of the Cossacks, who, disgusted by the
conduct of the czar, had resolved to throw off his allegiance.
In spite of all the obstacles that nature and the enemy could
throw in his way, Charles reached the place of rendezvous; but
he had the mortification to find Mazeppa appear in his camp as
a fugitive rather than an ally, for the czar had discovered
his treason, and disconcerted his schemes by the punishment of
his associates. A still greater misfortune to the Swedes was
the loss of the convoy and the ruin of the reinforcement they
had expected from Livonia, General Lewenhaupt, to whose care
it was entrusted, had been forced into three general
engagements by the Russians; and though he had eminently
distinguished himself by his courage and conduct, he was
forced to set fire to his wagons to prevent their falling into
the hands of the enemy.
{2827}
Undaunted by these misfortunes, Charles continued the campaign
even in the depth of a winter so severe that 2,000 men were at
once frozen to death almost in his presence. At length he laid
siege to Pultowa, a fortified city on the frontiers of the
Ukraine, which contained one of the czar's principal
magazines. The garrison was numerous and the resistance
obstinate; Charles himself was dangerously wounded in the heel
whilst viewing the works; and while he was still confined to
his tent he learned that Peter was advancing with a numerous
army to raise the siege. Leaving 7,000 men to guard the works,
Charles ordered his soldiers to march and meet the enemy,
while he accompanied them in a litter (July 8, 1709). The
desperate charge of the Swedes broke the Russian cavalry, but
the infantry stood firm, and gave the horse an opportunity of
rallying in the rear. In the meantime the czar's artillery
made dreadful havoc in the Swedish line; and Charles, who had
been forced to abandon his cannon in his forced marches, in
vain contended against this formidable disadvantage. After a
dreadful combat of more than two hours' duration, the Swedish
army was irretrievably ruined; 8,000 of their best troops were
left dead on the field, 6,000 were taken prisoners, and about
12,000 of the fugitives were soon after forced to surrender on
the banks of the Dnieper, from want of boats to cross the
river. Charles, accompanied by about 300 of his guards,
escaped to Bender, a Turkish town in Bessarabia, abandoning
all his treasures to his rival, including the rich spoils of
Poland and Saxony. Few victories have ever had such important
consequences as that which the czar won at Pultowa; in one
fatal day Charles lost the fruits of nine years' victories;
the veteran army that had been the terror of Europe was
completely ruined; those who escaped from the fatal field were
taken prisoners, but they found a fate scarcely better than
death; for they were transported by the czar to colonize the
wilds of Siberia; the elector of Saxony re-entered Poland and
drove Stanislaus from the throne; the kings of Denmark and
Prussia revived old claims on the Swedish provinces, while the
victorious Peter invaded not only Livonia and Ingria, but a
great part of Finland. Indeed, but for the interference of the
German emperor and the maritime powers, the Swedish monarchy
would have been rent in pieces. Charles, in his exile, formed
a new plan for the destruction of his hated rival; he
instigated the Turks to attempt the conquest of Russia, and
flattered himself that he might yet enter Moscow at the head
of a Mohammedan army. The bribes which Peter lavishly bestowed
on the counsellors of the sultan, for a time frustrated these
intrigues; but Charles, through his friend Poniatowski,
informed the sultan of his vizier's corruption, and procured
the deposition of that minister. … The czar made the most
vigorous preparations for the new war by which he was menaced
(A. D. 1711). The Turkish vizier, on the other hand, assembled
all the forces of the Ottoman Empire in the plains of
Adrianople. Demetrius Cantemir, the hospodar of Moldavia,
believing that a favourable opportunity presented itself for
delivering his country from the Mohammedan yoke, invited the
czar to his aid; and the Russians, rapidly advancing, reached
the northern banks of the Pruth, near Yassi, the Moldavian
capital. Here the Russians found that the promises of Prince
Cantemir were illusory," and they were soon so enveloped by
the forces of the Turks that there seemed to be no escape for
them. But the czarina, Catherine —the Livonian peasant woman
whom Peter had made his wife—gathered up her jewels and all
the money she could find in camp, and sent them as a gift to
the vizier, whereby he was induced to open negotiations. "A
treaty [known as the Treaty of the Pruth] was concluded on
terms which, though severe [requiring the Russians to give up
Azof], were more favourable than Peter, under the
circumstances, could reasonably have hoped; the Russians
retired in safety, and Charles reached the Turkish camp, only
to learn the downfall of all his expectations. A new series of
intrigues in the court of Constantinople led to the
appointment of a new vizier; but this minister was little
inclined to gratify the king of Sweden; on the contrary,
warned by the fate of his predecessors, he resolved to remove
him from the Ottoman empire (A. D. 1713). Charles continued to
linger; even after he had received a letter of dismissal from
the sultan's own hand, he resolved to remain, and when a
resolution was taken to send him away by force, he determined,
with his few attendants, to dare the whole strength of the
Turkish empire. After a fierce resistance, he was captured and
conveyed a prisoner to Adrianople. … Another revolution in the
divan revived the hopes of Charles, and induced him to remain
in Turkey, when his return to the North would probably have
restored him to his former eminence. The Swedes, under General
Steenbock, gained one of the most brilliant victories that had
been obtained during the war, over the united forces of the
Danes and Saxons, at Gadebusch [November 20, 1712], in the
duchy of Mecklenburg; but the conqueror sullied his fame by
burning the defenceless town of Altona [January 19, 1713] an
outrage which excited the indignation of all Europe." He soon
after met with reverses and was compelled to surrender his
whole army. "The czar in the meantime pushed forward his
conquests on the side of Finland; and the glory of his reign
appeared to be consummated by a naval victory obtained over
the Swedes near the island of Oeland. … Charles heard of his
rival's progress unmoved; but when he learned that the Swedish
senate intended to make his sister regent and to make peace
with Russia and Denmark, he announced his intention of
returning home." He traversed Europe incognito, making the
journey of 1,100 miles, mostly on horseback, in seventeen
days, "and towards the close of the year [1714] reached
Stralsund, the capital of Swedish Pomerania. Charles, at the
opening of the next campaign, found himself surrounded with
enemies (A. D. 1715). Stralsund itself was besieged by the
united armies of the Prussians, Danes, and Saxons, while the
Russian fleet, which now rode triumphant in the Baltic,
threatened a descent upon Sweden. After an obstinate defence,
in which the Swedish monarch displayed all his accustomed
bravery, Stralsund was forced to capitulate, Charles having
previously escaped in a small vessel to his native shores. All
Europe believed the Swedish monarch undone; it was supposed he
could no longer defend his own dominions, when, to the
inexpressible astonishment of everyone, it was announced that
he had invaded Norway.
{2828}
His attention, however, was less engaged by the war than by
the gigantic intrigues of his new favourite, Goertz, who,
taking advantage of a coolness between the Russians and the
other enemies of Sweden, proposed that Peter and Charles
should unite in strict amity, and dictate the law to Europe. …
While the negotiations were yet in progress, Charles invaded
Norway a second time, and invested the castle of
Frederickshall in the very depth of winter. But while engaged
in viewing the works he was struck by a cannon-ball, and was
dead before any of his attendants came to his assistance
[December 11, 1718]. The Swedish senate showed little grief
for the loss
_W. C. Taylor,
Student's Manual of Modern History,
chapter 7, section 6._
ALSO IN:
_E. Schuyler,
Peter the Great,
chapters 53-56 and 61-66 (volume 2)._
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 18._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719.
Accession of Ulrica Eleonora.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719-1721.
Constitutional changes.
Treaties of Peace ending the Great Northern War.
Swedish cessions of Territory.
"An assembly of the States was summoned in February [1719],
and completely altered the constitution. Sweden was declared
an elective kingdom, and the government was vested in a
council of 24 members, divided into eight colleges, who were
invested with a power so absolute that their elected queen was
reduced to a mere shadow. In short, the ancient oligarchy was
restored, and Sweden became the prey of a few noble families.
… In November a treaty was signed at Stockholm between Sweden
and Great Britain, by which the Duchies of Bremen and Verden
were ceded to George I. [as Elector of Hanover] in
consideration of a payment of one million rix-dollars. By
another treaty in January 1720, George engaged to support
Sweden against Denmark and Russia, and to pay a yearly subsidy
of $300,000 during the war. About the same time an armistice
was concluded with Poland till a definitive treaty should be
arranged on the basis of the Peace of Oliva. Augustus was to
be recognised as King of Poland; but Stanislaus was to retain
the royal title during his life, and to receive from Augustus
a million rix-dollars. Both parties were to unite to check the
preponderance of the Czar, whose troops excited great
discontent and suspicion by their continued presence in
Poland. On February 1st a peace was concluded with Prussia
under the mediation of France and Great Britain. The principal
articles of this treaty were that Sweden ceded to Prussia,
Stettin, the Islands of Wollin and Usedom, and all the tract
between the Oder and Peene, together with the towns of Damm
and Golnau beyond the Oder. The King of Prussia, on his side,
engaged not to assist the Czar, and to pay two million
rix-dollars to the Queen of Sweden. The terms of a peace
between Sweden and Denmark were more difficult of arrangement.
… By the Treaty of Stockholm, June 12th 1720, the King of
Denmark restored to Sweden, Wismar, Stralsund, Rügen, and all
that he held in Pomerania; Sweden paying 600,000 rix-dollars
and renouncing the freedom of the Sound. Thus the only
territorial acquisition that Denmark made by the war was the
greater part of the Duchy of Schleswig, the possession of
which was guaranteed to her by England and France. Sweden and
Russia were now the only Powers that remained at war. … At
length, through the mediation of France, conferences were
opened in May 1721, and the Peace of Nystad was signed,
September 10th. … The only portion of his conquests that
[Peter] relinquished was Finnland, with the exception of a
part of Carelia; but as, by his treaty with Augustus II., at
the beginning of the war, he had promised to restore Livonia
to Poland if he conquered it, he paid the Crown of Sweden
$2,000,000 in order to evade this engagement by alleging that
he had purchased that province."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5, chapter 7 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
period 1, division 1, chapter 2, section 3._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720.
Accession of Frederick of Hesse-Cassel,
husband of Ulrica Eleonora.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720-1792.
Wars with Russia and Prussia.
Humiliating powerlessness of the king.
The parties of the Hats and the Caps.
A constitutional Revolution.
Assassination of Gustavus III.
Ulrica Eleonora, the sister of Charles XII., resigned the
crown in 1720, in favor of her husband, Prince of Hesse, who
became king under the title of Frederick I. His reign
witnessed the conquest of Finland and the cession (1743) of a
part of that province to Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.
On his death in 1751, Adolphus Frederick, bishop of Lubeck,
and administrator of Holstein, was raised to the throne.
"Though his personal qualities commanded respect, his reign
was a disastrous one. He had the folly to join the coalition
of Russia, Poland, Austria, and France against the king of
Prussia. Twenty thousand Swedes were marched into Pomerania,
on the pretext of enforcing the conditions of the treaty of
Westphalia, but with the view of recovering the districts
which had been ceded to Prussia after the death of Charles
XII. They reduced Usedom and Wollin, with the fortresses on
the coast; but this success was owing to the absence of the
Prussians. When, in 1758, Schwald, the general of Frederic the
Great, was at liberty to march with 30,000 men into Pomerania,
he recovered the places which had been lost, and forced the
invaders to retire under the cannon of Stralsund. The
accession of the tsar Peter was still more favourable to
Frederic. An enthusiastic admirer of that prince, he soon
concluded a treaty with him. Sweden was forced to follow the
example; and things remained, at the peace of Hubertsburg, in
the same condition as before the war. Scarcely was Sweden at
harmony with her formidable enemy, when she became agitated by
internal commotions. We have alluded to the limitations set to
the royal authority after the death of Charles XII., and to
the discontent it engendered in the breasts of the Swedish
monarchs. While they strove to emancipate themselves from the
shackles imposed upon them, the diet was no less anxious to
render them more enslaved. That diet, consisting of four
orders, the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, and the
peasants, was often the scene of tumultuous proceedings: it
was rarely tranquil; yet it enjoyed the supreme legislative
authority.
{2829}
It was also corrupt; for impoverished nobles and needy
tradesmen had a voice, no less than the wealthiest members.
All new laws, all ordinances, were signed by the king; yet he
had no power of refusal; he was the mere registrar-general. …
The king had sometimes refused to sign ordinances which he
judged dangerous to the common weal: in 1756 an act was
passed, that in future a stamp might be used in lieu of the
sign-manual, whenever he should again refuse. More intolerable
than all this was the manner in which the diet insisted on
regulating the most trifling details of the royal household.
This interference was resented by some of the members,
belonging to what was called the 'Hat' party, who may be
termed the tories of Sweden. Opposed to these were the 'Caps,'
who were for shackling the crown with new restrictions, and of
whom the leaders were undoubtedly in the pay of Russia. … As
Russia was the secret soul of the Caps, so France endeavoured
to support the Hats, whenever the courts of St. Petersburgh
and St. Germains were hostile to each other. Stockholm
therefore was an arena in which the two powers struggled for
the ascendancy." Gustavus III., who succeeded his father
Adolphus Frederic in 1771, was able with the help of French
money and influence, and by winning to his support the burgher
cavalry of the capital, to overawe the party of the Caps, and
to impose a new constitution upon the country. The new
constitution "conferred considerable powers on the sovereign;
enabled him to make peace, or declare war, without the consent
of the diet; but he could make no new law, or alter any
already made, without its concurrence; and he was bound to
ask, though not always to follow, the advice of his senate in
matters of graver import. The form of the constitution was not
much altered; and the four orders of deputies still remained.
On the whole, it was a liberal constitution. If this
revolution was agreeable to the Swedes themselves, it was
odious to Catherine II., who saw Russian influence annihilated
by it." The bad feeling between the two governments which
followed led to war, in 1787, when Russia was engaged at the
same time in hostilities with the Turks. The war was unpopular
in Sweden, and Gustavus was frustrated in his ambitious
designs on Finland. Peace was made in 1790, each party
restoring its conquests, "so that things remained exactly as
they were before the war." On the 16th March, 1792, Gustavus
III. was assassinated, being shot at a masquerade ball, by one
Ankerstrom, whose motives have remained always a mystery.
Suspicion attached to others, the king's brother included, but
nothing to justify it is proved. The murdered king was
succeeded by his son Gustavus IV., who had but just passed the
age of three years.
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway,
book 3, chapter 4 (volume 3)._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1730.
Accession of Christian VI.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1746.
Accession of Frederick V.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1751.
Accession of Adolphus Frederick.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1766.
Accession of Christian VII.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1771.
Accession of Gustavus Ill.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1792.
Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1795.
Peace with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1801-1802.
The Northern Maritime League.
English bombardment of Copenhagen
and summary extortion of peace.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1805.
Joined in the Third Coalition against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1806.
In the Russo-Prussian alliance against Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
Northern fruits of the conspiracy of the two Emperors at Tilsit.
Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of
the Danish Fleet by the English.
War of Russia and Denmark with Sweden,
and conquest of Finland.
Deposition of the Swedish king.
On the 7th of July, 1807, Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia,
meeting on a raft, moored in the river Nieman, arranged the
terms of the famous Treaty of Tilsit.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
"There were Secret Articles in this Treaty of Tilsit in which
England had a vital interest. These secret articles are not to
be found in any collection of State Papers; but Napoleon's
diplomatists have given a sufficient account of them to enable
us to speak of them with assurance. Napoleon would not part
with Constantinople; but he not only gave up Turkey as a whole
to be dealt with as Alexander pleased, but agreed to unite his
efforts with Alexander to wrest from the Porte all its
provinces but Roumelia, if within three months she had not
made terms satisfactory to Alexander. In requital for this, if
England did not before the 1st of November make terms
satisfactory to Napoleon, on the requisition of Russia, the
two Emperors were to require of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal,
to close their ports against the English, and were to unite
their forces in war against Great Britain. … In the month of
May, the Duke of Portland had had an audience of the Prince of
Wales at Carlton House, at which he had heard a piece of news
from the Prince which it deeply concerned him, as Prime
Minister, to know. The Prince Regent of Portugal had sent
secret information that Napoleon wanted to invade our shores
with the Portuguese and Danish fleets. The Portuguese had been
refused. It was for us to see to the Danish. Mr. Canning lost
no time in seeing to it: and while the Emperors were
consulting at Tilsit, he was actively engaged in disabling
Denmark from injuring us. When he had confidential information
of the secret articles of the Tilsit Treaty, his proceedings
were hastened, and they were made as peremptory as the
occasion required. He endured great blame for a long time on
account of this peremptoriness; and he could not justify
himself because the government were pledged to secrecy. … Mr.
Jackson, who had been for some years our envoy at the Court of
Berlin, was sent to Kiel, to require of the Crown Prince (then
at Kiel), who was known to be under intimidation by Napoleon,
that the Danish navy should be delivered over to England, to
be taken care of in British ports, and restored at the end of
the war. The Crown Prince refused, with the indignation which
was to be expected. … Mr. Jackson had been escorted, when he
went forth on his mission, by 20 ships of the line, 40
frigates and other assistant vessels, and a fleet of
transports, conveying 27,000 land troops.
{2830}
Admiral Gambier commanded the naval, and Lord Cathcart the
military expedition. These forces had been got ready within a
month, with great ability, and under perfect secrecy; and
before the final orders were given, ministers had such
information of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit as
left them no hesitation whatever about seizing the Danish
fleet, if it was not lent quietly. … When, therefore, Mr.
Jackson was indignantly dismissed by the Crown Prince, no time
was to be lost in seizing the fleet. … On the 15th [of August]
the forces were landed at Wedbeck, for their march upon
Copenhagen, and the fleet worked up before the city. Once
more, an attempt was made to avoid extremities. … The Crown
Prince replied by a proclamation, amounting to a declaration
of war. … And now the affair was decided. There could be no
doubt as to what the end must be. … By the 1st of September,
however, Stralsund was occupied by the French; and part of the
British force was detached to watch them; and this proved that
it would have been fatal to lose time. By the 8th of
September, all was over; the Danish navy and arsenal were
surrendered. One fourth of the buildings of the city were by
that time destroyed; and In one street 500 persons were killed
by the bombardment. … Efforts were made to conciliate the
Danes after all was over; but, as was very natural, in vain. …
Almost as soon as the news of the achievement reached England,
the victors brought the Danish fleet into Portsmouth harbour.
One of the most painful features of the case is the
confiscation which ensued, because the surrender was not made
quietly. At the moment of the attack, there were Danish
merchantmen in our waters, with cargoes worth £2,000,000.
These we took possession of; and, of course, of the navy which
we had carried off."
_H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book 2, chapter 1._
In fulfilment of the agreements of the Treaty of Tilsit, early
in August, 1807, "a show was made by Russia of offering her
mediation to Great Britain for the conclusion of a general
peace; but as Mr. Canning required, as a pledge of the
sincerity of the Czar, a frank communication of the secret
articles at Tilsit, the proposal fell to the ground." Its
failure was made certain by the action of England in taking
possession by force of the Danish fleet. On the 5th of
November, upon the peremptory demand of Napoleon, war was
accordingly declared against Great Britain by the Czar.
"Denmark had concluded (October 16) an alliance, offensive and
defensive, with France, and Sweden was now summoned by Russia
to join the Continental League. But the King, faithful to his
engagements [with England], resolutely refused submission; on
which war was declared against him early in 1808, and an
overwhelming force poured into Finland, the seizure of which
by Russia had been agreed on at Tilsit."
_Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
sections 455-456
(chapter 51, volume. 11, of complete work)._
In November, 1808, Finland was virtually given up to
Alexander; and Sweden was thus deprived of her great granary,
and destined to ruin. England had of late aided her
vigourously, driving the Russian navy into port, and
blockading them there; and sending Sir John Moore, with 10,000
men, in May, when France, Russia, and Denmark, were all
advancing to crush the gallant Swedes. Sir John Moore found
the King in what he thought a very wild state of mind,
proposing conquests, when he had not forces enough for
defensive operations. All agreement in their views was found
to be impossible: the King resented the Englishman's caution;
Sir John Moore thought the King so nearly mad that he made off
in disguise from Stockholm, and brought back his troops, which
had never been landed. … After the relinquishment of Finland,
the Swedish people found they could endure no more. Besides
Finland, they had lost Pomerania: they were reduced to want;
they were thinned by pestilence as well as by war; but the
King's ruling idea was to continue the conflict to the last. …
As the only way to preserve their existence, his subjects
gently deposed him, and put the administration of affairs into
the hands of his aged uncle, the Duke of Sudermania. The poor
King was arrested on the 13th of March, 1809, as he was
setting out for his country seat, … and placed in imprisonment
for a short time. His uncle, at first called Regent, was soon
made King. … Peace was made with Russia in September, 1809,
and with France in the following January. Pomerania was
restored to Sweden, but not Finland; and she had to make great
sacrifices. … She was compelled to bear her part in the
Continental System of Napoleon, and to shut her ports against
all communications with England."
_H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book 2, chapter 1._
"The invasion by the Tzar Alexander I. in 1808 led to the
complete separation of Finland and the other Swedish lands
east of the gulf of Bothnia from the Swedish crown. Finland
was conquered and annexed by the conqueror; but it was annexed
after a fashion in which one may suppose that no other
conquered land ever was annexed. In fact one may doubt whether
'annexed' is the right word. Since 1809 the crowns of Russia
and Finland are necessarily, worn by the same person; the
Russian and the Finnish nation have necessarily the same
sovereign. But Finland is not incorporated with Russia; in
everything but the common sovereign Russia and Finland are
countries foreign to one another. And when we speak of the
crown and the nation of Finland, we speak of a crown and a
nation which were called into being by the will of the
conqueror himself. … The conqueror had possession of part of
the Swedish dominions, and he called on the people of that
part to meet him in a separate Parliament, but one chosen in
exactly the same way as the existing law prescribed for the
common Parliament of the whole. … In his new character of
Grand Duke of Finland, the Tzar Alexander came to Borga, and
there on March 27th, 1809, fully confirmed the existing
constitution, laws, and religion of his new State. The
position of that State is best described in his own words.
Speaking neither Swedish nor Finnish, and speaking to hearers
who understood no Russian, the new Grand Duke used the French
tongue. Finland was 'Placé désormais au rang des nations'; it
was a 'Nation, tranquille au dehors, libre dans l'intérieur.'
[Finland was 'Placed henceforth in the rank of the nations; it
was a Nation tranquil without, free within.'] And it was a
nation of his own founding.
{2831}
The people of Finland had ceased to be a part of
the Swedish nation; they had not become a part of the
Russian nation; they had become a nation by themselves.
All this, be it remembered, happened before the formal cession
of the lost lands by Sweden to Russia. This was not made till
the Peace of Frederikshamn on September 17th of the same year.
The treaty contained no stipulation for the political rights
of Finland; their full confirmation by the new sovereign was
held to be enough. Two years later, in 1811, the boundary of
the new State was enlarged. Alexander, Emperor of all the
Russias and Grand Duke of Finland, cut off from his empire,
and added to his grand duchy, the Finnish districts which had
been ceded by Sweden to Russia sixty years before. The
boundary of his constitutional grand duchy was brought very
near indeed to the capital of his despotic empire."
_E. A. Freeman,
Finland
(Macmillan's Magazine, March, 1892)._
ALSO IN:
_General Monteith, editor,
Narrative of the Conquest of Finland,
by a Russian Officer (with appended documents)._
_C. Joyneville,
Life and Times of Alexander I.,
volume 2, chapter 2._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1808.
Accession of Frederick VI.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.
Accession of Charles XIII.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809.
Granting of the Constitution.
See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.
Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince
and successor to the throne.
The new king, lately called to the throne, being aged, "the
eyes of the people were fixed on the successor, or Crown
Prince, who took upon himself the chief labour of the
government, and appears to have given satisfaction to the
nation. But his government was of short duration. On the 28th
of .May 1810, while reviewing some troops, he suddenly fell
from his horse and expired on the spot, leaving Sweden again
without any head excepting the old King. This event agitated
the whole nation, and various candidates were proposed for the
succession of the kingdom. Among these was the King of
Denmark, who, after the sacrifices he had made for Buonaparte,
had some right to expect his support. The son of the late
unfortunate monarch, rightful heir of the crown, and named
like him Gustavus, was also proposed as a candidate. The Duke
of Oldenburg, brother-in-law of the Emperor of Russia, had
partizans. To each of these candidates there lay practical
objections. To have followed the line of lawful succession,
and called Gustavus to the throne, (which could not be
forfeited by his father's infirmity, so far as he was
concerned,) would have been to place a child at the head of
the state, and must have inferred, amid this most arduous
crisis, all the doubts and difficulties of choosing a regent.
Such choice might, too, be the means, at a future time, of
reviving his father's claim to the crown. The countries of
Denmark and Sweden had been too long rivals, for the Swedes to
subject themselves to the yoke of the King of Denmark; and to
choose the Duke of Oldenburg would have been, in effect, to
submit themselves to Russia, of whose last behaviour towards
her Sweden had considerable reason to complain. In this
embarrassment they were thought to start a happy idea, who
proposed to conciliate Napoleon by bestowing the ancient crown
of the Goths upon one of his own Field Marshals, and a high
noble of his empire, namely, John Julian Baptiste Bernadotte,
Prince of Ponte Corvo. This distinguished officer was married
to a sister of Joseph Buonaparte's wife, (daughter of a
wealthy and respectable individual, named Clary,) through whom
he had the advantage of an alliance with the Imperial family
of Napoleon, and he had acquired a high reputation in the
north of Europe, both when governor of Hanover, and
administrator of Swedish Pomerania. On the latter occasion,
Bernadotte was said to have shown himself in a particular
manner the friend and protector of the Swedish nation; and it
was even insinuated that he would not be averse to exchange
the errors of Popery for the reformed tenets of Luther. The
Swedish nation fell very generally into the line of policy
which prompted this choice. … It was a choice, sure, as they
thought, to be agreeable to him upon whose nod the world
seemed to depend. Yet, there is the best reason to doubt,
whether, in preferring Bernadotte to their vacant throne, the
Swedes did a thing which was gratifying to Napoleon. The name
of the Crown Prince of Sweden elect, had been known in the
wars of the Revolution, before that of Buonaparte had been
heard of. Bernadotte had been the older, therefore, though
certainly not the better soldier. On the 18th Brumaire, he was
so far from joining Buonaparte in his enterprise against the
Council of Five Hundred, notwithstanding all advances made to
him, that he was on the spot at St. Cloud armed and prepared,
had circumstances permitted, to place himself at the head of
any part of the military, who might be brought to declare for
the Directory. And although, like everyone else, Bernadotte
submitted to the Consular system, and held the government of
Holland under Buonaparte, yet then, as well as under the
empire, he was always understood to belong to a class of
officers, whom Napoleon employed indeed, and rewarded, but
without loving them, or perhaps relying on them more than he
was compelled to do, although their character was in most
instances a warrant for their fidelity. These officers formed
a comparatively small class, yet comprehending some of the
most distinguished names in the French army. … Reconciled by
necessity to a state of servitude which they could not avoid,
this party considered themselves as the soldiers of France,
not of Napoleon, and followed the banner of their country
rather than the fortunes of the Emperor. Without being
personally Napoleon's enemies, they were not the friends of
his despotic power. … Besides the suspicion entertained by
Napoleon of Bernadotte's political opinions, subjects of
positive discord had recently arisen between them. … But while
such were the bad terms betwixt the Emperor and his general,
the Swedes, unsuspicious of the true state of the case,
imagined, that in choosing Bernadotte for successor to their
throne, they were paying to Buonaparte the most acceptable
tribute. And, notwithstanding that Napoleon was actually at
variance with Bernadotte, and although, in a political view,
he would much rather have given his aid to the pretensions of
the King of Denmark, he was under the necessity of reflecting,
that Sweden retained a certain degree of independence; that
the sea separated her shores from his armies; and that,
however willing to conciliate him, the Swedes were not in a
condition absolutely to be compelled to receive laws at his
hand.
{2832}
It was necessary to acquiesce in their choice, since he could
not dictate to them; and by doing so he might at the same time
exhibit another splendid example of the height to which his
service conducted his generals. … We have, however, been
favoured with some manuscript observations … which prove
distinctly, that while Napoleon treated the Crown Prince Elect
of Sweden with fair language, he endeavoured by underhand
intrigues to prevent the accomplishment of his hopes. The
Swedes, however, remained fixed in their choice,
notwithstanding the insinuations of Desaugier, the French
envoy, whom Napoleon afterwards affected to disown and recall,
for supporting in the diet of Orebro the interest of the King
of Denmark, instead of that of Bernadotte. Napoleon's cold
assent, or rather an assurance that he would not dissent,
being thus wrung reluctantly from him, Bernadotte, owing to
his excellent character among the Swedes, and their opinion of
his interest with Napoleon, was chosen Crown Prince of Sweden
by the States of that kingdom, 21st August 1810."
_Sir W. Scott,
Life of Napoleon,
volume 2, chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 4, chapter 7._
_Lady Bloomfield,
Memoirs of Lord Bloomfield,
volume 1, pages 17-34._
_W. G. Meredith,
Memorials of Charles John, King of Sweden and Norway._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810.
Alliance with Russia against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1813.
Joined with the new Coalition against Napoleon.
Participation in the War of Liberation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813 to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Peace of Kiel.
Cession of Norway to Sweden and
of Swedish Pomerania to Denmark.
"The Danes, having been driven out of Holstein by Bernadotte
[see GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER)], concluded an
armistice December 18th, and, finally, the Peace of Kiel,
January 14th 1814, by which Frederick VI. ceded Norway to
Sweden; reserving, however, Greenland, the Ferroe Isles, and
Iceland, which were regarded as dependencies of Norway.
Norway, which was anciently governed by its own kings, had
remained united with Denmark ever since the death of Olaf V.
in 1387. Charles XIII., on his side, ceded to Denmark Swedish
Pomerania and the Isle of Rugen. This treaty founded the
present system of the North. Sweden withdrew entirely from her
connection with Germany, and became a purely Scandinavian
Power. The Norwegians, who detested the Swedes, made an
attempt to assert their independence under the conduct of
Prince Christian Frederick, cousin-german and heir of
Frederick VI. of Denmark. Christian Frederick was proclaimed
King of Norway; but the movement was opposed by Great Britain
and the Allied Powers from considerations of policy rather
than justice; and the Norwegians found themselves compelled to
decree the union of Norway and Sweden in a storting, or Diet,
assembled at Christiania, November 4th 1814. Frederick VI.
also signed a peace with Great Britain at Kiel, January 14th
1814. All the Danish colonies, except Heligoland, which had
been taken by the English, were restored."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 16 (volume 4)._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1814.
The Allies in France and in possession of Paris.
Fall of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
and (MARCH-APRIL).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Norway): A. D. 1814-1815.
The Norwegian constitution under the union with Sweden.
"When, by the treaty of Kiel in 1814, Norway was taken from
Denmark, and handed over to Sweden, the Norwegians roused
them·selves to once more assert their nationality. The Swedes
appeared in force, by land and sea, upon the frontiers of
Norway. It was not, however, until the latter country had been
guaranteed complete national independence that she consented
to a union of the countries under the one crown. The agreement
was made, and the constitution of Norway granted on the 17th
of May 1814, at which date the contemporary history of Norway
begins. … The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv),
which almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and
hung up in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th
of November 1814. The Act of Union with Sweden is dated the
6th of August 1815. The union of the two states is a union of
the crown alone. … Sweden and Norway form, like Great Britain,
a hereditary limited monarchy. One of the clauses in the Act
of Union provides that the king of the joint countries must
reside for a certain part of the year in Norway. But, as a
matter of fact, this period is a short one. In his absence,
the king is represented by the Council of State (Statsraad),
which must be composed entirely of Norwegians, and consist of
two Ministers of State (Cabinet Ministers), and nine other
Councillors of State. As with us, the king personally can do
no wrong; the responsibility for his acts rests with his
ministers. Of the State Council, or Privy Council (above
spoken of), three members, one a Cabinet Minister, and two
ordinary members of the Privy Council, are always in
attendance upon the king, whether he is residing in Norway or
Sweden. The rest of the Council forms the Norwegian Government
resident in the country. All functionaries are appointed by
the king, with the ad·vice of this Council of State. The
officials, who form what we should call the Government (as
distinguished from what we should call the Civil Service),
together with the préfets (Amtmen) and the higher grades of
the army are, nominally, removable by the king; but, If
removed, they continue to draw two-thirds of their salary
until their case has come before Parliament (the Stor-thing,
Great Thing), which decides upon their pensions. … In 1876 the
number of electors to the Storthing were under 140,000, not
more than 7.7 per cent. of the whole population. So that the
franchise was by no means a very wide one. … In foreign
affairs only does Norway not act as an independent nation.
There is a single foreign minister for the two countries and
he is usually a Swede. For the purposes of internal
administration, Norway is divided into twenty districts,
called Amter—which we may best translate 'Prefectures.' Of
these, the two chief towns of the country, Christiania (with
its population of 150,000) and Bergen (population about
50,000) form each a separate Amt."
_C. F. Keary,
Norway and the Norwegians,
chapter 13._
See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1815.
Swedish Pomerania sold to Prussia.
See VIENNA, CONGRESS.
{2833}
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1818.
Accession of Charles XIV. (Bernadotte).
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1839.
Accession of Christian VIII.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1844.
Accession of Oscar I.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848.
Accession of Frederick VII.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1862.
The Schleswig-Holstein question.
First war with Prussia.
"The two Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein lie to the south of
modern Denmark. Holstein, the more southern of the two, is
exclusively German in its population. Schleswig, the more
northern, contains a mixed population of Danes and Germans. In
the course of the 14th century Schleswig was conquered by
Denmark, but ceded to Count Gerard of Holstein—the
Constitution of Waldemar providing that the two Duchies should
be under one Lord, but that they should never be united to
Denmark. This is the first fact to realise in the complex
history of the Schleswig-Holstein question. The line of Gerard
of Holstein expired in 1375. It was succeeded by a branch of
the house of Oldenburg. In 1448 a member of this house, the
nephew of the reigning Duke, was elected to the throne of
Denmark. The reigning Duke procured in that year a
confirmation of the compact that Schleswig should never be
united with Denmark. Dying without issue in 1459, the Duke was
succeeded, by the election of the Estates, by his nephew
Christian I. of Denmark. In electing Christian, however, the
Estates compelled him in 1460 to renew the compact confirmed
in 1448. And, though Duchies and Crown were thenceforward
united, the only link between them was the sovereign. Even
this link could possibly be severed. For the succession in the
Duchy was secured to the male heir in direct contradiction of
the law of Denmark. … It would complicate this narrative if
stress were laid on the various changes in the relations
between Kingdom and Duchies which were consequent on the
unsettled state of Europe during the three succeeding
centuries. It is sufficient to say that, by a treaty made in
1773, the arrangements concluded more than 300 years before
were confirmed. Schleswig-Holstein reverted once more to the
King of Denmark under exactly the same conditions as in the
time of Christian I., who had expressly recognised that he
governed them as Duke, that is, by virtue of their own law of
succession. Such an arrangement was not likely to be respected
amidst the convulsions which affected Europe in the
commencement of the present century. In 1806 Christian VII.
took advantage of the disruption of the German Empire formally
to incorporate the Duchies into his Kingdom. No one was in a
position to dispute the act of the monarch. In 1815, however,
the King of Denmark, by virtue of his rights in Holstein and
Lauenburg, joined the Confederation of the Rhine; and the
nobility of Holstein, brought in this way into fresh
connection with Germany, appealed to the German Diet. But the
Diet, in the first quarter of the 19th century, was subject to
influences opposed to the rights of nationalities. It declined
to interfere, and the union of Duchies and Kingdom was
maintained. Christian VII. was succeeded in 1808 by his son
Frederick VI., who was followed in 1839 by his cousin
Christian VIII. The latter monarch had only one son,
afterwards Frederick VII., who, though twice married, had no
children. On his death, if no alteration had been made, the
crown of Denmark would have passed to the female line—the
present reigning dynasty —while the Duchies, by the old
undisputed law, would have reverted to a younger branch, which
descended through males to the house of Augustenburg. With
this prospect before them it became very desirable for the
Danes to amalgamate the Duchies; and in the year 1844 the
Danish Estates almost unanimously adopted a motion that the
King should proclaim Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein, and
Lauenburg one indivisible State. In 1846 the King put forth a
declaration that there was no doubt that the Danish law of
succession prevailed in Schleswig. He admitted that there was
more doubt respecting Holstein. But he promised to use his
endeavours to obtain the recognition of the integrity of
Denmark as a collective State. Powerless alone against the
Danes and their sovereign, Holstein appealed to the Diet; and
the Diet took up the quarrel, and reserved the right of
enforcing its legitimate authority in case of need. Christian
VIII. died in .January 1848. His son, Frederick VII., the last
of his line, grasped the tiller of the State at a critical
moment. Crowns, before a month was over, were tumbling off the
heads of half the sovereigns of Europe; and Denmark, shaken by
these events, felt the full force of the revolutionary
movement. Face to face with revolution at home and Germany
across the frontier, the new King tried to cut instead of
untying the Gordian knot. He separated Holstein from
Schleswig, incorporating the latter in Denmark but allowing
the former under its own constitution to form part of the
German Confederation. Frederick VII. probably hoped that the
German Diet would be content with the half-loaf which he
offered it. The Diet., however, replied to the challenge by
formally incorporating Schleswig in Germany, and by committing
to Prussia the office of mediation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
War broke out, but the arms of Prussia were crippled by the
revolution which shook her throne. The sword of Denmark, under
these circumstances, proved victorious; and the Duchies were
ultimately compelled to submit to the decision which force had
pronounced. These events gave rise to the famous protocol
which was signed in London, in August 1850, by England,
France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. This document
settled the question, so far as diplomacy could determine it,
in the interests of Denmark. The unity of Denmark, Schleswig,
Holstein and Lauenburg was secured by a uniform law of
succession, and their internal affairs were placed, as far as
practicable, under a common administration. The protocol of
1850 was signed by Lord Palmerston during the Russell
Administration. It was succeeded by the treaty of 1852, which
was concluded by Lord Malmesbury. This treaty, to which all
the great powers were parties, was the logical consequence of
the protocol. Under it the succession to Kingdom and Duchies
was assigned to Prince Christian of Glücksburg, the present
reigning King of Denmark. The integrity of the whole Danish
Monarchy was declared permanent; but the rights of the German
Confederation with respect to Holstein and Schleswig were
reserved.
{2834}
The declaration was made in accordance with the views of
Russia, England, and France; the reservation was inserted in
the interests of the German powers; and in a manifesto, which
was communicated to the German Courts, the King of Denmark
laid down elaborate rules for the treatment and government of
the Duchies. Thus, while the succession to the Danish throne
and the integrity of Denmark had been secured by the protocol
of 1850 and the treaty of 1852, the elaborate promises of the
Danish King, formally communicated to the German powers, had
given the latter a pretext for contending that these pledges
were at least as sacred as the treaty. And the next ten years
made the pretext much more formidable than it seemed in 1852.
… The Danes endeavoured to extricate themselves from a
constantly growing embarrassment by repeating the policy of
1848, by granting, under what was known as the Constitution of
1855, autonomous institutions to Holstein, by consolidating
the purely Danish portions of the Monarchy, and by
incorporating Schleswig, which was partly Danish and partly
German, in Denmark. But the German inhabitants of Schleswig
resented this arrangement. They complained of the suppression
of their language and the employment of Danish functionaries,
and they argued that, under the engagements which had been
contracted between 1851 and 1852, Holstein had a voice in
constitutional changes of this character. This argument added
heat to a dispute already acute. For it was now plain that,
while the German Diet claimed the right to interfere in
Holstein, Holstein asserted her claim to be heard on the
affairs of the entire Kingdom."
_S. Walpole,
Life of Lord John Russell,
chapter 30 (volume 2)._
In the first period of the war of 1848-9, the only important
battle was fought at Duppeln, June 5, 1848. The Prussians were
superior in land forces, but the Danes were able to make use
of a flotilla of gunboats in defending their strong position.
"After a useless slaughter, both parties remained nearly in
the same position as they had occupied at the commencement of
the conflict." The war was suspended in August by an
armistice—that of Malmö—but was renewed in the April
following. "On the 20th April [1849] the Prussians invaded
Jutland with 48 battalions, 48 guns, and 2,000 horse; and the
Danish generals, unable to make head against such a crusade,
retired through the town of Kolding, which was fortified and
commanded an important bridge that was abandoned to the
invaders. The Danes, however, returned, and after a bloody
combat dislodged the Prussians, but were finally obliged to
evacuate it by the fire of the German mortars, which reduced
the town to ashes. On the 3d May the Danes had their revenge,
in the defeat of a large body of the Schleswig insurgents by a
Danish corps near the fortress of Fredericia, with the loss of
340 men. A more important advantage was gained by them on the
6th July," over the Germans who were besieging Fredericia.
"The loss of the Germans in this disastrous affair was 96
officers and 3,250 men killed and wounded, with their whole
siege-artillery and stores. … This brilliant victory was
immediately followed by the retreat of the Germans from nearly
the whole of Jutland. A convention was soon after concluded at
Berlin, which established an armistice for six months," and
which was followed by the negotiations and treaties described
above. But hostilities were not yet at an end; for the
insurgents of Schleswig and Holstein remained in arms, and
were said to receive almost open encouragement and aid from
Prussia. Their army, 32,000 strong, occupied Idstedt and
Wedelspang. They were attacked at the former place, on the
25th of July, 1850, by the Danes, and defeated after a bloody
conflict. "The loss on both sides amounted to nearly 8,000
men, or about one in eight of the troops engaged; a prodigious
slaughter, unexampled in European war since the battle of
Waterloo. Of these, nearly 3,000, including 85 officers, were
killed or wounded on the side of the Danes, and 5,000 on that
of the insurgents, whose loss in officers was peculiarly
severe."
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-1852,
chapter 53._
From 1855 to 1862 the history of Denmark was uneventful. But
in the next year King Frederick VII. died, and the Treaty of
London, which had settled the succession upon Prince Christian
of Glücksburg, failed to prevent the reopening of the
Schleswig-Holstein question.
ALSO IN:
_C. A. Gosch,
Denmark and Germany since 1815,
chapters 3-9._
_A Forgotten War
(Spectator, September 22, 1894, reviewing Count von
Moltke's "Geschichte des Krieges gegen Dänemark, 1848-49 "). _
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark-Iceland): A. D. 1849-1874.
The Danish constitution.
Relations of Iceland to Denmark.
Denmark became a constitutional monarchy in 1849. The
principal provisions of the Constitution are these: Every king
of Denmark, before he can assume the government of the
monarchy, must deliver a written oath that he will observe the
constitution. He alone is invested with the executive power,
but the legislative he exercises conjointly with the Assembly
(Rigsdag). He can declare war and make peace, enter and
renounce alliances. But he cannot, without the consent of the
Assembly, sign away any of the possessions of the kingdom or
encumber it with any State obligations. … The king's person is
sacred and inviolable; he is exempt from all responsibility.
The ministers form the Council of State, of which the king is
the president, and where, by right, the heir-apparent has a
seat. The king has an absolute veto. The Rigsdag (Assembly)
meets every year, and cannot be prorogued till the session has
lasted for two months at least. It consists of two
Chambers—the Upper Chamber, 'Landsting,' and the Lower
Chamber, 'Folketing.' The Upper Chamber consists of 66
members, twelve of which are Crown-elects for life, seven
chosen by Copenhagen, and one by the so-called Lagting of
Faro. The 46 remaining members are voted in by ten electoral
districts, each of which comprises from one to three Amts, or
rural governorships, with the towns situated within each of
them included. The elections are arranged on the proportional
or minority system. In Copenhagen and in the other towns one
moiety of electors is chosen out of those who possess the
franchise for the Lower House, the other moiety is selected
from among those who pay the highest municipal rates. In every
rural commune one elector is chosen by all the enfranchised
members of the community. … The Lower House is elected for
three years, and consists of 102 members; consequently there
are 102 electorates or electoral districts. … The Lower House
is elected by manhood suffrage.
{2835}
Every man thirty years old has a vote, provided there be no
stain on his character, and that he possesses the birthright
of a citizen within his district, and has been domiciled for a
year within it before exercising his right of voting, and does
not stand in such a subordinate relation of service to private
persons as not to have a home of his own. … The two Chambers
of the Rigsdag stand, as legislative bodies, on an equal
footing, both having the right to propose and to alter laws. …
At present [1891] this very Liberal Constitution is not
working smoothly. As was to be expected, two parties have
gradually come into existence—a Conservative and a Liberal,
or, as they are termed after French fashion, the Right and the
Left. The country is governed at present arbitrarily against
an opposition in overwhelming majority in the Lower House. The
dispute between the Left and the Ministry does not really turn
so much upon conflicting views with regard to great public
interests, as upon the question whether Denmark has, or has
not, to have parliamentary government. … The Right represents
chiefly the educated and the wealthy classes; the Left the
mass of the people, and is looked down upon by the Right. … I
said in the beginning that I would tell you how the
constitutional principle has been applied to Iceland. I have
only time briefly to touch upon that matter. In 1800 the old
Althing (All Men's Assembly, General Diet), which had existed
from 930, came to an end. Forty-five years later it was
re-established by King Christian VIII. in the character of a
consultative assembly. … The Althing at once began to direct
its attention to the question—What Iceland's proper position
should be in the Danish monarchy when eventually its
anticipated constitution should be carried out. The country
had always been governed by its special laws; it had a code of
laws of its own, and it had never been ruled, in
administrative sense, as a province of Denmark. Every
successive king had, on his accession to the throne, issued a
proclamation guaranteeing to Iceland due observance of the
country's laws and traditional privileges. Hence it was found
entirely impracticable to include Iceland under the provisions
of the charter for Denmark; and a royal rescript of September
23, 1848, announced that with regard to Iceland no measures
for settling the constitutional relation of that part of the
monarchy would be adopted until a constitutive assembly in the
country itself 'had been heard' on the subject. Unfortunately,
the revolt of the duchies intervened between this declaration
and the date of the constitutive assembly which was fixed for
1851. The Government took fright, being unfortunately quite in
the dark about the real state of public opinion in the distant
dependency. … The Icelanders only wanted to abide by their
laws, and to have the management of their own home affairs,
but the so-called National-Liberal Government wanted to
incorporate the country as a province in the kingdom of
Denmark proper. This idea the Icelanders really never could
understand as seriously meant. … The constitutive assembly was
brusquely dissolved by the Royal Commissary when he saw that
it meant to insist on autonomy for the Icelanders in their own
home affairs. And from 1851 to 1874 every successive Althing
(but one) persisted in calling on the Government to fulfil the
royal promise of 1848. It was no doubt due to the very loyal,
quiet, and able manner in which the Icelanders pursued their
case, under the leadership of the trusted patriot, Jon
Sigurdsson, that in 1874 the Government at last agreed to give
Iceland the constitution it demanded. But instead of frankly
meeting the Icelandic demands in full, they were only
partially complied with, and from the first the charter met
with but scanty popularity."
_E. Magnusson,
Denmark and Iceland
(National Life and Thought, chapter 12)._
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1855.
In the alliance against Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1859.
Accession of Charles XV.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1863.
Accession of Christian IX.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1864.
Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.
Austro-Prussian invasion and conquest of the duchies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1872.
Accession of Oscar II.
SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1890.
Population.
By a census taken, at the close of 1890, the population of
Sweden was found to be 4,784,981, and that of Norway
2,000,917. The population of Denmark, according to a census
taken in February, 1890, was 2,185,335.
_Statesman's Year-Book, 1894._
----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: End--------
SCANZIA, Island of.
The peninsula of Sweden and Norway was so called by some
ancient writers.
See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.
SCHAH,
SHAH.
See BEY.
SCHAMYL'S WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS.
See CAUCASUS.
SCHARNHORST'S MILITARY REFORMS IN PRUSSIA.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.
SCHELLENBERG, or
HERMANSTADT, Battle of (1599).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).
SCHENECTADY: A. D. 1690.
Massacre and Destruction by French and Indians.
See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690;
also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
SCHEPENS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
SCHILL'S RISING.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).
SCHISM, The Great.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417, and 1414-1418;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.
SCHISM ACT.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
SCHKIPETARS, Albanian.
See ILLYRIANS.
SCHLESWIG, and the Schleswig-Holstein question.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862,
and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, and 1866.
SCHMALKALDIC LEAGUE, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
SCHŒNE, The.
An ancient Egyptian measure of length which is supposed, as in
the case of the Persian parasang, to have been fixed by no
standard, but to have been merely a rude estimate of distance.
See PARASANG.
{2836}
SCHOFIELD, General J. M.
Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS),
and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
The Atlanta Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),
to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
Campaign against Hood.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
SCHOLARII.
The household troops or imperial life-guards of the Eastern
Roman Empire.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 5, chapter 20._
SCHOLASTICISM.
SCHOOLMEN.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.
SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, Charlemagne's.
"Charlemagne took great care to attract distinguished
foreigners into his states, and … among those who helped to
second intellectual development in Frankish Gaul, many came
from abroad. … He not only strove to attract distinguished men
into his states, but he protected and encouraged them wherever
he discovered them. More than one Anglo-Saxon abbey shared his
liberality; and learned men who, after following him into
Gaul, wished to return to their country, in no way became
strangers to him. … Alcuin fixed himself there permanently. He
was born in England, at York, about 735. The intellectual
state of Ireland and England was then superior to that of the
continent; letters and schools prospered there more than
anywhere else. … The schools of England, and particularly that
of York, were superior to those of the continent. That of York
possessed a rich library, where many of the works of pagan
antiquity were found; among others, those of Aristotle, which
it is a mistake to say were first introduced to the knowledge
of modern Europe by the Arabians, and the Arabians only; for
from the fifth to the tenth century, there is no epoch in
which we do not find them mentioned in some library, in which
they were not known and studied by some men of letters. … In
780, on the death of archbishop Ælbert, and the accession of
his successor, Eanbald, Alcuin received from him the mission
to proceed to Rome for the purpose of obtaining from the pope
and bringing to him the 'pallium.' In returning from Rome, he
came to Parma, where he found Charlemagne. … The emperor at
once pressed him to take up his abode in France. After some
hesitation, Alcuin accepted the invitation, subject to the
permission of his bishop, and of his own sovereign. The
permission was obtained, and in 782 we find him established in
the court of Charlemagne, who at once gave him three abbeys,
those of Ferrieres in Gatanois, of St. Loup at Troyes, and of
St. Josse in the county of Ponthieu. From this time forth,
Alcuin was the confidant, the councillor, the intellectual
prime minister, so to speak, of Charlemagne. … From 782 to
796, the period of his residence in the court of Charlemagne,
Alcuin presided over a private school, called 'The School of
the Palace,' which accompanied Charlemagne wherever he went,
and at which were regularly present all those who were with
the emperor. … It is difficult to say what could have been the
course of instruction pursued in this school; I am disposed to
believe that to such auditors Alcuin addressed himself
generally upon all sorts of topics as they occurred; that in
the 'Ecole du Palais,' in fact, it was conversation rather
than teaching, especially so called, that went on; that
movement given to mind, curiosity constantly excited and
satisfied, was its chief merit."
_F. Guizot,
History of Civilization,
lecture 22 (volume 3)._
See, also, EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.
ALSO IN:
_A. F. West,
Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Schools._
SCHOOLS.
See EDUCATION.
SCHÖNBRUNN,
Treaty of (1806).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
Treaty of (1809).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
SCHOUT AND SCHEPENS.
The chief magistrate and aldermen of the chartered towns of
Holland were called the Schout and the Schepens.
_J. L. Motley,
Rise of the Dutch Republic,
introduction, section 6._
"In every tribunal there is a Schout or sheriff, who convenes
the judges, and demands from them justice for the litigating
parties; for the word 'schout' is derived from 'schuld,' debt,
and he is so denominated because he is the person who recovers
or demands common debts, according to Grotius."
_Van Leeuwen,
Commentaries on Roman Dutch Law,
quoted in O'Callaghan's History of New Netherland,
volume 1, page 101, foot-note,
and volume 2, page 212._
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
SCHUMLA, Siege of (1828).
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
SCHUYLER, General Philip, and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
SCHUYLER, Fort (Late Fort Stanwix): A. D. 1777.
Defense against the British and Indians under St. Leger.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
SCHWECHAT, Battle of (1848).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
SCHWEIDNITZ, Battle of (1642).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
SCHWEIDNITZ:
Captured and recaptured.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.
SCINDE,
SINDH.
"Sindh is the Sanskrit word Sindh or Sindhu, a river or ocean.
It was applied to the river Indus, the first great body of
water encountered by the Aryan invaders. … Sindh, which is
part of the Bombay Presidency, is bounded on the north and
west by the territories of the khan of Khelat, in Beluchistan;
the Punjab and the Bahawalpur State lie on the north-east. …
Three-fourths of the people are Muhammadans and the remainder
Hindus." Sindh was included in the Indian conquests of Mahmud
of Ghazni, Akbar, and Nadir Shah.
See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290; 1399-1605; and 1662-1748).
"In 1748 the country became an appanage of Kabul, as part of
the dowry bestowed by the reigning emperor upon Timur, son of
Ahmed Shah Durani, who founded the kingdom of Afghanistan. …
The connection of the British government with Sindh had its
origin in A. D. 1758, when Ghulam Shah Kalhora … granted a
'purwanah,' or permit, to an officer in the East India
Company's service for the establishment of a factory in the
province. … In their relations with the British government the
Amirs throughout displayed much jealousy of foreign
interference. Several treaties were made with them from time
to time.
{2837}
In 1836, owing to the designs of Ranjit Singh on Sindh, which,
however, were not carried out because of the interposition of
the British government, more intimate connection with the
Amirs was sought. Colonel Pottinger visited them to negotiate
for this purpose. It was not, however, till 1838 that a short
treaty was concluded, in which it was stipulated that a
British minister should reside at Haidarabad. At this time the
friendly alliance of the Amirs was deemed necessary in the
contemplated war with Afghanistan which the British government
was about to undertake, to place a friendly ruler on the
Afghan throne. The events that followed led to the occupation
of Karachi by the British, and placed the Amirs in subsidiary
dependence on the British government. New treaties became
necessary, and Sir Charles Napier was sent to Haidarabad to
negotiate. The Beluchis were infuriated at this proceeding,
and openly insulted the officer, Sir James Outram, at the
Residency at Haidarabad. Sir Charles Napier thereupon attacked
the Amir's forces at Meanee, on 17th February, 1843, with
2,800 men, and twelve pieces of artillery, and succeeded in
gaining a complete victory over 22,000 Beluchis, with the
result that the whole of Sindh was annexed to British India."
_D. Ross,
The Land of the Five Rivers and Sindh,
pages 1-6._
ALSO IN:
_Mohan Lal,
Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan,
chapter 14 (volume 2)._
See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.
SCIO.
See CHIOS.
SCIPIO AFRICANUS, The Campaigns of.
See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.
SCIPIO AFRICANUS MINOR,
Destruction of Carthage by.
See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.
SCIR-GEREFA.
See SHERIFF; SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.
SCIRONIAN WAY, The.
"The Scironian Way led from Megara to Corinth, along the
eastern shore of the isthmus. At a short distance from Megara
it passed along the Scironian rocks, a long range of
precipices overhanging the sea, forming the extremity of a
spur which descends from Mount Geranium. This portion of the
road is now known as the 'Kaki Scala,' and is passed with some
difficulty. The way seems to have been no more than a footpath
until the time of Adrian, who made a good carriage road
throughout the whole distance. There is but one other route by
which the isthmus can be traversed. It runs inland, and passes
over a higher portion of Mount Geranium, presenting to the
traveller equal or greater difficulties."
_G. Rawlinson,
History of Herodotus,
book 8, section 71, foot-note._
SCLAVENES.
SCLAVONIC PEOPLES.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
SCLAVONIC.
See SLAVONIC.
SCODRA, OR SKODRA.·
See ILLYRIANS.
SCONE, Kingdom of.
See SCOTLAND: 8-9TH CENTURIES.
SCORDISCANS, The.
The Scordiscans, called by some Roman writers a Thracian
people, but supposed to have been Celtic, were settled in the
south of Pannonia in the second century, B. C. In B. C. 114
they destroyed a Roman army under consul C. Portius Cato. Two
years later consul M. Livius Drusus drove them across the
Danube.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 18, section 1 (volume 2)._
SCOT AND LOT.
"Paying scot and lot; that is, bearing their rateable
proportion in the payments levied from the town for local or
national purposes."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 20, section 745 (volume 3)._
SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.
"If a line is drawn from a point on the eastern bank of Loch
Lomond, somewhat south of Ben Lomond, following in the main
the line of the Grampians, and crossing the Forth at Aberfoil,
the Teith at Callander, the Almond at Crieff, the Tay at
Dunkeld, the Ericht at Blairgowrie, and proceeding through the
hills of Brae Angus till it reaches the great range of the
Mounth, then crossing the Dee at Ballater, the Spey at lower
Craigellachie, till it reaches the Moray Firth at Nairn—this
forms what was called the Highland Line and separated the
Celtic from the Teutonic-speaking people. Within this line,
with the exception of the county of Caithness which belongs to
the Teutonic division, the Gaelic language forms the
vernacular of the inhabitants."
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 2, page 453._
SCOTCH-IRISH, The.
In 1607, six counties in the Irish province of Ulster,
formerly belonging to the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, were
confiscated by the English crown. The two earls, who had
submitted and had been pardoned, after a long rebellion during
the reign of queen Elizabeth, had now fled from new charges of
treason, and their great estates were forfeited.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603, and 1607-1611.
These estates, thus acquired by King James, the first of the
Stuarts, were "parcelled out among a body of Scotch and
English, brought over for the purpose. The far greater number
of these plantations were from the lower part of Scotland, and
became known as 'Scotch-Irish.' Thus a new population was
given to the north of Ireland, which has changed its history.
The province of Ulster, with fewer natural advantages than
either Munster, Leinster, or Connaught, became the most
prosperous, industrious and law-abiding of all Ireland. … But
the Protestant population thus transplanted to the north of
Ireland was destined to suffer many … persecutions. … In 1704,
the test-oath was imposed, by which everyone in public
employment was required to profess English prelacy. It was
intended to suppress Popery, but was used by the Episcopal
bishops to check Presbyterianism. To this was added burdensome
restraints on their commerce, and extortionate rents from
their landlords, resulting in what is known as the Antrim
evictions. There had been occasional emigrations from the
north of Ireland from the plantation of the Scotch, and one of
the ministers sent over in 1683, Francis Makemie, had
organized on the eastern shore of Maryland and in the
adjoining counties of Virginia the first Presbyterian churches
in America. But in the early part of the eighteenth century
the great movement began which transported so large a portion
of the Scotch-Irish into the American colonies, and, through
their influence, shaped in a great measure the destinies of
America. Says the historian Froude: 'In the two years which
followed the Antrim evictions, thirty-thousand Protestants
left Ulster for a land where there was no legal robbery, and
where those who sowed the seed could reap the harvest.'
Alarmed by the depletion of the Protestant population, the
Toleration Act was passed, and by it, and further promises of
relief, the tide of emigration was checked for a brief period.
{2838}
In 1728, however, it began anew, and from 1729 to 1750, it was
estimated that 'about twelve thousand came annually from
Ulster to America.' So many had settled in Pennsylvania before
1729 that James Logan, the Quaker president of that colony,
expressed his fear that they would become proprietors of the
province. … This bold stream of emigrants struck the American
continent mainly on the eastern border of Pennsylvania, and
was, in great measure, turned southward through Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, reaching and
crossing the Savannah river. It was met at various points by
counter streams of the same race, which had entered the
continent through the seaports of the Carolinas and Georgia.
Turning westward the combined flood overflowed the mountains
and covered the rich valley of the Mississippi beyond. As the
Puritans or Round-heads of the south, but freed from
fanaticism, they gave tone to its people and direction to its
history. … The task would be almost endless to simply call the
names of this people [the Scotch-Irish] in the South who have
distinguished themselves in the annals of their country. Yet
some rise before me, whose names demand utterance in any
mention of their people —names which the world will not
willingly let die. Among the statesmen they have given to the
world are Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Benton. Among the
orators, Henry, Rutledge, Preston, McDuffie, Yancy. Among the
poets, the peerless Poe. Among the jurists, Marshall,
Campbell, Robertson. Among the divines, Waddell, the
Alexanders, Breckinridge, Robinson, Plummer, Hoge, Hawks,
Fuller, McKendree. Among the physicians, McDowell, Sims,
McGuire. Among the inventors, McCormick. Among the soldiers,
Lee, the Jacksons, the Johnstons, Stuart. Among the sailors,
Paul Jones, Buchanan. Presidents from the South,
seven—Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Polk,
Johnson."
_W. W. Henry,
The Scotch Irish of the South,
(Proceedings of the Scotch-Irish Congress, 1889)._
"Full credit has been awarded the Roundhead and the Cavalier
for their leadership in our history; nor have we been
altogether blind to the deeds of the Hollander and the
Huguenot; but it is doubtful if we have wholly realized the
importance of the part played by that stern and virile people,
the Irish whose preachers taught the creed of Knox and Calvin.
These Irish representatives of the Covenanters were in the
west almost what the Puritans were in the northeast, and more
than the Cavaliers were in the south. Mingled with the
descendants of many other races, they nevertheless formed the
kernel of the distinctively and intensely American stock who
were the pioneers of our people in their march westward, the
vanguard of the army of fighting settlers, who with axe and
rifle won their way from the Alleghanies to the Rio Grande and
the Pacific. … They … made their abode at the foot of the
mountains, and became the outposts of civilization. … In this
land of hills, covered by unbroken forest, they took root and
flourished, stretching in a broad belt from north to south, a
shield of sinewy men thrust in between the people of the
seaboard and the red warriors of the wilderness. All through
this region they were alike; they had as little kinship with
the Cavalier as with the Quaker; the west was won by those who
have been rightly called the Roundheads of the south, the same
men who, before any others, declared for American
independence. The two facts of most importance to remember in
dealing with our pioneer history are, first, that the western
portions of Virginia and the Carolinas were peopled by an
entirely different stock from that which had long existed in
the tide-water regions of those colonies; and, secondly, that,
except for those in the Carolinas who came from Charleston,
the immigrants of this stock were mostly from the north, from
their great breeding ground and nursery in western
Pennsylvania. That these Irish Presbyterians were a bold and
hardy race is proved by their at once pushing past the settled
regions, and plunging into the wilderness as the leaders of
the white advance. They were the first and last set of
immigrants to do this; all others have merely followed in the
wake of their predecessors. But, indeed, they were fitted to
be Americans from the very start; they were kinsfolk of the
Covenanters; they deemed it a religious duty to interpret
their own Bible, and held for a divine right the election of
their own clergy. For generations, their whole ecclesiastic
and scholastic systems had been fundamentally democratic."
_T. Roosevelt,
The Winning of the West,
volume 1, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_J. Phelan,
History of Tennessee,
chapter 23. _
SCOTCH MILE ACT.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
SCOTIA, The name.
See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.
----------SCOTLAND: Start--------
SCOTLAND:
The name.
"The name of Scotia, or Scotland, whether in its Latin or its
Saxon form, was not applied to any part of the territory
forming the modern kingdom of Scotland till towards the end of
the tenth century. Prior to that period it was comprised in
the general appellation of Britannia, or Britain, by which the
whole island was designated in contradistinction from that of
Hibernia, or Ireland. That part of the island of Britain which
is situated to the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
seems indeed to have been known to the Romans as early as the
first century by the distinctive name of Caledonia, and it
also appears to have borne from an early period another
appellation, the Celtic form of which was Albu, Alba, or
Alban, and Its Latin form Albania. The name of Scotia,
however, was exclusively appropriated to the island of
Ireland. Ireland was emphatically Scotia, the 'patria,' or
mother-country of the Scots; and although a colony of that
people had established themselves as early as the beginning of
the sixth century in the western districts of Scotland, it was
not till the tenth century that any part of the present
country of Scotland came to be known under that name. …
{2839}
From the tenth to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries the name
of Scotia, gradually superseding the older name of Alban, or
Albania, was confined to a district nearly corresponding with
that part of the Lowlands of Scotland which is situated on the
north of the Firth of Forth. … The three propositions—
1st, That Scotia, prior to the tenth century, was Ireland, and
Ireland alone;
2d, That when applied to Scotland it was considered a new name
superinduced upon the older designation of Alban or Albania;
and;
3d, That the Scotia of the three succeeding centuries was
limited to the districts between the Forth, the Spey, and
Drumalban,—lie at the very threshold of Scottish history."
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 1, introduction._
SCOTLAND:
The Picts and Scots.
"Cæsar tells us that the inhabitants of Britain in his day
painted themselves with a dye extracted from woad; by the
time, however, of British independence under Carausius and
Allectus, in the latter part of the third century, the fashion
had so far fallen off in Roman Britain that the word 'Picti,'
Picts, or painted men, had got to mean the peoples beyond the
Northern wall. … Now, all these Picts were natives of Britain,
and the word Picti is found applied to them for the first
time, in a panegyric by Eumenius, in the year 296; but in the
year 360 another painted people appeared on the scene. They
came from Ireland, and, to distinguish these two sets of
painted foes from one another, Latin historians left the
painted natives to be called Picti, as had been done before,
and for the painted invaders from Ireland they retained,
untranslated, a Celtic word of the same (or nearly the same)
meaning, namely 'Scotti.' Neither the Picts nor the Scotti
probably owned these names, the former of which is to be
traced to Roman authors, while the latter was probably given
the invaders from Ireland by the Brythons, whose country they
crossed the sea to ravage. The Scots, however, did recognize a
national name, which described them as painted or tattooed
men. … This word was Cruithnig, which is found applied equally
to the painted people of both islands. … The eponymus of all
the Picts was Cruithne, or Cruithneehan, and we have a kindred
Brythonic form in Prydyn, the name by which Scotland once used
to be known to the Kymry."
_J. Rhys,
Celtic Britain,
chapter 7_.
A different view of the origin and signification of these
names is maintained by Dr. Guest.
_E. Guest,
Origines Celticae,
volume 2, part 1, chapter 1._
Prof. Freeman looks upon the question as unsettled. He says:
"The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from
Ireland. The only question is as to the Picts or Caledonians.
Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic
occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation,
or were they simply Britons who had never been brought under
the Roman dominion? The geographical aspect of the case
favours the former belief, but the weight of philological
evidence seems to be on the side of the latter."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 2, section 1, foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 1, chapter 5._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 78-84.
Roman conquests under Agricola.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 208-211.
Campaigns of Severus against the Caledonians.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 367-370.
The repulse of the Picts and Scots by Theodosius.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.
SCOTLAND: 6th Century.
The Mission of St. Columba.
See COLUMBAN CHURCH.
SCOTLAND: 6-7th Centuries.
Part included in the English Kingdom of Northumberland.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
SCOTLAND: 7th Century.
The Four Kingdoms.
"Out of these Celtic and Teutonic races [Picts, Scots, Britons
of Strathclyde, and Angles] there emerged in that northern
part of Britain which eventually became the territory of the
subsequent monarchy of Scotland, four kingdoms within definite
limits and under settled forms of government; and as such we
find them in the beginning of the 7th century, when the
conflict among these races, which succeeded the departure of
the Romans from the island, and the termination of their power
in Britain, may be held to have ceased and the limits of these
kingdoms to have become settled. North of the Firths of Forth
and Clyde were the two kingdoms of the Scots of Dalriada on
the west and of the Picts on the east. They were separated
from each other by a range of mountains termed by Adamnan the
Dorsal ridge of Britain, and generally known by the name of
Drumalban. … The colony [of Dalriada] was originally founded
by Fergus Mor, son of Erc, who came with his two brothers
Loarn and Angus from Irish Dalriada in the end of the 5th
century [see DALRIADA], but the true founder of the Dalriadic
kingdom was his great grandson Aedan, son of Gabran. … The
remaining districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde
formed the kingdom of the Picts. … The districts south of the
Firths of Forth and Clyde, and extending to the Solway Firth
on the west and to the Tyne on the east, were possessed by the
two kingdoms of the Britons [afterwards Strathclyde], on the
west and of the Angles of Bernicia on the east. The former
extended from the river Derwent in Cumberland in the south to
the Firth of Clyde in the north, which separated the Britons
from the Scots of Dalriada. … The Angles of Bernicia … were
now in firm possession of the districts extending along the
east coast as far as the Firth of Forth, originally occupied
by the British tribe of the Ottadeni and afterwards by the
Picts, and including the counties of Berwick and Roxburgh and
that of East Lothian or Haddington, the rivers Esk and Gala
forming here their western boundary. … In the centre of
Scotland, where it is intersected by the two arms of the sea,
the Forth and the Clyde, and where the boundaries of these
four kingdoms approach one another, is a territory extending
from the Esk to the Tay, which possessed a very mixed
population and was the scene of most of the conflicts between
these four states." About the middle of the 7th century, Osuiu
or Oswiu, king of Northumberland (which then included
Bernicia), having overcome the Mercians, "extended his sway
not only over the Britons but over the Picts and Scots; and
thus commenced the dominion of the Angles over the Britons of
Alclyde, the Scots of Dalriada, and the southern Picts, which
was destined to last for thirty years. … In the meantime the
little kingdom of Dalriada was in a state of complete
disorganisation. We find no record of any real king over the
whole nation of the Scots, but each separate tribe seems to
have remained isolated from the rest under its own chief,
while the Britons exercised a kind of sway over them, and
along with the Britons they were under subjection to the
Angles."
{2840}
In 685, on an attempt being made to throw off the yoke of the
Angles of Northumbria, King Ecgfrid or Ecgfrith, son of Oswiu,
led an army into the country of the Picts and was there
defeated crushingly and slain in a conflict styled variously
the battle of Dunnichen, Duin Nechtain, and Nechtan's Mere.
The effect of the defeat is thus described by Bede; "'From
that time the hopes and strength of the Anglic kingdom began
to fluctuate and to retrograde, for the Picts recovered the
territory belonging to them which the Angles had held, and the
Scots who were in Britain and a certain part of the Britons
regained their liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about
forty-six years.'"
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._
SCOTLAND: 8-9th Centuries.
The kingdom of Scone and the kingdom of Alban.
"The Pictish kingdom had risen fast to greatness after the
victory of Nectansmere in 685. In the century which followed
Ecgfrith's defeat, its kings reduced the Scots of Dalriada
from nominal dependence to actual subjection, the annexation
of Angus and Fife carried their eastern border to the sea,
while to the south their alliance with the Northumbrians in
the warfare which both waged on the Welsh extended their
bounds on the side of Cumbria or Strath·Clyde. But the hour of
Pictish greatness was marked by the extinction of the Pictish
name. In the midst of the 9th century the direct line of their
royal house came to an end, and the under-king of the Scots of
Dalriada, Kenneth Mac Alpin, ascended the Pictish throne in
right of his maternal descent. For fifty years more Kenneth
and his successors remained kings of the Picts. At the moment
we have reached, however [the close of the 9th century], the
title passed suddenly away, the tribe which had given its
chief to the throne gave its name to the realm, and
'Pict-land' disappeared from history to make room first for
Alban or Albania, and then for 'the land of the Scots.'"
_J. R. Green,
The Conquest of England,
chapter 4._
It appears however that, before the kingdom of Alban was
known, there was a period during which the realm established
by the successors of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the Scot, occupying
the throne of the Picts, was called the kingdom of Scone, from
the town which became its capital. "It was at Scone too that
the Coronation Stone was 'reverently kept for the consecration
of the kings of Alban,' and of this stone it was believed that
'no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had
first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at
Scone.' … Of its identity with the stone now preserved in the
coronation chair at Westminster there can be no doubt. It is
an oblong block of red sandstone, some 26 inches long by 16
inches broad, and 10½ inches deep. … Its mythic origin
identifies it with the stone which Jacob used as a pillow at
Bethel, … but history knows of it only at Scone." Some time
near the close of the 9th century "the kingdom ceased to be
called that of Scone and its territory Cruithentuath, or
Pictavia its Latin equivalent, and now became known as the
kingdom of Alban or Albania, and we find its kings no longer
called kings of the Picts but kings of Alban."
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 1, chapters 6-7 (volume 1)._
SCOTLAND: 9th Century.
The Northmen on the coasts and in the Islands.
See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN; 8-9TH CENTURIES.
SCOTLAND: 10-11th Centuries.
The forming of' the modern kingdom
and its relations to England.
"The fact that the West-Saxon or English Kings, from Eadward
the Elder [son of Alfred the Great] onwards, did exercise an
external supremacy over the Celtic princes of the island is a
fact too clear to be misunderstood by anyone who looks the
evidence on the matter fairly in the face. I date their
supremacy over Scotland from the reign of Eadward the Elder,
because there is no certain earlier instance of submission on
the part of the Scots to any West-Saxon King. … The submission
of Wales [A. D. 828] dates from the time of Ecgberht; but it
evidently received a more distinct and formal acknowledgement
[A. D. 922] in the reign of Eadward. Two years after followed
the Commendation of Scotland and Strathclyde. … I use the
feudal word Commendation, because that word seems to me better
than any other to express the real state of the case. The
transaction between Eadward and the Celtic princes was simply
an application, on an international scale, of the general
principle of the Comitatus. … A man 'chose his Lord'; he
sought some one more powerful than himself, with whom he
entered into the relation of Comitatus; as feudal ideas
strengthened, he commonly surrendered his allodial land to the
Lord so chosen, and received it back again from him on a
feudal tenure. This was the process of Commendation, a process
of everyday occurrence in the case of private men choosing
their Lords, whether those Lords were simple gentlemen or
Kings. And the process was equally familiar among sovereign
princes themselves. … There was nothing unusual or degrading
in the relation; if Scotland, Wales, Strathclyde, commended
themselves to the West-Saxon King, they only put themselves in
the same relation to their powerful neighbour in which every
continental prince stood in theory, and most of them in actual
fact, to the Emperor, Lord of the World. … The original
Commendation to the Eadward of the tenth century, confirmed by
a series of acts of submission spread over the whole of the
intermediate time, is the true justification for the acts of
his glorious namesake [Edward I.] in the thirteenth century.
The only difference was that, during that time, feudal notions
had greatly developed on both sides; the original Commendation
of the Scottish King and people to a Lord had changed, in the
ideas of both sides, into a feudal tenure of the land of the
Scottish Kingdom. But this change was simply the universal
change which had come over all such relations everywhere. …
But it is here needful to point out two other distinct events
which have often been confounded with the Commendation of
Scotland, a confusion through which the real state of the case
has often been misunderstood. … It is hard to make people
understand that there have not always been Kingdoms of England
and Scotland, with the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills as the
boundaries between them. It must be borne in mind that in the
tenth century no such boundaries existed, and that the names
of England and Scotland were only just beginning to be known.
At the time of the Commendation the country which is now
called Scotland was divided among three quite distinct
sovereignties.
{2841}
North of the Forth and Clyde reigned the King of Scots, an
independent Celtic prince reigning over a Celtic people, the
Picts and Scots, the exact relation between which two tribes
is a matter of perfect indifference to my present purpose.
South of the two great firths the Scottish name and the
Scottish dominion were unknown. The south-west part of modern
Scotland formed part of the Kingdom of the Strathclyde Welsh,
which up to 924 was, like the Kingdom of the Scots, an
independent Celtic principality. The south-eastern part of
modern Scotland, Lothian in the wide sense of the word, was
purely English or Danish, as in language it remains to this
day. It was part of the Kingdom of Northumberland, and it had
its share in all the revolutions of that Kingdom. In the year
924 Lothian was ruled by the Danish Kings of Northumberland,
subject only to that precarious superiority on the part of
Wessex which had been handed on from Ecgberht and Ælfred. In
the year 924, when the three Kingdoms, Scotland, Strathclyde
and Northumberland, all commended themselves to Eadward, the
relation was something new on the part of Scotland and
Strathclyde; but on the part of Lothian, as an integral part
of Northumberland, it was only a renewal of the relation which
had been formerly entered into with Ecgberht and Ælfred. … The
transactions which brought Scotland, Strathclyde, and Lothian
into their relations to one another and to the English Crown
were quite distinct from each other. They were as
follows:—First, the Commendation of the King and people of the
Scots to Eadward in 924. Secondly, the grant of Cumberland by
Eadmund to Malcolm in 945. … In 945 the reigning King [of
Cumberland, or Strathclyde] revolted against his over-lord
Eadmund; he was overthrown and his Kingdom ravaged; it was
then granted on tenure of military service to his kinsman
Malcolm King of Scots. … The southern part of this territory
was afterwards … annexed to Eng]and; the northern part was
retained by the Scottish Kings, and was gradually, though very
gradually, incorporated with their own Kingdom. The
distinction between the two states seems to have been quite
forgotten in the 13th century." The third transaction was "the
grant of Lothian to the Scottish kings, either under Eadgar or
under Cnut. … The date of the grant of Lothian is not
perfectly clear. But whatever was the date of the grant, there
can be no doubt at all as to its nature. Lothian, an integral
part of England, could be granted only as any other part of
England could be granted, namely to be held as part of
England, its ruler being in the position of an English Earl. …
But in such a grant the seeds of separation were sown. A part
of the Kingdom which was governed by a foreign sovereign, on
whatever terms of dependence, could not long remain in the
position of a province governed by an ordinary Earl. … That
the possession of Lothian would under all ordinary
circumstances remain hereditary, must have been looked for
from the beginning. This alone would distinguish Lothian from
all other Earldoms. … It was then to be expected that Lothian,
when once granted to the King of Scots, should gradually be
merged in the Kingdom of Scotland. But the peculiar and
singular destiny of this country could hardly have been looked
for. Neither Eadgar nor Kenneth could dream that this purely
English or Danish province would become the historical
Scotland. The different tenures of Scotland and Lothian got
confounded; the Kings of Scots, from the end of the eleventh
century, became English in manners and language; they were not
without some pretensions to the Crown of England, and not
without some hopes of winning it. They thus learned to attach
more and more value to the English part of their dominions,
and they laboured to spread its language and manners over
their original Celtic territory. They retained their ancient
title of Kings of Scots, but they became in truth Kings of
English Lothian and of Anglicized Fife. A state was thus
formed, politically distinct from England, and which political
circumstances gradually made bitterly hostile to England, a
state which indeed retained a dark and mysterious Celtic
background, but which, as it appears in history, is English in
laws, language and manners, more truly English indeed, in many
respects, than England itself remained after the Norman
Conquest."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 3, section. 4._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1005-1034.
The kingdom acquires its final name.
"The mixed population of Picts and Scots had now become to a
great extent amalgamated, and under the influence of the
dominant race of the Scots were identified with them in name.
Their power was now to be further consolidated, and their
influence extended during the thirty years' reign of a king
who proved to be the last of his race, and who was to bequeath
the kingdom, under the name of Scotia, to a new line of kings.
This was Malcolm, the son of Kenneth, who slew his
predecessor, Kenneth, the son of Dubh, at Monzievaird. … With
Malcolm the descendants of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the founder of
the Scottish dynasty, became extinct in the male line."
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
book 1, chapter 8._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054.
The reign of Macbeth or Macbeda.
Malcolm was succeeded by his daughter's son, Duncan. "There is
little noticeable in his [Duncan's] life but its conclusion.
He had made vain efforts to extend his frontiers southward
through Northumberland, and was engaged in a war with the
holders of the northern independent states at his death in the
year 1039. … He was slain in 'Bothgowan,' which is held to be
Gaelic for 'a smith's hut.' The person who slew him, whether
with his own hand or not, was Macbeda, the Maarmor of Ross, or
of Ross and Moray; the ruler, in short, of the district
stretching from the Moray Frith and Loch Ness northwards. The
place where the smith's hut stood is said to have been near
Elgin. This has not been very distinctly established; but at
all events it was near if not actually within the territory
ruled by Macbeda, and Duncan was there with aggressive
designs. The maarmor's wife was Gruach, a granddaughter of
Kenneth IV. If there was a grandson of Kenneth killed by
Malcolm, this was his sister. But whether or not she had this
inheritance of revenge, she was, according to the Scots
authorities, the representative of the Kenneth whom the
grandfather of Duncan had deprived of his throne and his life.
… The deeds which raised Macbeda and his wife to power were
not to appearance much worse than others of their day done for
similar ends. However he may have gained his power, he
exercised it with good repute, according to the reports
nearest to his time.
{2842}
It is among the most curious of the antagonisms that sometimes
separate the popular opinion of people of mark from anything
positively known about them, that this man, in a manner sacred
to splendid infamy, is the first whose name appears in the
ecclesiastical records both as a king of Scotland and a
benefactor of the Church; and is also the first who, as king
of Scotland, is said by the chroniclers to have offered his
services to the Bishop of Rome. The ecclesiastical records of
St. Andrews tell how he and his queen made over certain lands
to the Culdees of Lochleven, and there is no such fact on
record of any earlier king of Scotland. Of his connection with
Rome, it is a question whether he went there himself. … That
he sent money there, however, was so very notorious as not
only to be recorded by the insular authorities, but to be
noticed on the Continent as a significant event. … The reign
of this Macbeda or Macbeth forms a noticeable period in our
history. He had a wider dominion than any previous ruler,
having command over all the country now known as Scotland,
except the Isles and a portion of the Western Highlands. …
With him, too, ended that mixed or alternative regal
succession which, whether it was systematic or followed the
law of force, is exceedingly troublesome to the inquirer. …
From Macbeth downwards … the rule of hereditary succession
holds, at all events to the extent that a son, where there is
one, succeeds to his father. Hence this reign is a sort of
turning-point in the constitutional history of the Scottish
crown."
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 10._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1093.
Effects of the Norman Conquest of England.
Civilization and growth of the Northern Kingdom.
Reign of Malcolm III.
"The Norman Conquest of England produced a great effect upon
their neighbours. In the first place, a very great number of
the Saxons who fled from the cruelty of William the Conqueror,
retired into Scotland, and this had a considerable effect in
civilizing the southern parts of that country; for if the
Saxons were inferior to the Normans in arts and in learning,
they were, on the other hand, much superior to the Scots, who
were a rude and very ignorant people. These exiles were headed
and accompanied by what remained of the Saxon royal family,
and particularly by a young prince named Edgar Etheling, who
was a near kinsman of Edward the Confessor, and the heir of
his throne, but dispossessed by the Norman Conqueror. This
prince brought with him to Scotland two sisters, named
Margaret and Christian. They were received with much kindness
by Malcolm III., called Canmore [Ceanmore] (or Great Head),
who remembered the assistance which he had received from
Edward the Confessor. … He himself married the Princess
Margaret (1068), and made her the Queen of Scotland. … When
Malcolm, King of Scotland, was thus connected with the Saxon
royal family of England, he began to think of chasing away the
Normans, and of restoring Edgar Etheling to the English
throne. This was an enterprise for which he had not sufficient
strength; but he made deep and bloody inroads into the
northern parts of England, and brought away so many captives,
that they were to be found for many years afterwards in every
Scottish village, nay, in every Scottish hovel. No doubt, the
number of Saxons thus introduced into Scotland tended much to
improve and civilize the manners of the people. … Not only the
Saxons, but afterwards a number of the Normans themselves,
came to settle in Scotland, … and were welcomed by King
Malcolm. He was desirous to retain these brave men in his
service, and for that purpose he gave them great grants of
land, to be held for military services; and most of the
Scottish nobility are of Norman descent. And thus the Feudal
System was introduced into Scotland as well as England, and
went on gradually gaining strength, till it became the general
law of the country, as indeed it was that of Europe at large.
Malcolm Canmore, thus increasing in power, and obtaining
re-enforcements of warlike and civilized subjects, began
greatly to enlarge his dominions. At first he had resided
almost entirely in the province of Fife, and at the town of
Dunfermline, where there are still the ruins of a small tower
which served him for a palace. But as he found his power
increase, he ventured across the Frith of Forth, and took
possession of Edinburgh, and the surrounding country, which
had hitherto been accounted part of England. The great
strength of the castle of Edinburgh, situated upon a lofty
rock, led him to choose that town frequently for his
residence, so that in time it became the metropolis, or chief
city of Scotland. This king Malcolm was a brave and wise
prince, though without education. He often made war upon King
William the Conqueror of England, and upon his son and
successor, William, who, from his complexion, was called
William Rufus, that is, Red William. Malcolm was sometimes
beaten in these wars, but he was more frequently successful;
and not only made a complete conquest of Lothian, but
threatened also to possess himself of the great English
province of Northumberland, which he frequently invaded."
Malcolm Canmore was killed in battle at Alnwick Castle (1093),
during one of his invasions of English territory.
_Sir W. Scott,
Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
abridged by E. Ginn,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 11._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1093-1153.
Successors of Malcolm III.
The reign of David I.
His civilizing work and influence.
"Six sons and two daughters were the offspring of the marriage
between Malcolm and Margaret. Edward, the eldest, perished
with his father, and Ethelred, created Abbot of Dunkeld and
Earl of Fife, appears to have survived his parents for a very
short time: Edmund died in an English cloister, a penitent and
mysterious recluse; Edgar, Alexander, and David, lived to
wear, in succession, the crown of Scotland. Of the two
daughters, Editha … became the queen of Henry of England. …
Three parties may be said to have divided Scot·land at the
period of Malcolm's death." One of these parties, inspired
with jealousy of the English influence which had come into the
kingdom with queen Margaret, succeeded in raising Donald Bane,
a brother of the late king Malcolm, to the throne. Donald was
soon displaced by Edmund, who is sometimes said to have been
an illegitimate son of Malcolm; and in 1097 Edmund was
dethroned by Edgar, the son of Malcolm and Margaret. Edgar,
dying in 1107, was succeeded by Alexander I., and he, in 1124,
by David I.
{2843}
The reign of David was contemporary with the dark and troubled
time of Stephen in England, and he took an unfortunate part in
the struggle between Stephen and the Empress Matilda,
suffering a dreadful defeat in the famous Battle of the
Standard (see STANDARD, BATTLE OF). But "the whole of the
north of England beyond the Tees" was "for several years …
under the influence, if not under the direct authority, of the
Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part of
the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy prevailing
in every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of
the northern counties to look with favour upon a continuance
of the Scottish connection. … Pursuing the policy inaugurated
by his mother [the English princess Margaret] …, he
encouraged the resort of foreign merchants to the ports of
Scotland, insuring to native traders the same advantages which
they had enjoyed during the reign of his father; whilst he
familiarized his Gaelic nobles, in their attendance upon the
royal court, with habits of luxury and magnificence, remitting
three years' rent and tribute—according to the account of his
contemporary Malmesbury—to all his people who were willing to
improve their dwellings, to dress with greater elegance, and
to adopt increased refinement in their general manner of
living. Even in the occupations of his leisure moments he
seems to have wished to exercise a softening influence over
his countrymen, for, like many men of his character, he was
fond of gardening, and he delighted in indoctrinating his
people in the peaceful arts of horticulture, and in the
mysteries of planting and of grafting. For similar reasons he
sedulously promoted the improvement of agriculture, or rather,
perhaps, directed increased attention to it; for the Scots of
that period were still a pastoral, and, in some respects, a
migratory people. … David hoped to convert the lower orders
into a more settled and industrious population; whilst he
enjoined the higher classes to 'live like noblemen' upon their
own estates, and not to waste the property of their
neighbours. … In consequence of these measures feudal castles
began, ere long, to replace the earlier buildings of wood and
wattles rudely fortified by earthworks; and towns rapidly grew
up around the royal castles and about the principal localities
of commerce. … The prosperity of the country during the last
fifteen years of his reign [he died in 1153] contrasted
strongly with the miseries of England under the disastrous
rule of Stephen; Scotland became the granary from which her
neighbour's wants were supplied; and to the court of
Scotland's king resorted the knights and nobles of foreign
origin, whom the commotions of the Continent had hitherto
driven to take refuge in England."
_E. W. Robertson,
Scotland under her Early Kings,
volume 1, chapters 6-8._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1153.
Accession of Malcolm IV.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1165.
Accession of William IV. (called The Lion).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.
Captivity of William the Lion, his oath of fealty to the
English king, and his release from it.
In 1174, on the occasion of a general conspiracy of rebellion
against Henry II., contrived at Paris, headed by his wife and
sons, and joined by great numbers of the nobles throughout his
dominions, both in England and in France, William the Lion,
king of Scotland, was induced to assist the rebellion by the
promise of Northumberland for himself. Henry was in France
until July, 1174, when he was warned that "only his own
presence could retrieve England, where a Scotch army was
pouring in from the north, while David of Huntingdon headed an
army in the midland counties, and the young prince was
preparing to bring over fresh forces from Gravelines. Henry
crossed the channel in a storm, and, by advice of a Norman
bishop, proceeded at once to do penance at Becket's shrine. On
the day of his humiliation, the Scotch king, William the Lion,
was surprised at Alnwick and captured. This, in fact, ended
the war, for David of Huntingdon was forced to return into
Scotland, where the old feud of Gael and Saxon had broken out.
The English rebels purchased peace by a prompt submission. In
less than a month Henry was able to leave England to itself."
The king of Scotland was taken as a prisoner to Falaise, in
Normandy, where he was detained for several months. "By advice
of a deputation of Scotch prelates and barons he at last
consented to swear fealty to Henry as his liege lord, and to
do provisional homage for his son. His chief vassals
guaranteed this engagement; hostages were given; and English
garrisons received into three Scotch towns, Roxburgh, Berwick,
and Edinburgh. Next year [1175] the treaty was solemnly
ratified at York."
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 1, chapter 31._
This engagement of fealty on the part of William the Lion is
often referred to as the Treaty of Falaise. Fourteen years
afterwards, when Henry's son, Richard, Cœur de Lion, had
succeeded to the throne, the Scotch king was absolved from it.
"Early in December [1189], while Richard was at Canterbury on
his way to the sea [preparing to embark upon his crusade],
William the Lion came to visit him, and a bargain was struck
to the satisfaction of both parties. Richard received from
William a sum of 10,000 marks, and his homage for his English
estates, as they had been held by his brother Malcolm; in
return, he restored to him the castles of Roxburgh and
Berwick, and released him and his heirs for ever from the
homage for Scotland itself, enforced by Henry in 1175."
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 2, chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_W. Burns,
Scottish War of Independence,
volume 1, chapter 12._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1214.
Accession of Alexander II.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1249.
Accession of Alexander III.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.
The Norwegian invasion and the Battle of Largs.
"The western Highlands and Islands formed the original
territory of the Scots. But we have seen how the Norwegians
and Danes, seizing Shetland and Orkney, spread themselves over
the western Archipelago, even as far south as Man, thereby
putting an end, for 300 years, to the intercommunication
between the mainlands of Scotland and Ireland. These islands
long formed a sort of maritime community, sometimes under the
active authority of the kings of Norway, sometimes connected
with the Norwegian settlers in Ireland—Ostmen, as they were
called; sometimes partially ruled by kings of Man, but more
generally subject to chieftains more or less powerful, who,
when opportunity offered, made encroachments even on the
mainland. …
{2844}
Alexander II. seems to have determined to bring this sort of
interregnum to a close, and he was engaged in an expedition
for that purpose when he died at the little island of Kerrera,
near Oban. His son, as he advanced to manhood, appears to have
revived the idea of completely re-annexing the Islands.
Complaints were made by the islanders to Haco, king of Norway,
of aggressions by the earl of Ross and other mainland
magnates, in the interest of the king of Scots; and Haco, who
was at once a powerful and a despotic monarch, resolved to
vindicate his claims as suzerain of the isles. … Haco
accordingly fitted out a splendid fleet, consisting of 100
vessels, mostly of large size, fully equipped, and crowded
with gallant soldiers and seamen. … On the 10th of July, 1263,
'the mightiest armament that ever left the shores of Norway
sailed from the haven of Herlover.' … The island chieftains,
Magnus of the Orkneys, Magnus, king of Man, Dougal MacRoderic,
and others, met the triumphant fleet, swelling its numbers as
it advanced amongst the islands. Most of the chiefs made their
peace with Haco; though there were exceptions. … The invading
fleet entered the Clyde, numbering by this time as many as 160
ships. A squadron of 60 sail proceeded up Loch-long; the crews
drew their boats across the narrow isthmus at Tarbet, launched
on Loch-lomond, and spread their ravages, by fire and sword,
over the Lennox and Stirlingshire. … The alarm spread over the
surrounding country, and gradually a Scottish army began to
gather on the Ayrshire side of the firth. … Whether
voluntarily, or from stress of weather, some portion of the
Norwegians made a landing near Largs, on the Ayrshire coast,
opposite to Bute. These being attacked by the Scots,
reinforcements were landed, and a fierce but desultory
struggle was kept up, with varying success, from morning till
night. Many of the ships were driven ashore. Most of the
Norwegians who had landed were slain. The remainder of the
fleet was seriously damaged. … Retracing its course among the
islands, on the 20th of October it reached Kirkwall in Orkney,
where king Haco expired on 15th December. Such was the result
of an expedition which had set out with such fair promises of
success."
_W. Burns,
The Scottish War of Independence,
chapter 13 (volume 1)._
"In the Norse annals our famous Battle of Largs makes small
figure, or almost none at all, among Hakon's battles and
feats. … Of Largs there is no mention whatever in Norse books.
But beyond any doubt, such is the other evidence, Hakon did
land there; land and fight, not conquering, probably rather
beaten; and very certainly 'retiring to his ships,' as in
either case he behooved to do! It is further certain he was
dreadfully maltreated by the weather on those wild coasts; and
altogether credible, as the Scotch records bear, that he was
so at Largs very specially. The Norse Records or Sagas say
merely he lost many of his ships by the tempests, and many of
his men by land fighting in various parts,—tacitly including
Largs, no doubt, which was the last of these misfortunes to
him. … To this day, on a little plain to the south of the
village, now town, of Largs, in Ayrshire, there are seen stone
cairns and monumental heaps, and, until within a century ago,
one huge, solitary, upright stone; still mutely testifying to
a battle there—altogether clearly to this battle of King
Hakon's; who by the Norse records, too, was in these
neighbourhoods at that same date, and evidently in an
aggressive, high kind of humour."
_T. Carlyle,
Early Kings of Norway,
chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._
See, also,
NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES,
and 10-13TH CENTURIES.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1266.
Acquisition of the Western Islands.
Three years after the battle of Largs, "in 1266, Magnus IV.,
the new King [of Norway], by formal treaty ceded to the King
of Scots Man and all the Western Isles, specially reserving
Orkney and Shetland to the crown of Norway. On the other hand,
the King of Scots agreed to pay down a ransom for them of a
thousand marks, and an annual rent of a hundred marks."
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1286.
Accession of Queen Margaret (called The Maid of Norway)
who died on her way to Scotland in 1290.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
Death of the Maid of Norway.
Reign of John Balliol.
English conquest by Edward I.
Exploits of Wallace.
Alexander III. of Scotland, dying in 1286, left only an infant
granddaughter to inherit his crown. This was the child of his
daughter Margaret, married to the king of Norway and dead
after her first confinement. The baby queen, known in Scottish
history as the Maid of Norway, was betrothed in her sixth year
to Prince Edward of England, son of Edward I., and all looked
promising for an early union of the Scottish and English
crowns. "But this project was abruptly frustrated by the
child's death on her voyage to Scotland, and with the rise of
claimant after claimant of the vacant throne Edward was drawn
into far other relations to the Scottish realm. Of the
thirteen pretenders to the throne of Scotland, only three
could be regarded as serious claimants. By the extinction of
the line of William the Lion, the right of succession passed
to the daughters of his brother David. The claim of John
Balliol, Lord of Galloway, rested on his descent from the
eldest of these; that of Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, on
his descent from the second; that of John Hastings, Lord of
Abergavenny, on his descent from the third. … All the rights
of a feudal suzerain were at once assumed by the English King;
he entered into the possession of the country as into that of
a disputed fief to be held by its overlord till the dispute
was settled. … Scotland was thus reduced to the subjection
which she had experienced under Henry II. … The commissioners
whom he named to report on the claims to the throne were
mainly Scotch; a proposal for the partition of the realm among
the claimants was rejected as contrary to Scotch law, and the
claim of Balliol as representative of the elder branch was
finally preferred to that of his rivals. The castles were at
once delivered to the new monarch, and Balliol did homage to
Edward with full acknowledgment of the services due to him
from the realm of Scotland. For a time there was peace." But,
presently, Edward made claims upon the Scotch nobles for
service in his foreign wars which were resented and
disregarded. He also asserted for his courts a right of
hearing appeals from the Scottish tribunals, which was angrily
denied. Barons and people were provoked to a hostility that
forced Balliol to challenge war. He obtained from the pope
absolution from his oath of fealty and he entered into a
secret alliance with the king of France.
{2845}
In the spring of 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, carried Berwick
by storm, slaughtered 8,000 of its citizens, defeated the
Scots with great slaughter at Dunbar, occupied Edinburgh,
Stirling and Perth, and received, in July, the surrender of
Balliol, who was sent to imprisonment in the Tower of London.
"No further punishment, however, was exacted from the
prostrate realm. Edward simply treated it as a fief, and
declared its forfeiture to be the legal consequence of
Balliol's treason. It lapsed in fact to the overlord, and its
earls, barons and gentry swore homage in Parliament at Berwick
to Edward as their king. … The government of the new
dependency was intrusted to Warenne, Earl of Surrey, at the
head of an English Council of Regency. … The disgraceful
submission of their leaders brought the people themselves to
the front. … The genius of an outlaw knight, William Wallace,
saw in their smouldering discontent a hope of freedom for his
country, and his daring raids on outlying parties of the
English soldiery roused the country at last into revolt. Of
Wallace himself, of his life or temper, we know little or
nothing; the very traditions of his gigantic stature and
enormous strength are dim and unhistorical. But the instinct
of the Scotch people has guided it aright in choosing Wallace
for its national hero. He … called the people itself to arms."
At Stirling, in September, 1297, Wallace caught the English
army in the midst of its passage of the Forth, cut half of it
in pieces and put the remainder to flight. At Falkirk, in the
following July, Edward avenged himself upon the forces of
Wallace with terrible slaughter, and the Scottish leader
narrowly escaped. In the struggle which the Scots still
maintained for several years, he seems to have borne no longer
a prominent part. But when they submitted, in 1303, Wallace
refused Edward's offered amnesty; he was afterwards captured,
sent to London for trial, and executed, his head being placed
on London Bridge, according to the barbarous custom of the
time.
_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 4, section 3._
ALSO:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapters 15 and 18-22._
_C. H. Pearson,
History of England during the Early and Middle Ages,
volume 2, chapters 12-13._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1305-1307.
The rising under Robert Bruce.
After the submission of Scotland in 1303, King Edward of
England "set to work to complete the union of the two
kingdoms. In the meantime Scotland was to be governed by a
Lieutenant aided by a council of barons and churchmen. It was
to be represented in the English parliament by ten
deputies,—four churchmen, four barons, and two members of the
commons, one for the country north of the Firths, one for the
south. These members attended one parliament at Westminster,
and an ordinance was issued for the government of Scotland. …
But the great difficulty in dealing with the Scots was that
they never knew when they were conquered, and, just when
Edward hoped that his scheme for union was carried out, they
rose in arms once more. The leader this time was Robert Bruce,
Lord of Annandale, Earl of Carrick in right of his mother, and
the grandson and heir of the rival of Balliol. He had joined
Wallace, but had again sworn fealty to Edward at the
Convention of Irvine, and had since then received many favours
from the English king. Bruce signed a bond with William
Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, who had also been one of
Wallace's supporters. In this bond each party swore to stand
by the other in all his undertakings, no matter what, and not
to act without the knowledge of the other. … This bond became
known to Edward; and Bruce, afraid of his anger, fled from
London to Dumfries. There in the Church of the Grey Friars he
had an interview with John Comyn of Badenoch, called the Red
Comyn, who, after Balliol and his sons, was the next heir to
the throne. … What passed between them cannot be certainly
known, as they met alone"—but Comyn was slain. "By this murder
and sacrilege Bruce put himself at once out of the pale of the
law and of the Church, but by it he became the nearest heir to
the crown, after the Balliols. This gave him a great hold on
the people, whose faith in the virtue of hereditary succession
was strong, and on whom the English yoke weighed heavily. On
March 27, 1306, Bruce was crowned [at Scone] with as near an
imitation of the old ceremonies as could be compassed on such
short notice. The actual crowning was done by Isabella,
Countess of Buchan, who, though her husband was a Comyn, and,
as such, a sworn foe of Bruce, came secretly to uphold the
right of her own family, the Macduffs, to place the crown on
the head of the King of Scots. Edward determined this time to
put down the Scots with rigour. … All who had taken any part
in the murder of the Red Comyn were denounced as traitors, and
death was to be the fate of all persons taken in arms. Bruce
was excommunicated by a special bull from the Pope. The
Countess of Buchan was confined in a room, made like a cage,
in one of the towers of Berwick Castle. One of King Robert's
sisters was condemned to a like punishment. His brother Nigel,
his brother-in-law Christopher Seaton, and three other nobles
were taken prisoners, and were put to death as traitors. …
Edward this time made greater preparations than ever. All
classes of his subjects from all parts of his dominions were
invited to join the army, and he exhorted his son, Edward
Prince of Wales, and 300 newly-created knights, to win their
spurs worthily in the reduction of contumacious Scotland. It
was well for Scotland that he did not live to carry out his
vows of vengeance. He died at Burgh-on-the-Sands, July 30th.
His death proved a turning-point in the history of Scotland,
for, though the English still remained in possession of the
strongholds, Edward II. took no effective steps to crush the
rebels. He only brought the army raised by his father as far
as Cumnock in Ayrshire, and retreated without doing anything."
_M. MacArthur,
History of Scotland,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapters 8-9._
_W. Burns,
Scottish War of Independence,
volume 2, chapters 21-22._
{2846}
SCOTLAND: A. D, 1314.
The Battle of Bannockburn.
"It is extremely difficult to give distinctness and
chronological sequence to the events in Scotland from 1306 to
1310: the conditions are indeed antagonistic to distinctness.
We have a people restless and feverishly excited to efforts
for their liberty when opportunity should come, but not yet
embodied in open war against their invaders, and therefore
doing nothing distinct enough to hold a place in history. …
The other prominent feature in the historical conditions was
the new-made king [Robert Bruce], … a tall strong man, of
comely, attractive, and commanding countenance. … He is steady
and sanguine of temperament; his good spirits and good-humour
never fail, and in the midst of misery and peril he can keep
up the spirits of his followers by chivalrous stories and
pleasant banter. … The English were driven out of the strong
places one by one—sometimes by the people of the district. We
hear of the fall of Edinburgh, Roxburgh, Linlithgow, Perth,
Dundee, Rutherglen, and Dumfries. … In the beginning of the
year 1309 Scotland was so far consolidated as to be getting
into a place in European diplomacy. The King of France advised
his son-in-law, Edward II., to agree to a souffrance or truce
with the Scots. … While the negotiations with France went on,
countenance still more important was given to the new order of
things at home. The clergy in council set forth their
adherence to King Robert, with the reasons for it. … This was
an extremely important matter, for it meant, of course, that
the Church would do its best to protect him from all
ecclesiastical risk arising from the death of Comyn. … A
crisis came at last which roused the Government of England to
a great effort. After the fortresses had fallen one by one,
Stirling Castle still held out. It was besieged by Edward
Bruce [brother of Robert] before the end of the year 1313.
Mowbray, the governor, stipulated that he would surrender if
not relieved before the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the
following year, or the 24th of June. The taking of this
fortress was an achievement of which King Edward [I.] was
prouder than of anything else he had done in the invasions of
Scotland. … That the crowning acquisition of their mighty king
should thus be allowed to pass away, and stamp emphatically
the utter loss of the great conquest he had made for the
English crown, was a consummation too humiliating for the
chivalry of England to endure without an effort. Stirling
Castle must be relieved before St. John's Day, and the
relieving of Stirling Castle meant a thorough invasion and
resubjection of Scotland." On both sides the utmost efforts
were made,—the one to relieve the Castle, the other to
strengthen its besiegers. "On the 23d of June [1314] the two
armies were visible to each other. If the Scots had, as it was
said, between 30,000 and 40,000 men, it was a great force for
the country at that time to furnish. Looking at the urgency of
the measures taken to draw out the feudal array of England, to
the presence of the Welsh and Irish, and to a large body of
Gascons and other foreigners, it is easy to be believed that
the army carried into Scotland might be, as it was said to be,
100,000 in all. The efficient force, however, was in the
mounted men, and these were supposed to be about equal in
number to the whole Scottish army." The Scots occupied a
position of great strength and advantage (on the banks of the
Bunnock Burn), which they had skilfully improved by
honeycombing all the flat ground with hidden pits, to make it
impassable for cavalry. The English attacked them at daybreak
on the 24th of June, and suffered a most ignominious and awful
defeat. "The end was rout, confused and hopeless. The pitted
field added to the disasters; for though they avoided it in
their advance, many horsemen were pressed into it in the
retreat, and floundered among the pitfalls. Through all the
history of her great wars before and since, never did England
suffer a humiliation deep enough to approach even comparison
with this. Besides the inferiority of the victorious army,
Bannockburn is exceptional among battles by the utter
helplessness of the defeated. There seems to have been no
rallying point anywhere. … None of the parts of that mighty
host could keep together, and the very chaos among the
multitudes around seems to have perplexed the orderly army of
the Scots. The foot-soldiers of the English army seem simply
to have dispersed at all points, and the little said of them
is painfully suggestive of the poor wanderers having to face
the two alternatives—starvation in the wilds, or death at the
hands of the peasantry. The cavalry fled right out towards
England. … Stirling Castle was delivered up in terms of the
stipulation."
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 23._
"The defeated army … left dead upon the field about 30,000
men, including 200 knights and 700 esquires."
_W. Burns,
Scottish War of Independence,
chapter 23 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 3._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314-1328.
After Bannockburn.
The consequences of the battle in different views.
"A very general impression exists, especially among
Englishmen, that the defeat at Bannockburn put an end to the
attempted subjugation of Scotland. This is a mistake. … No
doubt the defeat was of so decisive a character as to render
the final result all but certain. But it required many others,
though of a minor kind, to bring about the conviction
described by Mr. Froude [that the Scotch would never stoop to
the supremacy inflicted upon Wales]; and it was yet fourteen
long years till the treaty of Northampton."
_W. Burns,
The Scottish War of Independence,
chapter 24 (volume 2)._
"No defeat, however crushing, ever proved half so injurious to
any country as the victory of Bannockburn did to Scotland.
This is the testimony borne by men whose patriotism cannot be
called in question. … It drove from Scotland the very elements
of its growing civilization and its material wealth. The
artisans of North Britain were at that time mostly English.
These retired or were driven from Scotland, and with them the
commercial importance of the Scottish towns was lost. The
estates held by Englishmen in Scotland were confiscated, and
the wealth which through the hands of these proprietors had
found its way from the southern parts of the kingdom and
fertilized the more barren soil of the north, at once ceased.
The higher and more cultured clergy were English; these
retired when the severance of Scotland from England was
effected, and with them Scottish scholarship was almost
extinguished, and the budding literature of the north
disappeared. How calamitous was the period which followed upon
Bannockburn may be partially estimated by two significant
facts. Of the six princes who had nominal rule in Scotland
from the death of Robert III. to James VI., not one died a
natural death. Of the ten kings whose names are entered on the
roll of Scottish history from the death of Robert Bruce, seven
came to the throne whilst minors, and James I. was detained in
England for nineteen years. The country during these long
minorities, and the time of the captivity of James, was
exposed to the strife commonly attendant on minorities.…
{2847}
The war commenced by Bruce lingered for almost three
centuries, either in the shape of formal warfare proclaimed by
heralds and by the ceremonials usually observed at the
beginning of national strife, or in the informal but equally
destructive hostilities which neighbours indulge in, and which
partake of the bitterness of civil war. … For three centuries
the lands south of the Tweed, and almost as far as the Tyne at
its mouth, were exposed to the ceaseless ravages of
moss-troopers. … For a while men were killed, and women
outraged and murdered, and children slain without pity, and
houses plundered and then burnt, and cattle swept off the
grazing lands between Tweed and Tyne, until none cared, unless
they were outlaws, to occupy any part of the country within a
night's ride of the borders of Scotland. The sufferers in
their turn soon learned to recognize no law save that of
might, and avenged their wrongs by inflicting like wrongs upon
others; and thus there grew up along the frontiers of either
country a savage population, whose occupation was murder and
plunder, and whose sole wealth was what they had obtained by
violence. … The war, indeed, which has been called a war of
independence, and fills so large a part of the annals of
England and Scotland during the Middle Ages, was successful so
far as its main object was concerned, the preservation of
power in the hands of 'barbarous chieftains who neither feared
the king nor pitied the people'; the war was a miserable
failure if we regard the well-being of the people themselves
and the progress of the nation."
_W. Denton,
England in the Fifteenth Century,
pages 68-78._
On the other side: "It [the battle of Bannockburn] put an end
for ever to all hopes upon the part of England of
accomplishing the conquest of her sister country. … Nor have
the consequences of this victory been partial or confined.
Their duration throughout succeeding centuries of Scottish
history and Scottish liberty, down to the hour in which this
is written, cannot be questioned; and without launching out
into any inappropriate field of historical speculation, we
have only to think of the most obvious consequences which must
have resulted from Scotland becoming a conquered province of
England; and if we wish for proof, to fix our eyes on the
present condition of Ireland, in order to feel the reality of
all that we owe to the victory at Bannockburn, and to the
memory of such men as Bruce, Randolph, and Douglas."
_P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 3._
"It is impossible, even now, after the lapse of more than 570
years, to read any account of that battle—or still more to
visit the field—without emotion. For we must remember all the
political and social questions which depended on it. For good
or for evil, tremendous issues follow on the gain or on the
loss of national independence. … Where the seeds of a strong
national civilisation, of a strong national character, and of
intellectual wealth have been deeply sown in any human soil,
the preservation of it from conquest, and from invasion, and
from foreign rule, is the essential condition of its yielding
its due contribution to the progress of the world. Who, then,
can compute or reckon up the debt which Scotland owes to the
few and gallant men who, inspired by a splendid courage and a
noble faith, stood by The Bruce in the War of Independence,
and on June 24, 1314, saw the armies of the invader flying
down the Carse of Stirling?"
_The Duke of Argyll,
Scotland as it was and as it is,
volume 1, chapter 2._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603.
The formation of the Scottish Parliament.
"As many causes contributed to bring government earlier to
perfection in Eng]and than in Scotland; as the rigour of the
feudal institutions abated sooner, and its defects were
supplied with greater facility in the one kingdom than in the
other; England led the way in all these changes, and burgesses
and knights of the shire appeared in the parliaments of that
nation, before they were heard of in ours. Burgesses were
first admitted into the Scottish parliaments by Robert Bruce
[A. D. 1326]; and in the preamble to the laws of Robert III.
they are ranked among the constituent members of that
assembly. The lesser barons were indebted to James I. [A. D.
1427] for a statute exempting them from personal attendance,
and permitting them to elect representatives: the exemption
was eagerly laid hold on, but the privilege was so little
valued that, except one or two instances, it lay neglected
during one hundred and sixty years; and James VI. first
obliged them to send representatives regularly to parliament.
A Scottish parliament, then, consisted anciently of great
barons, of ecclesiastics, and a few representatives of
boroughs. Nor were these divided, as in Eng]and, into two
houses, but composed one assembly, in which the lord
chancellor presided. … The great barons, or lords of
parliament, were extremely few; even so late as the beginning
of the reign of James VI. they amounted only to 53. The
ecclesiastics equalled them in number, and, being devoted
implicitly to the crown, … rendered all hopes of victory in
any struggle desperate. … As far back as our records enable us
to trace the constitution of our parliaments, we find a
committee distinguished by the name of lords of articles. It
was their business to prepare and to digest all matters which
were to be laid before the parliament. There was rarely any
business introduced into parliament but what had passed
through the channel of this committee. … This committee owed
the extraordinary powers vested in it to the military genius
of the ancient nobles, too impatient to submit to the drudgery
of civil business. … The lords of articles, then, not only
directed all the proceedings of parliament, but possessed a
negative before debate. That committee was chosen and
constituted in such a manner as put this valuable privilege
entirely in the king's hands. It is extremely probable that
our kings once had the sole right of nominating the lords of
articles. They came afterwards to be elected by the
parliament, and consisted of an equal number out of each
estate."
_W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
book 1._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328.
The Peace of Northampton.
In 1327 King Edward III. of England collected a splendid army
of 60,000 men for his first campaign against the Scots. After
several weeks of tiresome marching and countermarching, in
vain attempts to bring the agile Scots to an engagement, or to
stop the bold ravages of Douglas and Randolph, who led them,
the young king abandoned his undertaking in disgust.
{2848}
He next "convoked a parliament at York, in which there
appeared a tendency on the part of England to concede the main
points on which proposals for peace had hitherto failed, by
acknowledging the independence of Scotland and the legitimate
sovereignty of Bruce." A truce was presently agreed upon,
"which it was now determined should be the introduction to a
lasting peace. As a necessary preliminary, the English
statesmen resolved formally to execute a resignation of all
claims of dominion and superiority which had been assumed over
the kingdom of Scotland, and agreed that all muniments or
public instruments asserting or tending to support such a
claim should be delivered up. This agreement was subscribed by
the king on the 4th of March, 1328. Peace was afterwards
concluded at Edinburgh the 17th of March, 1328, and ratified
at a parliament held at Northampton, the 4th of May, 1328. It
was confirmed by a match agreed upon between the princess
Joanna, sister to Edward III., and David, son of Robert I.,
though both were as yet infants. Articles of strict amity were
settled betwixt the nations, without prejudice to the effect
of the alliance between Scotland and France. … It was
stipulated that all the charters and documents carried from
Scotland by Edward I. should be restored, and the king of
England was pledged to give his aid in the court of Rome
towards the recall of the excommunication awarded against king
Robert. Lastly, Scotland was to pay a sum of £20,000 in
consideration of these favourable terms. The borders were to
be maintained in strict order on both sides, and the fatal
coronation-stone was to be restored to Scotland. There was
another separate obligation on the Scottish side, which led to
most serious consequences in the subsequent reign. The seventh
article of the Peace of Northampton provided that certain
English barons … should be restored to the lands and heritages
in Scotland, whereof they had been deprived during the war, by
the king of Scots seizing them into his own hand. The
execution of this article was deferred by the Scottish king,
who was not, it may be conceived, very willing again to
introduce English nobles as landholders into Scotland. The
English mob, on their part, resisted the removal of the fatal
stone from Westminster, where it had been deposited. … The
deed called Ragman's Roll, being the list of the barons and
men of note who subscribed the submission to Edward I. in
1296, was, however, delivered up to the Scots."
_Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 12 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Froissart,
Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapter 18._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1329.
Accession of David II.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.
The Disinherited Barons.
Balliol's invasion.
Siege of Berwick and battle of Halidon Hill.
Until his death, in 1329, King Robert Bruce evaded the
enforcement of that provision of the Treaty of Northampton
which pledged him to restore the forfeited estates of English
nobles within the Scottish border. His death left the crown to
a child of seven years, his son David, under the regency of
Randolph, Earl of Murray, and the regent still procrastinated
the restoration of the estates in question. At length, in
1332, the "disinherited barons," as they were called,
determined to prosecute their claim by force of arms, and they
made common cause with Edward Balliol, son of the ex-king of
Scotland, who had been exiled in France. The English king,
Edward III. would not openly give countenance to their
undertaking, nor permit them to invade Scotland across the
English frontier; but he did nothing to prevent their
recruiting in the northern counties an army of 3,300 men,
which took ship at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, and landed on the
coast of Fifeshire, under Balliol's command. Marching
westward, the invaders "finally took up a strong position in
the heart of the country, with the river Earn in their front.
Just before this crisis, the wise and capable Regent,
Randolph, Earl of Murray, had died, and the great Sir James
Douglas, having gone with King Robert's heart to offer it at
the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, had perished on his way, in
conflict with the Moors of Spain. The regency had devolved
upon the Earl of Mar, a man wanting both in energy and in
military capacity; but so strong was the national antipathy to
Balliol, as representing the idea of English supremacy, that
Mar found no difficulty in bringing an army of 40,000 men into
the field against him. He drew up over against the enemy on
the northern bank of the Earn, on Dupplin Moor, while the Earl
of March, with forces scarcely inferior to the Regent's,
threatened the flank of the little army of the invaders.
Balliol, however, was not wanting in valour or generalship,
and there were, as usual, traitors in the Scotch army, one of
whom led the English, by a ford which he knew, safe across the
river in the darkness of the night. They threw themselves upon
the scattered, over-secure, and ill-sentinelled camp of the
enemy with such a sudden and furious onslaught, that the huge
Scottish army broke up into a panic-stricken and disorganised
crowd and were slaughtered like sheep, the number of the slain
four times exceeding that of the whole of Balliol's army,
which escaped with the loss of thirty men. The invaders now
took possession of Perth, which the Earl of March forthwith
surrounded, by land and water, and thought to starve into
submission; but Balliol's ships broke through the blockade on
the Tay, and the besiegers, despairing of success, marched off
and disbanded without striking another blow. Scotland having
been thus subdued by a handful of men, the nobles one by one
came to make their submission. Young King David and his
affianced bride were sent over to France for security, and
Edward Balliol was crowned King at Scone on September 24,
1332, two months after his disembarkation in Scotland. As
Balliol was thus actual (de facto) King of Scotland, Edward
could now form an alliance with him without a breach of the
treaty; and there seemed to be many arguments in favour of
espousing his cause. The young Bruce and his dynasty
represented the troublesome spirit of Scottish independence,
and were closely allied with France, whose king, as will be
seen, lost no opportunity of stimulating and supporting the
party of resistance to England. Balliol, on the other hand,
admitted in a secret despatch to Edward that the success of
the expedition was owing to that King's friendly
non-intervention, and the aid of his subjects; offered to hold
Scotland 'as his man,' doing him homage for it as an English
fief; and, treating the princess Joan's hastily formed union
with David as a mere engagement, proposed to marry her himself
instead. The King, as always, even on less important issues
than the present, consulted his Parliament. …
{2849}
Balliol in the meanwhile, having dismissed the greater part of
his English auxiliaries, was lying unsuspicious of danger at
Annan, when his camp was attacked in the middle of the night
by a strong body of cavalry under Murray, son of the wise
Regent, and Douglas, brother of the great Sir James. The
entrenchments were stormed in the darkness; noble, vassal and
retainer were slaughtered before they were able to organise
any resistance, and Balliol himself barely escaped with his
life across the English border." In the following year,
however, Edward restored his helpless vassal, invading
Scotland in person, besieging Berwick, and routing and
destroying, at Halidon Hill, a Scotch army which came to its
relief.
_W. Warburton,
Edward III.,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_W. Longman,
Life and Times of Edward III.,
volume 1, chapter 4._
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 3, chapter 25._
See, also, BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.
The long-continued wars with Edward III.
"Throughout the whole country of Scotland, only four castles
and a small tower acknowledged the sovereignty of David Bruce,
after the battle of Halidon; and it is wonderful to see how,
by their efforts, the patriots soon afterwards changed for the
better that unfavourable and seemingly desperate state of
things. In the several skirmishes and battles which were
fought all over the kingdom, the Scots, knowing the country,
and having the good-will of the inhabitants, were generally
successful, as also in surprising castles and forts, cutting
off convoys of provisions which were going to the English, and
destroying scattered parties of the enemy; so that, by a long
and incessant course of fighting, the patriots gradually
regained what they lost in great battles. … You may well
imagine that, during those long and terrible wars which were
waged, when castles were defended and taken, prisoners made,
many battles fought, and numbers of men wounded and slain, the
state of the country of Scotland was most miserable. There was
no finding refuge or protection in the law. … All laws of
humanity and charity were transgressed without scruple. People
were found starved to death in the woods with their families,
while the country was so depopulated and void of cultivation
that the wild deer came out of the remote forests, and
approached near to cities and the dwellings of men. …
Notwithstanding the valiant defence maintained by the Scots,
their country was reduced to a most disastrous state, by the
continued wars of Edward III., who was a wise and warlike King
as ever lived. Could he have turned against Scotland the whole
power of his kingdom, he might probably have effected the
complete conquest, which had been so long attempted in vain.
But while the wars in Scotland were at the hottest, Edward
became also engaged in hostilities with France, having laid
claim to the crown of that kingdom. … The Scots sent an
embassy to obtain money and assistance from the French; and
they received supplies of both, which enabled them to recover
their castles and towns from the English. Edinburgh Castle was
taken from the invaders by a stratagem. … Perth, and other
important places, were also retaken by the Scots, and Edward
Baliol retired out of the country, in despair of, making good
his pretensions to the crown. The nobles of Scotland, finding
the affairs of the kingdom more prosperous, now came to the
resolution of bringing back from France, where he had resided
for safety, their young King, David II., and his consort,
Queen Joanna. They arrived in 1341. David II. was still a
youth, neither did he possess at any period of life the wisdom
and talents of his father, the great King Robert. The nobles
of Scotland had become each a petty prince on his own estates;
they made war on each other as they had done upon the English,
and the poor King possessed, no power of restraining them.
Edward III. being absent in France, and in the act of
besieging Calais, David was induced, by the pressing and
urgent counsels of the French King, to renew the war, and
profit by the King's absence from England. The young King of
Scotland raised, accordingly, a large army, and, entering
England on the west frontier, he marched eastward towards
Durham, harassing and wasting the country with great severity;
the Scots boasting that, now the King and his nobles were
absent, there were none in England to oppose them, save
priests and base mechanics. But they were greatly deceived.
The lords of the northern counties of England, together with
the Archbishop of York, assembled a gallant army. They
defeated the vanguard of the Scots and came upon the main body
by surprise. … The Scottish army fell fast into disorder. The
King himself fought bravely in the midst of his nobles and was
twice wounded with arrows. At length he was captured. …The
left wing of the Scottish army continued fighting long after
the rest were routed, and at length made a safe retreat. It
was commanded by the Steward of Scotland and the Earl of
March. Very many of the Scottish nobility were slain; very
many made prisoners. The King himself was led in triumph
through the streets of London, and committed to the Tower a
close prisoner. This battle was fought at Neville's Cross,
near Durham, on 17th October, 1346. Thus was another great
victory gained by the English over the Scots. It was followed
by farther advantages, which gave the victors for a time
possession of the country from the Scottish Border as far as
the verge of Lothian. But the Scots, as usual, were no sooner
compelled to momentary submission, than they began to consider
the means of shaking off the yoke. Edward III. was not more
fortunate in making war on Scotland in his own name, than when
he used the pretext of supporting Baliol. He marched into
East-Lothian in spring, 1355, and committed such ravages that
the period was long marked by the name of the Burned
Candlemas, because so many towns and villages were burned. But
the Scots had removed every species of provisions which could
be of use to the invaders, and avoided a general battle, while
they engaged in a number of skirmishes. In this manner Edward
was compelled to retreat out of Scotland, after sustaining
much loss. After the failure of this effort, Edward seems to
have despaired of the conquest of Scotland, and entered into
terms for a truce, and for setting the King at liberty. Thus
David II. at length obtained his freedom from the English,
after he had been detained in prison eleven years. The latter
years of this King's life have nothing very remarkable. He
died in 1370."
_Sir W. Scott,
Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland);
abridged by E. Ginn,
chapters 14-15._
{2850}
ALSO IN:
_J. Froissart,
Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
book 1._
_W. Longman,
Life and Times of Edward III.,
volume 1, chapters 4, 10, 15, 22._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1346.
Founding of the Lordship of the Isles.
See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370.
The accession of Robert II. the first of the Stewart
or Stuart Dynasty.
On the death of David II. of Scotland (son of Robert Bruce) A.
D. 1370, he was succeeded on the throne by his nephew, "Robert
the High Steward of Scotland," whose mother was Marjory,
daughter of Robert Bruce. The succession had been so fixed by
act of the Scottish Parliament during "good King Robert's"
life. The new King Robert began the Stewart line, as a royal
dynasty. "The name of his family was Allan, or Fitz Allan, but
it had become habitual to call them by the name of the feudal
office held by them in Scotland, and hence Robert II. was the
first of the Steward, or, as it came to be written, the
Stewart dynasty. They obtained their feudal influence through
the office enjoyed by their ancestors at the Court of
Scotland—the office of Steward."
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 26 (volume 3)._
The succession of the family on the Scottish throne was as
follows:
Robert II.,
Robert III.,
James I.,
James II.,
James III.,
James IV.,
James V.,
Mary,
James VI.
The grandmother of Mary, the great grandmother of James VI.,
was Margaret Tudor, of the English royal family—sister of
Henry VIII. The death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 left the
English throne with no nearer heir than the Scottish King
James. He, therefore, united the two crowns and became James
I. of England, as well as James VI. of Scotland. His
successors of the dynasty in England were Charles I., before
the Rebellion and Commonwealth, then Charles II., James II.,
Mary (of the joint reign of William and Mary), and Anne. The
Hanoverian line, which succeeded, was derived from the Stuart,
through a daughter of James I.—Elizabeth of Bohemia.
_M. Noble,
Historical Genealogy of the House of Stuart._
ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 15 (volume 1)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1388.
The Battle of Otterburn.
See OTTERBURN.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1390.
Accession of Robert III.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436.
Homildon Hill and Shrewsbury.
The captivity of James I.
From 1389 to 1399 there was a truce between England and
Scotland, and the Scotch borderers watched impatiently for the
termination of it, that they might be let loose on the
northern English counties, "like hounds let off the leash. It
was asserted on the part of England, indeed, that they did not
wait for the conclusion. Ten years of peaceful husbandry had
prepared a harvest for them, and they swept it off in the old
way—the English borderers retaliating by an invasion of the
Lowlands. The political aspect again became menacing for
Scotland. The conditions which rendered peace almost a
necessity for England had ceased with a revolution. It was no
longer Richard II., but Henry IV., who reigned; and he began
his reign by a great invasion of Scotland." He marched with a
large army (A. D. 1400) as far as Leith and threatened
Edinburgh Castle, which was stoutly defended by the Scottish
king's son; but the expedition was fruitless of results.
Henry, however, gained the adhesion of the Earl of March, one
of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles, who had received
an unpardonable affront from the Duke of Albany, then regent
of Scotland, and who joined the English against his country in
consequence. In the autumn of 1402 the Scotch retaliated
Henry's invasion by a great plundering expedition under
Douglas, which penetrated as far as Durham. The rievers were
returning, laden with plunder, when they were intercepted by
Hotspur and the traitor March, at Homildon Hill, near Wooler,
and fearfully beaten, a large number of Scotch knights and
lords being killed or taken prisoner. Douglas and others among
the prisoners of this battle were subsequently released by
Hotspur, in defiance of the orders of King Henry, and they
joined him with a considerable force when he raised his
standard of revolt. Sharing the defeat of the rebellious
Percys, Douglas was again taken prisoner at Shrewsbury, A. D.
1403. Two years later the English king gained a more important
captive, in the person of the young heir to the Scottish
throne, subsequently King James I., who was taken at sea while
on a voyage to France. The young prince (who became titular
king of Scotland in 1406, on his father's death) was detained
at the English court nineteen years, treated with friendly
courtesy by Henry IV. and Henry V. and educated with care. He
married Jane Beaufort, niece of Henry IV., and was set free to
return to his kingdom in 1424, prepared by his English
training to introduce in Scotland a better system of
government and more respectful ideas of law. The reforms which
he undertook gave rise to fear and hatred among the lawless
lords of the north, and they rid themselves of a king who
troubled them with too many restraints, by assassinating him,
on the 20th of February, 1436.
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 3, chapters 26-27._
ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapters 16-18._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1411.
Battle of Harlaw.
Defeat of the Lord of the Isles and the Highland clans.
See HARLAW.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1437-1460.
Reign of James II.
Feuds in the kingdom.
The Douglases.
James II. was crowned (1437) at six years of age. "Sir
Alexander Livingstone became guardian of his person; Sir
William Crichton, Chancellor of his kingdom; and Archibald,
fifth Earl of Douglas, … nephew of the late King, became
Lieutenant-General. The history of the regency is the history
of the perpetual strife of Livingstone and Crichton with each
other and with the Earl of Douglas, who had become 'very
potent in kine and friendis.' His 'kine and friend is' now
spread over vast territories in southern Scotland, including
Galloway and Annandale, and in France he was Lord of
Longueville and possessor of the magnificent duchy of
Touraine. The position the Douglases occupied in being nearly
related to the house of Baliol (now extinct) and to the house
of Comyn placed them perilously near the throne; but there was
a greater peril still, and this lay in the very dearness of
the name of Douglas to Scotland. … To the Queen-mother had
been committed by Parliament the care of her son, but as
Crichton, the Chancellor, seemed disposed to take this charge
upon himself, she determined to outwit him and to fulfil her
duties. Accordingly, saying she was bound on a pilgrimage, she
contrived to pack the boy up in her luggage, and carried him
off to Stirling Castle.
{2851}
He was soon, however, brought back to Edinburgh by those in
power, and then they executed a wicked plot for the
destruction of William, who, in 1439, had, at the age of
sixteen, succeeded his father, Archibald, as Earl of Douglas.
The Earl and his brother … were executed, and for a time it
would appear that the mightiness of the Douglases received a
shock. … The Queen-mother had been early thrust out of the
regency by Livingstone and Crichton. Distrusted because she
was by birth one 'of our auld enemies of England'; separated
from her son; still comparatively young, and needing a strong
protector, she gave her hand to Sir James Stewart, the Black
Knight of Lorn. … After her second marriage she sinks out of
notice, but enough is told to make it apparent that neglect
and suffering accompanied the last years of the winning Jane
Beaufort, who had stolen the heart of the King of Scots at
Windsor Castle. … The long minority of James, and the first
years of his brief reign, were too much occupied in strife
with the Douglases to leave time for good government. … When
there was peace, the King and his Parliament enacted many good
laws. … Although the Wars of the Roses left the English little
time to send armies to Scotland, and although there were no
great hostilities with England, yet during this reign a great
Scottish army threatened England, and a great English army
threatened Scotland. James was on the side of the House of
Lancaster; and 'the only key to the complicated understanding
of the transactions of Scotland during the Wars of the two
Roses is to recollect that the hostilities of James were
directed, not against England, but against the successes of
the House of York.' … Since the Battle of Durham, the frontier
fortress of Roxburgh had been in English hands; and when, in
1460, it was commanded by the great partisan of York, the Earl
of Warwick, James laid siege to it in person. Artillery had
been in use for some time, and years before we hear of the
'cracks of war.' Still many of the guns were novelties, and,
curious to study the strange new machinery of death, 'more
curious than became the majesty of ane King,' James ventured
too near 'ane misframed gun.' It burst, and one of its oaken
wedges striking him, he fell to the ground, and 'died hastlie
thairafter,' being in the thirtieth year of his age. … King
James III., who was eight years old, was crowned at the
Monastery of Kelso in 1460."
_M. G. J. Kinloch,
History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 16._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1460.
Accession of James Ill.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.
Lauder Bridge and Sauchie Burn.
James III., who was an infant at the time of his father's
death, developed a character, as he came to manhood, which the
rude nobles of his court and kingdom could not understand. "He
had a dislike to the active sports of hunting and the games of
chivalry, mounted on horseback rarely, and rode ill. … He was
attached to what are now called the fine arts of architecture
and music; and in studying these used the instructions of
Rogers, an English musician, Cochrane, a mason or architect,
and Torphichen, a dancing-master. Another of his domestic
minions was Hommil, a tailor, not the least important in the
conclave, if we may judge from the variety and extent of the
royal wardrobe, of which a voluminous catalogue is preserved.
Spending his time with such persons, who, whatever their merit
might be in their own several professions, could not be
fitting company for a prince, James necessarily lost the taste
for society of a different description, whose rank imposed on
him a certain degree of restraint. … The nation, therefore,
with disgust and displeasure, saw the king disuse the society
of the Scottish nobles, and abstain from their counsel, to
lavish favours upon and be guided by the advice of a few whom
the age termed base mechanics. In this situation, the public
eye was fixed upon James's younger brothers, Alexander duke of
Albany, and John earl of Mar." The jealousy and suspicion of
the king were presently excited by the popularity of his
brothers and he caused them to be arrested (1478). Mar,
accused of having dealings with witches, was secretly executed
in prison and his earldom was sold to the king's favourite,
Cochrane, who had amassed wealth by a thrifty use of his
influence and opportunities. Albany escaped to France and
thence to England, where he put himself forward as a claimant
of the Scottish throne, securing the support of Edward IV. by
offering to surrender the hard-won independence of the
kingdom. An English army, under Richard of Gloucester
(afterwards King Richard III.) was sent into Scotland to
enforce his claim. The Scotch king assembled his forces and
advanced from Edinburgh as far as Lauder (1482), to meet the
invasion. At Lauder, the nobles, having becoming deeply
exasperated by the arrogant state which the ex-architect
assumed as Earl of Mar, held a meeting which resulted in the
sudden seizure and hanging of all the king's favourites on
Lauder Bridge. "All the favourites of the weak prince perished
except a youth called Ramsay of Balmain, who clung close to
the king's person," and was spared. Peace with Albany and his
English allies was now arranged, on terms which made the duke
lieutenant-general of the kingdom; but it lasted no more than
a year. Albany became obnoxious and fled to England again. The
doings of the king were still hateful to his nobles and people
and a continual provocation of smouldering wrath. In 1488, the
discontent broke out in actual rebellion, and James was easily
defeated in a battle fought at Sauchie Burn, between
Bannockburn and Stirling. Flying from the battlefield, he fell
from his horse and was taken, badly injured, into the house of
a miller near by, where he disclosed his name. "The
consequence was, that some of the rebels who followed the
chase entered the hut and stabbed him to the heart. The
persons of the murderers were never known, nor was the king's
body ever found."
_Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 20 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
series 3, chapters 18 and 22._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1488.
Accession of James IV.
{2852}
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502.
The marriage which brought the crown of England
to the Stuarts.
"On the 8th of August 1502 the ceremony of marriage between
King James [IV. of Scotland] and Margaret, Princess of England
[daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII.], was
celebrated in the Chapel of Holyrood. A union of crowns and
governments might be viewed as a possible result of such a
marriage; but there had been others between Scotland and
England whence none followed. It was long ere such a harvest
of peace seemed likely to arise from this union—it seemed,
indeed, to be so buried under events of a contrary tenor that
it was almost forgotten; yet, a hundred and one years later,
it sent the great-grandson of James IV. to be King of
England."
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 30 (volume 3)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502-1504.
The Highlands brought to order.
Suppression of the independent Lordship of the Isles.
"The marriage of James in 1502 with the Princess Margaret,
daughter of Henry VII., helped to prolong the period of
tranquillity. But, in fact, his energetic administration of
justice had, almost from the beginning of his reign, restored
confidence, and re-awakened in his subjects an industrial
activity, that had slumbered since the death of Alexander III.
Everywhere he set his barons the novel task of keeping their
territories in order. The Huntlys in the North, the Argylls in
the West, were made virtual viceroys of the Highlands; the
Douglasses were charged with maintaining the peace of the
Borders; and at length the formidable Lordship of the Isles,
which had been the source of all the Celtic troubles of
Scotland since the days of Somerled, was broken up in 1504,
after a series of fierce revolts, and the claim to an
independent sovereignty abandoned forever. Henceforth the
chieftains of the Hebrides held their lands of the Crown, and
were made responsible for the conduct of their clans."
_J. M. Ross,
Scottish History and Literature,
chapter 5, page 177._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
The Battle of Flodden.
In 1513, while Henry VIII. of England, who had joined the Holy
League against France, was engaged in the latter country,
besieging Terouenne, he received an embassy from James IV.,
king of Scotland, his brother-in-law. "French intrigues, and
the long-standing alliance between the nations, had induced
James to entertain the idea of a breach with England. Causes
of complaint were not wanting. There was a legacy due from
Henry VII.; Sir Robert Ker, the Scotch Warden of the Marches,
had been killed by a Heron of Ford, and the murderer found
refuge in England; Andrew Barton, who, licensed with letters
of marque against the Portuguese in revenge for the death of
his father, had extended his reprisals to general piracy, had
been captured and slain by Lord Thomas and Sir Edward Howard,
and the Scotch King demanded justice for the death of his
captain. To these questions, which had been long unsettled, an
answer was now imperiously demanded. Henry replied with scorn,
and the Scotch King declared war. The safety of England had
been intrusted to the Earl of Surrey, who, when James crossed
the border, was lying at Pontefract. Without delay, he pushed
forward northward, and, challenging James to meet him on the
Friday next following, came up with him when strongly posted
on the hill of Flodden, with one flank covered by the river
Till, the other by an impassable morass, and his front
rendered impregnable by the massing of his artillery. Ashamed,
after his challenge, to avoid the combat, Surrey moved
suddenly northward, as though bound for Scotland, but soon
marching round to the left, he crossed the Till near its
junction with the Tweed, and thus turned James's position. The
Scots were thus compelled to fight [September 9, 1513]. On the
English right, the sons of Surrey with difficulty held their
own. In the centre, where Surrey himself was assaulted by the
Scotch King and his choicest troops, the battle inclined
against the English; but upon the English left the Highlanders
were swept away by the archers, and Stanley, who had the
command in that wing, fell on the rear of the successful
Scotch centre, and determined the fortune of the day. The
slaughter of the Scotch was enormous, and among the number of
the slain was James himself, with all his chief nobility."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
volume 2, pages 370-372._
"There lay slain on the fatal field of Flodden twelve Scottish
earls, thirteen lords, and five eldest sons of peers—fifty
chiefs, knights, and men of eminence, and about 10,000 common
men. Scotland had sustained defeats in which the loss had been
numerically greater, but never one in which the number of the
nobles slain bore such a proportion to those of the inferior
rank. The cause was partly the unusual obstinacy of the long
defence, partly that when the common people began … to desert
their standards, the nobility and gentry were deterred by
shame and a sense of honour from following their example."
_Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 21 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 6._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.
Accession of James V.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
The disaster at Solway-frith.
James V. of Scotland, who was the nephew of Henry VIII. of
England—the son of Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor—gave offense
to his proud and powerful uncle (A. D. 1541) by excusing
himself from a meeting which had been arranged to take place
between the two kings, and for which Henry had taken the
trouble to travel to York. It was the eager wish of the
English king to persuade his royal nephew to take possession
of the property of the monasteries of Scotland, in imitation
of his own example. The appointed meeting was for the further
urging of these proposals, more especially, and it had been
frustrated through the influence of the Catholic clergy with
young King James,—very much to the disgust of many among the
Scottish nobles, as well as to the wrath of King Henry. Whence
came results that were unexpectedly sad. Henry determined to
avenge himself for the slight that had been put upon him, and,
having made his preparations for war, he issued a manifesto,
alleging various injuries which gave color to his declaration
of hostilities. "He even revived the old claim to the
vassalage of Scotland, and he summoned James to do homage to
him as his liege lord and superior. He employed the Duke of
Norfolk, whom he called the scourge of the Scots, to command
in the war." After some preliminary raiding expeditions, the
Duke of Norfolk advanced to the border with 20,000 men, or
more. "James had assembled his whole military force at Fala
and Sautrey, and was ready to advance as soon as he should be
informed of Norfolk's invading his kingdom. The English passed
the Tweed at Berwick, and marched along the banks of the river
as far as Kelso; but hearing that James had collected near
30,000 men, they repassed the river at that village, and
retreated into their own country. The King of Scots, inflamed
with a desire of military glory, and of revenge on his
invaders, gave the signal for pursuing them, and carrying the
war into England.
{2853}
He was surprised to find that his nobility, who were in
general disaffected on account of the preference which he had
given to the clergy, opposed this resolution, and refused to
attend him in his projected enterprise. Enraged at this
mutiny, he reproached them with cowardice, and threatened
vengeance; but still resolved, with the forces which adhered
to him, to make an impression on the enemy. He sent 10,000 men
to the western borders, who entered England at Solway-frith
[or Solway Moss]; and he himself followed them at a small
distance, ready to join them upon occasion." At the same time,
he took the command of his little army away from Lord Maxwell,
and conferred it on one of his favorites, Oliver Sinclair.
"The army was extremely disgusted with this alteration, and
was ready to disband; when a small body of English appeared,
not exceeding 500 men, under the command of Dacres and
Musgrave. A panic seized the Scots, who immediately took to
flight, and were pursued by the enemy. Few were killed in this
rout, for it was no action; but a great many were taken
prisoners, and some of the principal nobility." The effect of
this shameful disaster upon the mind of James was so
overwhelming that he took to his bed and died in a few days.
While he lay upon his deathbed, his queen gave birth to a
daughter, who inherited his crown, and who played in
subsequent history the unfortunate role of Mary, Queen of
Scots."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 33._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 33._
_W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
book 1._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
Accession of Queen Mary.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.
The English Wooing of Queen Mary.
Immediately on the death of James V., Henry VIII. of England
began a most resolute undertaking to secure the hand of the
infant queen Mary for his own infant son. Scotland, however,
was averse to the union, and resisted all the influences which
the English king could bring to bear. Enraged by his failure,
Henry despatched the Earl of Hertford, in May 1544, with a
military and naval force, commissioned to do the utmost
destructive work in its power, without attempting permanent
conquest, for which it was not adequate. The expedition landed
at Newhaven and seized the town of Leith, before Cardinal
Beaton or Beatoun, then governing Scotland in the name of the
Regent, the Earl of Arran, had learned of its approach. "The
Cardinal immediately deserted the capital and fled in the
greatest dismay to Stirling. The Earl of Hertford demanded the
unconditional surrender of the infant Queen, and being
informed that the Scottish capital and nation would suffer
every disaster before they would submit to his ignominious
terms, he marched immediately with his whole forces upon
Edinburgh. … The English army entered by the Water-gate
without opposition, and assaulted the Nether Bow Port, and
beat it open on the second day, with a terrible slaughter of
the citizens. They immediately attempted to lay siege to the
Castle. … Baffled in their attempts on the fortress, they
immediately proceeded to wreak their vengeance on the city.
They set it on fire in numerous quarters, and continued the
work of devastation and plunder till compelled to abandon it
by the smoke and flames, as well as the continual firing from
the Castle. They renewed the work of destruction on the
following day; and for three successive days they returned
with unabated fury to the smoking ruins, till they had
completely effected their purpose. The Earl of Hertford then
proceeded to lay waste the surrounding country with fire and
sword. … This disastrous event forms an important era in the
history of Edinburgh; if we except a portion of the Castle,
the churches, and the north-west wing of Holyrood Palace, no
building anterior to this date now exists in Edinburgh. … The
death of Henry VIII. in 1547 tended to accelerate the renewal
of his project for enforcing the union of the neighbouring
kingdoms, by the marriage of his son with the Scottish Queen.
Henry, on his deathbed, urged the prosecution of the war with
Scotland; and the councillors of the young King Edward VI.
lost no time in completing their arrangements for the purpose.
… In the beginning of September, the Earl of Hertford, now
Duke of Somerset, and Lord Protector of England, during the
minority of his nephew Edward VI., again entered Scotland at
the head of a numerous army; while a fleet of about 60 sail
co-operated with him, by a descent on the Scottish coast. At
his advance, he found the Scottish army assembled in great
force to oppose him. … After skirmishing for several days with
various success in the neighbourhood of Prestonpans, where the
English army was encamped,—a scene long afterwards made
memorable by the brief triumph of Mary's hapless descendant,
Charles Stuart,—the two armies at length came to a decisive
engagement on Saturday the 10th of September 1547, long after
known by the name of 'Black Saturday.' The field of Pinkie,
the scene of this fatal contest, lies about six miles distant
from Edinburgh. … The Scots were at first victorious, and
succeeded in driving back the enemy, and carrying off the
royal standard of England; but being almost destitute of
cavalry … they were driven from the field, after a dreadful
slaughter, with the loss of many of their nobles and leaders,
both slain and taken prisoners." Notwithstanding their severe
defeat, the Scots were still stubbornly resolved that their
young queen should not be won by such savage wooing; and the
English returned home, after burning Leith and desolating the
coast country once more. Next year the royal maid of Scotland,
then six years old, was betrothed to the dauphin of France and
sent to the French court to be reared. So the English scheme
of marriage was frustrated in a decisive way. Meantime, the
Scots were reinforced by 8,000 French and 1,000 Dutch troops,
and expelled the English from most of the places they held in
the country.
_D. Wilson,
Memorials of Edinburgh,
part 1, chapter 5 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 3, chapters 1-2._
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
chapter 22 (volume 4) and chapters 24-25 (volume 5)._
{2854}
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.
The murder of Cardinal Beatoun.
Cardinal Beatoun [who had acquired practical control of the
government, although the Earl of Arran was nominally Regent]
had not used his power with moderation, equal to the prudence
by which he attained it. Notwithstanding his great abilities,
he had too many of the passions and prejudices of an angry
leader of a faction, to govern a divided people with temper.
His resentment against one party of the nobility, his
insolence towards the rest, his severity to the reformers,
and, above all, the barbarous and illegal execution of the
famous George Wishart, a man of honourable birth and of
primitive sanctity, wore out the patience of a fierce age; and
nothing but a bold hand was wanting to gratify the public wish
by his destruction. Private revenge, inflamed and sanctified
by a false zeal for religion, quickly supplied this want.
Norman Lesly, the eldest son of the earl of Rothes, had been
treated by the cardinal with injustice and contempt. It was
not the temper of the man, or the spirit of the times, quietly
to digest an affront. … The cardinal, at that time, resided in
the castle of St. Andrew's, which he had fortified at great
expense, and, in the opinion of the age, had rendered it
impregnable. His retinue was numerous, the town at his
devotion, and the neighbouring country full of his dependents.
In this situation, sixteen persons undertook to surprise his
castle, and to assassinate himself; and their success was
equal to the boldness of the attempt. … His death was fatal to
the catholic religion, and to the French interest in Scotland.
The same zeal for both continued among a great party in the
nation, but when deprived of the genius and authority of so
skilful a leader, operated with less effect." The sixteen
conspirators, having full possession of the castle of St.
Andrew's, were soon joined by friends and sympathizers—John
Knox being one of the party—until 150 men were within the
walls. They stood a siege for five months and only surrendered
to a force sent over by the king of France, on being promised
their lives. They were sent as prisoners to France, and the
castle of St. Andrew's was demolished.
_W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
book 2 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 3, chapters 1-2._
_T. M'Crie,
Life of John Knox,
period 2._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557.
The birth of the Protestant Reformation.
In Scotland, the kings of the house of Stuart "obtained a
decisive influence over the appointment to the high dignities
in the Church, but this proved advantageous neither to the
Church nor, at last, to themselves. … The French abuses came
into vogue here also: ecclesiastical benefices fell to the
dependents of the court, to the younger sons of leading
houses, often to their bastards: they were given or sold 'in
commendam,' and then served only for pleasure and gain: the
Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous and corrupt
state. It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in
Germany, nor again the attempt to keep out Papal influence as
in England, but mainly aversion to the moral corruption of the
spirituality which gave the first impulse to the efforts at
reformation in Scotland. We find Lollard societies among the
Scots much later than in England: their tendencies spread
through wide circles, owing to the anti-clerical spirit of the
century, and received fresh support from the doctrinal
writings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy
was resolved to defend itself with all its might. … It
persecuted all with equal severity as tending to injure the
stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extreme
penalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the
order of the day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting
persecution by flight, which was only possible amid great
peril. These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition, and
relentless punishment of those who blamed it as it well
deserved, gave the Reform movement in Scotland, which was
repressed but not stifled, a peculiar character of
exasperation and thirst for vengeance. Nor was it without a
political bearing, in Scotland as elsewhere. In particular,
Henry VIII. proposed to his nephew, King James V., to remodel
the Church after his example: and a part of the nobility,
which was already favourably disposed towards England, would
have gladly seen this done. But James preferred the French
pattern to the English: he was kept firm in his Catholic and
French sympathies by his wife, Mary of Guise, and by the
energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he became involved in the
war with England in which he fell, and after this it
occasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions
by the Duke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion
with them the Protestant, sympathies would gain the
ascendancy. But national feelings were still stronger than the
religious. Exactly because England defended and recommended
the religious change it failed to make way in Scotland. Under
the regency of the Queen dowager, with some passing
fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole kept the
upper hand. … It is remarkable how under these unfavourable
circumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid.
Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content
to provide for their subsistence in a foreign land and improve
their own culture. But there was one among them who did not
reconcile himself for one moment to this fate. John Knox was
the first who formed a Protestant congregation in the besieged
fortress of S. Andrew's; when the French took the place in
1547 he was made prisoner and condemned to serve in the
galleys. … After he was released, he took a zealous share in
the labours of the English Reformers under Edward VI., but
was not altogether content with the result; after the King's
death he had to fly to the continent. He went to Geneva, where
he became a student once more and tried to fill up the gaps in
his studies, but above all he imbibed, or confirmed his
knowledge of, the views which prevailed in that Church. … A
transient relaxation of ecclesiastical control in Scotland
made it possible for him to return thither … towards the end
of 1555: without delay he set his hand to form a church-union,
according to his ideas of religious independence, which was
not to be again destroyed by any state power. … Sometimes in
one and sometimes in another of the places of refuge which he
found, he administered the Communion to little congregations
according to the Reformed rite; this was done with greater
solemnity at Easter 1556, in the house of Lord Erskine of Dun,
one of those Scottish noblemen who had ever promoted literary
studies and the religious movement as far as lay in his power.
A number of people of consequence from the Mearns (Mearnshire)
were present. But they were not content with partaking the
Communion; following the mind of their preacher they pledged
themselves to avoid every other religious community, and to
uphold with all their power the preaching of the Gospel. In
this union we may see the origin of the Scotch Church,
properly so called. …
{2855}
At Erskine's house met together also Lord Lorn, afterwards
Earl of Argyle, and the Prior of S. Andrew's, subsequently
Earl of Murray; in December 1557 Erskine, Lorn, Murray,
Glencairn (also a friend of Knox), and Morton, united in a
solemn engagement, to support God's word and defend his
congregation against every evil and tyrannical power even unto
death. When, in spite of this, another execution took place
which excited universal aversion, they proceeded to an express
declaration, that they would not suffer any man to be punished
for transgressing a clerical law based on human ordinances.
What the influence of England had not been able to effect was
now produced by antipathy to France. The opinion prevailed
that the King of France wished to add Scotland to his
territories, and that the Regent gave him aid thereto. When
she gathered the feudal army on the borders in 1557 (for the
Scots had refused to contribute towards enlisting mercenaries)
to invade England according to an understanding with the
French, the barons held a consultation on the Tweed, in
consequence of which they refused their co-operation for this
purpose. … It was this quarrel of the Regent with the great
men of the country that gave an opportunity to the lords who
were combined for the support of religion to advance with
increasing resolution."
_L. Von Ranke,
History of England principally in the 17th Century,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_T. M'Crie,
Life of John Knox,
period 1-6._
_G. Stuart,
History of the Establishment of the
Reformation of Religion in Scotland,
books 1-2._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557.
The First Covenant and the Lords of the Congregation.
In 1556 John Knox withdrew from Scotland and returned to
Geneva—whether through fear of increasing dangers, or for
other reasons, is a question in dispute. The following year he
was solicited to come back to the Scottish field of labor, by
those nobles who favored the reformation, and he gave up his
Genevan congregation for the purpose of obeying their summons.
"In the beginning of October he proceeded to Dieppe; but while
he waited there for a vessel to convey him to Scotland, he
received other letters which dashed all his hopes, by
counselling him to remain where he was. The Reformers had
suddenly changed their minds. … Sitting down in his lodging at
Dieppe, Knox wrote a letter to the lords whose faith had
failed, after inviting him to come to their help. … With it he
despatched another addressed to the whole nobility of
Scotland, and others to particular friends. … The letters of
Knox had an immediate and powerful effect in stimulating the
decaying zeal of the Reforming nobles. Like a fire stirred up
just when ready to die out among its own ashes, it now burned
more brightly than ever. Meeting at Edinburgh in the month of
December, they drew up a bond which knit them into one body,
pledged them to a definite line of conduct and gave
consistency and shape to their plans. They had separated from
the Roman communion; they now formed themselves into an
opposing phalanx. This document is known in our Church history
as the first Covenant, and is so important that we give it
entire:
'We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the anti-christs of
our time, cruelly do rage, seeking to overthrow and destroy
the gospel of Christ and His congregation, ought, according to
our bounden duty, to strive in our Master's cause, even unto
the death, being certain of the victory in Him. The which our
duty being well considered, we do promise before the Majesty
of God and His congregation, that we, by His grace, shall,
with all diligence, continually apply our whole power,
substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and
establish the most blessed Word of God and His congregation;
and shall labour, at our possibility, to have faithful
ministers, truly and purely to administer Christ's gospel and
sacraments to His people. We shall maintain them, nourish
them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and
every member thereof, at our whole powers and waging of our
lives, against Satan and all wicked power that doth intend
tyranny or trouble against the foresaid congregation. Unto the
which holy word and congregation we do join us, and so do
forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the
superstitious abomination and idolatry thereof; and, moreover,
shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this
our faithful promise before God, testified to His congregation
by our subscription to these presents, at Edinburgh, the 3rd
day of December 1557 years. God called to witness—A., Earl of
Argyle, Glencairn, Morton, Archibald, Lord of Lorn, John
Erskine of Dun,' &c.
From the time that the Reformers had resolved to refrain from
being present at mass, they had been in the habit of meeting
among themselves for the purpose of worship. … Elders and
deacons were chosen to superintend the affairs of these infant
communities. Edinburgh has the honour of having given the
example, and the names of her first five elders are still
preserved. The existence of these small Protestant
'congregations,' scattered over the country, probably led the
lords to employ the word so frequently in their bond, and this
again led to their being called the Lords of the Congregation.
It was a bold document to which they had thus put their names.
It was throwing down the gauntlet to all the powers of the
existing Church and State."
_J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_John Knox,
History of the Reformation in Scotland
(Works, volume 1), book 1._
_D. Calderwood,
History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1557
(volume 1)._
_T. M'Crie,
Life of John Knox,
periods 5-6._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558.
Marriage of Mary Stuart to the Dauphin of France.
Contemplated union of Crowns.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.
Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.
The Geneva Confession adopted.
"In 1558 the burning of an old preacher, Walter Mill, at St.
Andrew's, aroused the Lords of the Congregation, as the
signers of the Covenant now called themselves. They presented
their demands to the regent [the queen-dowager, Mary of
Guise], and some time was spent in useless discussion. But the
hands of the Reformers were strengthened by Elizabeth's
accession in England, and on May 2, 1559, the leading spirit
of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, returned to Scotland.
… Knox's influence was soon felt in the course of affairs. In
May, 1559, the regent, stirred to action by the Cardinal of
Lorraine, summoned the reformed clergy to Stirling. They came,
but surrounded by so many followers, that the regent was
afraid, and promised that, if they would disperse, she would
proceed no further. They agreed; but scarcely were they gone
before Mary caused the preachers to be tried and condemned in
their absence.
{2856}
Knox's anger broke out in a fierce sermon against idolatry,
preached at Perth. The people of the town rose and destroyed
the images in the churches, and tore down all architectural
ornaments which contained sculpture. The example of Perth was
followed elsewhere, and the churches of Scotland were soon
robbed of their old beauty. From this time we must date the
decay of the fine ecclesiastical buildings of Scotland, whose
ruins still bear witness to their former splendour. … The
Lords of the Congregation were now in open rebellion against
the regent, and war was on the point of breaking out. It was,
however, averted for a time by the mediation of a few moderate
men, amongst whom was Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son
of the late king, known in later history as the Earl of
Murray. Both parties agreed to lay down their arms, and submit
their disputes to a meeting of the Estates of the Realm, while
the regent promised not to molest the people of Perth, or
garrison the town with French soldiers. She kept the letter
only of her promise; for she hired native troops with French
money, and proceeded to punish the people of Perth. This
perfidy gave strength to the Congregation. They again took up
arms, seized Edinburgh, summoned a parliament, and deposed the
regent (October, 1559). This was a bold step; but without help
from England it could not be maintained. As the regent was
strong in French troops, the Congregation must ally with
England. Elizabeth wished to help them; but her course was by
no means clear. To ally with rebels fighting against their
lawful sovereign was a bad example for one in Elizabeth's
position to set. … At last, in January, 1560, a treaty was
made at Berwick, between Elizabeth and the Duke of
Chatelherault [better known as the Earl of Arran, who had
resigned the regency of Scotland in favor of Mary of Guise,
and received from the French king the duchy of Chatelherault],
the second person in the Scottish realm. Elizabeth undertook
to aid the Scottish lords in expelling the French, but would
only aid them so long as they acknowledged their queen. And
now a strange change had come over Scotland. The Scots were
fighting side by side with the English against their old
allies the French. Already their religious feelings had
overcome their old national animosities; or, rather, religion
itself had become a powerful element in their national spirit.
… But meanwhile affairs in France took a direction favourable
to the Reformers. … The French troops were needed at home, and
could no longer be spared for Scotland. The withdrawal of the
French made peace necessary in Scotland, and by the treaty of
Edinburgh (July, 1560), it was provided that henceforth no
foreigners should be employed in Scotland without the consent
of the Estates of the Realm. Elizabeth's policy was rewarded
by a condition that Mary and Francis II. should acknowledge
her queen of England, lay aside their own pretensions, and no
longer wear the British arms. Before the treaty was signed the
queen-regent died (June 20), and with her the power of France
and the Guises in Scotland was gone for the present. The
Congregation was now triumphant, and the work of Reformation
was quickly carried on. A meeting of the Estates approved of
the Geneva Confession of Faith, abjured the authority of the
Pope, and forbade the administration, or presence at the
administration, of the mass, on pain of death for the third
offence (August 25, 1560). … The plans of the Guises were no
longer to be carried on in Scotland and Eng]and by armed
interference, but by the political craft and cunning of their
niece, Mary of Scotland [now widowed by the death, December 4,
1560, of her husband, the young French king, Francis II.], who
had been trained under their influence."
_M. Creighton,
The Age of Elizabeth,
book 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Froude,
History of England,
volume 7, chapters 2-3._
_J. Knox,
History of the Reformation in Scotland,
book 2 (Works, volume 1)._
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapters 37-38 (volume 4)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.
The reign of Mary.
Differing views of her conduct and character.
In August, 1561, Queen Mary returned from her long residence
in France, to undertake the government of a country of which
she was the acknowledged sovereign, but of which she knew
almost nothing. "She was now a widow, so the Scots were freed
from the fear they had felt of seeing their country sink into
a province of France. The people, who had an almost
superstitious reverence for kingship, which was very
inconsistent with their contempt for kingly authority,
welcomed her with open arms. … They had yet to find out that
she had come back to them French in all but birth, gifted with
wit, intellect, and beauty, but subtle beyond their power of
searching, and quite as zealous for the old form of religion
as they were for the new one. The Queen, too, who came thus as
a stranger among her own people, had to deal with a state of
things unknown in former reigns. Hitherto the Church had taken
the side of the Crown against the nobles; now both [the
Reformed Church and the Lords of the Congregation] were united
against the Crown, whose only hope lay in the quarrels between
these ill-matched allies. The chief cause of discord between
them was the property of the Church. The Reformed ministers
fancied that they had succeeded, not only to the Pope's right
of dictation in all matters, public and private, but to the
lands of the Church as well. To neither of these claims would
the Lords agree. They were as little inclined to submit to the
tyranny of presbyters as to the tyranny of the Pope. They
withstood the ministers who wished to forbid the Queen and her
attendants hearing mass in her private chapel, and they
refused to accept as law the First, Book of Discipline, a code
of rules drawn up by the ministers for the guidance of the new
Church. As to the land, much of it had already passed into the
hands of laymen, who, with the lands, generally bore the title
of the Church dignitary who had formerly held them. The Privy
Council took one-third of what remained to pay the stipends of
the ministers, while the rest was supposed to remain in the
hands of the Churchmen in possession, and, as they died out,
it was to fall in to the Crown. Lord James Stewart, Prior of
St. Andrews, whom the Queen created Earl of Murray, was the
hope of the Protestants, but in the north the Romanists were
still numerous and strong. Their head was the Earl of Huntly,
chief of the Gordons, who reigned supreme over most of the
north." One of the first proceedings of the Queen was to join
the Earl of Murray in hostilities which pursued the Earl of
Huntly and his son to their death.
{2857}
And yet they were the main pillars of the Church which she was
determined to restore! "The most interesting question now for
all parties was, whom the Queen would marry. Many foreign
princes were talked of, and Elizabeth suggested her own
favourite, the Earl of Leicester, but Mary settled the matter
herself by falling in love with her own cousin, Henry Stewart,
Lord Darnley." Murray opposed the marriage with bitterness,
and took up arms against it, but failed of support and fled to
England. The wretched consequences of Mary's union with the
handsome but worthless Darnley are among the tragedies of
history which all the world is acquainted with. She tired of
him, and inflamed his jealousy, with that of all her court, by
making a favorite of her Italian secretary, David Rizzio.
Rizzio was brutally murdered, in her presence, March 9, 1566,
by a band of conspirators, to whom Darnley had pledged his
protection. The Queen dissembled her resentment until she had
power to make it effective, flying from Edinburgh to Dunbar,
meantime. When, within a month, she returned to the capital,
it was with a strong force, brought to her support by James
Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. The murderers of Rizzio were
outlawed, and Darnley, while recovering from an attack of
smallpox, was killed (February 9, 1567) by the blowing up of a
house, outside of Edinburgh, in which the Queen had placed
him. "It was commonly believed that Bothwell was guilty of the
murder, and it was suspected that he had done it to please the
Queen and with her consent. This suspicion was strengthened by
her conduct. She made no effort to find out the murderer and
to bring him to punishment, and on the day of the funeral she
gave Bothwell the feudal superiority over the town of Leith."
In May, three months after Darnley's death, she married the
Earl of Bothwell,—who had freed himself from an earlier tie by
hasty divorce. This shameless conduct caused a rising of the
barons, who occupied Edinburgh in force. Bothwell attempted to
oppose them with an army; but there was no battle. The Queen
surrendered herself, at Carberry, June 15, 1567; Bothwell
escaped, first to Orkney, and then to Denmark, where he died
about ten years later. "Just a month after her third marriage
the Queen was brought back to Edinburgh, to be greeted by the
railings of the mob, who now openly accused her as a
murderess. … From Edinburgh she was taken to a lonely castle
built on a small island in the centre of Loch Leven. A few
days later a casket containing eight letters was produced.
These letters, it was said, Bothwell had left behind him in
his flight, and they seemed to have been written by Mary to
him while Darnley was ill in Glasgow. If she really wrote
them, they proved very plainly that she had planned the murder
with Bothwell. They are called the 'casket letters,' from the
box or casket in which they were found. The confederate barons
acted as if they were really hers. The Lord Lindsay and Robert
Melville were sent to her at Loch Leven, and she there signed
the demission of the government to her son, and desired that
Murray should be the first regent." The infant king, James
VI., was crowned at Stirling; and Murray, recalled from
France, became regent. Within a year Mary escaped from her
prison, reasserted her right of sovereignty, and was supported
by a considerable party. Defeated in a battle fought at
Langside, May 13, 1568, she then fled to England, and received
from Elizabeth the hospitality of a prison. She was confined
in various castles and manor-houses, ending her life, after
many removes, at Fotheringay, where she was executed February
8, 1587.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
_M. Macarthur,
History of Scotland,
chapter 6._
"In spite of all the prurient suggestions of writers who have
fastened on the story of Mary's life as on a savoury morsel,
there is no reason whatever for thinking that she was a woman
of licentious disposition, and there is strong evidence to the
contrary. There was never anything to her discredit in France.
… The charge of adultery with Rizzio is dismissed as unworthy
of belief even by Mr. Froude, the severest of her judges.
Bothwell indeed she loved, and, like many another woman who
does not deserve to be called licentious, she sacrificed her
reputation to the man she loved. But the most conclusive proof
that she was no slave to appetite is afforded by her nineteen
years' residence in England, which began when she was only
twenty-five. During almost the whole of that time she was
mixing freely in the society of the other sex, with the
fullest opportunity for misconduct had she been so inclined.
It is not to be supposed that she was fettered by any scruples
of religion or morality. Yet no charge of unchastity is made
against her. … That Darnley was murdered by Bothwell is not
disputed. That Mary was cognisant of the plot and lured him to
the shambles, has been doubted by few investigators at once
competent and unbiased. She lent herself to this part not
without compunction. Bothwell had the advantage over her that
the loved has over the lover; and he used it mercilessly for
his headlong ambition, hardly taking the trouble to pretend
that he cared for the unhappy woman who was sacrificing
everything for him. He in fact cared more for his lawful wife,
whom he was preparing to divorce, and to whom he had been
married only six months. … What brought sudden and
irretrievable ruin on Mary was not the murder of Darnley, but
the infatuation which made her the passive instrument of
Bothwell's presumptuous ambition."
_E. S. Beesly,
Queen Elizabeth,
chapter 4._
"Constitutionally, Mary was not a person likely to come under
the sway of a violent and absorbing passion. Her whole nature
was masculine in its moderation, its firmness, its
magnanimity. She was tolerant, uncapricious, capable of
carrying out a purpose steadily, yet with tact and policy. She
was never hysterical, never fanciful. With her, love was not
an engrossing occupation; on the contrary, to Mary, as to most
men, it was but the child and plaything of unfrequent leisure.
Her lovers went mad about her, but she never went mad about
her lovers. She sent Chatelar to the scaffold. She saw Sir
John Gordon beheaded. She admitted Rizzio to a close intimacy.
Rizzio was her intellectual mate, the depository of her state
secrets, her politic guide and confidant: but the very
notoriety of her intercourse with him showed how innocent and
unsexual it was in its nature,—the frank companionship of
friendly statesmen.
{2858}
Had she been Rizzio's mistress, nay, even had love in the
abstract been a more important matter to her than it was, she
would have been more cautious and discreet; however important
the public business which they were transacting might have
been, she would hardly have kept the Italian secretary in her
boudoir half the night. Her marriage with Darnley was not
exclusively a love-match: it was a marriage to which her
judgment, as well as her heart, consented. Her love-letters
abound in pretty trifles: her business letters are clear,
strong, rapid, brilliantly direct. By the fantastic irony of
fate this masculine unsentimental career has been translated
into an effeminate love-story,—the truth being, as I have had
to say again and again, that no woman ever lived to whom love
was less of a necessity. This was the strength of Mary's
character as a queen—as a woman, its defect. A love-sick girl,
when her castle in the air was shattered, might have come to
hate Darnley with a feverish feminine hatred; but the sedate
and politic intelligence of the Queen could only have been
incidentally affected by such considerations. She knew that,
even at the worst, Darnley was a useful ally, and the motives
which induced her to marry him must have restrained her from
putting him forcibly away. Yet when the deed was done, it is
not surprising that she should have acquiesced in the action
of the nobility. Bothwell, again, was in her estimation a
loyal retainer, a trusted adviser of the Crown; but he was
nothing more. Yet it need not surprise us that after her
forcible detention at Dunbar, she should have resolved to
submit with a good grace to the inevitable. Saving Argyle and
Huntley, Bothwell was the most powerful of her peers. He was
essentially a strong man; fit, it seemed, to rule that
turbulent nobility. He had been recommended to her acceptance
by the unanimous voice of the aristocracy, Protestant and
Catholic. … On a woman of ardent sentimentality these
considerations would have had little effect: they were exactly
the considerations which would appeal to Mary's masculine
common-sense. Yet, though she made what seemed to her the best
of a bad business, she was very wretched."
_J. Skelton,
Essays in History and Biography,
pages 40-41._
"To establish the genuineness of the Casket Letters is
necessarily to establish that Mary was a co-conspirator with
Bothwell in the murder of her husband. … The expressions in
the letters are not consistent with an innocent purpose, or
with the theory that she brought Darnley to Edinburgh in order
to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce. Apart even from
other corroborative evidence, the evidence of the letters, if
their genuineness be admitted, is sufficient to establish her
guilt. Inasmuch, however, as her entire innocence is not
consistent with other evidence, it can scarcely be affirmed
that the problem of the genuineness of the letters has an
absolutely vital bearing on the character of Mary. Mr.
Skelton, who does not admit the genuineness of the letters,
and who may be reckoned one of the most distinguished and
ingenious defenders of Mary in this country, has taken no
pains to conceal his contempt for what he terms the 'theory of
the ecclesiastics'—that Mary, during the whole progress of the
plot against Darnley's life, was 'innocent as a child,
immaculate as a saint.' He is unable to adopt a more friendly
attitude towards her than that of an apologizer, and is
compelled to attempt the assumption of a middle position—that
she was neither wholly innocent nor wholly guilty; that,
ignorant of the details and method of the plot, she only
vaguely guessed that it was in progress, and failed merely in
firmly and promptly forbidding its execution. But in a case of
murder a middle position—a position of even partial
indifference—is, except in very peculiar circumstances,
well-nigh impossible; in the case of a wife's attitude to the
murder of her husband, the limit of impossibility is still
more nearly approached; but when the wife possesses such
exceptional courage, fertility of resource, and strength of
will as were possessed by Mary, the impossibility may be
regarded as absolute. Besides, as a matter of fact, Mary was
not indifferent in the matter. She had long regarded her
husband's conduct with antipathy and indignation; she did not
conceal her eager desire to be delivered from the yoke of
marriage to him; and she had abundant reasons, many of which
were justifiable, for this desire. … The fatal weakness … of
all such arguments as are used to establish either Mary's
absolute or partial innocence of the murder is, that they do
not harmonize with the leading traits of her disposition. She
was possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of
will; she was remarkably wary and acute; and she was a match
for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy.
She was not one to be concussed into a course of action to
which she had any strong aversion."
_T. F. Henderson,
The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots,
chapter 1._
"The beauties of her person, and graces of her air, combined
to make her the most amiable of women; and the charms of her
address and conversation aided the impression which her lovely
figure made on the hearts of all beholders. Ambitious and
active in her temper, yet inclined to cheerfulness and
society; of a lofty spirit, constant and even vehement in her
purpose, yet polite, and gentle, and affable in her demeanour;
she seemed to partake only so much of the male virtues as to
render her estimable, without relinquishing those soft graces
which compose the proper ornament of her sex. In order to form
a just idea of her character, we must set aside one part of
her conduct, while she abandoned herself to the guidance of a
profligate man; and must consider these faults, whether we
admit them to be imprudences or crimes, as the result of an
inexplicable, though not uncommon, inconstancy in the human
mind, of the frailty of our nature, of the violence of
passion, and of the influence which situations, and sometimes
momentary incidents, have on persons whose principles are not
thoroughly confirmed by experience and reflection. Enraged by
the ungrateful conduct of her husband, seduced by the
treacherous counsels of one in whom she reposed confidence,
transported by the violence of her own temper, which never lay
sufficiently under the guidance of discretion, she was
betrayed into actions which may with some difficulty be
accounted for, but which admit of no apology, nor even of
alleviation. An enumeration of her qualities might carry the
appearance of a panegyric: an account of her conduct must in
some parts wear the aspect of severe satire and invective. Her
numerous misfortunes, the solitude of her long and tedious
captivity, and the persecutions to which she had been exposed
on account of her religion, had wrought her up to a degree of
bigotry during her later years; and such were the prevalent
spirit and principles of the age, that it is the less wonder
if her zeal, her resentment, and her interest uniting, induced
her to give consent to a design which conspirators, actuated
only by the first of these motives, had formed against the
life of Elizabeth."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 42 (volume 4)._
{2859}
"More books have been written about Mary Stuart than exist as
to all the Queens in the world; yet, so greatly do those
biographies vary in their representations of her character,
that at first it seems scarcely credible how any person could
be so differently described. The triumph of a creed or party
has unhappily been more considered than the development of
facts, or those principles of moral justice which ought to
animate the pen of the Historian; and, after all the literary
gladiatorship that has been practised in this arena for some
three hundred years, the guilt or innocence of Mary Queen of
Scots is still under consideration, for party feeling and
sectarian hate have not yet exhausted their malice. … If the
opinions of Mary Stuart's own sex were allowed to decide the
question at issue, a verdict of not guilty would have been
pronounced by an overwhelming majority of all readers,
irrespective of creed or party. Is, then, the moral standard
erected by women for one another, lower than that which is
required of them by men? Are they less acute in their
perceptions of right and wrong, or more disposed to tolerate
frailties? The contrary has generally been proved. With the
exception of Queen Elizabeth, Catharine de Medicis, Lady
Shrewsbury, and Margaret Erskine (Lady Douglas), of infamous
memory, Mary Stuart had no female enemies worthy of notice. It
is a remarkable fact that English gold could not purchase
witnesses from the female portion of the household of the
Queen of Scots. None of the ladies of the Court, whether
Protestant or Catholic, imputed crime at any time to their
mistress. In the days of her Royal splendour in France Queen
Mary was attended by ladies of ancient family and unsullied
honour, and, like true women, they clung to her in the darkest
hour of her later adversity, through good and evil report they
shared the gloom and sorrow of her prison life."
_S. H. Burke,
Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty
and the Reformation Period,
volume 4, chapter 7._
"Mary Stuart was in many respects the creature of her age, of
her creed, and of her station; but the noblest and most
noteworthy qualities of her nature were independent of rank,
opinion, or time. Even the detractors who defend her conduct
on the plea that she was a dastard and a dupe are compelled in
the same breath to retract this implied reproach, and to
admit, with illogical acclamation and incongruous applause,
that the world never saw more splendid courage at the service
of more brilliant intelligence; that a braver if not 'a rarer
spirit never did steer humanity.' A kinder or more faithful
friend, a deadlier or more dangerous enemy, it would be
impossible to dread or to desire. Passion alone could shake
the double fortress of her impregnable heart and ever active
brain. The passion of love, after very sufficient experience,
she apparently and naturally outlived; the passion of hatred
and revenge was as inextinguishable in her inmost nature as
the emotion of loyalty and gratitude. Of repentance it would
seem that she knew as little as of fear; having been trained
from her infancy in a religion where the Decalogue was
supplanted by the Creed. Adept as she was in the most
exquisite delicacy of dissimulation, the most salient note of
her original disposition was daring rather than subtlety.
Beside or behind the voluptuous or intellectual attractions of
beauty and culture, she had about her the fresher charm of a
fearless and frank simplicity, a genuine and enduring pleasure
in small and harmless things no less than in such as were
neither. … For her own freedom of will and of way, of passion
and of action, she cared much; for her creed she cared
something; for her country she cared less than nothing. She
would have flung Scotland with England into the hellfire of
Spanish Catholicism rather than forego the faintest chance of
personal revenge. … In the private and personal qualities
which attract and attach a friend to his friend and a follower
to his leader, no man or woman was ever more constant and more
eminent than Mary Queen of Scots."
_A. C. Swinburne,
Mary Queen of Scots
(Miscellanies, pages 357-359)._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapters 41-47 (volume 4)._
_M. Laing,
History of Scotland,
volumes 1-2._
_F. A. Mignet,
History of Mary, Queen of Scots._
_A. Strickland,
Life of Mary, Queen of Scots._
_J. Skelton,
Maitland of Lethington._
_W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
Appendix._
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos of English History,
series 4, chapter 32,
and series 5, chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1567.
Accession of James VI.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1568-1572.
Distracted state of the kingdom.
The Reformed Church and John Knox.
During the whole minority of the young king, James VI.,
Scotland was torn by warring factions. Murray, assassinated in
1570, was succeeded in the regency by the Earl of Lennox, who
was killed in a fight the next year. The Earl of Mar followed
him, and Morton held the office next. "The civil commotions
that ensued on Murray's assassination were not wholly adverse
to the reformed cause, as they gave it an overwhelming
influence with the king's party, which it supported. On the
other hand they excused every kind of irregularity. There was
a scramble for forfeited estates and the patrimony of the
kirk, from which latter source the leaders of both parties
rewarded their partisans. … The church … viewed with alarm the
various processes by which the ecclesiastical revenues were
being secularised. Nor can it be doubted that means, by which
the evil might be stayed, were the subject of conference
between committees of the Privy Council and General Assembly.
The plan which was actually adopted incorporated in the
reformed church the spiritual estate, and reintroduced the
bishops by their proper titles, subject to stringent
conditions of qualification. …
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
Knox, whose life had been attempted in March 1570-1, had been
constrained to retire from Edinburgh and was at St. Andrews
when the new platform was arranged. On the strength of certain
notices that are not at all conclusive, it has been
strenuously denied that he was a party to it even by consent.
… There are facts, however, to the contrary. … On the evidence
available Knox cannot be claimed as the advocate of a divine
right, either of presbytery or episcopacy. … With fast-failing
strength he returned to Edinburgh towards the end of August."
On the 24th of November, 1572, he died.
_M. C. Taylor,
John Knox
(St. Giles' Lectures, 3d series)._
{2860}
"It seems to me hard measure that this Scottish man [John
Knox], now after three-hundred years, should have to plead
like a culprit before the world; intrinsically for having
been, in such way as it was then possible to be, the bravest
of all Scotchmen! Had he been a poor Half-and-half, he could
have crouched into the corner, like so many others; Scotland
had not been delivered; and Knox had been without blame. He is
the one Scotchman to whom, of all others, his country and the
world owe a debt. He has to plead that Scotland would forgive
him for having been worth to it any million 'unblamable'
Scotchmen that need no forgiveness. He bared his breast to the
battle; had to row in French galleys, wander forlorn in exile,
in clouds and storms; was censured, shot-at through his
windows; had a right sore fighting life; if this world were
his place of recompense, he had made but a bad venture of it.
I cannot apologise for Knox. To him it is very indifferent,
these two-hundred-and-fifty years or more, what men say of
him."
_T. Carlyle,
Heroes and Hero-worship,
lecture 4._
"Altogether, if we estimate him [Knox], as we are alone
entitled to do, in his historical position and circumstances,
Knox appears a very great and heroic man—no violent demagogue,
or even stern dogmatist—although violence and sternness and
dogmatism were all parts of his character. These coarser
elements mingled with but did not obscure the fresh, living,
and keenly sympathetic humanity beneath. Far inferior to
Luther in tenderness and breadth and lovableness, he is
greatly superior to Calvin in the same qualities. You feel
that he had a strong and loving heart under all his harshness,
and that you can get near to it, and could have spent a cheery
social evening with him in his house at the head of the Canon
gate, over that good old wine that he had stored in his
cellar, and which he was glad and proud to dispense to his
friends. It might not have been a very pleasant thing to
differ with him even in such circumstances; but, upon the
whole, it would have been a pleasanter and safer audacity than
to have disputed some favourite tenet with Calvin. There was
in Knox far more of mere human feeling and of shrewd worldly
sense, always tolerant of differences; and you could have
fallen back upon these, and felt yourself comparatively safe
in the utterance of some daring sentiment. And in this point
of view it deserves to be noticed that Knox alone of the
reformers, along with Luther, is free from all stain of
violent persecution. Intolerant he was towards the mass,
towards Mary, and towards the old Catholic clergy; yet he was
no persecutor. He was never cruel in act, cruel as his
language sometimes is, and severe as were some of his
judgments. Modern enlightenment and scientific indifference we
have no right to look for in him. His superstitions about the
weather and witches were common to him with all men of his
time. … As a mere thinker, save perhaps on political subjects,
he takes no rank; and his political views, wise and
enlightened as they were, seem rather the growth of his manly
instinctive sense than reasoned from any fundamental
principles. Earnest, intense, and powerful in every practical
direction, he was not in the least characteristically
reflective or speculative. Everywhere the hero, he is nowhere
the philosopher or sage.—He was, in short, a man for his work
and time—knowing what was good for his country there and then,
when the old Catholic bonds had rotted to the very heart. A
man of God, yet with sinful weaknesses like us all. There is
something in him we can no longer love,—a harshness and
severity by no means beautiful or attractive; but there is
little in him that we cannot in the retrospect heartily
respect, and even admiringly cherish."
_J. Tulloch,
Leaders of the Reformation: Knox._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573.
Civil War.
"All the miseries of civil war desolated the kingdom.
Fellow-citizens, friends, brothers, took different sides, and
ranged themselves under the standards of the contending
factions. In every county, and almost in every town and
village, 'king's men' and 'queen's men' were names of
distinction. Political hatred dissolved all natural ties, and
extinguished the reciprocal good-will and confidence which
hold mankind together in society. Religious zeal mingled
itself with these civil distinctions, and contributed not a
little to heighten and to inflame them. The factions which
divided the kingdom were, in appearance, only two; but in both
these there were persons with views and principles so
different from each other that they ought to be distinguished.
With some, considerations of religion were predominant, and
they either adhered to the queen because they hoped by her
means to reestablish popery, or they defended the king's
authority as the best support of the protestant faith. Among
these the opposition was violent and irreconcilable. … As
Morton, who commanded the regent's forces [1572, during the
regency of Mar], lay at Leith, and Kirkaldy still held out the
town and castle of Edinburgh [for the party of the queen],
scarce a day passed without a skirmish. … Both parties hanged
the prisoners which they took, of whatever rank or quality,
without mercy and without trial. Great numbers suffered in
this shocking manner; the unhappy victims were led by fifties
at a time to execution; and it was not till both sides had
smarted severely that they discontinued this barbarous
practice." In 1573, Morton, being now regent, made peace with
one faction of the queen's party, and succeeded, with the help
of a siege train and force which Queen Elizabeth sent him from
England, in overcoming the other faction which held Edinburgh
and its castle. Kirkaldy was compelled to surrender after a
siege of thirty-three days, receiving promises of protection
from the English commander, in spite of which he was hanged.
_W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
book 6 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapters 53-56 (volume 5)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
Episcopacy restored.
The Concordat of Leith.
The Tulchan Bishops.
"On the 12th of January, 1572, a Convention of the Church
assembled at Leith. By whom it was convened is unknown. It was
not a regular Assembly, but it assumed to itself 'the
strength, force, and effect of a General Assembly,' and it was
attended by 'the superintendents, barons, commissioners to
plant kirks, commissioners of provinces, towns, kirks, and
ministers.' …
{2861}
By the 1st of February the joint committees
framed a concordat, of which the following articles were the
chief;
1. That the names of archbishops and bishops, and the bounds
of dioceses, should remain as they were before the
Reformation, at the least till the majority of the king, or
till a different arrangement should be made by the parliament;
and that to every cathedral church there should be attached a
chapter of learned men; but that the bishops should have no
more power than was possessed by the superintendents, and
should like them be subject to the General Assemblies.
2. That abbots and friars should be continued as parts of the
Spiritual Estate of the realm. …
Such was the famous concordat agreed upon by the Church and
State in Scotland in 1572. … The Church had in vain …
struggled to get possession of its patrimony. It had in vain
argued that the bishoprics and abbacies should be dissolved,
and their revenues applied for the maintenance of the
ministry, the education of the youthhead, and the support of
the poor. The bishoprics and abbacies were maintained as if
they were indissoluble. Some of them were already gifted to
laymen, and the ministers of the Protestant Church were poorly
paid out of the thirds of benefices. The collection of these
even the regent had recently stopped, and beggary was at the
door. What was to be done? The only way of obtaining the
episcopal revenues was by reintroducing the episcopal office.
… The ministers regarded archbishops, bishops, deans and
chapters as things lawful, but not expedient—'they sounded ·of
papistry'; but now, under the pressure of a still stronger
expediency, they received them into the Church. … Knox yielded
to the same necessity under which the Church had bowed. … It
was a mongrel prelacy that was thus introduced into Scotland—a
cross betwixt Popery and Presbytery. It was not of the true
Roman breed. It was not even of the Anglican. It could not
pretend to the apostolical descent."
_J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 12._
"The new dignitaries got from the populace the name of the
Tulchan bishops. A tulchan, an old Scots word of unknown
origin, was applied to a stuffed calf-skin which was brought
into the presence of a recently-calved cow. It was an
agricultural doctrine of that age, and of later times, that
the presence of this changeling induced the bereaved mother
easily to part with her milk. To draw what remained of the
bishops' revenue, it was expedient that there should be
bishops; but the revenues were not for them, but for the lay
lords, who milked the ecclesiastical cow."
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 54 (volume 5)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.
The Second Covenant, called also The First National Covenant.
"The national covenant of Scotland was simply an abjuration of
popery, and a solemn engagement, ratified by a solemn oath, to
support the protestant religion. Its immediate occasion was a
dread, too well founded—a dread from which Scotland was never
entirely freed till the revolution—of the re-introduction of
popery. It was well known that Lennox was an emissary of the
house of Guise, and had been sent over to prevail on the young
king to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. … A conspiracy so
dangerous at all times to a country divided in religious
sentiment, demanded a counter-combination equally strict and
solemn, and led to the formation of the national covenant of
Scotland. This was drawn up at the king's request, by his
chaplain, John Craig. It consisted of an abjuration, in the
most solemn and explicit terms, of the various articles of the
popish system, and an engagement to adhere to and defend the
reformed doctrine and discipline of the reformed church of
Scotland. The covenanters further pledged themselves, under
the same oath, 'to defend his majesty's person and authority
with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ's
evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice,
and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within the
realm or without.' This bond, at first called 'the king's
confession,' was sworn and subscribed by the king and his
household, for example to others, on the 28th of January 1581;
and afterwards, in consequence of an order in council, and an
act of the general assembly, it was cheerfully subscribed by
all ranks of persons through the kingdom; the ministers
zealously promoting the subscription in their respective
parishes."
_T. M'Crie,
Sketches of Scottish Church History,
volume 1, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_D. Calderwood,
History of the Kirk of Scotland,
volume 3, 1581._
_J. Row,
History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1581._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1582.
The Raid of Ruthven.
"The two favourites [Lennox and Arran], by their ascendant
over the king, possessed uncontrolled power in the kingdom,
and exercised it with the utmost wantonness." The provocation
which they gave brought about, at length, a combination of
nobles, formed for the purpose of removing the young king from
their influence. Invited to Ruthven Castle in August, 1582, by
its master, Lord Ruthven, lately created Earl of Gowrie, James
found there a large assemblage of the conspirators and was
detained against his will. He was afterwards removed to
Stirling, and later to the palace of Holyrood, but still under
restraint. This continued until the following June, when the
king effected his escape and Arran recovered his power. Lennox
had died meantime in France. All those concerned in what was
known as the Raid of Ruthven were proclaimed guilty of high
treason and fled the country. The clergy gave great offense to
the king by approving and sustaining the Raid of Ruthven. He
never forgave the Church for its attitude on this occasion.
_W. Robertson,
History of Scotland,
book 6 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_C. M. Yonge,
Cameos from English History,
series 5, chapter 20._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.
The Black Acts.
"James was bent upon destroying a form of Church government
which he imagined to be inconsistent with his own kingly
prerogatives. The General Assembly rested upon too popular a
basis; they were too independent of his absolute will; they
assumed a jurisdiction which he could not allow. The ministers
were too much given to discuss political subjects in the
pulpit—to speak evil of dignities—to resist the powers that
were ordained of God. … On the 22d of May, 1584, the
Parliament assembled. … A series of acts were passed almost
entirely subversive of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the
Church. By one, the ancient jurisdiction of the Three Estates
was ratified,—and to speak evil of any one of them was
declared to be treason; thus were the bishops hedged about. By
another, the king was declared to be supreme in all causes and
over all persons, and to decline his judgment was pronounced
to be treason; thus was the boldness of such men as Melville
to be chastised.
{2862}
By a third, all convocations except those specially licensed
by the king were declared to be unlawful; thus were the courts
of the Church to be shorn of their power. By a fourth, the
chief jurisdiction of the Church was lodged in the hands of
the Episcopal body; for the bishops must now do what the
Assemblies and presbyteries had hitherto done. By still
another act, it was provided 'that none should presume,
privately or publicly, in sermons, declamations, or familiar
conferences, to utter any false, untrue, or slanderous
speeches, to the reproach of his Majesty or council, or meddle
with the affairs of his Highness and Estate, under the pains
contained in the acts of parliament made against the makers
and reporters of lies.' … The parliament registered the
resolves of the king; for though Scottish barons were
turbulent, Scottish parliaments were docile, and seldom
thwarted the reigning power. But the people sympathized with
the ministers; the acts became known as the Black Acts; and
the struggle between the court and the Church, which lasted
with some intermissions for more than a century, was begun."
_J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 1, chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_D. Calderwood,
History of the Kirk of Scotland,
volume 4, 1584._
_Scottish Divines
(St. Giles' Lectures, series 3),
lecture 2._
_J. Melville,
Autobiography and Diary, 1584._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
The execution of Mary Stuart in England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.
Appropriation of Church lands and ruin of the Episcopacy.
The parliament of 1587 passed an act which "annexed to the
crown such lands of the church as had not been inalienably
bestowed upon the nobles or landed gentry; these were still
considerable, and were held either by the titular bishops who
possessed the benefices, or were granted to laymen by rights
merely temporary. The only fund reserved for the clergy who
were to serve the cure was the principal mansion house, with a
few acres of glebe land. The fund from which their stipends
were to be paid was limited to the tithes. … The crown … was
little benefited by an enactment which, detaching the church
lands from all connection with ecclesiastical persons, totally
ruined the order of bishops, for the restoration of whom, with
some dignity and authority, king James, and his successor
afterwards, expressed considerable anxiety."
_Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 37 (volume 2)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600.
The Gowrie Plot.
"On the morning of the 5th of August, 1600, as James was
setting out hunting from Falkland Palace, he was met by
Alexander Ruthven, the younger brother of the Earl of Gowrie
[both being sons of the Gowrie of the ' Raid of Ruthven'], who
told him with a great air of mystery that he had discovered a
man burying a pot of money in a field, and that he thought the
affair so suspicious that he had taken him prisoner, and
begged the King to come to Gowrie House in Perth to see him.
James went, taking with him Mar, Lennox, and about twenty
other gentlemen. After dinner Alexander took the King aside,
and, when his attendants missed him, they were told that he
had gone back to Falkland. They were preparing to follow him
there when some of them heard cries from a turret. They
recognized the King's voice, and they presently saw his head
thrust out of a window, calling for help. They had much ado to
make their way to him, but they found him at last in a small
room struggling with Alexander, while a man dressed in armour
was looking on. Alexander Ruthven and Gowrie were both killed
in the scuffle which followed. A tumult rose in the town, for
the Earl had been Provost and was very popular with the
towns-folk, and the King and his followers had to make their
escape by the river. The doom of traitors was passed on the
dead men, and their name was proscribed, but as no accomplice
could be discovered, it was hard to say what was the extent or
object of their plot. The whole affair was very mysterious,
the only witnesses being the King himself and Henderson the
man in armour. Some of the ministers thought it so suspicions
that they refused to return thanks for the King's safety, as
they thought the whole affair an invention of his own." Eight
years later, however, some letters were discovered which
seemed to prove that there had really been a plot to seize the
King's person.
_M. Macarthur,
History of Scotland,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Scott,
History of Scotland,
chapter 40 (volume 2)._
_P. F. Tytler,
History of Scotland,
volume 4, chapter 11._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1603.
Accession of James VI. to the English throne.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.
The Five Articles of Perth.
After his accession to the English throne, James became more
deeply enamoured of Episcopacy, and of its ecclesiastical and
ceremonial incidents, than before, and more determined to
force them on the Scottish church. He worked to that end with
arbitrary insolence and violence, and with every kind of
dishonest intrigue, until he had accomplished his purpose
completely. Not only were his bishops seated, with fair
endowments and large powers restored, but he had them ordained
in England, to ensure their apostolic legitimacy. When this
had been done, he resolved to impose a liturgy upon the
Church, with certain ordinances of his own framing. The five
articles in which the latter were embodied became for two
years the subject of a most bitter and heated struggle between
the court and its bishops on one side, with most of the
general clergy on the other. At length, in August, 1618, an
Assembly made up at Perth proved subservient enough to submit
to the royal brow-beating and to adopt the five articles.
These Five Articles of Perth, as they are known, enjoined
kneeling at the communion, observance of five holidays, and
episcopal confirmation; and they authorized the private
dispensation both of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The
powers of the court of high commission were actively brought
into play to enforce them.
_J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 1._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.
Laud's Liturgy and Jenny Geddes' Stool.
"Now we are summoned to a sadder subject; from the sufferings
of a private person [John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, pursued
and persecuted by Laud] to the miseries and almost mutual]
ruin of two kingdoms, England and Scotland. I confess, my
hands have always been unwilling to write of that cold
country, for fear my fingers should be frostbitten therewith;
but necessity to make our story entire puts me upon the
employment. Miseries, caused from the sending of the Book of
Service or new Liturgy thither, which may sadly be termed a
'Rubric' indeed, dyed with the blood of so many of both
nations, slain on that occasion.
{2863}
It seems the design began in the reign of king James; who
desired and endeavoured an uniformity of public prayers
through the kingdom of Scotland. … In the reign of king
Charles, the project being resumed (but whether the same book
or no, God knoweth), it was concluded not to send into
Scotland the same Liturgy of England 'totidem verbis,' lest
this should be misconstrued a badge of dependence of that
church on ours. It was resolved also, that the two Liturgies
should not differ in substance, lest the Roman party should
upbraid us with weighty and material differences. A similitude
therefore not identity being resolved of, it was drawn up with
some, as they termed them, insensible alterations, but such as
were quickly found and felt by the Scotch to their great
distaste. … The names of sundry saints, omitted in the
English, are inserted into the Scotch Calendar (but only in
black letters), on their several days. … Some of these were
kings, all of them natives of that country. … But these Scotch
saints were so far from making the English Liturgy acceptable,
that the English Liturgy rather made the saints odious unto
them. … No sooner had the dean of Edinburgh begun to read the
book in the church of St. Giles, Sunday, July 23rd, in the
presence of the Privy Council, both the archbishops, divers
bishops, and magistrates of the city, but presently such a
tumult was raised that, through clapping of hands, cursing,
and crying, one could neither hear nor be heard. The bishop of
Edinburgh endeavoured in vain to appease the tumult; when a
stool, aimed to be thrown at him [according to popular
tradition by an old herb-woman named Jenny Geddes], had
killed, if not diverted by one present; so that the same book
had occasioned his death and prescribed the form of his
burial; and this hubbub was hardly suppressed by the lord
provost and bailiffs of Edinburgh. This first tumult was
caused by such, whom I find called 'the scum of the city,'
considerable for nothing but their number. But, few days
after, the cream of the nation (some of the highest and best
quality therein) engaged in the same cause, crying out, 'God
defend all those who will defend God's cause! and God confound
the service-book and all the maintainers of it!'"
_T. Fuller,
Church History of Britain,
book 11, section 2 (volume 3)._
"One of the most distinct and familiar of historical
traditions attributes the honour of flinging the first stool,
and so beginning the great civil war, to a certain Jenny or
Janet Geddes. But a search among contemporary writers for the
identification of such an actor on the scene, will have the
same inconclusive result that often attends the search after
some criminal hero with a mythical celebrity when he is wanted
by the police. … Wodrow, on the authority of Robert Stewart—a
son of the Lord Advocate of the Revolution—utter]y dethrones
Mrs. Geddes: 'He tells me that it's the constantly-believed
tradition that it was Mrs. Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant
in Edinburgh, that cast the first stool when the service was
read in the New Kirk, Edinburgh, 1637; and that many of the
lasses that carried on the fray were prentices in disguise,
for they threw stools to a great length.'"
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
volume 6, pages 443-444, foot-note._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
The Tables, and the signing of the National Covenant.
"Nobles, ministers, gentlemen, and burghers from every
district poured into Edinburgh to take part in a national
resistance to these innovations [of the Service Book], and an
appeal was made from the whole body assembled in the capital,
not only against the Service Book, but also against the Book
of Canons and the conduct of the bishops. Instead, however, of
granting redress of these grievances, the King issued a series
of angry and exasperating proclamations, commanding the crowds
of strangers in the capital to return immediately to their own
homes, and instructing the Council and the Supreme Courts of
Law to remove to Linlithgow. But instead of obeying the
injunction to leave Edinburgh, the multitudes there continued
to receive accessions from all parts of the country. … In
answer to the complaint of the Council that their meeting in
such numbers was disorderly and illegal, the supplicants
offered to choose a limited number from each of the classes
into which they were socially divided—nobles, lesser barons,
burgesses, and clergy—to act as their representatives. This
was at once very imprudently agreed to by the Council. A
committee of four was accordingly selected by each of these
classes, who were instructed to reside in the capital, and
were empowered to take all necessary steps to promote their
common object. They had also authority to assemble the whole
of their constituents should any extraordinary emergency
arise. The opponents of the new Canons and Service Book were
thus organised with official approval into one large and
powerful body, known in history as 'The Tables,' which
speedily exercised an important influence in the country. As
soon as this arrangement was completed, the crowds of
supplicants who thronged the metropolis returned to their own
homes, leaving the committee of sixteen to watch the progress
of events." But the obstinacy of the King soon brought affairs
to a crisis, and early in 1638 the deputies of The Tables
"resolved to summon the whole body of supplicants to repair at
once to the capital in order to concert measures for their
common safety and the furtherance of the good cause. The
summons was promptly obeyed, and after full deliberation it
was resolved, on the suggestion of Johnstone of Warriston,
that in order to strengthen their union against the enemies of
the Protestant faith they should renew the National Covenant,
which had been originally drawn up and sworn to at a time [A.
D. 1581] when the Protestant religion was in imminent peril,
through the schemes of France and Spain, and the plots of
Queen Mary and the Roman Catholics in England and Scotland.
The original document denounced in vehement terms the errors
and devices of the Romish Church, and an addition was now made
to it, adapting its declarations and pledges to existing
circumstances."
_J. Taylor,
The Scottish Covenanters,
chapter 1._
"It was in the Greyfriars' Church at Edinburgh that it [the
National Covenant] was first received, on February 28, 1638.
The aged Earl of Sutherland was the first to sign his name.
Then the whole congregation followed. Then it was laid on the
flat grave-stone still preserved in the church-yard. Men and
women crowded to add their names. Some wept aloud, others
wrote their names in their own blood; others added after their
names 'till death.' For hours they signed, till every corner
of the parchment was filled, and only room left for their
initials, and the shades of night alone checked the continual
flow.
{2864}
From Greyfriars' church-yard it spread to the whole of
Scotland. Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it 'in
their portmanteaus and pockets, requiring and collecting
subscriptions publicly and privately.' Women sat in church all
day and all night, from Friday till Sunday, in order to
receive the Communion with it. None dared to refuse their
names."
_A. P. Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland,
lecture 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 2._
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 1, chapter 7._
_R. Chambers,
Domestic Annals of Scotland,
volume 2, pages 116-127._
The following is the text of the Scottish National Covenant:
"The confession of faith of the Kirk of Scotland, subscribed
at first by the King's Majesty and his household in the year
of God 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year
1581, by ordinance of the Lords of the secret council, and
acts of the General Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of
persons in the year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at
the desire of the General Assembly; with a general band for
the maintenance of the true religion, and the King's person,
and now subscribed in the year 1638, by us noblemen, barons,
gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under
subscribing; together with our resolution and promises for the
causes after specified, to maintain the said true religion,
and the King's Majesty, according to the confession aforesaid,
and Acts of Parliament; the tenure whereof here followeth: 'We
all, and every one of us underwritten, do protest, that after
long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of
true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved of the
truth, by the word and spirit of God; and therefore we believe
with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our
hands, and constantly affirm before God and the whole world,
that this only is the true Christian faith and religion,
pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by
the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the
blessed evangel, and received, believed, and defended by many
and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the Kirk
of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this
realm, as God's eternal truth and only ground of our
salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the confession
of our faith, established and publicly confirmed by sundry
Acts of Parliament; and now of a long time hath been openly
professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm,
both in burgh and land. To the which confession and form of
religion we willingly agree in our consciences in all points,
as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon
His written Word; and therefore we abhor and detest all
contrary religion and doctrine, but chiefly all kind of
papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now
damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland.
But in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of
that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the
Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his
tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our
Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the
sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law,
the office of Christ and His blessed evangel; his corrupted
doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and
rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our
imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature,
number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard
sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false
doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments,
without the Word of God; his cruel judgments against infants
departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of
baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real
presence of Christ's body in the elements, and receiving of
the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations,
with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage,
forbidden in the Word; his cruelty against the innocent
divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his
profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick; his
canonization of men, calling upon angels or saints departed,
worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses, dedicating of
kirks, altars, days, vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers
for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; with
his processions and blasphemous litany, and multitudes of
advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular
confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his
general and doubtsome faith; his satisfaction of men for their
sins; his justification by works, "opus operatum," works of
supererogation, merits, pardons, perigrinations and stations;
his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits,
crossing, saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God's
good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined
therewith; his worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy; his
three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts;
his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the
subscribers and approvers of that cruel and bloody band
conjured against the Kirk of God. And finally, we detest all
his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in
the Kirk without or against the Word of God, and doctrine of
this true reformed Kirk, to which we join ourselves willingly,
in doctrine, religion, faith, discipline, and life of the holy
sacraments, as lively members of the same, in Christ our head,
promising and swearing, by the great name of the Lord our God,
that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and
discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same according
to our vocation and power all the days of our lives, under the
pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul
in the day of God's fearful judgment. And seeing that many are
stirred up by Satan and that Roman Antichrist, to promise,
swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in
the Kirk, deceitfully against their own consciences, minding
thereby, first under the external cloak of religion, to
corrupt and subvert secretly God's true religion within the
Kirk; and afterwards, when time may serve, to become open
enemies and persecutors of the same, under vain hope of the
Pope's dispensation, devised against the Word of God, to his
great confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of
the Lord Jesus.
{2865}
We therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of hypocrisy,
and of such double dealing with God and his Kirk, protest and
call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds
and hearts do fully agree with this our confession, promise,
oath, and subscription: so that we are not moved for any
worldly respect, but are persuaded only in our consciences,
through the knowledge and love of God's true religion printed
in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in
the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed. And
because we perceive that the quietness and stability of our
religion and Kirk doth depend upon the safety and good
behaviour of the King's Majesty, as upon a comfortable
instrument of God's mercy granted to this country for the
maintenance of His Kirk, and ministration of justice among us,
we protest and promise with our hearts under the same oath,
handwrit, and pains, that we shall defend his person and
authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of
Christ His evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of
justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies
within this realm or without, as we desire our God to be a
strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death,
and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom, with the Father
and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Like
as many Acts of Parliament not only in general do abrogate,
annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions,
canons civil or municipal, with all other ordinances and
practick penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true
religion, and professors thereof, or of the true Kirk
discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or in favours
of idolatry and superstition; or of the papistical kirk (as
Act 3. Act 31. Parliament 1. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114.
Parliament 12, of K. James VI), that papistry and superstition
may be utter]y suppressed, according to the intention of the
Acts of Parliament reported in Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James
VI. And to that end they ordained all papists and priests to
be punished by manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as
adversaries to God's true religion preached, and by law
established within this realm (Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James
VI) as common enemies to all Christian government (Act 18.
Parliament 16. K. James VI), as rebellers and gainstanders of
our Sovereign Lord's authority (Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James
VI, and as idolaters, Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI), but
also in particular (by and attour the confession of faith) do
abolish and condemn the Pope's authority and jurisdiction out
of this land, and ordains the maintainers thereof to be
punished (Act 2. Parliament 1. Act 51. Parliament 3. Act 106.
Parliament 7. Act 114. Parliament 12. of K. James VI); do
condemn the Pope's erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous
doctrine repugnant to any of the Articles of the true and
Christian religion publicly preached, and by law established
in this realm; and ordains the spreaders or makers of books or
libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished
(Act 46. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24.
Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn all baptism conform to
the Pope's kirk, and the idolatry of the Mass; and ordains all
sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the Mass, the
maintainers, and resetters of the priests, Jesuits,
trafficking Papists, to be punished without exception or
restriction (Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 120. Parliament 12. Act
164. Parliament 13. Act 193. Parliament 14. Act 1. Parliament
19. Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI); do condemn all
erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine
against the religion presently professed, or containing
superstitious rights or ceremonies papistical, whereby the
people are greatly abused; and ordains the home-bringers of
them to be punished (Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do
condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going
to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such
other superstitious and papistical rites, to the dishonour of
God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great errors
among the people, and ordains the users of them to be punished
for the second fault as idolaters (Act 104. Parliament 7. K.
James VI). Like us many Acts of Parliament are conceived for
maintenance of God's true and Christian religion, and the
purity thereof in doctrine and sacraments of the true Church
of God, the liberty and freedom thereof in her national
synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy,
discipline, and jurisdiction thereof, as that purity of
religion and liberty of the Church was used, professed,
exercised, preached, and confessed according to the
reformation of religion in this realm. (As for instance: Act
99. Parliament 7. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament
12. Act 160. Parliament 13. K. James VI, ratified by Act 4. K.
Charles.) So that Act 6. Parliament 1. and Act 68. Parliament
6. of K. James VI, in the year of God 1579, declare the
ministers of the blessed evangel, whom God of His mercy had
raised up or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that
then lived in doctrine and administration of the sacraments,
and the people that professed Christ, as He was then offered
in the evangel, and doth communicate with the holy sacraments
(as in the reformed Kirks of this realm they were presently
administered) according to the confession of faith to be the
true and holy Kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm, and
discerns and declares all and sundry, who either gainsays the
word of the evangel, received and approved as the heads of the
confession of faith, professed in Parliament in the year of
God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament of K. James
VI, and ratified in this present parliament, more particularly
do specify; or that refuses the administration of the holy
sacraments as they were then ministrated, to be no members of
the said Kirk within this realm and true religion presently
professed, so long as they keep themselves so divided from the
society of Christ's body. And the subsequent Act 69.
Parliament 6. K. James VI, declares that there is no other
face of Kirk, nor other face of religion than was presently at
that time by the favour of God established within this realm,
which therefore is ever styled God's true religion, Christ's
true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect
religion, which by manifold Acts of Parliament all within this
realm are bound to profess to subscribe the Articles thereof,
the confession of faith, to recant all doctrine and errors
repugnant to any of the said Articles (Act 4 and 9. Parliament
1. Act 45. 46. 47. Parliament 3. Act 71. Parliament 6. Act
106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. Act 123. Parliament
12. Act 194 and 197. Parliament 14 of King James VI). And all
magistrates, sheriffs, &c., on the one part, are ordained to
search, apprehend, and punish all contraveners (for instance,
Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 104. Parliament 7. Act 25. Parliament
11. K. James VI), and that, notwithstanding of the King's
Majesty's licences on the contrary, which are discharged and
declared to be of no force, in so far as they tend in any ways
to the prejudice and hindrance of the execution of the Acts of
Parliament against Papists and adversaries of the true
religion (Act 106. Parliament 7. K. James VI).
{2866}
On the other part, in Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, it is
declared and ordained, seeing the cause of God's true religion
and His Highness's authority are so joined as the hurt of the
one is common to both; and that none shall be reputed as loyal
and faithful subjects to our Sovereign Lord or his authority,
but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same,
who shall not give their confession and make profession of the
said true religion; and that they, who after defection shall
give the confession of their faith of new, they shall promise
to continue therein in time coming to maintain our Sovereign
Lord's authority, and at the uttermost of their power to
fortify, assist, and maintain the true preachers and
professors of Christ's religion, against whatsoever enemies
and gainstanders of the same; and namely, against all such of
whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have
joined or bound themselves, or have assisted or assists to set
forward and execute the cruel decrees of Trent, contrary to
the preachers and true professors of the Word of God, which is
repeated word by word in the Articles of Pacification at
Perth, the 23d Feb., 1572, approved by Parliament the last of
April 1573, ratified in Parliament 1578, and related Act 123.
Parliament 12. of K. James VI., with this addition, that they
are bound to resist all treasonable uproars and hostilities
raised against the true religion, the King's Majesty and the
true professors. Like as an lieges are bound to maintain the
King's Majesty's royal person and authority, the authority of
Parliaments, without which neither any laws or lawful
judicatories can be established (Act 130. Act 131. Parliament
8. K. James VI), and the subject's liberties, who ought only
to live and be governed by the King's laws, the common laws of
this realm allanerly (Act 48. Parliament 3. K. James I, Act
79. Parliament 6. K. James VI, repeated in Act 131. Parliament
8. K. James VI), which if they be innovated or prejudged the
commission anent the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and
England, which is the sole Act of 17 Parliament James VI,
declares such confusion would ensue as this realm could be no
more a free monarchy, because by the fundamental laws, ancient
privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not only
the princely authority of His Majesty's royal descent hath
been these many ages maintained; also the people's security of
their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties and dignities
preserved; and therefore for the preservation of the said true
religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by
Act 8. Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7.
ratified in Act 23. Parliament 11 and 14. Act of K. James VI
and 4 Act of K. Charles, that all Kings and Princes at their
coronation and reception of their princely authority, shall
make their faithful promise by their solemn oath in the
presence of the Eternal God, that during the whole time of
their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the
utmost of their power, according as He hath required in His
most Holy Word, contained in the Old and New Testaments, and
according to the same Word shall maintain the true religion of
Christ Jesus, the preaching of His Holy Word, the due and
right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached
within this realm (according to the confession of faith
immediately preceding); and shall abolish and gainstand all
false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people
committed to their charge according to the will and
commandment of God revealed in His aforesaid Word, and
according to the lowable laws and constitutions received in
this realm, no ways repugnant to the said will of the Eternal
God; and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the
Kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect
peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to
root out of their Empire all heretics and enemies to the true
worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God
of the aforesaid crimes. Which was also observed by His
Majesty at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, as may be seen
in the Order of the Coronation. In obedience to the commands
of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times,
and according to the laudable example of our worthy and
religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us,
which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a
general band to be made and subscribed by His Majesty's
subjects of all ranks for two causes: one was, for defending
the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed
in the confession of faith above written, and a former large
confession established by sundry acts of lawful general
assemblies and of Parliament unto which it hath relation, set
down in public catechisms, and which had been for many years
with a blessing from heaven preached and professed in this
Kirk and kingdom, as God's undoubted truth grounded only upon
His written Word. The other cause was for maintaining the
King's Majesty, his person and estate: the true worship of God
and the King's authority being so straitly joined, as that
they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand
and fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds;
and confessing with our mouths, that the present and
succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the
aforesaid national oath and subscription inviolable:—We
noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons
under subscribing, considering divers times before, and
especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed
religion of the King's honour, and of the public of the
kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils generally
contained and particularly mentioned in our late
supplications, complaints, and protestations, do hereby
profess, and before God, His angels and the world, solemnly
declare, that with our whole hearts we agree and resolve all
the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend
the aforesaid true religion, and forbearing the practice of
all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship
of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public
government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen
till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in
Parliaments, to labour by all means lawful to recover the
purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and
professed before the aforesaid novations; and because, after
due examination, we plainly perceive and undoubtedly believe
that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications,
complaints and protestations have no warrant of the Word of
God, are contrary to the articles of the aforesaid
confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed
reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts
of Parliament, and do sensibly tend to the reestablishing of
the popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and
ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws
and estates; we also declare that the aforesaid confessions
are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the
aforesaid novations and evils, no less than if everyone of
them had been expressed in the aforesaid confessions; and that
we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other
particular heads of papistry abjured therein.
{2867}
And therefore from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to
God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or
inducement so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a
further measure of the grace of God for this effect, we
promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God, to
continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid
religion; that we shall defend the same, and resist all these
contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation, and
to the utmost of that power that God hath put into our hands,
all the days of our life. And in like manner, with the same
heart we declare before God and men, that we have no intention
or desire to attempt anything that may turn to the dishonour
of God or the diminution of the King's greatness and
authority; but on the contrary we promise and swear that we
shall to the utmost of our power, with our means and lives,
stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King's
Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and
preservation of the aforesaid true religion, liberties and
laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and
assistance everyone of us of another, in the same cause of
maintaining the true religion and His Majesty's authority,
with our best counsels, our bodies, means and whole power,
against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever
shall be done to the least of us for that cause shall be taken
as done to us all in general, and to everyone of us in
particular; and that we shall neither directly or indirectly
suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn by whatsoever
suggestion, combination, allurement or terror from this
blessed and loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or
impediment that may stay or hinder any such resolution as by
common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends; but
on the contrary shall by all lawful means labour to further
and promote the same; and if any such dangerous and divisive
motion be made to us by word or writ, we and everyone of us
shall either suppress it or (if need be) shall incontinently
make the same known, that it may be timously obviated. Neither
do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination or
what else our adversaries from their craft and malice would
put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and
ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship
of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom
for the common happiness of ourselves and posterity. And
because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our
proceedings, except with our profession and subscription, we
join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who
have renewed their covenant with God: we therefore faithfully
promise, for ourselves, our followers, and all other under us,
both in public, in our particular families and personal
carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of
Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all
godliness, soberness and righteousness, and of every duty we
owe to God and man; and that this our union and conjunction
may be observed without violation we call the living God, the
searcher of our hearts to witness, who knoweth this to be our
sincere desire and unfeigned resolution, as we shall answer to
Jesus Christ in the great day, and under the pain of God's
everlasting wrath, and of infamy, and of loss of all honour
and respect in this world; most humbly beseeching the Lord to
strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless
our desires and proceedings with a happy success, that
religion and righteousness may flourish in the land, to the
glory of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of
us all.' In witness whereof we have subscribed with our hands
all the premises, &c."
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.
The First Bishops' War.
In November, 1638, a General Assembly was convened at Glasgow,
with the consent of the king, and was opened by the Marquis of
Hamilton as Royal Commissioner. But when the Assembly took in
hand the trial of the bishops, Hamilton withdrew and ordered
the members to disperse. They paid no heed to the order, but
deposed the bishops and excommunicated eight of them. "The
Canons and the Liturgy were then rejected, and all acts of the
Assemblies held since 1606 were annulled. In the North, where
Huntly was the King's lieutenant, the Covenant had not been
received, and the Tables resolved to enforce it with the
sword. Scotland was now full of trained soldiers just come
back from Germany, where they had learnt to fight in the
Thirty Years' war, and as plenty of money had been collected
among the Covenanters, an army was easily raised. Their banner
bore the motto, 'For Religion, the Covenant, and the Country,'
and their leader was James Graham, Earl of Montrose, one of
the most zealous among the champions of the cause. … While
Montrose had been thus busy for the Covenant in the North, the
King had been making ready to put down his rebellious Scottish
subjects with the sword. Early in May a fleet entered the
Forth under the command of Hamilton. But the Tables took
possession of the strongholds, and seized the ammunition which
had been laid in for the King. They then raised another army
of 22,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and placed at its head
Alexander Leslie, a veteran trained in the German war. Their
army they sent southwards to meet the English host which the
King was bringing to reduce Scotland. The two armies faced
each other on opposite banks of the Tweed. The Scots were
skilfully posted on Dunse Law, a hill commanding the Northern
road. To pass them without fighting was impossible, and to
fight would have been almost certain defeat. The King seeing
this agreed to treat. By a treaty called the Pacification of
Berwick, it was settled that the questions at issue between
the King and the Covenanters should be put to a free Assembly,
that both armies should be disbanded, and that the strongholds
should be restored to the King (June 9, 1639). The Assembly
which met at Edinburgh repeated and approved all that had been
done at Glasgow. When the Estates met for the first time in
the New Parliament-house, June 2, 1640, they went still
further, for they not only confirmed the Acts of the
Assemblies, but ordered every one to sign the Covenant under
pain of civil penalties.
{2868}
Now for the first time they acted in open defiance of the
King, to whom hitherto they had professed the greatest loyalty
and submission. Three times had they been adjourned by the
King, who had also refused to see the Commissioners whom they
sent up to London. Now they met in spite of him, and, as in
former times of troubles and difficulties, they appealed to
France for help. When this intrigue with the French was found
out, the Lord Loudon, one of their Commissioners, was sent to
the Tower, and the English Parliament was summoned to vote
supplies for putting down the Scots by force of arms."
_M. Macarthur,
History of Scotland,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of England, 1603-1641,
chapters 88-89 (volume 9)._
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
volume 2, book 1, chapter 1._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1640.
The Second Bishops' War.-
Invasion of England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1643.
The Solemn League and Covenant with the English Parliament.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
The exploits of Montrose.
At the beginning of the conflict between Charles I. and the
Covenanters, James Graham, the brilliant and accomplished Earl
of Montrose, attached himself to the latter, but soon deserted
their cause and gave himself with great earnestness to that of
the court. For his reward, he was raised to the dignity of
Marquis of Montrose. After the great defeat of Prince Rupert
at Marston Moor, Montrose obtained a commission to raise
forces among the Highlanders and proved to be a remarkably
successful leader of these wild warriors. Along with his
Highlanders he incorporated a body of still wilder Celts,
received from Ireland. On the 1st of September, 1644, Montrose
attacked an army of the Covenanters, 6,000 foot and horse, at
Tippermuir, "totally routed them, and took their artillery and
baggage, without losing a man. Perth immediately surrendered
to Montrose, and he had some further successes; but threatened
by a superior force under the Marquis of Argyll, he retreated
northwards into Badenoch, and thence sweeping down into
Argyllshire, he mercilessly ravaged the country of the
Campbells. Exasperated with the devastation of his estates,
Argyll marched against Montrose, who, not waiting to be
attacked, surprised the army of the Covenanters at Inverlochy,
2d February, 1645, and totally defeated them, no fewer than
1,500 of the clan Campbell perishing in the battle, while
Montrose lost only four or five men. Brilliant as were these
victories, they had no abiding influence in quenching this
terrible civil war. It was a game of winning and losing; and
looking to the fact that the Scotch generally took the side of
the Covenant, the struggle was almost hopeless. Still Montrose
was undaunted. After the Inverlochy affair, he went southwards
through Elgin and Banff into Aberdeenshire, carrying
everything before him. Major-general Baillie, a second-rate
Covenanting commander, and his lieutenant, General Hurry, were
at Brechin, with a force to oppose him; but Montrose, by a
dexterous movement, eluded them, captured and pillaged the
city of Dundee, and escaped safely into the Grampians. On the
4th May, he attacked, and by extraordinary generalship routed
Hurry at Auldearn, near Nairn. After enjoying a short respite
with his fierce veterans in Badenoch, he again issued from his
wilds, and inflicted a still more disastrous defeat on
Baillie, at Alford, in Aberdeenshire, July 2. There was now
nothing to prevent his march south, and he set out with a
force of from 5,000 to 6,000 men." Overtaken by Baillie at
Kilsyth, he once more defeated that commander overwhelmingly.
"The number of slain was upwards of 6,000, with very few
killed on the side of the royalists. The victory so effected,
15th August 1645, was the greatest Montrose ever gained. His
triumph was complete, for the victory of Kilsyth put him in
possession of the whole of Scotland. The government of the
country was broken up; every organ of the recent
administration, civil and ecclesiastical, at once vanished.
The conqueror was hailed as 'the great Marquis of Montrose.'
Glasgow yielded him tribute and homage; counties and burghs
compounded for mercy. The city of Edinburgh humbly deprecated
his vengeance, and implored his pardon and forgiveness." But,
if the conquest of Scotland was complete for the moment, it
came too late. The battle of Naseby had been fought two months
before the battle of Kilsyth, and the king's cause was lost.
It was in vain that Charles sent to his brilliant champion of
the north a commission as Lieutenant-governor of Scotland.
Montrose's army melted away so rapidly that when, in
September, he marched south, leading his forlorn hope to the
help of the king in England, he had but 700 foot and 200
mounted gentlemen. The small force was intercepted and
surprised at Philiphaugh (September 13, 1645) by Leslie, with
4,000 horse. Montrose, after fighting with vain obstinacy
until no more fighting could be done, made his escape, with a
few followers. Most of his troops, taken prisoners, were
massacred a few days afterwards, cold-bloodedly, in the
courtyard of Newark Castle; and the deed is said to have been
due, not to military, but to clerical malignity.
_W. Chambers,
Stories of Old Families,
pages 206-217._
ALSO in:
_M. Napier,
Montrose and the Covenanters._
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 73 (volume 7)._
_Lady V. Greville,
Montrose._
_P. Bayne,
The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 7._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
Flight of King Charles to the Scots army
and his surrender to the English Parliament.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1648.
Royalist invasion of England and Battle of Preston.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).
Scottish loyalty revived.
Charles II. accepted as a "Covenant King."
"The Scots had begun the great movement whose object was at
once to resist the tyranny of the Stuarts and the tyranny of
Rome, and which was destined to result in incalculable
consequences for Europe. But now they retraced their steps,
and put themselves in opposition to the Commonwealth of
England. They wanted a leader. 'With Oliver Cromwell born a
Scotchman,' says Carlyle; 'with a Hero King and a unanimous
Hero Nation at his back, it might have been far otherwise.
With Oliver born Scotch, one sees not but the whole world
might have become Puritan.' Without shutting our eyes to the
truth there may be in this pas·sage, we find the cause of this
northern war elsewhere. In spiritual things the Scots
acknowledged Jesus Christ as their king; in temporal, they
recognized Charles II.
{2869}
They had no wish that the latter should usurp the kingdom of
the former; but they also had no desire that Cromwell should
seize upon the Stuarts' throne. They possessed a double
loyalty—one towards the heavenly king, and another to their
earthly sovereign. They had cast off the abuses of the latter,
but not the monarchy itself. They accordingly invited the
prince, who was then in Holland, to come to Scotland, and take
possession of his kingdom. … Charles at this time was
conniving at Montrose, who was spreading desolation throughout
Scotland; and the young king hoped by his means to recover a
throne without having to take upon himself any embarrassing
engagement. But when the marquis was defeated, he determined
to surrender to the Scottish parliament. One circumstance had
nearly caused his ruin. Among Montrose's papers was found a
commission from the king, giving him authority to levy troops
and subdue the country by force of arms. The indignant
parliament immediately recalled their commissioner from
Holland; but the individual to whom the order was addressed
treacherously concealed the document from his colleagues, and
by showing it to none but the prince, gave him to understand
that he could no longer safely temporize. Charles being thus
convinced hurried on board, and set sail for Scotland,
attended by a train of unprincipled men. The most serious
thinkers in the nation saw that they could expect little else
from him than duplicity, treachery, and licentiousness. It has
been said that the Scotch compelled Charles to adopt their
detested Covenant voluntarily. Most certainly the political
leaders cannot be entirely exculpated of this charge; but it
was not so with the religious part of the government. When he
declared his readiness to sign that deed on board the ship,
even before he landed, Livingston, who doubted his sincerity,
begged him to wait until he had reached Scotland, and given
satisfactory proofs of his good faith. But it was all to no
effect. … If Charles Stuart had thought of ascending his
native throne only, Cromwell and the English would have
remained quiet; but he aimed at the recovery of the three
kingdoms, and the Scotch were disposed to aid him. Oliver
immediately saw the magnitude of the danger which threatened
the religion, liberty, and morals of England, and did not
hesitate."
_J. H. Merle d'Aubigne,
The Protector,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_A. Bisset,
Omitted Chapters of the History of England,
volume 1, chapter 5._
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 75 (volume 7)._
_P. Bayne,
The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 6._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (September).
Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.
War with Scotland having been determined upon by the English
Council of State, and Fairfax having declined the command,
Cromwell was recalled from Ireland to head the army. "He
passed the Tweed with an army of 16,000 men on the 16th of
July. The Scots had placed themselves under the command of the
old Earl of Leven and of David Leslie. As yet their army was a
purely Covenanting one. By an act of the Scotch Church, called
the Act of Classes, all known Malignants, and the Engagers (as
those men were called who had joined Hamilton's insurrection),
had been removed from the army. The country between the Tweed
and Edinburgh had been wasted; and the inhabitants, terrified
by ridiculous stories of the English cruelty, had taken
flight; but Cromwell's army, marching by the coast, was
supplied by the fleet. He thus reached the immediate
neighbourhood of Edinburgh; but Leslie skilfully availed
himself of the advantages of the ground and refused to be
brought to an engagement. It became necessary for Cromwell to
withdraw towards his supplies. He fell back to Dunbar, which
lies upon a peninsula, jutting out into the Firth of Forth.
The base of this peninsula is at a little distance encircled
by high ground, an offshoot of the Lammermuir Hills. These
heights were occupied by the Scotch army, as was also the pass
through which the road to Berwick lies. Cromwell was therefore
apparently shut up between the enemy and the sea, with no
choice but to retire to his ships or surrender. Had Leslie
continued his cautious policy, such might have been the event.
A little glen, through which runs a brook called the Broxburn,
separated the two enemies. Between it and the high grounds lay
a narrow but comparatively level tract. Either army attacking
the other must cross this glen. There were two convenient
places for passing it: one, the more inland one, towards the
right of the English, who stood with their back to the sea,
was already in the hands of the Scotch. Could Leslie secure
the other, at the mouth of the glen, he would have it in his
power to attack when he pleased. The temptation was too strong
for him; be gradually moved his army down from the hills
towards its own right flank, thereby bringing it on the narrow
ground between the hill and the brook, intending with his
right to secure the passage at Broxmouth, Cromwell and Lambert
saw the movement, saw that it gave them a corresponding
advantage if they suddenly crossed the glen at Broxmouth, and
fell upon Leslie's right wing, while his main body was
entangled in the narrow ground before mentioned. The attack
was immediately decided upon, and [next morning] early on the
3rd of September carried out with perfect success. The Scotch
horse of the right wing were driven in confusion back upon
their main body, whom they trampled under foot, and the whole
army was thus rolled back upon itself in inextricable
confusion."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, pages 694-696._
"The pursuit extended over a distance of eight miles, and the
total loss of the Scots amounted to 3,000 killed and 10,000
prisoners, while 30 guns and 15,000 stand of arms were taken;
the casualties of the English army did not exceed 20 men. Of
the prisoners, 5,000, being wounded, old men or boys, were
allowed to return home; the remaining 5,000 were sent into
England, whence, after enduring terrible hardships, they were,
as had been the prisoners taken at Preston, sold either as
slaves to the planters or as soldiers to the Venetians. On the
day following that of the battle, Lambert pushed on to
Edinburgh with six regiments of horse and one of foot;
Cromwell himself, after a rest of a few days, advanced on the
capital, which at once surrendered to the victors. The example
thus set was followed by Leith, but Edinburgh Castle still
held out [until the following December] against the English.
The remnant of the Scottish army (but 1,300 horse remained of
the 6,000 who took part in the battle) retired on Stirling,
while Charles himself took up his residence at Perth."
_N. L. Walford,
Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_A. Bisset,
Omitted Chapters of the History of England,
chapter 6._
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 6._
{2870}
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August).
Charles' rash advance into England.
Cromwell's pursuit and crushing victory at Worcester.
"Lesley was gathering the wreck of his army about him at
Stirling. Charles, with the Scottish authorities, had retired
to Perth. The Presbyterian party became divided; and the
royalists obtained a higher influence in the direction of the
national policy. Charles, without further question of his real
intentions, was crowned at Scone on the 1st of January, 1651.
After a three months' blockade, and then a bombardment,
Edinburgh Castle was surrendered to Cromwell on the 18th of
December. He had little to do to make himself master of
Scotland on the south of the Forth. On the 4th of February the
army marched towards Stirling, but returned without any
result, driven to the good quarters of Edinburgh by terrible
storms of sleet and snow. The Lord-General became seriously
ill through this exposure. But on the 5th of June he was out
again; and at the end of the month was vigorously prosecuting
the campaign. The Scottish army was entrenched at Stirling.
The king had been invited to take its command in person.
Cromwell, on the 2nd of August, had succeeded in possessing
himself of Perth. At that juncture the news reached him that
the royal camp at Stirling was broken up, on the 31st of July;
and that Charles was on his march southward, at the head of
11,000 men, his lieutenant-general being David Lesley. Argyll
was opposed to this bold resolution, and had retired to
Inverary. Charles took the western road by Carlisle; and when
on English ground issued a proclamation offering pardon to
those who would return to their allegiance—exempting from his
promised amnesty Bradshaw, Cromwell, and Cook. He was also
proclaimed king of England, at the head of his army: and
similar proclamation was made at Penrith and other
market-towns. Strict discipline was preserved, and although
the presence of Scots in arms was hateful to the people, they
were not outraged by any attempts at plunder. Charles,
however, had few important accessions of strength. There was
no general rising in his favour. The gates of Shrewsbury were
shut against him. At Warrington, his passage of the Mersey was
opposed by Lambert and Harrison, who had got before him with
their cavalry. On the 22nd of August Charles reached
Worcester, the parliamentary garrison having evacuated the
city. He there set up his standard, and a summons went forth
for all male subjects of due age to gather round their
Sovereign Lord, at the general muster of his forces on the
26th of August. An inconsiderable number of gentlemen came,
with about 200 followers. Meanwhile Cromwell had marched
rapidly from Scotland with 10,000 men, leaving behind him
6,000 men under Monk. The militias of the counties joined him
with a zeal which showed their belief that another civil war
would not be a national blessing. On the 28th of August the
General of the Commonwealth was close to Worcester, with
30,000 men." On the 3d of September (the anniversary of the
victory of Dunbar, won just a year before), he attacked the
royalist army and made an end of it. "'We beat the enemy from
hedge to hedge [he wrote to parliament] till we beat him into
Worcester. The enemy then drew all his forces on the other
side the town, all but what he had lost; and made a very
considerable fight with us, for three hours' space; but in the
end we beat him totally, and pursued him to his royal fort,
which we took,—and indeed have beaten his whole army.' The
prisoners taken at the battle of Worcester, and in the
subsequent flight, exceeded 7,000. They included some of the
most distinguished leaders of the royalists in England and
Scotland. Courts-martial were held upon nine of these; and
three, amongst whom was the earl of Derby, were executed."
Charles Stuart escaped by flight, with his long cavalier locks
cut close and his royal person ignobly disguised, wandering
and hiding for six weeks before he reached the coast and got
ship for France. The story of his adventures—his concealment
in the oak at Boscobel, his ride to Bristol as a serving man,
with a lady on the pillion behind him, &c., &c.,—has been told
often enough.
_C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 27._
ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 6, letters 96-124._
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 13 (volume 5)._
_A. Bisset,
Omitted Chapters of English History,
chapters 10-11 (volume 2)._
_F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 2 (volume 1)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August-September).
The conquest completed by Monk.
When Cromwell followed Charles and his Scottish army into
England, to destroy them at Worcester, he left Monk in
Scotland, with a few thousand men, and that resolute general
soon completed the conquest of the kingdom. He met with most
resistance at Dundee. "Dundee was a town well fortified,
supplied with a good garrison under Lumisden, and full of all
the rich furniture, the plate, and money of the kingdom, which
had been sent thither as to a place of safety. Monk appeared
before it: and having made a breach, gave a general assault.
He carried the town; and, following the example and
instructions of Cromwell, put all the inhabitants to the
sword, in order to strike a general terror into the kingdom.
Warned by this example, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, Inverness, and
other towns and forts, yielded, of their own accord, to the
enemy. … That kingdom, which had hitherto, through all ages,
by means of its situation, poverty, and valour, maintained its
independence, was reduced to total subjection."
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 60 (volume 5)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Browne,
History of the Highlands,
volume 2, chapter 4._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.
Incorporated with England by Protector Cromwell.
In 1654, "Cromwell completed another work which the Long
Parliament and the Barebone Parliament had both undertaken and
left unfinished. Under favour of the discussions which had
arisen between the great powers of the Commonwealth, the
Scottish royalists had once more conceived hopes, and taken up
arms. … The insurrection, though chiefly confined to the
Highlands, descended occasionally to ravage the plains; and
towards the beginning of February, 1654, Middleton had been
sent from France, by Charles II., to attempt to give, in the
king's name, that unity and consistency of action in which it
had until then been deficient.
{2871}
No sooner had he been proclaimed Protector, than Cromwell took
decisive measures to crush these dangers in their infancy: he
despatched to Ireland his second son, Henry, an intelligent,
circumspect, and resolute young man, and to Scotland, Monk,
whom that country had already once recognized as her
conqueror. Both succeeded in their mission. … Monk, with his
usual prompt and intrepid boldness, carried the war into the
very heart of the Highlands, established his quarters there,
pursued the insurgents into their most inaccessible retreats,
defeated Middleton and compelled him to re-embark for the
Continent, and, after a campaign of four months, returned to
Edinburgh at the end of August, 1654, and began once more,
without passion or noise, to govern the country which he had
twice subjugated. Cromwell had reckoned beforehand on his
success, for, on the 12th of April, 1654, at the very period
when he ordered Monk to march against the Scottish insurgents,
be had, by a sovereign ordinance, incorporated Scotland with
England, abolished all monarchical or feudal jurisdiction in
the ancient realm of the Stuarts, and determined the place
which its representatives, as well as those of Ireland, should
occupy in the common Parliament of the new State."
_F. P. Guizot,
History of Oliver Cromwell,
book 5 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 11, chapter 1._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.
The restored King and the restored prelatical Church.
The oppression of the Covenanters.
"In Scotland the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed
with delight; for it was regarded as the restoration of
national independence. And true it was that the yoke which
Cromwell had imposed was, in appearance, taken away, that the
Scottish Estates again met in their old hall at Edinburgh, and
that the Senators of the College of Justice again administered
the Scottish law according to the old forms. Yet was the
independence of the little kingdom necessarily rather nominal
than real: for, as long as the King had England on his side,
he had nothing to apprehend from disaffection in his other
dominions. He was now in such a situation that he could renew
the attempt which had proved destructive to his father without
any danger of his father's fate. … The government resolved to
set up a prelatical church in Scotland. The design was
disapproved by every Scotchman whose judgment was entitled to
respect. … The Scottish Parliament was so constituted that it
had scarcely ever offered any serious opposition even to Kings
much weaker than Charles then was. Episcopacy, therefore, was
established by law. As to the form of worship, a large
discretion was left to the clergy. In some churches the
English Liturgy was used. In others, the ministers selected
from that Liturgy such prayers and thanksgivings as were
likely to be least offensive to the people. But in general the
doxology was sung at the close of public worship, and the
Apostles' Creed was recited when baptism was administered. By
the great body of the Scottish nation the new Church was
detested both as superstitious and as foreign; as tainted with
the corruptions of Rome, and as a mark of the predominance of
England. There was, however, no general insurrection. The
country was not what it had been twenty-two years before.
Disastrous war and alien domination had tamed the spirit of
the people. … The bulk of the Scottish nation, therefore,
sullenly submitted, and, with many misgivings of conscience,
attended the ministrations of the Episcopal clergy, or of
Presbyterian divines who had consented to accept from the
government a half toleration known by the name of the
Indulgence. But there were, particularly in the western
lowlands, many fierce and resolute men who held that the
obligation to observe the Covenant was paramount to the
obligation to obey the magistrate. These people, in defiance
of the law, persisted in meeting to worship God after their
own fashion. The Indulgence they regarded, not as a partial
reparation of the wrongs inflicted by the State on the Church,
but as a new wrong, the more odious because it was disguised
under the appearance of a benefit. Persecution, they said,
could only kill the body; but the black Indulgence was deadly
to the soul. Driven from the towns, they assembled on, heaths
and mountains. Attacked by the civil power, they without
scruple repelled force by force. At every conventicle they
mustered in arms. They repeatedly broke out into open
rebellion. They were easily defeated and mercilessly punished:
but neither defeat nor punishment could subdue their spirit.
Hunted down like wild beasts, tortured till their bones were
beaten fiat, imprisoned by hundreds, hanged by scores, exposed
at one time to the license of soldiers from England, abandoned
at another time to the mercy of troops of marauders from the
Highlands, they still stood at bay, in a mood so savage that
the boldest and mightiest oppressor could not but dread the
audacity of their despair."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 2 (volume 1)._
The Scottish Parliament by which Episcopacy was established at
the king's bidding is known as the Drunken Parliament. "Every
man of them, with one exception, is said to have been
intoxicated at the time of passing it [October 1, 1662]. Its
effect was that 350 ministers were ejected from their livings.
The apparatus of ecclesiastical tyranny was completed by a
Mile Act, similar to the Five Mile Act of England, forbidding
any recusant minister to reside within twenty miles of his own
parish, or within three miles of a royal borough."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 2, page 729._
"The violence of the drunken parliament was finally shown in
the absurdity of what was called the 'Act Rescissory,' by
which every law that had been passed in the Scottish
parliament during twenty-eight years was wholly annulled. The
legal foundations of Presbytery were thus swept away."
_C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 29._
ALSO IN:
_J. Aikman,
Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,
volume 1, books 2-5._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.
Lauderdale's despotism.
The Highland host.
"A new Parliament was assembled [October 19, 1669] at
Edinburgh, and Lauderdale was sent down commissioner. … It
were endless to recount every act of violence and arbitrary
authority exercised during Lauderdale's administration. All
the lawyers were put from the bar, nay banished, by the king's
order, twelve miles from the capital, and by that means the
whole justice of the kingdom was suspended for a year, till
these lawyers were brought to declare it as their opinion that
all appeals to Parliament were illegal. A letter was procured
from the king, for expelling twelve of the chief magistrates
of Edinburgh, and declaring them incapable of an public
office, though their only crime had been their want of
compliance with Lauderdale. …
{2872}
The private deportment of Lauderdale was as insolent and
provoking as his public administration was violent and
tyrannical. Justice likewise was universally perverted by
faction and interest: and from the great rapacity of that
duke, and still more of his duchess, all offices and favours
were openly put to sale. No one was allowed to approach the
throne who was not dependent on him; and no remedy could be
hoped for or obtained against his manifold oppressions. … The
law enacted against conventicles had called them seminaries of
rebellion. This expression, which was nothing but a flourish
of rhetoric, Lauderdale and the privy council were willing to
understand in a literal sense; and because the western
counties abounded in conventicles, though otherwise in
profound peace, they pretended that these counties were in a
state of actual war and rebellion. They made therefore an
agreement with some highland chieftains to call out their
clans, to the number of 8,000 men; to these they joined the
guards, and the militia of Angus: and they sent the whole to
live at free quarters upon the lands of such as had refused
the bonds [engaging them as landlords to restrain their
tenants from attending conventicles] illegally required of
them. The obnoxious counties were the most populous and most
industrious in Scotland. The highlanders were the people the
most disorderly and the least civilized. It is easy to imagine
the havoc and destruction which ensued. … After two months'
free quarter, the highlanders were sent back to their hills,
loaded with the spoils and the execrations of the west. … Lest
the cry of an oppressed people should reach the throne, the
council forbad, under severe penalties, all noblemen or
gentlemen of landed property to leave the kingdom. … It is
reported that Charles, after a full hearing of the debates
concerning Scottish affairs, said, 'I perceive that Lauderdale
has been guilty of many bad things against the people of
Scotland; but I cannot find that he has acted anything
contrary to my interest.'"
_D. Hume,
History of England,
chapter 66 (volume 6)._
ALSO IN:
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
books 2-3._
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 78 (volume 7)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (May-June).
The Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.
"The public indignation which these measures [under
Lauderdale] roused was chiefly directed against the Archbishop
of St. Andrews [Dr. James Sharp], who was generally regarded
as their author or instigator, and was doubly obnoxious as the
Judas of the Presbyterian Church." On the 3d of May, 1679, the
Archbishop was dragged from his carriage on Magus Moor, three
miles from St. Andrews, and murdered, by a band of twelve
Covenanters, headed by Hackston of Rathillet, and Balfour of
Burley, his brother-in-law. "The great body of the
Presbyterians, though doubtless thinking that 'the loon was
weel away,' condemned this cruel and bloody deed as a foul
murder; and they could not fail to see that it would greatly
increase the severity of the persecution against their party.
… It was now declared a treasonable act to attend a
conventicle, and orders were issued to the commanders of the
troops in the western district to disperse all such meetings
at the point of the sword. … Towards the end of May
preparations were made to hold a great conventicle on a moor
in the parish of Avondale, near the borders of Lanarkshire.
The day selected for the service was the first of June. No
secret was made of the arrangement, and it became known to
John Graham of Claverhouse, the 'Bloody Claverhouse,' as he
was called, who commanded a body of dragoons, stationed at
Glasgow, for the purpose of suppressing the Covenanters in
that district. … Having been apprised of the intended meeting,
he hastened towards the spot at the head of his own troop of
horse and two companies of dragoons. … The Covenanters had
assembled on the farm of Drumclog, in the midst of a high and
moorland district out of which rises the wild craggy eminence
of Loudoun Hill, in whose vicinity Robert Bruce gained his
first victory. … The preacher, Thomas Douglas, had proceeded
only a short way with his sermon when a watchman posted on an
adjoining height fired his gun as a signal that the enemy was
approaching. The preacher paused in his discourse, and closed
with the oft-quoted words—'You have got the theory; now for
the practice.' The women and children were sent to the rear.
The armed men separated from the rest of the meeting and took
up their position. … Claverhouse and his dragoons were
descending the slope of the opposite eminence, called Calder
Hill, and with a loud cheer they rushed towards the morass and
fired a volley at the Covenanters. It was returned with great
effect, emptying a number of saddles. The dragoons made
several unsuccessful attempts to cross the marsh, and flanking
parties sent to the right and to the left were repulsed with
considerable loss. At this juncture John Nisbet [an old
soldier of the Thirty Years' War] cried out, 'Jump the ditch
and charge the enemy.' The order was instantly obeyed.
Balfour, at the head of the horsemen, and Cleland, with a
portion of the infantry, crossed the marsh and attacked the
dragoons with such fury that they were thrown into confusion
and took to flight, leaving from forty to fifty of their
number dead on the field. Claverhouse himself had his horse
killed under him and narrowly escaped his pursuers. … The
victory at Drumclog roused the whole country. Great numbers
poured in to join the victors, and in a short time their ranks
had swelled to upwards of 6,000 men."
_J. Taylor,
The Scottish Covenanters,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_M. Morris,
Claverhouse,
chapter 4._
_Sir W. Scott,
Old Morality._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (June).
Monmouth's success at Bothwell Bridge.
"The King was for suppressing the insurrection immediately by
forces from England to join those in Scotland, and the Duke of
Monmouth to command them all. … The Duke of Monmouth, after a
friendly parting with the King, who had been displeased with
him, set out from London, June 18, for Scotland, where he
arrived in three days, with an expedition considered
incredible, and took the command. The Covenanters were 5,000
or 6,000 strong, and had taken up a position six miles from
Hamilton, at Bothwell Bridge, which they barricaded and
disputed the Duke's passage. These Covenanters were
irresolute. An attempt to negotiate was made, but they were
told that no proposal could be received from rebels in arms.
One half hour was allowed. The Covenanters went on consuming
their time in theological controversy, considering 'the Duke
to be in rebellion against the Lord and his people.'
{2873}
While thus almost unprepared, they were entirely defeated in
an action, 22d of June, which, in compliment to the Duke of
Monmouth, was too proudly called the battle of Bothwell
Bridge. Four hundred Covenanters were killed, and 1,200 made
prisoners. Monmouth was evidently favourable to them. … The
Duke would not let the dragoons pursue and massacre those (as
Oldmixon calls them) Protestants. … The same historian adds,
that the Duke of York talked of Monmouth's expedition to
Scotland, as a courting the people there, and their friends in
England, by his sparing those that were left alive; and that
Charles himself said to Monmouth, 'If I had been there, we
would not have had the trouble of prisoners.' The Duke
answered, 'I cannot kill men in cold blood; that's work only
for butchers.' The prisoners who promised to live peaceably
were set at liberty; the others, about 270, were transported
to our plantations, but were all cast away at sea! The Duke of
Lauderdale's creatures pressed the keeping the army some time
in Scotland, with a design to have them eat it up; but the
Duke of Monmouth sent home the militia, and put the troops
under discipline; so that all the country was sensible he had
preserved them from ruin. The Duke asked the King to grant an
indemnity for what was past, and liberty to the Covenanters to
hold their meetings under the King's license; but these
softening measures fell with Monmouth, and rage and slaughter
again reigned when the Duke of York obtained the government of
Scotland."
_G. Roberts,
Life of Monmouth,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 79 (volume 7)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.
The pitiless rule of James II.
The hunting of the Cameronians.
Claverhouse's brutalities.
In 1681 the government of Scotland was committed to the king's
brother, the duke of York (afterwards James II.), as viceroy.
"Succeeding the duke of Monmouth, who was universally beloved,
he was anxious to exhibit as a statesman that capacity which
he thought he had given sufficient proof of as a general and
as a naval commander. In assuming the direction of the affairs
of Scotland, he at first affected moderation; but at a very
early period an occasion presented itself for displaying
severity; he was then pitiless. A few hundred presbyterians,
under the conduct of two ministers, Cameron and Cargill,
having taken arms and declared that they would acknowledge
neither the king nor the bishops, he sent the troops against
them. The insurgents, who called themselves Cargillites and
Cameronians, were beaten, and a great number of them killed.
The prisoners, taken to Edinburgh, were tortured and put to
death. The duke was present at the executions, which he
witnessed with an unmoved countenance, and as though they were
curious experiments."
_A. Carrel,
History of the Counter-Revolution in England,
chapter 2._
"Unlike the English Puritans, the great majority of the
Scottish Presbyterians were staunch supporters of monarchy. …
Now, however, owing to the 'oppression which maketh a wise man
mad,' an extreme party arose among them, who not only
condemned the Indulgence and refused to pay cess, but publicly
threw off their allegiance to the King, on the ground of his
violation of his coronation oath, his breach of the Covenant
which he solemnly swore to maintain, his perfidy, and his
'tyranny in matters civil.' A declaration to this effect was
publicly read, and then affixed (June 22d, 1680) to the market
cross of Sanquhar in Dumfriesshire, by Richard Cameron and
Donald Cargill, two of the most distinguished Covenanting
ministers, accompanied by an armed party of about twenty
persons. … These acts of the 'Society men,' or Cameronians, as
they were called after their leader, afforded the government a
plausible pretext for far more severe measures than they had
yet taken against the Hillmen, whom they hunted for several
weeks through the moors and wild glens of Ayr and Galloway."
_J. Taylor,
The Scottish Covenanters,
chapter 4._
"He [James II.], whose favourite theme had been the injustice
of requiring civil functionaries to take religious tests,
established in Scotland, when he resided there as Viceroy, the
most rigorous religious test that has ever been known in the
empire. He, who had expressed just indignation when the
priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, amused
himself with hearing Covenanters shriek and seeing them writhe
while their knees were beaten flat in the boots. In this mood
he became King, and he immediately demanded and obtained from
the obsequious Estates of Scotland, as the surest pledge of
their loyalty, the most sanguinary law that has ever in our
islands been enacted against Protestant Nonconformists. With
this law the whole spirit of his administration was in perfect
harmony. The fiery persecution, which had raged when he ruled
Scotland as vicegerent, waxed hotter than ever from the day on
which he he came sovereign. Those shires in which the
Covenanters were most numerous were given up to the license of
the army. … Preeminent among the bands which oppressed and
wasted these unhappy districts were the dragoons commanded by
John Graham of Claverhouse. The story ran that these wicked
men used in their revels to play at the torments of hell, and
to call each other by the names of devils and damned souls.
The chief of this Tophet, a soldier of distinguished courage
and professional skill, but rapacious and profane, of violent
temper and obdurate heart, has left a name which, wherever the
Scottish race is settled on the face of the globe, is
mentioned with a peculiar energy of hatred. To recapitulate
all the crimes by which this man, and men like him, goaded the
peasantry of the Western Lowlands into madness, would be an
endless task."
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Cunningham,
History of the Church of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 6._
_M. Morris,
Claverhouse._
_J. Aikman,
Annals of the Persecution in Scotland,
volume 2, books 5-12._
_A Cloud of Witnesses._
_J. Howie,
The Scots Worthies._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1685.
Argyll's invasion.
Monmouth's rebellion.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1687.
Declarations of Indulgence by James II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
{2874}
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.
The Revolution.
Fall of the Stuarts and their Bishops.
Presbyterianism finally restored and established.
"At the first prospect of invasion from Holland [by William of
Orange], James had ordered the regiments on duty in Scotland to
march southward. The withdrawal of the troops was followed by
outbreaks in various parts. In Glasgow the Covenanters rose,
and proclaimed the Prince of Orange king. In Edinburgh riots
broke out. The chapel of Holyrood Palace was dismantled, and
the Romish bishops and priests fled in fear for their lives.
On hearing that William had entered into London, the leading
Whigs, under the Duke of Hamilton, repaired thither, and had
an interview with him. He invited them to meet in Convention.
This they accordingly did, and on January 9, 1689, it was
resolved to request William to summon a meeting of the
Scottish Estates for the 14th of March, and in the interim to
administer the government. To this William consented. The
Estates of Scotland met on the appointed day. All the bishops,
and a great number of the peers were adherents of James. After
a stormy debate, the Duke of Hamilton was elected President.
But the minority (Jacobites) was a large one. … The Duke of
Gordon still held Edinburgh Castle for James, and when the
minority found it hopeless to carry their measures, he
proposed they should with him withdraw from Edinburgh and hold
a rival Convention at Stirling. But these intentions were
discovered, many Jacobites were arrested, and many others,
amongst them Viscount Dundee, escaped to the Highlands. In the
end, the crown was offered to William and Mary on the same
terms on which it had been offered by the English Convention.
The offer was accompanied by a claim of rights, almost
identical with the English declaration, but containing the
additional clause, that 'prelacy was a great and insupportable
grievance.' On April 11, 1689, William and Mary were solemnly
proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh. It was high time some
form of government should be settled, for, throughout the
Lowlands, scenes of mob violence were daily witnessed. The
Presbyterians, so long down-trodden, rose in many a parish.
The Episcopal clergy were ejected, in some cases with
bloodshed. The 'rabbling,' as it is called in Scotch history,
continued for some months, until the Presbyterian Church was
reinstated by law as the Established Church of Scotland, in
June 1690."
_E. Hale,
The Fall of the Stuarts,
chapter 13._
"Episcopacy was now thrown down; but Presbytery was yet to be
built up. … Months passed away, and the year 1690 began. King
William was quite prepared to establish Presbytery, but he was
most unwilling to abolish patronage. Moreover, he was desirous
that the foundations of the new Church should be as widely
laid as possible, and that it should comprehend all the
ministers of the old Church who chose to conform to its
discipline. But he began to see that some concession was
necessary, if a Church was to be built up at all. On the 25th
of April the Parliament met which was to give us the
Establishment which we still enjoy. Its first act was to
abolish the Act 1669, which asserted the king's supremacy over
all persons and in all causes. Its second act was to restore
all the Presbyterian ministers who had been ejected from their
livings for not complying with Prelacy. This done, the
parliament paused in its full career of ecclesiastical
legislation, and abolished the Lords of the Articles, who for
so many centuries had managed the whole business of the Scotch
Estates, and ordained that the electors of commissioners to
the Estates should take the Oath of Allegiance before
exercising the franchise. The next act forms the foundation of
our present Establishment. It ratifies the 'Westminster
Confession of Faith'; it revives the Act 1592; it repeals all
the laws in favour of Episcopacy; it legalizes the ejections
of the western rabble; it declares that the government of the
Church was to be vested in the ministers who were outed for
nonconformity, on and after the 1st January 1661, and were now
restored, and those who had been or should be admitted by
them; it appoints the General Assembly to meet; and empowers
it to nominate visitors to purge out all insufficient,
negligent, scandalous, and erroneous ministers, by due course
of ecclesiastical process. In this act the Presbyterians
gained all that they could desire, as Presbytery was
established, and the government of the Church was placed
entirely in their hands. By this act, the Westminster
Confession became the creed of the Church, and is recorded at
length in the minutes of the parliament. But the Catechisms
and the 'Directory of Worship' are not found by its side. A
pamphleteer of the day declares that the Confession was read
amid much yawning and weariness, and, by the time it was
finished, the Estates grew restive, and would hear no more. It
is at least certain that the Catechisms and Directory are not
once mentioned, though the Presbyterian ministers were very
anxious that they should. From this it would appear that,
while the State has fixed the Church's faith, it has not fixed
the Church's worship. … The Covenants were utterly ignored,
though there were many in the Church who would have wished
them revived."
_J. Cunningham,
Church History of Scotland,
volume 2, chapter 7._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 July).
War in the Highlands.
The Battle of Killiecrankie.
"The duke of Gordon still held out the castle of Edinburgh for
James; and the viscount Dundee [Graham of Claverhouse], the
soul of the Jacobite party in Scotland, having collected a
small but gallant army of Highlanders, threatened with
subjection the whole northern part of the kingdom. Dundee, who
had publicly disavowed the authority of the Scottish
convention, had been declared an outlaw by that assembly; and
general Mackay was sent against him with a body of regular
troops. The castle of Blair being occupied by the adherents of
James, Mackay resolved to attempt its reduction. The viscount,
apprised of the design of his antagonist, summoned up all his
enterprising spirit, and by forced marches arrived at Athol
before him. He was soon [July 27, 1689] informed that Mackay's
vanguard had cleared the pass of Killicranky; a narrow defile,
formed by the steep sides of the Grampian hills, and a dark,
rapid, and deep river. Though chagrined at this intelligence
he was not disconcerted. He despatched Sir Alexander Maclean
to attack the enemy's advanced party while he himself should
approach with the main body of the Highlanders. But before
Maclean had proceeded a mile, Dundee received information that
Mackay had marched through the pass with his whole army. He
commanded Maclean to halt, and boldly advanced with his
faithful band, determined to give battle to the enemy."
Mackay's army, consisting of four thousand five hundred foot,
and two troops of horse, was formed in eight battalions, and
ready for action when Dundee came in view. His own brave but
undisciplined followers, of all ranks and conditions, did not
exceed 3,300 men. "These he instantly ranged in hostile array.
{2875}
They stood inactive for several hours in sight of the enemy,
on the steep side of a hill, which faced the narrow plain
where Mackay had formed his line, neither party choosing to
change its ground. But the signal for battle was no sooner
given, than the Highlanders rushed down the hill in deep
columns; and having discharged their muskets with effect, they
had recourse to the broadsword, their proper weapon, with
which they furiously attacked the enemy. Mackay's left wing
was instantly broken, and driven from the field with great
slaughter by the Macleans, who formed the right of Dundee's
army. The Macdonalds, who composed his left, were not equally
successful: Colonel Hasting's regiment of English foot
repelled their most vigorous efforts, and obliged them to
retreat. But Maclean and Cameron, at the head of part of their
respective clans, suddenly assailed this gallant regiment in
flank, and put it to the rout. Two thousand of Mackay's army
were slain; and his artillery, baggage, ammunition,
provisions, and even king William's Dutch standard, fell into
the hands of the Highlanders. But their joy, like a smile upon
the cheek of death, delusive and insincere, was of short
duration. Dundee was mortally wounded by a musket shot as he
was pursuing the fugitives; he expired soon after his victory,
and with him perished the hopes of James in Scotland. The
castle of Edinburgh had already surrendered to the convention;
and the Highlanders, discouraged by the loss of a leader whom
they loved and almost adored, gradually dispersed themselves,
and returned to their savage mountains, to bewail him in their
songs. His memory is still dear to them; he is considered as
the last of their heroes; and his name, even to this day, is
seldom mentioned among them without a sigh or a tear."
_W. Russell,
History of Modern Europe,
part 2, letter 17 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Browne,
History of the Highlands,
volume 2, chapters 6-7._
_M. Morris,
Claverhouse,
chapter 11._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (August).
Cameronian victory at Dunkeld.
After the victory and death of Dundee at Killiecrankie, the
command of his Highlanders had devolved upon Cannon, an Irish
officer. "With an army increased to 4,000 men, he continued to
coast along the Grampians, followed by Mackay; the one afraid
to descend from the mountains, and the other to quit, with his
cavalry, the advantage of the open plains. Returning by a
secret march to Dunkeld [August 21], he surrounded the
regiment of Cameronians, whose destruction appeared so
inevitable that they were abandoned by a party of horse to
their fate. But the Cameronians, notwithstanding the loss of
Cleland, their gallant commander, defended themselves … with
such desperate enthusiasm that the highlanders, discouraged by
the repulse, and incapable of persevering fortitude, dispersed
and returned to their homes."
_M. Laing,
History of Scotland, 1603-1707,
book 10 (volume 4)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692.
The Massacre of Glenco.
A scheme, originating with Lord Breadalbane, for the pacifying
of the Highlanders, was approved by King William and acted
upon, in 1691. It offered a free pardon and a sum of money to
all the chiefs who would take the oath of allegiance to
William and Mary before the first of January, 1692, and it
contemplated the extirpation of such clans as refused. "The
last man to submit to government was Macdonald of Glenco.
Towards the end of December he applied to the governor of Fort
William, who refused, as not being a civil magistrate, to
administer the oaths; but dispatched him in haste, with an
earnest recommendation to the Sheriff of Argyle. From the
snows and other interruptions which he met with on the road,
the day prescribed for submission had elapsed, before he
reached Inverary, the county town. The benefit of the
indemnity was strictly forfeited; the sheriff was moved,
however, by his tears and entreaties, to receive his oath of
allegiance, and to certify the unavoidable cause of his delay.
But his oath was industriously suppressed, by the advice
particularly of Stair the president; the certificate was
erased from the list presented to the privy council; and it
appears that an extensive combination was formed for his
destruction. The earl of Breadalbane, whose lands he had
plundered, and … Dalrymple, the secretary, … persuaded William
that Glenco was the chief obstacle to the pacification of the
highlands. Perhaps they concealed the circumstance that he had
applied within due time for the oaths to government, and had
received them since. But they procured instructions, signed,
and for their greater security, countersigned by the king
himself, to proceed to military execution against such rebels
as had rejected the indemnity, and had refused to submit on
assurance of their lives. As these instructions were found
insufficient, they obtained an additional order, signed, and
also countersigned, by the king, 'that if Glenco and his clan
could well be separated from the rest, it would be a proper
vindication of public justice to extirpate that sect of
thieves.' But the directions given by Dalrymple far exceeded
even the king's instructions. … Glenco, assured of an
indemnity, had remained at home, unmolested for a month, when
a detachment arrived from Fort William, under Campbell of
Glenlyon, whose niece was married to one of his sons. The
soldiers were received on assurance of peace and friendship;
and were quartered among the inhabitants of the sequestered
vale. Their commander enjoyed for a fortnight the daily
hospitality of his nephew's table. They had passed the evening
at cards together, and the officers were to dine with his
father next day. Their orders arrived that night, to attack
their defenceless hosts while asleep at midnight, and not to
suffer a man, under the age of seventy, to escape their
swords. From some suspicious circumstances the sons were
impressed with a sudden apprehension of danger, and discovered
their approach; but before they could alarm their father, the
massacre spread through the whole vale. Before the break of
day, a party, entering as friends, shot Glenco as he rose from
his bed. His wife was stript naked by the soldiers, who tore
the rings with their teeth from her fingers; and she expired
next morning with horror and grief. Nine men were bound and
deliberately shot at Glenlyon's quarters; his landlord was
shot by his orders, and a young boy, who clung to his knees
for protection, was stabbed to death. At another part of the
vale the inhabitants were shot while sitting around their
fire; women perished with their children in their arms; an old
man of eighty was put to the sword; another, who escaped to a
house for concealment, was burnt alive.
{2876}
Thirty-eight persons were thus inhumanly massacred by their
inmates and guests. The rest, alarmed by the report of
musquetry, escaped to the hills, and were preserved from
destruction by a tempest that added to the horrors of the
night. … The carnage was succeeded by rapine and desolation.
The cattle were driven off or destroyed. The houses, to fulfil
Dalrymple's instructions, were burnt to the ground; and the
women and children, stript naked, were left to explore their
way to some remote and friendly habitation, or to perish in
the snows. The outcry against the massacre of Glenco was not
confined to Scotland; but, by the industry of the Jacobites,
it resounded with every aggravation through Europe. Whether
the inhuman rigour or the perfidious execution of the orders
were considered, each part of the bloody transaction
discovered a deliberate, treacherous, and an impolitic
cruelty, from which the king himself was not altogether
exempt. Instead of the terror which it was meant to inspire,
the horror and universal execration which it excited rendered
the highlanders irreconcilable to his government, and the
government justly odious to his subjects."
_M. Laing,
History of Scotland, 1603-1707,
book 10 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 18 (volume 4)._
_J. Browne,
History of the Highlands,
volume 2, chapter 10._
_G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time,
book 5 (volume 4), 1692._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.
The Darien scheme.
King William urges a Union of the kingdoms.
"The peace of Ryswic was succeeded by an event which had well
nigh created a civil war between Scotland and England. As the
writers of no nation are more marked by grandeur and meanness
of composition in the same person, and the actors in public
life by grandeur and meanness of character in the same person,
than those of England; so the proceedings of the national
assembly of England, the noblest that ever was on earth,
except that of Rome, are often tinctured with a strange
mixture of the great and the little. Of this truth an instance
appeared at this time, in the proceedings of parliament with
regard to the Scots colony of Darien, settled by Mr. Paterson.
… Paterson, having examined the places, satisfied himself that
on the isthmus of Darien there was a tract of country running
across from the Atlantic to the South Sea, which the Spaniards
had never possessed, and inhabited by a people continually at
war with them; … that the two seas were connected by a ridge
of hills, which, by their height, created a temperate climate;
… that roads could be made with ease along the ridge, by which
mules, and even carriages, might pass from the one sea to the
other in the space of a day, and that consequently this
passage seemed to be pointed out by the finger of nature, as a
common centre, to connect together the trade and intercourse
of the universe. … By this obscure Scotsman a project was
formed to settle, on this neglected spot, a great and powerful
colony, not as other colonies have for the most part been
settled, by chance, and unprotected by the country from whence
they went, but by system, upon foresight, and to receive the
ample protection of those governments to whom he was to offer
his project. And certainly no greater idea has been formed
since the time of Columbus. … Paterson's original intention
was to offer his project to England, as the country which had
the most interest in it." Receiving no encouragement, however,
in London, nor in Holland, nor Germany, to which countries he
repaired, he returned finally to Scotland, and there awakened
the interest of several influential gentlemen, including Mr.
Fletcher of Salton, the Marquis of Tweddale, Lord Stair, and
others. "These persons, in June 1695, procured a statute from
parliament, and afterwards a charter from the crown in terms
of it, for creating a trading company to Africa and the new
world, with power to plant colonies and build forts, with
consent of the inhabitants, in places not possessed by other
European nations. Paterson, now finding the ground firm under
him, … threw his project boldly upon the public, and opened a
subscription for a company. The frenzy of the Scots nation to
sign the solemn league and covenant never exceeded the
rapidity with which they ran to subscribe to the Darien
company. The nobility, the gentry, the merchants, the people,
the royal burghs, without the exception of one, most of the
other public bodies, subscribed. Young women threw their
little fortunes into the stock, widows sold their jointures to
get the command of money for the same purpose. Almost in an
instant £400,000 were subscribed in Scotland, although it be
now known that there was not at that time above £800,000 of
cash in the kingdom. … The English subscribed £300,000, and
the Dutch and Hamburghers £200,000 more. … In the mean time,
the jealousy of trade, which has done more mischief to the
trade of England than all other causes put together, created
an alarm in England; and the houses of lords and commons,
without previous inquiry or reflection, on the 13th December
of the year 1695, concurred in a joint address to the King
against the establishment of the Darien company, as
detrimental to the interest of the East India company. Soon
after, the commons impeached some of their own countrymen for
being instrumental in erecting the company. … The King's
answer was 'that he had been ill-advised in Scotland.' He soon
after changed his Scottish ministers, and sent orders to his
resident at Hamburgh to present a memorial to the senate, in
which he disowned the company, and warned them against all
connections with it. … The Scots, not discouraged, were rather
animated by this oppression; for they converted it into a
proof of the envy of the English, and of their consciousness
of the great advantages which were to flow to Scotland from
the colony. The company proceeded to build six ships in
Holland, from 36 to 60 guns, and they engaged 1,200 men for
the colony; among whom were younger sons of many of the noble
and most ancient families of Scotland, and sixty officers who
had been disbanded at the peace." The first colony sailed from
Leith, July 26, 1698, and arrived safely at Darien in two
months. They "fixed their station at Acta, calling it New St.
Andrew, … and the country itself New Caledonia. … The first
public act of the colony was to publish a declaration of
freedom of trade and religion to all nations. This luminous
idea originated with Paterson.
{2877}
But the Dutch East India company having pressed the King, in
concurrence with his English subjects, to prevent the
settlement of Darien, orders had been sent from England to the
governors of the West Indian and American colonies, to issue
proclamations against giving assistance, or even to hold
correspondence with the colony; and these were more or less
harshly expressed, according to the tempers of the different
governors. The Scots, trusting to far different treatment, and
to the supplies which they expected from those colonies, had
not brought provisions enough with them; they fell into
diseases, from bad food, and from want of food. … They
lingered eight months, awaiting, but in vain, for assistance
from Scotland, and almost all of them either died out or
quitted the settlement. Paterson, who had been the first that
entered the ship at Leith, was the last who went on board at
Darien." To complete the destruction of the undertaking, the
Spanish government, which had not moved in opposition before,
now bestirred itself against the Scottish company, and entered
formal complaints at London (May 3, 1699). "The Scots,
ignorant of the misfortunes of their colony, but provoked at
this memorial [of Spain], sent out another colony soon after
of 1,300 men, to support an establishment which was now no
more." This last colony, after gallant fighting and great
suffering, was expelled from Darien by a Spanish expedition,
and "not more than thirty, saved from war, shipwreck, or
disease, ever saw their own country again. … While the second
colony of the Scots were exposing themselves, far from their
country, in the cause, mediately or immediately, of all who
spoke the English language, the house of lords of England were
a second time addressing the King at home against the
settlement itself. … He answered the address of the lords, on
the 12th of February 1699, in the following words: 'His
Majesty does apprehend that difficulties may too often arise,
with respect to the different interests of trade between his
two kingdoms, unless some way he found out to unite them more
nearly and completely; and therefore his Majesty takes this
opportunity of putting the house of peers in mind of what he
recommended to his parliament soon after his accession to the
throne, that they would consider of an union between the two
kingdoms.'"
_Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memorials of Great Britain,
part 3, book 6 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 4 (volume l)._
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter. 24 (volume 5)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
Hostility to England.
The Act of Security.
The Scottish Plot.
"This Parliament of 1703 was not in a temper of conciliation
towards England. Glencoe and Darien were still watchwords of
strife. The failure of the negotiations for Union necessarily
produced exasperation. Whilst Marlborough was fighting the
battles of the Allies, the Scottish Parliament manifested a
decided inclination to the interests of France, by removing
restrictions on the importation of French wines. The 'Act for
the Security of the Kingdom' was a more open declaration not
only of the independence of Scotland, but of her disposition
to separate wholly from England—to abrogate, on the first
opportunity, that union of the crowns which had endured for a
century. The Act of Settlement, by which the crown of England
was to pass in the Protestant line to the electress Sophia and
her descendants, was not to be accepted; but, on the demise of
queen Anne without issue, the Estates of Scotland were to name
a successor from the Protestant descendants of the Stuart
line, and that successor was to be under conditions to secure
'the religious freedom and trade of the nation from English or
any foreign influence.' For four months this matter was
vehemently debated in the Scottish Parliament. The Act of
Security was carried, but the Lord High Commissioner refused
his assent. Following this legislative commotion came what was
called in England the Scottish plot—a most complicated affair
of intrigue and official treachery, with some real treason at
the bottom of it. [This Scottish Plot, otherwise called the
Queensberry Plot, was a scheme to raise the Highland clans for
the Pretender, abortively planned by one Simon Fraser.] The
House of Lords in England took cognizance of the matter, which
provoked the highest wrath in Scotland, that another nation
should interfere with her affairs. … When the Scottish Estates
reassembled in 1704 they denounced the proceedings of the
House of Lords, as an interference with the prerogative of the
queen of Scotland; and they again passed the Security Act. The
royal assent was not now withheld; whether from fear or from
policy on the part of the English ministry is not very clear.
The Parliament of England then adopted a somewhat strong
measure of retaliation. The queen was addressed, requesting
her to put Carlisle, Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Hull in a state
of defence, and to send forces to the border. A Statute was
passed which in the first place provided for a treaty of
Union; and then enacted that until the Scottish Parliament
should settle the succession to the crown in the same line as
that of the English Act of Settlement, no native of Scotland,
except those domiciled in England, or in the navy or army,
should acquire the privileges of a natural-born Englishman;
and prohibiting all importations of coals, cattle, sheep, or
linen from Scotland. It was evident that there must be Union
or War."
_C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 5, chapter 21._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapters 4 and 7 (volume 1)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
The Union with England.
To avert war between Scotland and England by a complete
political Union of the two kingdoms in one became now the
greatest object of the solicitude of the wiser statesmen on
both sides. They used their influence to so good an effect
that, in the spring of 1706, thirty-one Commissioners on the
part of each kingdom were appointed to negotiate the terms of
Union. The Commissioners held their first meeting on the 16th
of April, and were in session until the 22d of July, when the
Articles of Union agreed upon by them received the signature
of twenty-seven of the English and twenty-six of the Scots. On
the 16th of the following January (1707) these Articles were
ratified with amendments by the Scottish Parliament. The
English Parliament adopted them as amended a month later, and
on the 6th of March the Union was perfected by the royal
assent, given solemnly by the Queen, in presence of the Lords
and Commons of England. "It was agreed that Great Britain
should be the designation of the united island; the name of
Scotland to be merged in the name of North Britain. It was
agreed that the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew should be
conjoined in the flag of the united kingdom.
{2878}
It was agreed that the arms of the two countries—the three
lions passant and guardant Or, and the lion rampant Or, within
a double tressure flory and counterflory, Gules—should be
quartered with all heraldic honours. It was agreed that the
united kingdom should have a new Great Seal. As regards the
House of Commons, the English party proposed that Scotland
should be represented by 38 members. Even Scottish writers
have observed that if taxation be taken as the measure of
representation, and if it be remembered that the Scots of that
time had asked and been allowed to limit their share of the
Land-tax to one-fortieth of the share of England, it would
follow that, as an addition to the 513 members of Parliament
returned by England, Scotland was entitled to demand no more
than 13. But even 38 seemed by no means adequate to the claims
on other grounds of that ancient and renowned kingdom. The
Scottish Commissioners stood out for an increase, and the
English Commissioners finally conceded 45. The Peers of
England were at this juncture 185 and the Peers of Scotland
154. It was intended that the latter should send
representatives to the former, and the proportion was settled
according to the precedent that was just decided. The 45
members from Scotland when added to the 513 from England would
make one-twelfth of the whole; and 16 Peers from Scotland when
added to the 185 from England would also make about
one-twelfth of the whole. Sixteen was therefore the number
adopted; and the mode of election both of Commoners and Peers
was left to be determined by the Parliament of Scotland,
before the day appointed for the Union, that is the first of
May 1707. By this treaty Scotland was to retain her heritable
jurisdiction, her Court of Session and her entire system of
law. The Presbyterian Church as by law established was to
continue unaltered, having been indeed excluded from debate by
the express terms of the Commission."
_Earl Stanhope,
History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._
_Sir W. Scott,
Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,
series 2, chapters 12._
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 17 (volume 3)._
The text of the Act of Union may be found in the
_Parliamentary History,
volume 6, appendix 2._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
Hostility to the Union.
Spread of Jacobitism.
"In Scotland it [the Union] was regarded with an almost
universal feeling of discontent and dishonour. The Jacobite
party, who had entertained great hopes of eluding the act for
settling the kingdom upon the family of Hanover, beheld them
entirely blighted; the Whigs, or Presbyterians, found
themselves forming part of a nation in which Prelacy was an
institution of the state; the Country party, who had nourished
a vain but honourable idea of maintaining the independence of
Scotland, now saw it, with all its symbols of ancient
sovereignty, sunk and merged under the government of England.
All the different professions and classes of men saw each
something in the obnoxious treaty which affected their own
interest. … There was, therefore, nothing save discontent and
lamentation to be heard throughout Scotland, and men of every
class vented their complaints against the Union the more
loudly, because their sense of personal grievances might be
concealed, and yet indulged under popular declamations
concerning the dishonour done to the country. … Almost all the
dissenting and Cameronian ministers were anti-unionists, and
some of the more enthusiastic were so peculiarly vehement,
that long after the controversy had fallen asleep, I have
heard my grandfather say (for your grandfather, Mr. Hugh
Littlejohn, had a grandfather in his time), that he had heard
an old clergyman confess he could never bring his sermon, upon
whatever subject, to a conclusion, without having what he
called a 'blaud,' that is a slap, at the Union. … The
detestation of the treaty being for the present the ruling
passion of the times, all other distinctions of party, and
even of religious opinions in Scotland, were laid aside, and a
singular coalition took place, in which Episcopalians,
Presbyterians, Cavaliers, and many friends of the revolution,
drowned all former hostility in the predominant aversion to
the Union. … For a time almost all the inhabitants of Scotland
were disposed to join unanimously in the Restoration, as it
was called, of James the Second's son to the throne of his
fathers; and had his ally, the King of France, been hearty in
his cause, or his Scottish partisans more united among
themselves, or any leader amongst them possessed of
distinguished talent, the Stewart family might have
repossessed themselves of their ancient domain of Scotland,
and perhaps of England also." Early in 1708 an attempt was
made to take advantage of this feeling in Scotland, on behalf
of the Pretender, by a naval and military expedition from
France, fitted out by the French king. It was vulgarly
frustrated by an attack of measles, which prostrated the
Stuart adventurer (the Chevalier de St. George) at Dunkirk,
until the English government had warning enough to be too well
prepared.
_Sir W. Scott,
Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland,
series 3, chapters 1-2._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
The Jacobite rising.
In 1715 "there were Jacobite risings both in Scotland and in
England. Early in September John Erskine, Earl of Mar—who some
years before had been a Whig and helped to bring about the
Union—raised the standard of rebellion in Braemar, and in a
short time found himself in command of a large Highland army.
But Mar was very slow in his movements, and lingered for six
weeks in Perth. The Duke of Argyle, famous as both a warrior
and a statesman, was sent from London to deal with this
danger; and, going to Stirling, used the time which Mar was
wasting in gathering round him soldiers and loyal Low-landers.
While things stood thus in the far north a few hundred
Jacobites took up arms in Northumberland under Mr. Forster and
Lord Derwentwater. Joining with some Southern Scots raised by
Lord Kenmure, and some Highlanders whom Mar had sent to their
aid, they marched to Preston, in Lancashire. The fate of the
two risings was settled on the same day. At Preston the
English Jacobites and their Scottish allies had to give
themselves up to a small body of soldiers under General
Carpenter. At Sheriffmuir, about eight miles north of
Stirling, the Highlanders, whom Mar had put in motion at last,
met Argyle's little army in battle, and, though not utterly
beaten, were forced to fall back to Perth. There Mar's army
soon dwindled to a mere handful of men. Just when things
seemed at the worst the Pretender himself landed in Scotland.
{2879}
But he altogether lacked the daring and high spirit needful to
the cause at the time; and his presence at Perth did not even
delay the end, which was now sure. Late in January 1716
Argyle's troops started from Stirling northwards; and the
small Highland force broke up from Perth and went to Montrose.
Thence James Edward and Mar slipped away unnoticed, and sailed
to France; and the Highlanders scampered off to their several
homes. Of the rebels that were taken prisoners about forty
were tried and put to death; and many were sent beyond the
seas. Derwentwater and Kenmure were beheaded; the other
leaders of rank either were forgiven or escaped from prison."
_J. Rowley,
The Settlement of the Constitution,
book 3, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_J. McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
volume 1, chapter 7._
_J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Pretenders,
volume 1, chapters 3-4._
_Earl Stanhope,
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 5-6 (volume l)._
_Mrs. K. Thomson,
Memoirs of the Jacobites,
volumes 1-2._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1736.
The Porteous Riot.
See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
The Young Pretender's invasion.
The last rising of the Jacobites.
"As early as 1744 Charles Edward [known as 'the Young
Pretender'], the grandson of James II., was placed by the
French government at the head of a formidable armament. But
his plan of a descent on Scotland was defeated by a storm
which wrecked his fleet, and by the march of the French troops
which had sailed in it to the war in Flanders. In 1745,
however, the young adventurer again embarked with but seven
friends in a small vessel and landed on a little island of the
Hebrides. For three weeks he stood almost alone; but on the
29th of August the clans rallied to his standard in
Glenfinnan. … His force swelled to an army as he marched
through Blair Athol on Perth, entered Edinburgh in triumph,
and proclaimed 'James the Eighth' at the Town Cross: and two
thousand English troops who marched against him under Sir John
Cope were broken and cut to pieces on the 21st of September by
a single charge of the clansmen at Preston Pans. Victory at
once doubled the forces of the conqueror. The Prince was now
at the head of 6,000 men; but all were still Highlanders. …
After skilfully evading an army gathered at Newcastle, he
marched through Lancashire, and pushed on the 4th of December
as far as Derby. But here all hope of success came to an end.
Hardly a man had risen in his support as he passed through the
districts where Jacobitism boasted of its strength. …
Catholics and Tories abounded in Lancashire, but only a single
squire took up arms. … The policy of Walpole had in fact
secured England for the House of Hanover. The long peace, the
prosperity of the country, and the clemency of the Government,
had done their work. … Even in the Highlands the Macleods rose
in arms for King George, while the Gordons refused to stir,
though roused by a small French force which landed at
Montrose. To advance further south was impossible, and Charles
fell rapidly back on Glasgow; but the reinforcements which he
found there raised his army to 9,000 men, and on the 23rd
January, 1746, he boldly attacked an English army under
General Hawley, which had followed his retreat and had
encamped near Falkirk. Again the wild charge of his
Highlanders won victory for the Prince, but victory was as
fatal as defeat. The bulk of his forces dispersed with their
booty to the mountains, and Charles fell sullenly back to the
north before the Duke of Cumberland. On the 16th of April the
armies faced one another on Culloden Moor, a few miles
eastward of Inverness. The Highlanders still numbered 6,000
men, but they were starving and dispirited. … In a few moments
all was over, and the Stuart force was a mass of hunted
fugitives. Charles himself after strange adventures escaped
[in the disguise of a female servant, attending the famous
Flora Macdonald] to France. In England fifty of his followers
were hanged; three Scotch lords, Lovat, Balmerino, and
Kilmarnock, brought to the block; and forty persons of rank
attainted by Act of Parliament. More extensive measures of
repression were needful in the Highlands. The feudal tenures
were abolished. The hereditary jurisdictions of the chiefs
were bought up and transferred to the Crown. The tartan, or
garb of the Highlanders, was forbidden by law. These measures,
followed by a general Act of Indemnity, proved effective for
their purpose."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
chapter 10, section 1._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 26-29 (volume 3)._
_R. Chambers,
History of the Rebellion of 1745._
_Mrs. K. Thomson,
Memoirs of the Jacobites,
volumes 2-3._
_Chevalier de Johnstone,
Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745._
_J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Pretenders._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1779.
No-Popery Riots.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1832.
Representation in Parliament increased by the Reform Bill.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.
The Disruption of the Church.
Formation of the Free Church.
"Lay patronage was … inconsistent with the conception and the
fundamental principles of the Presbyterian Church, and she
opposed and rejected it, and fought against it. It was
abolished shortly after the Revolution of 1688, but again
restored by the British Parliament in 1712, contrary to the
letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to all
conceptions of a wise policy toward the Scottish nation. … An
internal struggle arose between the party who held firmly to
these sentiments and the new party—called 'the Moderate
party.' … In the middle of the 18th century the opposite views
of the popular and the moderate parties had become distinct.
The chief point of polity in dispute was the settlement of
ministers in parishes against the wishes of the congregations.
Cases of this character were constantly coming before the
presbyteries and general assemblies; and in 1733 it was on
matters arising from such cases that a secession took place. …
In 1773 there were upwards of two hundred dissenting
congregations, besides Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. … As
an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the
popular party proposed, in the assembly of 1833, that when a
majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented
by the patron, the presbytery should not proceed with the
settlement. … It was on this reasonable regulation [passed
into an act, called the Veto Act, by the Assembly of 1834]
that the struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought,
although there were other principles involved in the
conflict."
{2880}
In 1839, a case arising in the parish church of Auchterarder,
in Perthshire, led to a decision in the Court of Session
against the legality of the Veto Act, and this decision, on
appeal, was affirmed by the House of Lords. "For several years
the country rang with the clamour and talk of non-intrusion
and spiritual independence, and the excitement was intense.
Pamphlets, speeches and ballads were circulated through the
kingdom in hundreds of thousands. The engrossing subject
attracted the attention of every household, and many a family
became divided in religious sentiments." Finally, in 1843,
finding no prospect of legislation from Parliament to free the
Church of Scotland from the odious fetters of patronage, the
popular party resolved upon a general secession from it. This
occurred in a memorable scene at the opening of the Assembly,
in Edinburgh, on the 18th of May, 1843. The Moderator of the
body, Dr. Welsh, read a protest against further proceedings in
the Assembly, because of certain acts, sanctioned by the
Government of the country, which had infringed on the
liberties of the constitution of the Church. He then left the
chair and walked out of the church. "Instantly Dr. Chalmers,
Dr. Gordon, and the whole of those in the left side of the
Church, rose and followed him. Upwards of two hundred
ministers walked out, and they were joined outside by three
hundred clergymen and other adherents. Dr. Welsh wore his
Moderator's dress, and when he appeared on the street, and the
people saw that principle had risen above interest, shouts of
triumph rent the air such as had not been heard in Edinburgh
since the days of the Covenant. They walked through Hanover
Street to Canonmills, where a large hall was erected for the
reception of the disestablished assembly. They elected Dr.
Chalmers Moderator, and formed the first General Assembly of
'The Free Church of Scotland.' Four hundred and seventy-four
ministers left the Establishment in 1843; they were also
joined by two hundred probationers, nearly one hundred
theological students of the University of Edinburgh, three
fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of those in
Aberdeen. The Disruption was an accomplished fact."
_J. Mackintosh,
Scotland,
chapter 19._
"It is not every nation, it is not every age, which can
produce the spectacle of nearly 500 men leaving their homes,
abandoning their incomes, for the sake of opinion. It is
literally true that disruption was frequently a sentence of
poverty, and occasionally of death, to the ministers of the
Church. Well, then, might a great Scotchman of that time [Lord
Jeffrey] say that he was proud of his country, proud of the
heroism and self-denial of which her pastors proved capable.
But well also might a Scotchman of the present time say that
he was proud of the success which Voluntaryism achieved. It
was the good fortune of the Church that in the hour of her
trial she had a worthy leader. Years before, while ministering
to a poor congregation in Glasgow, Chalmers had insisted on
the cardinal doctrine that the poor should be made to help
themselves. He applied the same principle to the Scotch
Church. He … called on his friends around him to 'organise,
organise, organise.' It is not, however, the Church alone
which deserves commendation. The nation supported the Church.
… In the four years which succeeded the disruption, the Free
Church raised £1,254,000, and built 654 churches. Her
ministrations were extended to every district and almost every
parish in the land."
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 21 (volume 4)._
"In 1874 the Patronage Act of 1712 was repealed, but it was
too late to be of much use, and Scottish Presbyterianism
remains split up into different camps. Some of the older
secessions were in 1847 joined together to form the United
Presbyterian Church, mostly distinguished from the Free Church
by its upholding as a theory the 'Voluntary Principle.'"
_T. F. Tout,
History of England from 1689,
page 238._
ALSO IN:
_T. Brown,
Annals of the Disruption._
_R. Buchanan,
The Ten Years' Conflict._
_W. Hanna,
Memoirs of Thomas Chalmers,
volume 3, chapter 18
and volume 4, chapters 6-25._
_P. Bayne,
Life and Letters of Hugh Miller,
book 5 (volume 2)._
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1868.
Parliamentary Reform.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
SCOTLAND: A. D. 1884.
Enlargement of the Suffrage.
Representation of the People Act.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
----------SCOTLAND: End--------
SCOTS,
Deliverance of Roman Britain by Theodosius from the.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.
SCOTT, Dred, The case of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
SCOTT, General Winfield.
In the War of 1812.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
SCOTT, General Winfield.
The Mexican campaign of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
SCOTT, General Winfield.
Defeat in Presidential Election.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
SCOTT, General Winfield
Retirement from military service.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
SCOTTI.
SCOTS.
See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.
SCOTTISH PLOT, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
SCOURGE OF GOD, The.
See HUNS: A. D. 451.
SCREW PROPELLER, Invention of the.
See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.
SCRIBES, The.
"The Scribes or 'Lawyers,' that is, the learned in the
Pentateuch. … It is evident that in the Scribes, rather than
in any of the other functionaries of the Jewish Church, is the
nearest original of the clergy of later times."
_Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 44._
"The learned men after Ezra were called 'Sopherim' (singular
'Sopher'), Scribes; because to be a skilled writer was the
first criterion of a man of learning. To transcribe the
authenticated Law as deposited in the temple was one of the
Scribe's occupations. His next occupations were to read,
expound and teach it. The text was without vowel points,
without divisions of words, verses and chapters; hence it was
nearly hieroglyphic, so that the correct reading thereof was
traditional, and had to be communicated from master to
disciple. As the Great Synod legislated by expounding and
extending the Law, these additions also had to be taught
orally."
_I. M. Wise,
History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth,
period 1, chapter 4._
SCROOBY, The Separatist Church at.
See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.
SCRUPULA.
See As.
{2881}
SCRUTIN DE LISTE.
A term applied in France to the mode of electing deputies by a
general ticket in each department—that is, in groups—instead
of singly, in separate districts.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.
SCUTAGE.
The origin of this tax is implied in its title; it was derived
from the 'service of the shield' (scutum)—one of the
distinguishing marks of feudal tenure—whereby the holder of a
certain quantity of land was bound to furnish to his lord the
services of a fully-armed horseman for forty days in the year.
The portion of land charged with this service constituted a
'knight's fee,' and was usually reckoned at the extent of five
hides, or the value of twenty pounds annually."
_K. Norgate,
England Under the Angevin Kings,
volume 1, chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_W. Stubbs,
The Early Plantagenets,
page 54._
SCUTARI: A. D. 1473-1479.
Stubborn resistance and final surrender to the Turks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.
SCUTUM.
A long wooden shield, covered with leather, having the form of
a cylinder cut in half, which the Romans are said to have
adopted from the Samnites.
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 107._
SCYRI, The.
The Scyri were a tribe known to the Greeks as early as the
second century B. C. They were then on the shores of the Black
Sea. In the fifth century of the Christian era, after the
breaking up of the Hunnish empire of Attila, they appeared
among the people occupying the region embraced in modern
Austria,—on the Hungarian borders. They seem to have spoken
the Gothic language.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2)._
SCYRIS, The dynasty of the.
See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.
SCYTALISM AT ARGOS, The.
The city of Argos was the scene of a terrible outbreak of mob
violence (B. C. 370) consequent on the discovery of an
oligarchical conspiracy to overturn the democratic
constitution. The furious multitude, armed with clubs, slew
twelve hundred of the more prominent citizens, including the
democratic leaders who tried to restrain them. "This was the
rebellion at Argos known under the name of the Scytalism
(cudgelling): an event hitherto unparalleled in Greek
history,—so unprecedented, that even abroad it was looked upon
as an awful sign of the times, and that the Athenians
instituted a purification of their city, being of opinion that
the whole Hellenic people was polluted by these horrors."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 6, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 78._
SCYTHIANS, The.
"Their name, unnoticed by Homer, occurs for the first time in
the Hesiodic poems. When the Homeric Zeus in the Iliad turns
his eye away from Troy towards Thrace, he sees, besides the
Thracians and Mysians, other tribes, whose names cannot be
made out, but whom the poet knows as milk-eaters and
mare-milkers. The same characteristic attributes, coupled with
that of 'having waggons for their dwelling-houses,' appear in
Hesiod connected with the name of the Scythians. … Herodotus,
who personally visited the town of Olbia, together with the
inland regions adjoining to it, and probably other Grecian
settlements in the Euxine (at a time which we may presume to
have been about 450-440 B. C.)—and who conversed with both
Scythians and Greeks competent to give him information—has
left us far more valuable statements respecting the Scythian
people, dominion, and manners, as they stood in his day. His
conception of the Scythians, as well as that of Hippokrates,
is precise and well-defined—very different from that of the
later authors, who use the word almost indiscriminately to
denote all barbarous Nomads. His territory called Scythia is a
square area, twenty days' journey or 4,000 stadia (somewhat
less than 500 English miles) in each direction—bounded by the
Danube (the course of which river he conceives in a direction
from Northwest to Southeast), the Euxine, and the Palus Mæotis
with the river Tanais, on three sides respectively—and on the
fourth or north side by the nations called Agathyrsi, Neuri,
Androphagi and Melanchlæni. … The whole area was either
occupied by or subject to the Scythians. And this name
comprised tribes differing materially in habits and
civilization. The great mass of the people who bore it,
strictly Nomadic in their habits—neither sowing nor planting,
but living only on food derived from animals, especially
mare's-milk and cheese—moved from place to place, carrying
their families in waggons covered with wicker and leather,
themselves always on horseback with their flocks and herds,
between the Borysthenes [the Dnieper] and the Palus Mæotis
[sea of Azov]. … It is the purely Nomadic Scythians whom he
[Herodotus] depicts, the earliest specimens of the Mongolian
race (so it seems probable) known to history, and prototypes
of the Huns and Bulgarians of later centuries."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 17._
"The Scythians Proper of Herodotus and Hippocrates extended
from the Danube and the Carpathians on the one side, to the
Tanais or Don upon the other. The Sauromatæ, a race at least
half-Scythic, then succeeded, and held the country from the
Tanais to the Wolga. Beyond this were the Massagetæ, Scythian
in dress and customs, reaching down to the Jaxartes on the
east side of the Caspian. In the same neighbourhood were the
Asiatic Scyths or Sacæ, who seem to have bordered upon the
Bactrians."
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Assyria,
chapter 9, footnote._
For an account of the Scythian expedition of Darius, B. C. 508.
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, of Athens.
"The Athenian State also possessed slaves of its own. Such
slaves were, first of all, the so-called Scythæ or archers, a
corps at first of 300, then of 600 or even 1,200 men, who were
also called Speusinii, after a certain Speusinus, who first
(at what time is uncertain) effected the raising of the corps.
They served as gendarmes or armed police, and their
guard-house was at first in the market, afterwards in the
Areopagus. They were also used in war, and the corps of
Hippotoxotæ or mounted archers 200 strong, which is named in
the same connection with them, likewise without doubt
consisted of slaves."
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquity of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens: The State,
book 2, chapter 11._
SEARCH, The Right of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.
SEBASTE.
See SAMARIA: REBUILDING OF THE CITY BY HEROD.
{2882}
SEBASTIAN, King of Portugal, A. D. 1557-1578.
SEBASTOPOL:
The Name.
"The Greeks translated the name of Augustus into Sebastos …,
in consequence of which a colony founded by Augustus on the
shores of the Black Sea was called Sebastopolis."
_H. N. Humphreys,
History of the Art of Printing,
page 68._
SEBASTOPOL: A. D. 1854-1855.
Siege and capture by the English, French, and Sardinians.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1854-1856.
SECESH.
See Boys IN BLUE.
SECESSION, AMERICAN WAR OF.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.
SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.
During the prolonged struggle of the plebeians of Rome to
extort civil and political rights from the originally
governing order, the patricians, they gained their end on
several occasions by marching out in a body from the city,
refusing military service and threatening to found a new city.
The first of these secessions was about 494 B. C. when they
wrung from the patricians the extraordinary concession of the
Tribunate.
See ROME: B. C. 494-492.
The second was B. C. 449, when the tyranny of the Decemvirs
was overthrown. The third was four years later, on the demand
for the Canuleian Law. The last was B. C. 286, and resulted in
the securing of the Hortensian Laws.
See ROME: B. C. 445-400; and 286.
SECOFFEE INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
SECOND EMPIRE (French), The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852, to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).
SECOND REPUBLIC (French), The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, to 1851-1852.
SECULAR CLERGY.
The secular clergy of the monastic ages "was so called because
it lived in the world, in the 'siècle.' It was composed of all
the ecclesiastics who were not under vows in a religious
community. The ecclesiastical members of communities, or
inhabitants of convents, composed the 'regular clergy.'"
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
epoch 2, book 1, chapter 6, foot-note._
See, also, BENEDICTINE ORDERS.
SECULAR GAMES AT ROME, The.
The Ludi Sæculares, or secular games, at Rome, were supposed
to celebrate points of time which marked the successive ages
of the city. According to tradition, the first age was
determined by the death of the last survivor of those who were
born in the year of the founding of Rome. Afterwards, the
period became a fixed one; but whether it was 100 or 110 years
is a debated question. At all events, during the period of the
empire, the secular games were celebrated five times (by
Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Severus and Philip) with
irregularity, as suited the caprice of the emperors. The last
celebration was in the year A. U. 1000—A. D. 247.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 35, with footnote._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 7._
SECURITY, The Act of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.
SEDAN, The French Catastrophe at.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
SEDAN: The Sovereign Principality and its extinction.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
SEDGEMOOR, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).
SEFAVEAN DYNASTY, The.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
SEGESVAR, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
SEGNI, The.
The Segni were a tribe in ancient Gaul who occupied a region
on the Rhine supposed to be indicated by the name of the
modern small town of Sinei or Segnei, a small town in the
territory of Namur on the Meuse above Liège.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 8._
SEGONTIACI, The.
A tribe of ancient Britons living near the Thames.
SEGONTIUM.
"One of the most important Roman towns in Wales, the walls of
which are still visible at Caer Seiont, near Caernarvon, on
the coast of the Irish Sea."
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
SEGUSIAVI, The.
One of the tribes of Gaul which occupied the ancient Forez
(departments of the Rhone and the Loire) and extended to the
left bank of the Saone.
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note._
SEISACHTHEIA OF SOLON, The.
See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.
SEJANUS, The malign influence of.
See ROME: A. D. 14-37.
SELAH.
The city in the rocks—Petra—of the Edomites, Idumeans, or
Nabatheans.
See NABATHEANS.
SELDJUKS, OR SELJUKS, The.
See TURKS: THE SELJUKS.
SELECTMEN.
In 1665 the General Court or Town Meeting of Plymouth Colony
enacted that "'in every Towne of this Jurisdiction there be
three or five Celectmen chosen by the Townsmen out of the
freemen such as shal be approved by the Court; for the better
managing of the afaires of the respective Townships; and that
the Celect men in every Towne or the major parte of them are
heerby Impowered to heare and determine all debtes and
differences arising between pson and pson within theire
respective Townships not exceeding forty shillings,' &c. … The
origin of the title 'Selectmen' it is difficult to determine.
It may possibly be referred to the tun-gerefa of the old
Anglo-Saxon township, who, with 'the four best men,' was the
legal representative of the community, or to the 'probi
homines' of more ancient times. The prefix 'select' would seem
to indicate the best, the most approved, but, as in the
Massachusetts Colony, they were called, as early as 1642.
'selected townsmen,' it is probable that without reference to
any historic type they were merely the men appointed, chosen,
selected from the townsmen, to have charge of town affairs."
_W. T. Davis,
Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth,
pages 84-85._
See, also, TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.
SELEUCIA.
Seleucia, about forty-five miles from Babylon, on the Tigris,
was one of the capitals founded by Seleucus Nicator. "Many
ages after the fall of [the Macedonian or Seleucid Empire in
Asia] … Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian
colony—arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom.
{2883}
The independent republic was governed by a senate of three
hundred nobles; the people consisted of 600,000 citizens; the
walls were strong, and, as long as concord prevailed among the
several orders of the State, they viewed with contempt the
power of the Parthian; but the madness of faction was
sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common
enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony." The
Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, grew up at a distance of only
three miles from Seleucia. "Under the reign of Marcus, the
Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia.
They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they
attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both
cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and
conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the
inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 8._
See, also, CTESIPHON; SELEUCIDÆ; and MEDAIN.
----------SELEUCIDÆ: Start--------
SELEUCIDÆ, The Empire of the.
The struggle for power which broke out after his death among
the successors of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C.
323-316 to 297-280) may be regarded as having been brought to
a close by the battle of Ipsus. "The period of fermentation
was then concluded, and something like a settled condition of
things brought about. A quadripartite division of Alexander's
dominions was recognised, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and
Syria (or south-western Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct
political entities. … Of the four powers thus established, the
most important … was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called),
or that ruled for 247 years by the Seleucidæ. Seleucus
Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander's
officers, but served without much distinction through the
various campaigns by which the conquest of the East was
effected. At the first distribution of provinces (B. C. 323)
among Alexander's generals after his death, he received no
share; and it was not until B. C. 320, when upon the death of
Perdiccas a fresh distribution was made at Triparadisus, that
his merits were recognised, and he was given the satrapy of
Babylon. … Seleucus led the flower of the eastern provinces to
the field of Ipsus (B. C. 301), and contributed largely to the
victory, thus winning himself a position among the foremost
potentates of the day. By the terms of the agreement made
after Ipsus, Seleucus was recognised as monarch of an the
Greek conquests in Asia, with the sole exceptions of Lower
Syria and Asia Minor. The monarchy thus established extended
from the Holy Land and the Mediterranean on the west, to the
Indus valley and the Bolor mountain-chain upon the east, and
from the Caspian and Jaxartes towards the north, to the
Persian gulf and Indian Ocean towards the south. It comprised
Upper Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Phrygia,
Armenia, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, Persia, Carmania,
Sagartia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria,
Zarangia, Arachosia, Sacastana, Gedrosia, and probably some
part of India."
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 3._
The original capital of the great Empire of Seleucus was
Babylon; but not satisfied with it he founded and built the
city of Seleucia, about forty miles from Babylon, on the
Tigris. Even there he was not content, and, after the battle
of Ipsus, he created, within a few years, the magnificent city
of Antioch, in the valley of the Orontes, and made it his
royal residence. This removal of the capital from the center
of his dominions to the Syrian border is thought to have been
among the causes which led to the disintegration of the
kingdom. First Bactria, then Parthia, fell away, and the
latter, in time, absorbed most of the Seleucid empire.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 58-60 (volumes 7-8)._
ALSO IN:
_J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire._
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
volume 3._
SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 281-224.
Wars with the Ptolemies and civil wars.
Decay of the empire.
"Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to
his father [murdered B. C. 281—see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280]
at the age of 40, received the surname of Soter [Saviour] from
his complete victory [time and place unknown] over the Gauls
at the time when they had crossed the Bosporus [see GALATIA].
… He reigned little more (?) than twenty years. At the
beginning of his reign, Antiochus carried on wars with
Antigonus and Ptolemy Ceraunus [see MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244],
which, however, were soon brought to a close. The war with
Antigonus had commenced as early as the time of Demetrius; it
was a maritime war, in which nothing sufficiently important
was done; both parties felt that it was only a useless waste
of strength, and soon concluded peace. Antiochus was wise
enough altogether to abstain from interfering in the affairs
of Europe. In Asia he apparently enlarged the dominion of his
father, and his magnificent empire extended from the mountains
of Candahar as far as the Hellespont; but many parts of it,
which his father had left him in a state of submission,
asserted their independence, as e. g., Cappadocia and Pontus
under Ariarathes, and so also Armenia and several other
countries in the midst of his empire; and he was obliged to be
satisfied with maintaining a nominal supremacy in those parts.
There can be no doubt that in his reign Bactria also became
independent under a Macedonian king. Even Seleucus had no
longer ruled over the Indian states, which, having separated
from the empire, returned to their own national institutions.
With Ptolemy Philadelphus [Egypt] he at first concluded peace,
and was on good terms with him; but during the latter years of
his reign he was again involved in war with him, although
Ptolemy undoubtedly was far more powerful; and this war was
protracted until the reign of his son Antiochus. … The
Egyptians carried on the war on the offensive against Asia
Minor, where they already possessed a few places, and
principally at sea. The Syrians conquered Damascus, though
otherwise the war was unfavourable to them; they did not carry
it on with energy, and the Egyptians at that time conquered
Ephesus, the coast of Ionia, Caria, Pamphylia, and probably
Cilicia also; the Cyclades likewise fell into their hands
about that period. … On the death of Antiochus Soter (Olymp.
129, 3) [B. C. 252] the government passed into the hands of
his surviving son, … Antiochus Theos, one of the most
detestable Asiatic despots." Peace with Egypt was brought
about by the marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter
of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but in order to marry her he was
obliged to divorce and send away his wife Laudice, or Laodice.
{2884}
After Ptolemy Philadelphus died, however (B. C. 248), Laodice
returned, "recovered her whole influence, and Berenice, with
her child, was sent to Antioch"—the royal residence of
Antiochus then being at Ephesus. The next year Antiochus, who
had been ill for a long time—"in a perpetual state of
intoxication"—died, perhaps of poison. Laodice "caused a waxen
image of him to be placed in a bed, and thus deceived the
courtiers, who were obliged to stand at a respectful
distance," while she, "with her sons, took possession of the
government, and adopted measures to rid herself of Berenice.
But the citizens of Antioch sided with Berenice, and … she for
a time remained in possession of Antioch. … But she was
betrayed by the nobles …; her child was dragged from her arms
and murdered before her eyes; she then fled into the temple at
Daphne, and was herself murdered there in the asylum. The two
brothers, Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax, then
assumed the crown; but they seem to have divided the empire,
and Antiochus obtained Asia Minor. … Ptolemy Euergetes, the
third among the Ptolemies, and the last in the series that
deserves praise, now rose in just indignation at the fate of
his unhappy sister (Olymp. 133, 3) [B. C. 246]. He marched out
with all the forces of his empire, and wherever he went the
nations declared in his favour. … 'All the Ionian, Cilician,
and other towns, which were already in arms to support
Berenice,' joined Euergetes, and he traversed the whole of the
Syrian empire. … He himself proceeded as far as Babylon.
Media, Persia, and the upper satrapies, southern Chorassan and
Sistan as far as Cabul, all of which belonged to Syria,
submitted to him. He was equally successful in Asia Minor: the
acropolis of Sardes, a part of Lydia, and Phrygia Major, alone
maintained themselves. Even the countries on the coast of
Thrace … were conquered by the Egyptians. … Seleucus
Callinicus, in the meantime, probably maintained himself in
the mountainous districts of Armenia, in Aderbidjan. 'His
brother, Antiochus, deserted him, and negotiated with
Ptolemy.' In the conquered countries, Ptolemy everywhere
exercised the rights of a conqueror in the harsh Egyptian
manner. … While he was thus levying contributions abroad, an
insurrection broke out in Egypt, which obliged him to return."
He, thereupon, divided his conquests, "retaining for himself
Syria as far as the Euphrates, and the coast districts of Asia
Minor and Thrace, so that he had a complete maritime empire.
The remaining territories he divided into two states: the
country beyond the Euphrates was given, according to St.
Jerome on Daniel (xi. 7 foll.), to one Xanthippus, who is
otherwise unknown, and western Asia was left to Antiochus
Hierax. It would seem that after this he never visited those
countries again. After he had withdrawn, a party hostile to
him came forward to oppose him. … The confederates formed a
fleet, with the assistance of which, and supported by a
general insurrection of the Asiatics, who were exasperated
against the Egyptians on account of their rapacity, Seleucus
Callinicus rallied again. He recovered the whole of upper
Asia, and for a time he was united with his brother Antiochus
Hierax. … Ptolemy being pressed on all sides concluded a truce
of ten years with Seleucus on the basis 'uti possidetis.' Both
parties seem to have retained the places which they possessed
at the time, so that all the disadvantage was on the side of
the Seleucidae, for the fortified town of Seleucia, e. g.,
remained in the hands of the Egyptians, whereby the capital
was placed in a dangerous position. 'A part of Cilicia, the
whole of Caria, the Ionian cities, the Thracian Chersonesus,
and several Macedonian towns likewise continued to belong to
Egypt.' During this period, a war broke out between the
brothers Seleucus and Antiochus. … The war between the two
brothers lasted for years: its seat was Asia Minor. …
'Seleucus established himself in upper Asia, where the
Parthians, who during the war between the brothers had subdued
Sistan and lower Chorassan, were in the possession of Media,
Babylonia and Persia.'" In the end, Antiochus was overcome,
and fled into Thrace. "But there he was taken prisoner by a
general of Euergetes, 'and orders were sent from Alexandria to
keep him in safe custody'; for in the mean time a peace had
been concluded between Seleucus and Ptolemy, by which the
Egyptian empire in its immense extent was strengthened again."
Antiochus Hierax then escaped and took refuge among the Gauls,
but was murdered for the jewels that he carried with him.
"Notwithstanding its successful enterprises, Egypt had been
shaken by the war to its foundations and had lost its
strength. … The empire was already in a state of internal
decay, and even more so than that of Syria. The death of
Euergetes [B. C. 221] decided its downfall. 'But in Syria too
the long wars had loosened the connection among the provinces
more than ever, and those of Asia Minor, the jewels of the
Syrian crown, were separated from the rest. For while Seleucus
was in Upper Asia, Achaeus, his uncle, availed himself of the
opportunity of making himself an independent satrap in western
Asia.' Seleucus did not reign long after this. He was
succeeded by his son Seleucus Ceraunus (Olymp. 138, 2) [B. C.
227] who marched against the younger Achaeus, but was murdered
by a Gaul named Apaturius, at the instigation of the same
Achaeus (Olymp. 130, 1) [B. C. 224]. He had reigned only three
years, and resided in western Asia. He was succeeded by his
younger brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great. … Under
Antiochus the Syrian empire revived again and acquired a great
extent, especially in the south. Although he was not a great
man, his courtiers, not without reason, gave him the surname
of the Great, because he restored the empire. This happened at
the time when Antigonus Doson [king of Macedonia] died.
Achaeus, in Asia Minor, was in a state of insurrection; the
satrap of Media was likewise revolting, and the Syrian empire
was confined to Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. During this
confusion, new sovereigns ascended the thrones everywhere. In
Macedonia, Philip succeeded; in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator; in
Media, Molon; and in Bactria a consolidated Macedonian dynasty
had already established itself."
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient History,
lectures 103-104 (volume 3)._
{2885}
SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 224-187.
The reign of Antiochus the Great.
His early successes.
His disastrous war with the Romans.
His diminished kingdom.
His death.
Antiochus the Great first proved his military talents in the
war against the rebellious brothers Molo and Alexander, the
satraps of Media and Persia (B. C. 220). "He next renewed the
old contest with Egypt for the possession of Cœle-Syria and
Palestine, and was forced to cede those provinces to Ptolemy
Philopator, as the result of his decisive defeat at Raphia,
near Gaza, in the same year in which the battle of the
Trasimene lake (between Hannibal and the Romans] was fought
(B. C. 217). Meanwhile, Achæus, the governor of Asia Minor,
had raised the standard of independence; but after an
obstinate resistance he was defeated and taken at Sardis, and
put to death by Antiochus (B. C. 214). This success in the
West encouraged Antiochus, like his father, to attempt the
reconquest of the East, and with greater appearance at least
of success. But a seven years' war (B. C. 212-205) only
resulted in his acknowledgment of the independence of the
Parthian monarchy (B. C. 205). The same year witnessed not
only the crisis of the Hannibalic War, but the death of
Ptolemy Philopator; and the opportunity offered by the latter
event effectually withdrew Antiochus from direct participation
in the great conflict. The league which he made with Philip
[Philip V., king of Macedonia, who had then just concluded a
peace with the Romans, ending the 'First Macedonian War'—see
GREECE: B. C. 214-146], instead of being a well-concerted plan
for the exclusion of the Romans from Asia, was only intended
to leave him at liberty to pursue his designs against Egypt,
while Philip bore the brunt of the war with Attalus [king of
Pergamus, or Pergamum] and the Romans. During the crisis of
the Macedonian War, he prosecuted a vigorous attack upon
Cilicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, while the Romans hesitated
to engage in a new contest to protect the dominions of their
youthful ward [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes, the infant king of Egypt,
whose guardians had placed him under the protection of the
Roman senate]. At length a decisive victory over the Egyptians
at Panium, the hill whence the Jordan rises, was followed by a
peace which gave the coveted provinces to Antiochus [see JEWS:
B. C. 332-167], while the youthful Ptolemy was betrothed to
Cleopatra, the daughter of the Syrian king (B. C. 198). It
must not be forgotten that, the transference of these
provinces from Egypt, which had constantly pursued a tolerant
policy towards the Jews, led afterwards to the furious
persecution of that people by Antiochus Epiphanes, and their
successful revolt under the Maccabees [see JEWS: B. C.
166-40]. The time seemed now arrived for Antiochus to fly to
the aid of Philip, before he should be crushed by the Romans;
but the Syrian king still clung to the nearer and dearer
object of extending his power over the whole of Asia Minor. …
He collected a great army at Sardis, while his fleet advanced
along the southern shores of Asia Minor, so that he was
brought into collision both with Attalus and the Rhodians, the
allies of Rome. … Though the Rhodians succeeded in protecting
the chief cities of Caria, and Antiochus was repelled from
some important places by the resistance of the inhabitants, he
became master of several others, and among the rest of Abydos
on the Hellespont. Even the conquest of his ally Philip was in
the first instance favourable to his progress; for the
hesitating policy of the Romans suffered him to occupy the
places vacated by the Macedonian garrisons." It was not until
191 B. C. that the fatuity of the Syrian monarch brought him
into collision with the legions of Rome. He had formed an
alliance with the Ætolians in Greece, and he had received into
his camp the fugitive Carthaginian, Hannibal; but petty
jealousies forbade his profiting by the genius of the great
unfortunate soldier. He entered Greece with a small force in
192 B. C., occupied the pass of Thermopylæ, and entrenched
himself there, waiting reinforcements which did not come to
him. Even the Macedonians were arrayed against him. Early in
the following year he was attacked in this strong position by
the Roman consul Manius Acilius Glabrio, Despite the immense
advantages of the position he was defeated overwhelmingly and
his army almost totally destroyed (B. C. 191). He fled to
Chalcis and from Chalcis to Asia; but he had not escaped the
long arm of wrathful Rome, now roused against him. For the
first time, a Roman army crossed the Hellespont and entered
the Asiatic world, under the command of the powerful Scipios,
Africanus and his brother. At the same time a Roman fleet, in
co-operation with the navy of Rhodes, swept the coasts of Asia
Minor. After some minor naval engagements, a great battle was
fought off the promontory of Myonnesus, near Ephesus, in which
the Syrians lost half their fleet (B. C. 190). … On land
Antiochus fared no better. A vast and motley host which he
gathered for the defense of his dominions was assailed by L.
Scipio at Magnesia, under Mount Sipylus (B. C. 190), and
easily destroyed, some 50,000 of its dead being left on the
field. This ended the war and stripped Antiochus of all his
former conquests in Asia Minor. Much of the territory taken
from him was handed over to the king of Pergamum, faithful
ally and friend of Rome; some to the republic of Rhodes, and
some was left undisturbed in its political state, as organized
in the minor states of Cappadocia, Bithynia and the rest. "As
the battle of Magnesia was the last, in ancient history, of
those unequal conflicts, in which oriental armies yielded like
unsubstantial shows to the might of disciplined freedom, so it
sealed the fate of the last of the great oriental empires; for
the kingdom left to the heirs of Seleucus was only strong
enough to indulge them in the luxuries of Antioch and the
malignant satisfaction of persecuting the Jews. All resistance
ceased in Asia Minor; that great peninsula was ceded as far as
the Taurus and the Halys, with whatever remained nominally to
Antiochus in Thrace; and, with characteristic levity, he
thanked the Romans for relieving him of the government of too
large a kingdom. … Never, perhaps, did a great power fall so
rapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of
the Seleucidæ under this Antiochus the Great. He himself was
soon afterwards slain by the indignant inhabitants of Elymaïs
at the head of the Persian Gulf, on occasion of the plundering
of a temple of Bel, with the treasures of which he had sought
to replenish his empty coffers (B. C. 187), … The petty
princes of Phrygia soon submitted to the power and exactions
of the new lords of Western Asia; but the powerful Celtic
tribes of Galatia made a stand in the fastnesses of Mount
Olympus." They were overcome, however, and the survivors
driven beyond the Halys. "That river, fixed by the treaty with
Antiochus as the eastern limit of Roman power, in Asia, was
respected as the present terminus of their conquests, without
putting a bound to their influence."
{2886}
Eumenes, king of Pergamus, "was justly rewarded for his
sufferings and services by the apportionment of the greater
part of the territories ceded by Antiochus to the
aggrandizement of his kingdom. Pergamus became the most
powerful state of Western Asia, including nearly the whole of
Asia Minor up to the Halys and the Taurus, except Bithynia and
Galatia on the one side, and on the other Lycia and the
greater part of Caria, which went to recompense the fidelity
of the Rhodians; and to these Asiatic possessions were added,
in Europe, the Thracian Chersonese and the city of
Lysimachia."
_P. Smith,
History of the World: Ancient,
chapter 27 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. P. Mahaffy,
The Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapters 24 and 28._
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 2._
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 65._
SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 150.
Conquest by the Parthians of Media, Persia, Susiana,
Babylonia and Assyria.
See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.
SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 64.
Pompeius in the East.
Syria absorbed in the dominion of Rome.
In 64, B. C. having finished the Mithridatic War, driving the
Pontic king across the Euxine into the Crimea, Pompeius Magnus
marched into Syria to settle affairs in that disordered
region.
See ROME: B. C. 69-63.
He had received from the Roman senate and people, under the
Manilian Law, an extraordinary commission, with supreme powers
in Asia, and by virtue of this authority he assumed to dispose
of the eastern kingdoms at will. The last of the Seleucid
kings of Syria was deprived of his throne at Pompey's command,
and Syria was added to the dominions of Rome. He then turned
his attention to Judæa.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapters 9-10._
See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
----------SELEUCIDÆ: End--------
SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
SELGOVÆ, The.
A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern county of
Dumfries, Scotland.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
SELIM I.,
Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1512-1520.
Selim II., Turkish Sultan, 1566-1574.
Selim III., Turkish Sultan, 1789-1807.
SELINUS, Destruction of (B. C. 409).
See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
SELJUKS.
See TURKS (SELJUKS).
SELLA CURULIS.
See CURULE CHAIR.
SELLASIA, Battle of.
The last and decisive battle in what was called the Kleomenic
War—fought B. C. 221. The war had its origin in the resistance
of Sparta, under the influence of its last heroic king,
Kleomenes, to the growing power of the Achaian League, revived
and extended by Aratos. In the end, the League, to defeat
Kleomenes, was persuaded by Aratos to call in Antigonus Doson,
king of Macedonia, and practically to surrender itself, as an
instrument in his hands, for the subjugation of Sparta and all
Peloponnesus. The deed was accomplished on the field of
Sellasia. Kleomenes fled to Egypt; "Sparta now, for the first
time since the return of the Hêrakleids, opened her gates to a
foreign conqueror."
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
chapter 7, section 4._
ALSO IN:
_Plutarch,
Kleomenes._
See, also, GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
SELLI, The.
See HELLAS.
SEMINARA, Battle of (1503).
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
SEMINOLES.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES,
and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also, FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818, 1835-1843.
----------SEMITES: Start--------
SEMITES, The
"The 'Semitic Race' owes its name to a confusion of ethnology
with philology. A certain family of speech, composed of
languages closely related to one another and presupposing a
common mother-tongue, received the title of 'Semitic' from the
German scholar Eichhorn. There was some justification for such
a name. The family of speech consists of Hebrew and
Phoenician, of Aramaic, of Assyrian and Babylonian, of
Arabian, of South Arabian and of Ethiopic or Ge'ez. Eber,
Aram, and Asshur were all sons of Shem, and the South Arabian
tribes claimed descent from Joktan. In default of a better
title, therefore, 'Semitic' was introduced and accepted in
order to denote the group of languages of which Hebrew and
Aramaic form part. But whatever justification there may have
been for speaking of a Semitic family of languages there was
none for speaking of a Semitic race. To do so was to confound
language and race, and to perpetuate the old error which
failed to distinguish between the two. Unfortunately, however,
when scholars began to realise the distinction between
language and race, the mischief was already done. 'The Semitic
race' had become, as it were, a household term of ethnological
science. It was too late to try to displace it; all we can do
is to define it accurately and distinguish it carefully from
the philological term, 'the Semitic family of speech.' … There
are members of the Semitic race who do not speak Semitic
languages, and speakers of Semitic languages who do not belong
to the Semitic race. … It is questionable whether the
Phoenicians or Canaanites were of purely Semitic ancestry, and
yet it was from them that the Israelites learned the language
which we call Hebrew. … Northern Arabia was the early home of
the Semitic stock, and it is in Northern Arabia that we still
meet with it but little changed. … The Bedawin of Northern
Arabia, and to a lesser extent the settled population of the
Hijaz, may therefore be regarded as presenting us with the
purest examples of the Semitic type. But even the Bedawin are
not free from admixture."
_A. H. Sayce,
The Races of the Old Testament,
chapter 4._
"The following is a scheme of the divisions of the Semitic
race. It is based partly upon the evidence afforded by
linguistic affinity, and partly upon geographical and
historical distribution:
A. Northern Semites.
I. Babylonian:
a. Old Babylonian
b. Assyrian
c. Chaldæan
II. Aramæan:
a. Mesopotamian
b. Syrian.
III. Canaanitic
a. Canaanites
b. Phœnicians
IV. Hebraic
a. Hebrews
b. Moabites
c. Ammonites
d. Edomites
B. Southern Semites.
I. Sabæans
II. Ethiopians
III. Arabs.
{2887}
It should be said with regard to the foregoing classification,
that it has been made as general as possible, since it is a
matter of great difficulty to make clear-cut divisions on an
exact ethnological basis. If a linguistic classification were
attempted, a scheme largely different would have to be
exhibited. … Again it should be observed that the mixture of
races which was continually going on in the Semitic world is
not and cannot be indicated by our classification. The
Babylonians, for example, received a constant accession from
Aramæans encamped on their borders, and even beyond the
Tigris; but these, as well as non-Semitic elements from the
mountains and plains to the east, they assimilated in speech
and customs. The same general remark applies to the Aramæans
of Northern Mesopotamia and Syria, while the peoples of
Southern and Eastern Palestine, and in fact all the
communities that bordered on the Great Desert, from the
Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, were continually absorbing
individuals or tribes of Arabian stock. Finally, it must be
remarked that in some sub-divisions it is necessary to use a
geographical instead of a properly racial distinction; and
that is, of course, to be limited chronologically. Thus, for
instance, it is impossible to devise a single strictly
ethnological term for the two great divisions of the Aramæans.
It is now pretty generally admitted that the home of the
Semitic race, before its separation into the historical
divisions, was Northern Arabia. … The historical distribution
of the several families is thus best accounted for. … While
among the Southern Semites the various Arab tribes remained
for the most part in their desert home for thousands of years
as obscure Bedawin, and the Sabæans cultivated the rich soil
of the southwest and the southern coast of Arabia, and there
developed cities and a flourishing commerce, and the nearly
related Ethiopians, migrating across the Red Sea, slowly built
up in Abyssinia an isolated civilization of their own, those
branches of the race with which we are immediately concerned,
after a lengthened residence in common camping grounds, moved
northward and westward to engage in more important
enterprises. The Babylonians, occupying the region which the
Bible makes known to us as the scene of man's creation, and
which historical research indicates to have been the seat of
the earliest civilization, made their home on the lands of the
Lower Euphrates and Tigris, converting them through
canalization and irrigation into rich and powerful kingdoms
finally united under the rule of Babylon. Before the union was
effected, emigrants from among these Babylonians settled along
the Middle Tigris, founded the city of Asshur, and later still
the group of cities known to history as Nineveh. The Assyrians
then, after long struggles, rose to pre-eminence in Western
Asia, till after centuries of stern dominion they yielded to
the new Babylonian regime founded by the Chaldæans from the
shores of the Persian Gulf. The Canaanites, debarred from the
riches of the East, turned northwestward at an unknown early
date, and while some of them occupied and cultivated the
valleys of Palestine, others seized the maritime plain and the
western slope of Lebanon. On the coast of the latter region
they took advantage of the natural harbours wanting in the
former, and tried the resources and possibilities of the sea.
As Phœnicians of Sidon and Tyre, they became the great
navigators and maritime traders for the nations, and sent
forth colonies over the Mediterranean. …
See PHŒNICIA.
Meanwhile the pasture lands between the Tigris and the
Euphrates and between the southern desert and the northern
mountains were gradually being occupied by the Aramæans, who
advanced with flocks and herds along the Euphrates. … While
the bulk of the Aramæans adhered to the old pastoral life
among the good grazing districts in the confines of the
desert, a large number, favoured by their intermediate
position between urban and nomadic settlements, addicted
themselves to the carrying trade between the East and the
West. … This remarkable people, however, never attained to
political autonomy on a large scale in their Mesopotamian
home, to which for long ages they were confined. After the
decline of the Hettite principalities west of the Euphrates
[see HITTITES], to which they themselves largely contributed,
they rapidly spread in that quarter also. They mingled with
the non-Semitic Hettite inhabitants of Carchemish and Hamath,
formed settlements along the slopes of Amanus and
Anti-Lebanon, and created on the northeast corner of Palestine
a powerful state with Damascus as the centre, which was long a
rival of Israel, and even stood out against the might of
Assyria. Thus the Aramæans really acted a more prominent
political part to the west than they did to the east of the
Euphrates, and accordingly they have been popularly most
closely associated with the name 'Syria.' At the same time
they did not abandon their old settlements between the Rivers.
… As the latest of the historical divisions of the race to
form an independent community, the Hebraic family made their
permanent settlement in and about Palestine.
See JEWS.
Their common ancestors of the family of Terah emigrated from
Southern Babylonia more than two thousand years before the
Christian era. It is highly probable that they were of Aramæan
stock."
_J. F. McCurdy,
History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
"The Hebrews … divided the country of Aram [between the
[Mediterranean and the Euphrates] into several regions;
1st Aram Naharaim, or 'Aram of the two rivers,' that is, the
Mesopotamia of the Greeks, between the Euphrates and the
Tigris;
2d Aram properly so called, that is, Syria, whose most ancient
and important city was Damascus; and
3d Aram Zobah, or the region in which in later times was
formed the kingdom of Palmyra."
_F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier,
Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
book 1, chapter 4._
"The Semitic home is distinguished by its central position in
geography—between Asia and Africa, and between the Indian
Ocean and the Mediterranean, which is Europe; and the rôle in
history of the Semitic race has been also intermediary. The
Semites have been the great middlemen of the world. Not
second-rate in war, they have risen to the first rank in
commerce and religion. They have been the carriers between
East and West, they have stood between the great ancient
civilizations and those which go to make up the modern world;
while by a higher gift, for which their conditions neither in
place nor in time fully account, they have been mediary
between God and man, and proved the religious teachers of the
world, through whom have come its three highest faiths, its
only universal religions."
_George Adam Smith,
Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
page 5._
{2888}
"If we ask what the Semitic peoples have contributed to this
organic and living whole which is called civilization, we
shall find, in the first place, that, in polity, we owe them
nothing at all. Political life is perhaps the most peculiar
and native characteristic of the Indo-European nations. These
nations are the only ones that have known liberty, that have
reconciled the State with the independence of the individual.
… In art and poetry what do we owe to them? In art nothing.
These tribes have but little of the artist; our art comes
entirely from Greece. In poetry, nevertheless, without being
their tributaries, we have with them more than one bond of
union. The Psalms have become in some respects one of our
sources of poetry. Hebrew poetry has taken a place with us
beside Greek poetry, not as having furnished a distinct order
of poetry, but as constituting a poetic ideal, a sort of
Olympus where in consequence of an accepted prestige
everything is suffused with a halo of light. … Here again,
however, all the shades of expression, all the delicacy, all
the depth is our work. The thing essentially poetic is the
destiny of man; his melancholy moods, his restless search
after causes, his just complaint to heaven. There was no
necessity of going to strangers to learn this. The eternal
school here is each man's soul. In science and philosophy we
are exclusively Greek. The investigation of causes, knowledge
for knowledge's own sake, is a thing of which there is no
trace previous to Greece, a thing that we have learned from
her alone. Babylon possessed a science, but it had not that
pre-eminently scientific principle, the absolute fixedness of
natural law. … We owe to the Semitic race neither political
life, art, poetry, philosophy, nor science. What then do we
owe to them? We owe to them religion. The whole world, if we
except India, China, Japan, and tribes altogether savage, has
adopted the Semitic religions. The civilized world comprises
only Jews, Christians, and Mussulmans. The Indo-European race
in particular, excepting the Brahmanic family and the feeble
relics of the Parsees, has gone over completely to the Semitic
faiths. What has been the cause of this strange phenomenon?
How happens it that the nations who hold the supremacy of the
world have renounced their own creed to adopt that of the
people they have conquered? The primitive worship of the
Indo-European race … was charming and profound, like the
imagination of the nations themselves. It was like an echo of
nature, a sort of naturalistic hymn, in which the idea of one
sole cause appears but occasionally and uncertainly. It was a
child's religion, full of artlessness and poetry, but destined
to crumble at the first demand of thought. Persia first
effected its reform (that which is associated with the name of
Zoroaster) under influences and at an epoch unknown to us.
Greece, in the time of Pisistratus, was already dissatisfied
with her religion, and was turning towards the East. In the
Roman period, the old pagan worship had become utterly
insufficient. It no longer addressed the imagination; it spoke
feebly to the moral sense. The old myths on the forces of
nature had become changed into fables, not unfrequently
amusing and ingenious; but destitute of all religious value.
It is precisely at this epoch that the civilized world finds
itself face to face with the Jewish faith. Based upon the
clear and simple dogma of the divine unity, discarding
naturalism and pantheism by the marvellously terse phrase: 'In
the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,'
possessing a law, a book, the depository of grand moral
precepts and of an elevated religious poetry, Judaism had an
incontestable superiority, and it might have been foreseen
then that some day the world would become Jewish, that is to
say would forsake the old mythology for Monotheism."
_E. Renan,
Studies of Religious History and Criticism,
pages 154-160._
SEMITES:
Primitive Babylonia.
"The Babylonians were … the first of the Semites to enter the
arena of history, and they did so by virtue of the
civilization to which they attained in and through their
settlements on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris. … The
unrivalled fertility of the soil of Babylonia was the result
not only of the quality of the soil, but of the superadded
benefits of the colossal system of drainage and canalization
which was begun by the ingenuity of the first civilized
inhabitants. Of the natural elements of fertility, the
Euphrates contributed by far the larger share. … The …
formations of clay, mud, and gypsum, comprising elements of
the richest soil, are found in such profusion in Babylonia
that in the days of ancient civilization it was the most
fruitful portion of the whole earth with the possible
exception of the valley of the Nile. It was roughly reckoned
by Herodotus to equal in productiveness half the rest of Asia.
… The rise of the Semites in Babylonia, like all other
origins, is involved in obscurity. The earliest authentic
records, drawn as they are from their own monuments, reveal
this gifted race as already in possession of a high degree of
civilization, with completed systems of national religion, a
language already long past its formative period, and a stage
of advancement in art that testifies to the existence of a
wealthy class of taste and leisure, to whom their nomadic
ancestry must have been little more than a vague tradition.
The same records also show this Semitic people to have
extended their sway in Western Asia as far as the
Mediterranean coastland many centuries before Phœnicians or
Hebrews or Hettites came before the world in any national or
corporate form. Questions of deep interest arise in connection
with such facts as these. It is asked: Did the Babylonian
Semites develop the elements of their civilization alone, or
did they inherit that of another race? … In the absence of
direct evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to assume
that the same race who in historical times gave proof of high
mental endowments reached their unique level of intellectual
attainment by a process of self-education. A contrary opinion
is held by many scholars of high rank. I refer to the
well-known theory that the Semitic Babylonians acquired their
civilization from another people who preceded them in the
occupation and cultivation of the country.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
{2889}
This hypothetical race is named Sumerian from the term Sumer,
generally, but erroneously, supposed to be the designation of
Southern Babylonia. With this in the Inscriptions is coupled
the name of Akkad, another geographical term properly
connoting Northern Babylonia. This appellation has given rise
to the name 'Akkadian;' used by most of these modern
authorities to designate a supposed subdivision of the same
people, speaking a dialect of the main Sumerian language. …
The Sumerian theory has played a great role in linguistic and
ethnological research during the last twenty years. The
general aspect of the supposed language led at once to its
being classed with the agglutinative families of speech, and
the inevitable 'Turanian' conveniently opened its hospitable
doors. … While we are … obliged, until further light shall
have been cast upon the subject, to assume that the earliest
type of Babylonian culture was mainly of Semitic origin, it
would be rash to assert that people of that race were the sole
occupants of the lower River country in prehistoric times, or
that they received no important contributions to their
development from any outside races. … It … remains for us to
assume it to be possible that an antecedent or contemporanous
people bore a small share with the Semites in the early
development of the country, and that, as a result of their
contact with the stronger race, they bequeathed to it some of
the elements of the surviving religion, mythology, and popular
superstition."
_J. F. McCurdy,
History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
"As to the ancient history of Babylon, it is well to learn to
be patient and to wait. The progress of discovery and
decipherment is so rapid, that what is true this year is shown
to be wrong next year. … This is no discredit to the valiant
pioneers in this glorious campaign. On the contrary it speaks
well for their perseverance and for their sense of truth. I
shall only give you one instance to show what I mean by
calling the ancient periods of Babylonian history also
constructive rather than authentic. My friend Professor Sayce
claims 4000 B. C. as the beginning of Babylonian literature.
Nabonidus, he tells us (Hibbert Lectures, page 21), in 550 B.
C. explored the great temple of the Sun god at Sippara. This
temple was believed to have been founded by Naram Sin, the son
of Sargon. Nabonidus, however, lighted upon the actual
foundation-stone—a stone, we are told, which had not been seen
by any of his predecessors for 3,200 years. On the strength of
this the date of 3,200 + 550 years, that is, 3750 B. C., is
assigned to Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. These two kings,
however, are said to be quite modern, and to have been
preceded by a number of so-called Proto-Chaldæan kings, who
spoke a Proto-Chaldæan language, long before the Semitic
population had entered the land. It is concluded, further,
from some old inscriptions on diorite, brought from the
Peninsula of Sinai to Chaldæa, that the quarries of Sinai,
which were worked by the Egyptians at the time of their third
dynasty, say six thousand years ago, may have been visited
about the same time by these Proto-Chaldæans. 4000 B. C., we
are told, would therefore be a very moderate initial epoch for
Babylonian and Egyptian literature. I am the very last person
to deny the ingeniousness of these arguments, or to doubt the
real antiquity of the early civilization of Babylon or Egypt.
All I wish to point out is, that we should always keep before
our eyes the constructive character of this ancient history
and chronology. To use a foundation-stone, on its own
authority, as a stepping-stone over a gap of 3,200 years, is
purely constructive chronology, and as such is to be carefully
distinguished from what historians mean by authentic history,
as when Herodotus or Thucydides tells us what happened during
their own lives or before their own eyes."
_F. Max Müller,
On the "Enormous Antiquity" of the East
(Nineteenth Century, 1891)._
"Dr. Tiele rejects the name 'Accadian,' which has been adopted
by so many Assyriologists, and is strongly indisposed to admit
Turanian affinities. Yet he is so_far from accepting the
alternative theory of Halévy and Guyard, that this so-called
Accadian, or Sumerian, is only another way of writing
Assyrian, that he can scarcely comprehend how a man of
learning and penetration can maintain such a strange position.
He seems to consider a positive decision in the present stage
of the inquiry premature; but pronounces the hypothesis which
lies at the basis of the Accadian theory, namely, that the
peculiarities of the cuneiform writing are explicable only by
the assumption that it was originally intended for another
language than the Assyrian, to be by far the most probable. He
calls this language, which may or may not have been
non-Semitic, 'Old Chaldee,' because what was later on called
Chaldaea 'was certainly its starting-point in Mesopotamia.'
The superiority of this name to 'Accadian' or 'Sumerian' is
not very obvious, as the name 'Chaldee' is not found before
the ninth century B. C., while the oldest title of the
Babylonian kings is 'king of Sumir and Accad.' In the
interesting account of the provinces and cities of Babylonia
and Assyria, … two identifications which have found much
favour with Assyriologists are mentioned in a very sceptical
way. The 'Ur' of Abraham is generally believed, with Schrader,
to be the 'El Mughair' of the Arabs. Dr. Tiele coldly observes
that this identification, though not impossible, is not
proved. Again, the tower of Babel is identified by Schrader
either with Babil on the left side of the river, or with Birs
Nimrud (Borsippa) on the right side. Dr. Tiele considers the
latter site impossible, because Borsippa is always spoken of
as a distinct place, and was too distant from Babylon for the
supposed outer wall of the great city to enclose it. He also
rejects Schrader's theory that the name Nineveh in later times
included Dur Sargon (Khorsabad), Resen, and Calah, as well as
Nineveh proper. The history is divided into four periods:
1. The old Babylonian period, from the earliest days down to
the time when Assyria was sufficiently strong and independent
to contend with Babylon on equal terms.
2. The first Assyrian period down to the accession of
Tiglath-pileser II. in 745 B. C.
3. The Second Assyrian Period, from 745 B. C. to the Fall of
Nineveh.
4. The New Babylonian Empire.
In treating of the first period, Dr. Tiele makes no attempt to
deal with the Deluge Tablets as a source of historical
knowledge, putting them on one side apparently as purely
mythical. He despairs of tracing Babylonian culture to its
earliest home. The belief that it originated on the shores of
the Persian Gulf seems to him uncertain, but he is not able to
fill the gap with any other satisfactory hypothesis.
Babylonian history begins for him with Sargon I., whom he
regards as most probably either of Semitic descent or a
representative of Semitic sovereignty. He is sceptical about
the early date assigned to this king by Nabunahid, the
thirty-eighth century B. C., and is disposed to regard the
quaint story of his concealment when an infant in a basket of
reeds as a solar myth; but he is compelled to admit as solid
fact the amazing statements of the inscriptions about his
mighty empire 'extending from Elam to the coast of the
Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt, nay, even to Cyprus.'
So early as 1850 B. C., he thinks, the supremacy of Babylon
had been established for centuries."
_Review of Dr. Tiele's History of Babylonia and Assyria
(Academy, January 1, 1887)._
ALSO IN:
_The Earliest History of Babylonia
(Quarterly Review, October, 1894, reviewing
"Découvertes en Chaldée, par Ernest de Sarsec)._
{2890}
SEMITES:
The First Babylonian Empire.
"It is with the reign of Hammurabi that the importance of
Babylonia—the country owning Babel as its capital—begins. …
Hammurabi (circ. 2250 B. C.) is the sixth on the Babylonian
list [i. e. a list of kings found among the inscriptions
recovered from the mounds of ruined cities in Mesopotamia].
The great majority of the inscriptions of his long reign of
fifty-five years refer to peaceful works." As, for example,
"the famous canal inscription: 'I am Hammurabi, the mighty
king, king of Ka-dingirra (Babylon), the king whom the regions
obey, the winner of victory for his lord Merodach, the
shepherd, who rejoices his heart. When the gods Anu and Bel
granted me to rule the people of Sumer and Akkad, and gave the
sceptre into my hand, I dug the canal called "Hammurabi, the
blessing of the people," which carries with it the overflow of
the water for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I allotted both
its shores for food. Measures of corn I poured forth. A
lasting water supply I made for the people of Sumer and Akkad.
I brought together the numerous troops of the people of Sumer
and Akkad, food and drink I made for them; with blessing and
abundance I gifted them. In convenient abodes I caused them to
dwell. Thenceforward I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, the
favourite of the great gods. With the might accorded me by
Merodach I built a tall tower with great entrances, whose
summits are high like … at the head of the canal "Hammurabi,
the blessing of the people." I named the tower Sinmuballit
tower, after the name of my father, my begetter. The statue of
Sinmuballit, my father, my begetter, I set up at the four
quarters of heaven.' … Rings bearing the legend 'Palace of
Hammurabi' have been found in the neighbourhood of Bagdad, and
presumably indicate the existence of a royal residence there."
_E. J. Simcox,
Primitive Civilizations,
volume 1, pages 282-283._
"The canal to which this king boasts of having given his name,
the 'Nahar-Hammourabi,' was called in later days the royal
canal, 'Nahar Malcha.' Herodotus saw and admired it, its good
condition was an object of care to the king himself, and we
know that it was considerably repaired by Nebuchadnezzar. When
civilization makes up its mind to re-enter upon that country,
nothing more will be needed for the re-awakening in it of life
and reproductive energy, than the restoration of the great
works undertaken by the contemporaries of Abraham and Jacob."
_G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
volume 1, page 40._
"After a reign of fifty-five years, Chammurabi [or Hammurabi]
bequeathed the crown of Babylon and the united kingdoms of
Babylonia to his son Samsu-iluna (B. C. 2209-2180). This
ruler, reigning in the spirit of his father, developed still
further the national system of canalization. … Five kings
after Chammurabi, till 2098 B. C., complete the list of the
eleven kings of this first dynasty, who reigned in all 304
years. The epoch made memorable by the deeds and enterprise of
Chammurabi is followed by a period of 368 years, of the
occurrences of which absolutely nothing is known, except the
names and regnal years of another list of eleven kings
reigning in the city of Babylon. … The foreign non-Semitic
race, which for nearly six centuries (c. 1730-1153), from this
time onward, held a controlling place in the affairs of
Babylonia, are referred to in the inscriptions by the name
Kassē. These Kasshites came from the border country between
Northern Elam and Media, and were in all probability of the
same race as the Elamites. The references to them make them
out to be both mountaineers and tent-dwellers. … The political
sway of the foreign masters was undisputed, but the genius of
the government and the national type of culture and forms of
activity were essentially unchanged. … Through century after
century, and millennium after millennium, the dominant genius
of Babylonia remained the same. It conquered all its
conquerors, and moulded them to its own likeness by the force
of its manifold culture, by the appliances as well as the
prestige of the arts of peace. … The Babylonians were not able
to maintain perpetually their political autonomy or integrity,
not because they were not brave or patriotic," but because
"they were not, first and foremost, a military people. Their
energies were mainly spent in trade and manufacture, in
science and art. … The time which the native historiographers
allow to the new [Kasshite] dynasty is 577 years. … This
Kasshite conquest of Babylonia … prevented the consolidation
of the eastern branch of the Semites, by alienating from
Babylonia the Assyrian colonists. … Henceforth there was
almost perpetual rivalry and strife between Assyria and the
parent country. Henceforth, also, it is Assyria that becomes
the leading power in the West."
_J. F. McCurdy,
History, Prophecy and the Monuments,
book 2, chapter 3,
and book 4, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
"The Kassites gave a dynasty to Babylonia which lasted for 576
years (B. C. 1806-1230). The fact that the rulers of the
country were Kassites by race, and that their army largely
consisted of Kassite troops, caused the neighbouring
populations to identify the Babylonians with their conquerors
and lords. Hence it is that in the tablets of Tel el-Amarna,
the Canaanite writers invariably term the Babylonians the
'Kasi.' The 'Kasi' or Cush, we are told, had overrun Palestine
in former years and were again threatening the Egyptian
province. In calling Nimrod, therefore, a son of Cush the Book
of Genesis merely means that he was a Babylonian. But the
designation takes us back to the age of the Tel el-Amarna
tablets. It was not a designation which could have belonged to
that later age, when the Babylonians were known to the
Israelites as the 'Kasdim' only. Indeed there is a passage in
the Book of Micah (chapter 5) which proves plainly that in
that later age 'the land of Nimrod' was synonymous not with
Babylonia but with Assyria. The Nimrod of Genesis must have
come down to us from the time when the Kassite dynasty still
reigned over Babylonia. …
{2891}
Nimrod was not satisfied with his Babylonian dominions. 'Out
of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh,
and Rehoboth 'Ir (the city boulevards), and Calah and Resen.'
… The city of Asshur had been long in existence when Nimrod
led his Kassite followers to it, and so made its
'high-priests' tributary to Babylon. It stood on the high-road
to the west, and it is not surprising, therefore, that the
Kassite kings, after making themselves masters of the future
kingdom of Assyria, should have continued their victorious
career as far as the shores of the Mediterranean. We may
conjecture that Nimrod was the first of them who planted his
power so firmly in Palestine as to be remembered in the
proverbial lore of the country, and to have introduced that
Babylonian culture of which the Tel el-Amarna tablets have
given us such abundant evidence."
_A. H. Sayce,
The Higher Criticism, and the Verdict of the Monuments,
chapter 3._
It was during the Kasshite domination in Babylonia that Ahmes,
founder of the eighteenth dynasty in Egypt, expelled the
Hyksos intruders from that country; and "his successors,
returning upon Asia the attack which they had thence received,
subjugating, or rather putting to ransom, all the Canaanites
of Judea, Phœnicia, and Syria, crossed the Euphrates and the
Tigris.
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.
Nineveh twice fell into their power, and the whole Semitic
world became vassal to the Pharaohs. The influence of Egypt
was real though temporary, but in the reciprocal dealings
which were the result of the conquests of the Tutnes [or
Thothmes] and the Amenhoteps, the share of the Semites was on
the whole the larger. Marriages with the daughters of kings or
vassal governors brought into Egypt and established Asiatic
types, ideas, and customs on the Theban throne. Amenhotep IV.
was purely Semitic; he endeavoured to replace the religion of
Ammon by the sun-worship of Syria. In 1887 were discovered the
fragments of a correspondence exchanged between the kings of
Syria, Armenia, and Babylonia, and the Pharaohs Amenhotep III.
and IV.
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.
All these letters are written in cuneiform character and in
Semitic or other dialects; it is probable that the answers
were drawn up in the same character and in the same languages.
For the rest, the subjugated nations had soon recovered.
Saryoukm I. had reconstituted the Chaldean empire; the
Assyrians, ever at war on their eastern and western frontiers,
had more than once crossed the Upper Euphrates and penetrated
Asia Minor as far as Troad, where the name Assaracus seems to
be a relic of an Assyrian dynasty. The Hittites or Khetas
occupied the north of Syria; and when Ramses II., Sesostris,
desired in the 15th century to renew the exploits of his
ancestors, he was checked at Kadech by the Hittites and forced
to retreat after an undecided battle. The great expansion of
Egypt was stopped, at least towards the north. The Semitic
peoples, on the contrary, were everywhere in the ascendant."
_A. Lefèvre,
Race and Language,
pages 205-206._
SEMITES:
The Assyrian Empire.
"According to all appearance it was the Egyptian conquest
about sixteen centuries B. C., that led to the partition of
Mesopotamia. Vassals of Thothmes and Rameses, called by
Berosus the 'Arab kings,' sat upon the throne of Babylon. The
tribes of Upper Mesopotamia were farther from Egypt, and their
chiefs found it easier to preserve their independence. At
first each city had its own prince, but in time one of these
petty kingdoms absorbed the rest, and Nineveh became the
capital of an united Assyria. As the years passed away the
frontiers of the nation thus constituted were pushed gradually
southwards until all Mesopotamia was brought under one
sceptre. This consummation appears to have been complete by
the end of the fourteenth century, at which period Egypt,
enfeebled and rolled back upon herself, ceased to make her
influence felt upon the Euphrates. Even then Babylon kept her
own kings, but they had sunk to be little more than hereditary
satraps receiving investiture from Nineveh. Over and over
again Babylon attempted to shake off the yoke of her
neighbour; but down to the seventh century her revolts were
always suppressed, and the Assyrian supremacy re-established
after more or less desperate conflicts. During nearly half a
century, from about 1060 to 1020 B. C., Babylon seems to have
recovered the upper hand. The victories of her princes put an
end to what is called the First Assyrian Empire. But after one
or two generations a new family mounted the northern throne,
and, toiling energetically for a century or so to establish
the grandeur of the monarchy, founded the Second Assyrian
Empire. The upper country regained its ascendency by the help
of military institutions whose details now escape us, although
their results may be traced throughout the later history of
Assyria. From the tenth century onwards the effects of these
institutions become visible in expeditions made by the armies
of Assyria, now to the shores of the Persian Gulf or the
Caspian, and now through the mountains of Armenia into the
plains of Cappadocia, or across the Syrian desert to the
Lebanon and the coast cities of Phœnicia. The first princes
whose figured monuments—in contradistinction to mere
inscriptions—have come down to us, belonged to those days. The
oldest of all was Assurnazirpal, whose residence was at Calach
(Nimroud). The bas-reliefs with which his palace was decorated
are now in the Louvre and the British Museum, most of them in
the latter. … To Assurnazirpal's son Shalmaneser III. belongs
the obelisk of basalt which also stands in the British Museum.
… Shalmaneser was an intrepid man of war. The inscriptions on
his obelisk recall the events of thirty-one campaigns waged
against the neighbouring peoples under the leadership of the
king himself. … Under the immediate successors of Shalmaneser
the Assyrian prestige was maintained at a high level by dint
of the same lavish bloodshed and truculent energy; but towards
the eighth century it began to decline. There was then a
period of languor and decadence, some echo of which, and of
its accompanying disasters, seems to have been embodied by the
Greeks in the romantic tale of Sardanapalus. No shadow of
confirmation for the story of a first destruction of Nineveh
is to be found in the inscriptions, and, in the middle of the
same century, we again find the Assyrian arms triumphant under
the leadership of Tiglath Pileser II., a king modelled after
the great warriors of the earlier days. This prince seems to
have carried his victorious arms as far east as the Indus, and
west as the frontiers of Egypt.
{2892}
And yet it was only under his second successor, Saryoukin, or,
to give him his popular name, Sargon, the founder of a new
dynasty, that Syria, with the exception of Tyre, was brought
into complete submission after a great victory over the
Egyptians (721-704). … His son Sennacherib equalled him both
as a soldier and as a builder. He began by crushing the rebels
of Elam and Chaldæa with unflinching severity; in his anger he
almost exterminated the inhabitants of Babylon, the perennial
seat of revolt; but, on the other hand, he repaired and
restored Nineveh. Most of his predecessors had been absentees
from the capital, and had neglected its buildings. … He chose
a site well within the city for the magnificent palace which
Mr. Layard has been the means of restoring to the world. This
building is now known as Kouyoundjik, from the name of the
village perched upon the mound within which the buildings of
Sennacherib were hidden. Sennacherib rebuilt the walls, the
towers, and the quays of Nineveh at the same time, so that the
capital, which had never ceased to be the strongest and most
populous city of the empire, again became the residence of the
king—a distinction which it was to preserve until the fast
approaching date of its final destruction. The son of
Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and his grandson, Assurbanipal [long
identified with the Sardanapalus of the Greeks; but Prof.
Sayce now finds the Sardanapalus of Greek romance in a rebel
king, Assur-dain-pal, who reigned B. C. 827-820, and whose
name and history fit the tale], pushed the adventures and
conquests of the Assyrian arms still farther. They subdued the
whole north of Arabia, and invaded Egypt more than once. …
There was a moment when the great Semitic Empire founded by
the Sargonides touched even the Ægæan, for Cyges, king of
Lydia, finding himself menaced by the Cimmerians, did homage
to Assurbanipal, and sued for help against those foes to all
civilization."
_G. Perrot and C. Chipiez,
A History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria,
chapter 1, section 5 (volume 1)._
"The power of Assurbanipal was equal to the task of holding
under control the subjects of Assyria at all points. He boasts
of having compelled the king of Tyre to drink sea-water to
quench his thirst. The greatest opposition he met with was in
Elam, but this too he was able to suppress. … Assurbanipal
says that he increased the tributes, but that his action was
opposed by his own brother, whom he had formerly maintained by
force of arms in Babylon, This brother now seduced a great
number of other nations and princes from their allegiance. …
The king of Babylon placed himself, so to speak, at their
head. … The danger was immensely increased when the king set
up by Assurbanipal in Elam joined the movement. It was
necessary to put an end to this revolt, and this was effected
for once without much difficulty. … Thereupon the rebellious
brother in Babylon has to give way. The gods who go before
Assurbanipal have, as he says, thrust the king of Babylon into
a consuming fire and put an end to his life. His adherents …
are horribly punished. … The provinces which joined them are
subjected to the laws of the Assyrian gods. Even the Arabs,
who have sided with the rebels, bow before the king, whilst of
his power in Egypt it is said that it extended to the sources
of the Nile. His dominion reached even to Asia Minor. …
Assyria is the first conquering power which we encounter in
the history of the world. The most effective means which she
brought to bear in consolidating her conquests consisted in
the transportation of the principal inhabitants from the
subjugated districts to Assyria, and the settlement of
Assyrians in the newly acquired provinces. … The most
important result of the action of Assyria upon the world was
perhaps that she limited or broke up the petty sovereignties
and the local religions of Western Asia. … It was … an event
which convulsed the world when this power, in the full current
of its life and progress, suddenly ceased to exist. Since the
10th century every event of importance had originated in
Assyria; in the middle of the 7th she suddenly collapsed. … Of
the manner in which the ruin of Nineveh was brought about we
have nowhere any authentic record. … Apart from their
miraculous accessories, the one circumstance in which … [most
of the accounts given] agree, is that Assyria was overthrown
by the combination of the Medes and Babylonians. Everything
else that is said on the subject verges on the fabulous; and
even the fact of the alliance is doubtful, since Herodotus,
who lived nearest to the period we are treating of, knows
nothing of it, and ascribes the conquest simply to the Medes."
_L. von Ranke,
Universal History: The Oldest Historical Group of Nations,
chapter 3._
SEMITES:
The last Babylonian Empire and its overthrow.
The story, briefly told, of the alliance by which the Assyrian
monarchy is said to have been overthrown, is as follows: About
626 or 625, B. C., a new revolt broke out in Babylonia, and
the Assyrian king sent a general named Nabu-pal-usur or
Nabopolassar to quell it. Nabu-pal-usur succeeded in his
undertaking, and seems to have been rewarded by being made
governor of Babylon. But his ambition aimed higher, and he
mounted the ancient Babylonian throne, casting off his
allegiance to Assyria and joining her enemies. "He was wise
enough to see that Assyria could not be completely crushed by
one nation, and he therefore made a league with Pharaoh Necho,
of Egypt, and asked the Median king, Cyaxares, to give his
daughter, Amytes, to Nebuchadnezzar, his son, to wife. Thus a
league was made, and about B. C. 609 the kings marched against
Assyria. They suffered various defeats, but eventually the
Assyrian army was defeated, and Shalman, the brother of the
king of Assyria, [was] slain. The united kings then besieged
Nineveh. During the siege the river Tigris rose and carried
away the greater part of the city wall. The Assyrian king
gathered together his wives and property in the palace, and
setting fire to it, all perished in the flames. The enemies
went into the city and utterly destroyed all they could lay
their hands upon. With the fall of Nineveh, Assyria as a power
practically ceased to exist." About 608 B. C. Nebuchadnezzar
succeeded his father on the throne. "When he had become
established in the kingdom he set his various captives, Jews,
Phœnicians, Syrians, and Egyptians, at work to make Babylon
the greatest city in the world. And as a builder he remains
almost unsurpassed."
_E. A. Wallis Budge,
Babylonian Life and History,
chapter 5._
{2893}
"The Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar occupied a square of which each
side was nearly fifteen miles in length, and was bisected by
the Euphrates diagonally from northwest to southeast. This
square was enclosed by a deep moat, flooded from the river.
The clay excavated in digging the moat, moulded into bricks
and laid in bitumen, formed the walls of the city. These
walls, more than 300 feet high and more than 70 thick, and
protected by parapets, afforded a commodious driveway along
their top of nearly 60 miles, needing only aerial bridges over
the Euphrates river. The waters of the river were forced to
flow through the city between quays of masonry which equaled
the walls in thickness and height. The walls were pierced at
equal intervals for a hundred gates, and each gateway closed
with double leaves of ponderous metal, swinging upon bronze
posts built into the wall. Fifty broad avenues, crossing each
other at right angles, joined the opposite gates of the city,
and divided it into a checkerboard of gigantic squares. The
river quays were pierced by 25 gates like those in the outer
walls. One of the streets was carried across the river upon an
arched bridge, another ran in a tunnel beneath the river bed,
and ferries plied continually across the water where the other
streets abutted. The great squares of the city were not all
occupied by buildings. Many of them were used as gardens and
even farms, and the great fertility of the soil, caused by
irrigation, producing two and even three crops a year,
supplied food sufficient for the inhabitants in case of siege.
Babylon was a vast fortified province rather than a city. …
There is a curious fact which I do not remember to have seen
noticed, and of which I will not here venture to suggest the
explanation. Babylon stands in the Book of Revelation as the
emblem of all the abominations which are to be destroyed by
the power of Christ. But Babylon is the one city known to
history which could have served as a model for John's
description of the New Jerusalem: 'the city lying four
square,' 'the walls great and high,' the river which flowed
through the city, 'and in the midst of the street of it, and
on either side of the river the tree of life, bearing twelve
manner of fruits;' 'the foundations of the wall of the city
garnished with all manner of precious stones,' as the base of
the walls inclosing the great palace were faced with glazed
and enameled bricks of brilliant colors, and a broad space
left that they might be seen,—these characteristics, and they
are all unique, have been combined in no other city."
_W. B. Wright,
Ancient Cities,
pages 41-44._
"Undoubtedly, one of the important results already obtained
from the study of the native chronicles of Babylon is the
establishment, on grounds apart from the question of the
authenticity of the Book of Daniel, of the historical
character of Belshazzar. The name of this prince had always
been a puzzle to commentators and historians. The only native
authority on Babylonian history—Berosus—did not appear to
have mentioned such a person. … According to the extracts from
the work of Berosus preserved for us in the writings of these
authors, the following is the history of the last King of
Babylon. His name was Nabonidus, or Nabonedus, and he first
appears as the leader of a band of conspirators who determined
to bring about a change in the government. The throne was then
occupied by the youthful Laborosoarchod (for this is the
corrupt Greek form of the Babylonian Lâbâshi-Marduk), who was
the son of Neriglissar, and therefore, through his mother, the
grandson of the great Nebuchadnezzar; but, in spite of his
tender age, the new sovereign who had only succeeded his
father two months before, had already given proof of a bad
disposition. … When the designs of the conspirators had been
carried out, they appointed Nabonidus king in the room of the
youthful son of Neriglissar. … We next hear that in the
seventeenth year of Nabonidus, Cyrus, who had already
conquered the rest of Asia, marched upon Babylon, B. C. 538.
See PERSIA B. C. 549-521.
The native forces met the Persians in battle, but were put to
flight, with their king at their head, and took refuge behind
the ramparts of Borsippa. Cyrus thereupon entered Babylon, we
are told, and threw down her walls. … Herodotus states that
the last king of Babylon was the son of the great
Nebuchadnezzar—to give that monarch his true name—for in so
doing he bears out, so far as his testimony is of any value,
the words of the Book of Daniel, which not only calls
Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar, but also introduces the wife
of the latter monarch as being the mother of the ill-fated
prince who closed the long line of native rulers. Such being
the only testimony of secular writers, there was no
alternative but to identify Belshazzar with Nabonidus. … Yet
the name Nabonidus stood in no sort of relation to that of
Belshazzar; and the identification of the two personages was,
undoubtedly, both arbitrary and difficult. The cuneiform
inscriptions brought to Europe from the site of Babylon and
other ancient cities of Chaldæa soon changed the aspect of the
problem. … Nabonidus, or, in the native form, Nabu naïd, that
is to say, 'Nebo exalts,' is the name given to the last native
king of Babylon in the contemporary records inscribed on clay.
This monarch, however, was found to speak of his eldest son as
bearing the very name preserved in the Book of Daniel, and
hitherto known to us from that source alone. … 'Set the fear
of thy great godhead in the heart of. Belshazzar, my firstborn
son, my own offspring; and let him not commit sin, in order
that he may enjoy the fulness of life.' … 'Belshazzar, my
firstborn son, … lengthen his days; let him not commit sin. …'
These passages provide us, in an unexpected manner, with the
name which had hitherto been known from the Book of Daniel,
and from that document alone; but we were still in the dark as
to the reason which could have induced the author to represent
Belshazzar as king of Babylon. … In 1882 a cuneiform
inscription was for the first time interpreted and published
by Mr. Pinches; it had been disinterred among the ruins of
Babylon by Mr. Hormuzd Russam. This document proved to contain
the annals of the king whose fate we have just been
discussing—namely, Nabonidus. Though mutilated in parts, it
allowed us to learn some portions of his history, both before
and during the invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus; and one of the
most remarkable facts that it added to our knowledge was that
of the regency—if that term may be used—of the king's son
during the absence of the sovereign from the Court and army.
Here, surely, the explanation of the Book of Daniel was found:
Belshazzar was, at the time of the irruption of the Persians,
acting as his father's representative; he was commanding the
Babylonian army and presiding over the Babylonian Court. When
Cyrus entered Babylon, doubtless the only resistance he met
with was in the royal palace, and there it was probably
slight. In the same night Belshazzar was taken and slain."
_B. T. A. Evetts,
New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land,
chapter 11, part 2._
{2894}
Cyrus the Great, in whose vast empire the Babylonian kingdom
was finally swallowed up, was originally "king of Anzan in
Elam, not of Persia. Anzan had been first occupied, it would
appear, by his great-grandfather Teispes the Achaemenian. The
conquest of Astyages and of his capital Ekbatana took place in
B. C. 549, and a year or two later Cyrus obtained possession
of Persia." Then, B. C. 538, came the conquest of Babylonia,
invited by a party in the country hostile to its king,
Nabonidos. Cyrus "assumed the title of 'King of Babylon,' thus
claiming to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient
Babylonian kings. He announced himself as the devoted
worshipper of Bel and Nebo, who by the command of Merodach had
overthrown the sacrilegious usurper Nabonidos, and he and his
son accordingly offered sacrifices to ten times the usual
amount in the Babylonian temples, and restored the images of
the gods to their ancient shrines. At the same time he allowed
the foreign populations who had been deported to Babylonia to
return to their homes along with the statues of their gods.
Among these foreign populations, as we know from the Old
Testament, were the Jews."
_A. H. Sayce,
Primer of Assyriology,
pages 74-78._
SEMITES:
Hebraic branch.
See JEWS, AMMONITES; MOABITES; and EDOMITES.
SEMITES:
Canaanitic branch.
See JEWS: EARLY HISTORY; and PHŒNICIANS.
SEMITES:
Southern branches.
See ARABIA; ETHIOPIA; and ABYSSINIA.
----------SEMITES: End--------
SEMITIC LANGUAGES.
"There is no stronger or more unchanging unity among any group
of languages than that which exists in the Semitic group. The
dead and living languages which compose it hardly differ from
each other so much as the various Romance or Sclavonic
dialects. Not only are the elements of the common vocabulary
unchanged, but the structure of the word and of the phrase has
remained the same. … The Semitic languages form two great
branches, each subdivided into two groups. The northern branch
comprehends the Aramaic-Assyrian group and the Canaanitish
group; the southern … includes the Arabic group, properly so
called, and the Himyarite group. The name Aramaic is given to
two dialects which are very nearly allied—Chaldean and Syriac.
… The Aramaic which was spoken at the time of Christ was
divided into two sub-dialects: that of Galilee, which
resembled the Syriac pronunciation, and that of Jerusalem, of
which the pronunciation was more marked and nearer to
Chaldean. Jesus and his disciples evidently spoke the dialect
of their country. … Syriac, in its primitive state, is unknown
to us, as also Syro-Chaldean. … Assyrian is a discovery of
this century. … To the Canaanitish group belong Phœnician,
Samaritan, the languages of the left bank of the Jordan,
notably Moabite. … and lastly, Hebrew. The first and the last
of these dialects are almost exactly alike. … Arabic, being
the language of Islam, has deeply penetrated all the Mussulman
nations, Turkish, Persian, and Hindustani. … Himyarite reigned
to the south of Arabic; it was the language of the Queen of
Sheba, and is now well known through a great number of
inscriptions, and is perhaps still spoken under the name of
Ekhili in the district of Marah. … It is in Abyssinia that we
must seek for the last vestiges of Himyarite. Several
centuries before our era, the African coast of the Red Sea had
received Semitic colonies, and a language known as Ghez or
Ethiopian."
_A. Lefèvre,
Race and Language,
pages 213-223._
SEMNONES, The.
"The Semnones were the chief Suevic clan. Their settlements
seem to have been between the Elbe and Oder, coinciding as
nearly as possible with Brandenburg, and reaching possibly
into Prussian Poland."-
_Church and Brodribb,
Geographical Notes to The Germany of Tacitus._
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.
SEMPACH, Battle of (1386).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
SEMPRONIAN LAWS.
The laws proposed and carried at Rome by the Gracchi, who were
of the Sempronian gens, are often so referred to.
See ROME: B. C. 133-121.
SENA, The Druidic oracle of.
A little island called Sena—modern Sein—off the extreme
western coast of Brittany, is mentioned by Pomponius Mela as
the site of a celebrated oracle, consulted by Gaulish
navigators and served by nine virgin priestesses.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2)._
SENATE, Canadian.
See CANADA: A. D. 1867.
SENATE, French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
SENATE, Roman.
"In prehistoric times, the clans which subsequently united to
form cantons had each possessed a monarchical constitution of
its own. When the clan governments were merged in that of the
canton, the monarchs ('reges') of these clans became senators,
or elders, in the new community. In the case of Rome the
number of senators was three hundred, because in the
beginning, as tradition said, there were three hundred clans.
In regal times the king appointed the senators. Probably, at
first, he chose one from each clan, honoring in this way some
man whose age had given him experience and whose ability made
his opinion entitled to consideration. Afterward, when the
rigidity of the arrangement by clans was lost, the senators
were selected from the whole body of the people, without any
attempt at preserving the clan representation. Primarily the
senate was not a legislative body. When the king died without
having nominated his successor, the senators served
successively as 'interreges' ('kings for an interval'), for
periods of five days each, until a 'rex' was chosen. … This
general duty was the first of the senate's original functions.
Again, when the citizens had passed a law at the suggestion of
the king, the senate had a right ('patrum auctoritas') to veto
it, if it seemed contrary to the spirit of the city's
institutions. Finally, as the senate was composed of men of
experience and ability, the king used to consult it in times
of personal doubt or national danger."
_A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 3._
{2895}
Of the Roman Senate as it became in the great days of the
Republic—at the close of the Punic Wars and after—the
following is an account: "All the acts of the Roman Republic
ran in the name of the Senate and People, as if the Senate
were half the state, though its number seems still to have
been limited to Three Hundred members. The Senate of Rome was
perhaps the most remarkable assembly that the world has ever
seen. Its members held their seats for life; once Senators
always Senators, unless they were degraded for some
dishonourable cause. But the Senatorial Peerage was not
hereditary. No father could transmit the honour to his son.
Each man must win it for himself. The manner in which seats in
the Senate were obtained is tolerably well ascertained. Many
persons will be surprised to learn that the members of this
august body, all —or nearly all—owed their places to the votes
of the people. In theory, indeed, the Censors still possessed
the power really exercised by the Kings and early Consuls, of
choosing the Senators at their own will and pleasure. But
official powers, however arbitrary, are always limited in
practice; and the Censors followed rules established by
ancient precedent. … The Senate was recruited from the lists
of official persons. … It was not by a mere figure of speech
that the minister of Pyrrhus called the Roman Senate 'an
Assembly of Kings.' Many of its members had exercised
Sovereign power; many were preparing to exercise it. The power
of the Senate was equal to its dignity. … In regard to
legislation, they [it] exercised an absolute control over the
Centuriate Assembly, because no law could be submitted to its
votes which had not originated in the Senate. … In respect to
foreign affairs, the power of the Senate was absolute, except
in declaring War or concluding treaties of Peace,—matters
which were submitted to the votes of the People. They assigned
to the Consuls and Prætors their respective provinces of
administration and command; they fixed the amount of troops to
be levied every year from the list of Roman citizens, and of
the contingents to be furnished by the Italian allies. They
prolonged the command of a general or superseded him at
pleasure. … In the administration of home affairs, all the
regulation of religious matters was in their hands. … All the
financial arrangements of the State were left to their
discretion. … They might resolve themselves into a High Court
of Justice for the trial of extraordinary offences."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 35 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 2._
See, also, ROME: B. C. 146; and CONSCRIPT FATHERS.
SENATE, United States.
"The Senate is composed of two Senators from each State, and
these Senators are chosen by the State Legislatures. The
representation is then equal, each State having two Senators
and each Senator having one vote; and no difference is made
among the States on account of size, population, or wealth.
The Senate is not, strictly speaking, a popular body, and the
higher qualifications demanded of its members, and the longer
period of service, make it the more important body of the two.
The Senate is presumedly more conservative in its action, and
acts as a safeguard against the precipitate and changing
legislation that is more characteristic of the House of
Representatives, which, being chosen directly by the people,
and at frequent intervals, is more easily affected by and
reflects the prevailing temper of the times. The Senate is
more intimately connected with the Executive than is the lower
body. The President must submit to the Senate for its approval
the treaties he has contracted with foreign powers; he must
ask the advice and consent of the Senate in the appointment of
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States
whose appointments have not been otherwise provided for. … The
Senate has sole power to try all impeachments, but it cannot
originate proceedings of impeachment. … In case a vacancy
occurs when the State Legislature is not in session, the
governor may make a temporary appointment; but at the next
meeting of the Legislature the vacancy must be filled in the
usual way. The presiding officer of the Senate is the
Vice-President of the United States. He is elected in the same
manner as the President, for were he chosen from the Senate
itself, the equality of representation would be broken. He has
no vote save when the Senate is equally divided, and his
powers are very limited."
_W. C. Ford,
The American Citizen's Manual,
part 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_The Federalist,
Numbers 62-66._
_J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._
_J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
chapters 10-12 (volume 1)._
See, also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
SENATUS-CONSULTUM.
SENATUS-DECRETUM.
"A proposition sanctioned by a majority of the [Roman] Senate,
and not vetoed by one of the Tribunes of the Plebs, who might
interrupt the proceedings at any stage, was called
Senatus-Consultum or Senatus-Decretum, the only distinction
between the terms being that the former was more
comprehensive, since Senatus-Consultum might include several
orders or Decreta."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 6._
SENCHUS MOR, The.
One of the books of the ancient Irish laws, known as the
Brehon Laws.
SENECAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SENECAS.
SENEFFE, Battle of (1674).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
SENLAC OR HASTINGS, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).
SENNACHIES.
One of the names given to the Bards, or Ollamhs, of the
ancient Irish.
SENONES, The.
A strong tribe in ancient Gaul whose territory was between the
Loire and the Marne. Their chief town was Agedincum—modern
Sens.
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note._
The Senones were also prominent among the Gauls which crossed
the Alps, settled Cisalpine Gaul and contested northern Italy
with the Romans.
See ROME: B. C. 390-347, and 295-191.
SENS, Origin of.
See SENONES.
SENTINUM, Battle of (B. C. 295).
See ROME: B. C. 343-290, and B. C. 295-191.
SEPARATISTS.
See INDEPENDENTS.
SEPHARDIM, The.
Jews descended from those who were expelled from Spain in 1492
are called the Sephardim.
See JEWS: 8-15TH CENTURIES.
SEPHARVAIM.
See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.
SEPHER YETZIRA, The.
See CABALA.
SEPOY: The name.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
{2896}
SEPOY MUTINY,
of 1763, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.
Of 1806.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
Of 1857-1858.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).
SEPT, OR CLAN.
See CLANS.
SEPTA.
See CAMPUS MARTIUS.
SEPTEMBER LAWS, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1830-1840.
SEPTEMBER MASSACRES AT PARIS.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
SEPTENNATE IN FRANCE, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.
SEPTENNIAL ACT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.
SEPTIMANIA:
Under the Goths.
See GOTHIA, IN GAUL;
also GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419; and 419-451.
SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 715-718.
Occupation by the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
SEPTIMANIA: A. D. 752-759.
Recovery from the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 752-759.
SEPTIMANIA: 10th Century.
The dukes and their successors.
See TOULOUSE: 10-11TH CENTURIES.
SEPTUAGINT, The.
"We have in the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Hebrew Old
Testament, the first great essay in translation into Greek, a
solitary specimen of the ordinary language spoken and
understood in those days [at Alexandria 3d century B. C.].
There is a famous legend of the origin of the work by order of
the Egyptian king, and of the perfect agreement of all the
versions produced by the learned men who had been sent at his
request from Judæa. Laying aside these fables, it appears that
the books were gradually rendered for the benefit of the many
Jews settled in Egypt, who seem to have been actually
forgetting their old language. Perhaps Philadelphus gave an
impulse to the thing by requiring a copy for his library,
which seems to have admitted none but Greek books."
_J. P. Mahaffy,
Story of Alexander's Empire,
chapter 14._
ALSO IN:
_W. Robertson Smith,
The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,
lecture 4._
_F. W. Farrar,
History of Interpretation (
Bampton Lectures, 1885), lecture 3._
SEQUANA, The.
The ancient name of the river Seine.
SEQUANI, The.
See GAULS.
SERAI.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.
SERAPEUM, at Alexandria.
See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 389;
also LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.
SERAPEUM, at Memphis.
"The Serapeum is one of the edifices of Memphis [Egypt]
rendered famous by a frequently quoted passage of Strabo, and
by the constant mention made of it on the Greek papyri. It had
long been sought for, and we had the good fortune to discover
it in 1851. Apis, the living image of Osiris revisiting the
earth, was a bull who, while he lived, had his temple at
Memphis (Mitrahenny), and, when dead, had his tomb at
Sakkarah. The palace which the bull inhabited in his lifetime
was called the Apieum; the Serapeum was the name given to his
tomb."
_A. Mariette,
Monuments of Upper Egypt,
page 88._
SERAPHIM, OR "BLUE RIBBON," The order of the.
"There is no doubt whatever of the antiquity of this Order,
yet it is very difficult to arrive at the exact date of the
foundation. General opinion, though without positive proof,
ascribes its origin, about the year 1280, to King Magnus I.
[of Sweden], who is said to have instituted it at the
persuasion of the Maltese Knights. Another account ascribes
the foundation to Magnus's grandson, Magnus Erichson. … King
Frederick I. revived the Order, as also those of the Sword and
North Star, on the 28th April, 1748."
_Sir B. Burke,
The Book of Orders of Knighthood,
page 329._
SERBONIAN BOG.
"There is a lake between Cœlo-Syria and Egypt, very narrow,
but exceeding deep, even to a wonder, two hundred furlongs in
length, called Serbon: if any through ignorance approach it
they are lost irrecoverably; for the channel being very
narrow, like a swaddling-band, and compassed round with vast
heaps of sand, great quantities of it are cast into the lake,
by the continued southern winds, which so cover the surface of
the water, and make it to the view so like unto dry land, that
it cannot possibly be distinguished; and therefore many,
unacquainted with the nature of the place, by missing their
way, have been there swallowed up, together with whole armies.
For the sand being trod upon, sinks down and gives way by
degrees, and like a malicious cheat, deludes and decoys them
that come upon it, till too late, when they see the mischief
they are likely to fall into, they begin to support and help
one another, but without any possibility either of returning
back or escaping certain ruin."
_Diodorus
(Booth's translation)
book 1, chapter 3._
According to Dr. Brugsch, the lake Serbon, or Sirbonis, so
graphically described by Diodorus, but owing its modern
celebrity to Milton's allusion (_Paradise Lost, ii.
502-4_), is in our days almost entirely dried up. He
describes it as having been really a lagoon, on the
northeastern coast of Egypt, "divided from the Mediterranean
by a long tongue of land which, in ancient times, formed the
only road from Egypt to Palestine." It is Dr. Brugsch's theory
that the exodus of the Israelites was by this route and that
the host of Pharaoh perished in the Serbonian quicksands.
_H. Brugsch,
History of Egypt,
volume 2, appendix._
SERBS, The.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, ETC.).
SERES.
See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
SERFDOM.
SERFS.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN.
SERGIUS I.,
Pope, A. D. 687-701.
Sergius II., Pope, 844-847.
Sergius III., Pope, 904-911.
Sergius IV., Pope, 1009-1012.
SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1792.
Siege by the English.
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
SERINGAPATAM: A. D. 1799.
Final capture by the English.
Death of Sultan Tippoo.
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
SERJEANTS-AT-LAW.
See TEMPLARS: THE ORDER IN ENGLAND.
SERPUL, Treaty of (1868).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1850-1876.
SERRANO, Ministry and Regency of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
SERTORIUS, in Spain.
See SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.
{2897}
SERVI.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND; also, CATTANI.
SERVIA.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
SERVIAN CONSTITUTION.
The first important modification of the primitive Roman
constitution, ascribed to King Servius Tullius.
See COMITIA CENTURIATA.
SERVIAN WALL OF ROME, The.
See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.
SERVILES, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
SERVITES, The.
The order of the "Religious Servants of the Holy Virgin,"
better known as Servites, was founded in 1233 by seven
Florentine merchants. It spread rapidly in its early years,
and has a considerable number of houses still existing.
SESQUIPES.
See FOOT, THE ROMAN.
SESTERTIUS, The.
See AS.
SESTOS, OR SESTUS, Siege and capture of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.
SESTUNTII, The.
See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
SETTE POZZI, OR MALVASIA, Battle of (1263).
See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
SETTLEMENT, Act of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701, and IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.
SEVASTOS.
The Greek form, in the Byzantine Empire, of the title of
"Augustus." "It was divided into four gradations, sevastos,
protosevastos, panhypersevastos, and sevastokrator."
_G. Finlay,
History Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453,
book 3, chapter 2, section 1._
SEVEN BISHOPS, The: Sent to the Tower.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.
SEVEN BOROUGHS, The.
See FIVE BOROUGHS. THE.
SEVEN CHAMPIONS OF CHRISTENDOM, The.
St. George, for England,
St. Denis, for France,
St. James, for Spain,
St. Anthony, for Italy,
St. Andrew, for Scotland,
St. Patrick, for Ireland, and
St. David, for Wales,
were called, in mediæval times, the Seven Champions of
Christendom.
SEVEN CITIES, The Isle of the.
See ANTILLES.
SEVEN CITIES OF CIBOLA.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
SEVEN DAYS RETREAT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA).
SEVEN GATES OF THEBES, The.
See THEBES, GREECE: THE FOUNDING OF THE CITY.
SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, The.
"The seven hills were not occupied all at once, but one after
the other, as they were required. The Palatine held the 'arx'
of the primitive inhabitants, and was the original nucleus of
the town, round which a wall or earthern rampart was raised by
Romulus. The hill of Saturn, afterwards the Capitoline, is
said to have been united, after the death of Titus Tatius, by
Romulus; who drew a second wall or earthern rampart round the
two hills. The Aventine, which was chiefly used as a pasture
ground, was added by Ancus Martius, who settled the population
of the conquered towns of Politorium, Tellena, and Ficana upon
it. According to Livy, the Cælian Hill was added to the city
by Tullus Hostilius. The population increasing, it seemed
necessary to further enlarge the city. Servius Tullius, Livy
tells us, added two hills, the Quirinal and the Viminal,
afterwards extending it further to the Esquiline, where, he
says, to give dignity to the place, he dwelt himself. The city
having reached such an extent, a vast undertaking was planned
by the king, Servius, to protect it. A line of wall [the
Servian Wall] was built to encircle the seven hills over which
the city had extended."
_H. M. Westropp,
Early and Imperial Rome,
pages 56-57._
SEVEN ISLANDS, The Republic of the.
See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.
SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS, The.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.
SEVEN MOUNTS, The.
See PALATINE HILL; and QUIRINAL.
SEVEN PINES, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
SEVEN PROVINCES, The Union of the.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
SEVEN REDUCTIONS, The War of the.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
SEVEN RIVERS, The Land of the.
See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.
SEVEN WEEKS WAR, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.
SEVEN WISE MEN OF GREECE.
"The name and poetry of Solon, and the short maxims, or
sayings, of Phokylidês, conduct us to the mention of the Seven
Wise Men of Greece. Solon was himself one of the seven, and
most if, not all of them were poets, or composers in verse. To
most of them is ascribed also an abundance of pithy repartees,
together with one short saying, or maxim, peculiar to each,
serving as a sort of distinctive motto. … Respecting this
constellation of Wise Men—who, in the next century of Grecian
history, when philosophy came to be a matter of discussion and
argumentation, were spoken of with great eulogy—all the
statements are confused, in part even contradictory. Neither
the number nor the names are given by all authors alike.
Dikæarchus numbered ten, Hermippus seventeen: the names of
Solon the Athenian, Thalês the Milesian, Pittakus the
Mitylenean, and Bias the Prienean, were comprised in all the
lists —and the remaining names as given by Plato were
Kleobulus of Lindus in Rhodes, Myson of Chênæ, and Cheilon of
Sparta. We cannot certainly distribute among them the sayings,
or mottoes, upon which in later days the Amphiktyons conferred
the honour of inscription in the Delphian temple:
'Know thyself,'
'Nothing too much,'
'Know thy opportunity,'
'Suretyship is the precursor of ruin.'
… Dikæarchus, however, justly observed that these seven or ten
persons were not wise men, or philosophers, in the sense which
those words bore in his day, but persons of practical
discernment in reference to man and society,—of the same turn
of mind as their contemporary the fabulist Æsop, though not
employing the same mode of illustration. Their appearance
forms an epoch in Grecian history, inasmuch as they are the
first persons who ever acquired an Hellenic reputation
grounded on mental competency apart from poetical genius or
effect—a proof that political and social prudence was
beginning to be appreciated and admired on its own account."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 29._
{2898}
SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD.
See RHODES, THE COLOSSUS OF.
----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: Start--------
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
Its causes and provocations.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
Campaigns in America.
See CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, and 1755;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, and 1755;
CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
English Naval Operations.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST),
and 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
Campaigns in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1756, to 1761-1762.
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
The conflict in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
The Treaties which ended the war.
The Peace of Paris and the Peace of Hubertsburg.
Negotiations for a peace between England, France, and Spain
were brought to a close by the signing of preliminaries at
Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762. In the course of the next
month, a conference for the arrangement of terms between
Prussia, Austria and Saxony was begun at Hubertsburg, a
hunting-seat of the Elector of Saxony, between Leipsic and
Dresden. "The definitive Peace of Paris, between France,
Spain, England, and Portugal, was signed February 10th 1763.
Both France and England abandoned their allies, and neither
Austria nor Prussia was mentioned in the treaty." But it was
stipulated that all territories belonging to the Elector of
Hanover, the Landgrave of Hesse, and the Count of Lippe
Bücheburg should be restored to them. "France ceded to England
Nova Scotia, Canada, and the country east of the Mississippi
as far as the Iberville. A line drawn through the Mississippi,
from its source to its mouth, was henceforth to form the
boundary between the possessions of the two nations, except
that the town and island of New Orleans were not to be
included in this cession. France also ceded the island of Cape
Breton, with the isles and coasts of the St. Lawrence,
retaining, under certain restrictions, the right of fishing at
Newfoundland, and the isles of St. Peter and Miquelon. In the
West Indies she ceded Grenada and the Grenadines, and three of
the so-called neuter islands, namely, Dominica, St. Vincent,
and Tobago, retaining the fourth, St. Lucie. Also in Africa,
the river Senegal, recovering Goree; in the East Indies, the
French settlements on the coast of Coromandel made since 1749,
retaining previous ones. She also restored to Great Britain
Natal and Tabanouly, in Sumatra, and engaged to keep no troops
in Bengal. In Europe, besides relinquishing her conquests in
Germany, she restored Minorca, and engaged to place Dunkirk in
the state required by former treaties. Great Britain, on her
side, restored Belle Isle, and in the West Indies, Martinique,
Guadaloupe, Marie Galante, and La Desirade. Spain ceded to
Great Britain Florida and all districts east of the
Mississippi, recovering the Havannah and all other British
conquests. British subjects were to enjoy the privilege of
cutting logwood in the Bay of Honduras. … With regard to the
Portuguese colonies, matters were to be placed in the same
state as before the war. … By way of compensation for the loss
of Florida, France, by a private agreement, made over to Spain
New Orleans and what remained to her of Louisiana. The Peace
of Hubertsburg, between Austria, Prussia, and Saxony, was
signed February 15th 1763. Marie Theresa renounced all
pretensions she might have to any of the dominions of the King
of Prussia, and especially those which had been ceded to him
by the treaties of Breslau and Berlin; and she agreed to
restore to Prussia the town and county of Glatz, and the
fortresses of Wesel and Gelders. The Empire was included in
the peace, but the Emperor was not even named. … In the peace
with the Elector of Saxony, Frederick engaged speedily to
evacuate that Electorate and to restore the archives, &c.; but
he would give no indemnification for losses suffered. The
Treaty of Dresden, of 1745, was renewed."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 6 (volume 3)._
"Of the Peace-Treaties at Hubertsburg, Paris and other places,
it is not necessary that we say almost anything. … The
substance of the whole lies now in Three Points. … The issue,
as between Austria and Prussia, strives to be, in all points,
simply 'As-you-were'; and, in all outward or tangible points,
strictly is so. After such a tornado of strife as the
civilised world had not witnessed since the Thirty-Years War.
Tornado springing doubtless from the regions called Infernal;
and darkening the upper world from south to north, and from
east to west for Seven Years long;—issuing in general
'As-you-were'! Yes truly, the tornado was Infernal; but
Heaven, too, had silently its purposes in it. Nor is the mere
expenditure of men's diabolic rages, in mutual clash as of
opposite electricities, with reduction to equipoise, and
restoration of zero and repose again after seven years, the
one or the principal result arrived at. Inarticulately, little
dreamt on at the time by any bystander, the results, on survey
from this distance, are visible as Threefold. Let us name them
one other time:
1°. There is no taking of Silesia from this man; no clipping
him down to the orthodox old limits; he and his Country have
palpably outgrown these. Austria gives-up the problem: 'We
have lost Silesia!' Yes; and, what you hardly yet know,—and
what, I perceive, Friedrich himself still less knows,—
Teutschland has found Prussia. Prussia, it seems, cannot be
conquered by the whole world trying to do it; Prussia has gone
through its Fire-Baptism, to the satisfaction of gods and men;
and is a Nation henceforth. In and of poor dislocated
Teutschland, there is one of the Great Powers of the World
henceforth; an actual Nation. And a Nation not grounding
itself on extinct Traditions, Wiggeries, Papistries,
Immaculate Conceptions; no, but on living Facts, —Facts of
Arithmetic, Geometry, Gravitation, Martin Luther's
Reformation, and what it really can believe in:—to the
infinite advantage of said Nation and of poor Teutschland
henceforth. …
2°. In regard to England. Her Jenkins's-Ear Controversy is at
last settled. Not only liberty of the Seas, but, if she were
not wiser, dominion of them; guardianship of liberty for all
others whatsoever: Dominion of the Seas for that wise object.
America is to be English, not French; what a result is that,
were there no other! Really a considerable Fact in the History
of the World. Fact principally due to Pitt, as I believe,
according to my best conjecture, and comparison of
probabilities and circumstances. For which, after all, is not
everybody thankful, less or more? O my English brothers, O my
Yankee half-brothers, how oblivious are we of those that have
done us benefit! …
{2899}
3°. In regard to France. It appears, noble old Teutschland,
with such pieties and unconquerable silent valours, such
opulences human and divine, amid its wreck of new and old
confusions, is not to be cut in Four, and made to dance to the
piping of Versailles or another. Far the contrary! To
Versailles itself there has gone forth, Versailles may read it
or not, the writing on the wall: 'Thou art weighed in the
balance, and found wanting' (at last even 'found wanting')!
France, beaten, stript, humiliated; sinful, unrepentant,
governed by mere sinners and, at best, clever fools ('fous
pleins d'esprit'),—collapses, like a creature whose limbs fail
it; sinks into bankrupt quiescence, into nameless
fermentation, generally into dry-rot."
_T. Carlyle,
History of Friedrich II.,
book 20, chapter 13 (volume 9)._
The text of the Treaty of Paris may be found here.
_Parliamentary History,
volume 15, page 1291,_
_Entick's History of the Late War,
volume 5, page 438._
SEVEN YEARS WAR:
The death and misery of the war summed up by Frederick the
Great.
"Prussia enumerated 180,000 men, whom she had been deprived of
by the war. Her armies had fought 16 pitched battles. The
enemy had beside almost totally destroyed three large corps;
that of the convoy of Olmutz, that of Maxen, and that of
Fouquet at Landshut; exclusive of the garrison of Breslau, two
garrisons of Schweidnitz, one of Torgau, and one of
Wittenberg, that were taken with these towns. It was further
estimated that 20,000 souls perished in the kingdom of Prussia
by the ravages of the Russians; 6,000 in Pomerania; 4,000 in
the New March and 3,000 in the electorate of Brandenbourg. The
Russian troops had fought four grand battles, and it was
computed that the war had cost them 120,000 men, including
part of the recruits that perished, in coming from the
frontiers of Persia and China, to join their corps in Germany.
The Austrians had fought ten regular battles. Two garrisons at
Schweidnitz and one at Breslau had been taken; and they
estimated their loss at 140,000 men. The French made their
losses amount to 200,000; the English with their allies to
160,000; the Swedes to 25,000; and the troops of the circles
to 28,000. … From the general picture which we have sketched,
the result is that the governments of Austria, France, and
even England, were overwhelmed with debts, and almost
destitute of credit; but that the people, not having been
sufferers in the war, were only sensible of it from the
prodigious taxes which had been exacted by their sovereigns.
Whereas, in Prussia, the government was possessed of money,
but the provinces were laid waste and desolated, by the
rapacity and barbarity of enemies. The electorate of Saxony
was, next to Prussia, the province of Germany that had
suffered the most; but this country found resources, in the
goodness of its soil and the industry of its inhabitants,
which are wanting to Prussia throughout her provinces, Silesia
excepted. Time, which cures and effaces all ills, will no
doubt soon restore the Prussian states to their former
abundance, prosperity, and splendor. Other powers will in like
manner recover, and other ambitious men will arise, excite new
wars, and incur new disasters. Such are the properties of the
human mind; no man benefits by example."
_Frederick II.,
History of the Seven Years War
(Posthumous Works, volume 3), chapter 17._
----------SEVEN YEARS WAR: End--------
SEVERINUS, Pope, A. D. 640, May to August.
SEVERUS, Alexander, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.
SEVERUS, Libius, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 461-465.
SEVERUS, Septimius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193-211.
Campaigns in Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.
SEVERUS, Wall of.
See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.
SEVIER, John, and the early settlement of Tennessee.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772, to 1785-1796.
----------SEVILLE: Start--------
SEVILLE:
Early history of the city.
"Seville was a prosperous port under the Phœnicians; and was
singularly favored by the Scipios. In 45 B. C., Julius Cæsar
entered the city; he enlarged it, strengthened and fortified
it, and thus made it a favorite residence with the patricians
of Rome, several of whom came to live there; no wonder, with
its perfect climate and brilliant skies. It was then called
Hispalis."
_E. E. and S. Hale,
The Story of Spain,
chapter 18._
SEVILLE: A. D. 712.
Surrender to the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
SEVILLE: A. D. 1031-1091.
The seat of a Moorish kingdom.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
SEVILLE: A. D. 1248.
Conquest from the Moors by St. Ferdinand of Castile.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.
----------SEVILLE: End--------
SEVILLE, Treaty of (1730).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
SEVIN, Battle of (1877).
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
SEWAN.
See WAMPUM.
SEWARD, William H.
Defeat in the Chicago Convention of 1860.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).
In President Lincoln's Cabinet.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (MARCH), and after.
The Trent Affair.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D.1861 (NOVEMBER).
The Proclamation of Emancipation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).
Attempted assassination.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
In President Johnson's Cabinet.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
SFORZA, Francesco, The rise to ducal sovereignty of.
See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.
SHABATZ, Battle of (1806).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).
SHACAYA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.
SHAH, OR SCHAH.
See BEY; also CHESS.
SHAH JAHAN,
Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1628-1658.
SHAH ROKH, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1747-1751.
SHAHAPTIAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NEZ PERCÉS.
SHAHPUR.
One of the capitals of the later Persian empire, the ruins of
which exist near Kazerun, in the province of Fars. It was
built by Sapor I., the second of the Sassanian kings, and
received his name.
_G. Rawlinson,
Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
chapter 4._
{2900}
SHAKERS, The.
"From the time of the first settlements until the age of the
Revolution, if there were any communistic societies founded,
[in the United States] I have met with no account of them. The
first which has had a long life, was that of the Shakers, or
Shaking Quakers, as they were at first called, on account of
their bodily movements in worship. The members of this sect or
society left England in 1774, and have prospered ever since.
It has now multiplied into settlements—twelve of them in New
York and New England—in regard to which we borrow the
following statistics from Dr. Nordhoff's book on communistic
societies in the United States, published in 1875. Their
property consists of 49,335 acres of land in home farms, with
other real estate. The value of their houses and personal
property is not given. The population of all the communities
consists of 695 male and 1,189 female adults, with 531 young
persons under twenty-one, of whom 192 are males and 339
females, amounting in all to 2,415 in 1874. The maximum of
population was 5,069, a decline to less than half, for which
we are not able to account save on the supposition that there
are permanent causes of decay now at work within the
communities. … The Shakers were at their origin a society of
enthusiasts in humble life, who separated from the Quakers
about the middle of the eighteenth century. Ann Lee, one of
the members, on account of spiritual manifestations believed
to have been made to her, became an oracle in the body, and in
1773 she declared that a revelation from heaven instructed her
to go to America. The next year she crossed the sea, with
eight others, and settled in the woods of Watervliet, near
Albany. She preached, and was believed to have performed
remarkable cures. From her … [was] derived the rule of
celibacy. … She died in 1784, as the acknowledged head of the
church; and had afterward nearly equal honors paid to her with
the Saviour. Under the second successor of Ann Lee almost all
the societies in New York and New England were founded; and
under the third, a woman named Lucy Wright, whose leadership
lasted nearly thirty years, those in Ohio and Kentucky. …
After 1830 the Shakers founded no new society. Dr. Nordhoff
gives the leading doctrines of the Shakers, which are, some of
them, singular enough. They hold that God is a dual person,
male and female; that Adam, created in his image, was dual
also; that the same is true of all angels and spirits; and
that Christ is one of the highest spirits, who appeared first
in the person of Jesus and afterward in that of Ann Lee. There
are four heavens and four hells. Noah went to the first
heaven, and the wicked of his time to the first hell. The
second heaven was called Paradise, and contained the pious
Jews until the appearance of Christ. The third, that into
which the Apostle Paul was caught, included all that lived
until the time of Ann Lee. The fourth is now being filled up,
and 'is to supersede all the others.' They hold that the day
of judgment, or beginning of Christ's kingdom on earth, began
with the establishment of their church, and will go on until
it is brought to its completion. … In regard to marriage and
property they do not take the position that these are crimes;
but only marks of a lower order of society. The world will
have a chance to become pure in a future state as well as
here. They believed in spiritual communication and
possession."
_T. D. Woolsey,
Communism and Socialism,
pages 51-56._
ALSO IN:
_C. Nordhoff,
The Communistic Societies of the United States,
pages 117-232._
SHAKESPEARE, and the English Renaissance.
See ENGLAND: 15-16TH CENTURIES.
SHAMANISM.
See LAMAS.—LAMAISM.
SHARON, Plain of.
That part of the low-land of the Palestine seacoast which
stretched northward from Philistia to the promontory of Mt.
Carmel. It was assigned to the tribe of Dan.
SHARPSBURG, OR ANTIETAM, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
SHASTAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SASTEAN FAMILY.
SHASU, The.
An Egyptian name "in which science has for a long time and
with perfect certainty recognized the Bedouins of the highest
antiquity. They inhabited the great desert between Egypt and
the land of Canaan and extended their wanderings sometimes as
far as the river Euphrates."
_H. Brugsch,
History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs,
chapter 11._
See, also, EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.
SHAWMUT.
The Indian name of the peninsula on which Boston,
Massachusetts, was built.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.
SHAWNEES, OR SHAWANESE.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.
SHAYS REBELLION.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1786-1787.
SHEADINGS.
See MANX KINGDOM, THE.
SHEBA.
"The name of Sheba is still to be recognised in the tribe of
Benu-es-Sab, who inhabit a portion of Oman" (Southern Arabia).
_F. Lenormant,
Manual of the Ancient History of the East,
book 7, chapter 1._
See, also,
ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.
SHEEPEATERS (Tukuarika).
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
SHEKEL, The.
"Queipo is of opinion that the talent, the larger unit of
Egyptian weight for monetary purposes, and for weighing the
precious metals, was equal to the weight of water contained in
the cube of 2/3 of the royal or sacred cubit, and thus
equivalent to 42.48 kilos, or 113.814 lbs. troy. He considers
this to have been the weight of the Mosaic talent taken by the
Hebrews out of Egypt. It was divided into fifty minas, each
equal to 849.6 grammes, or 13,111 English grains; and the mina
into fifty shekels, each equal to 14.16 grammes, or 218.5
English grains. … There appears to be satisfactory evidence
from existing specimens of the earliest Jewish coins that the
normal weight of the later Jewish shekel of silver was 218.5
troy grains, or 14.16 grammes."
_H. W. Chisholm,
On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,
chapter 2._
SHELBURNE MINISTRY, and the negotiation
of peace between England and the United States.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783;
AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
SHENANDOAH, The Confederate Cruiser.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1865.
----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: Start--------
SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1716.
Possession taken by the Virginians.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1710.
{2901}
SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1744.
Purchase from the Six Nations.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.
SHENANDOAH VALLEY: A. D. 1861-1864.
Campaigns in the Civil War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL,: VIRGINIA);
1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA), (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND),
(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA);
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA),
(JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND), and (AUGUST-OCTOBER:VIRGINIA).
----------SHENANDOAH VALLEY: End--------
SHENIR, Battle of.
A crushing defeat of the army of king Hazael of Damascus by
Shalmanezer, king of Assyria, B. C. 841.
SHEPHELAH, The.
The name given by the Jews to the tract of low-lying coast
which the Philistines occupied.
SHEPHERD KINGS.
See EGYPT: THE HYKSOS.
SHERIDAN, General Philip H.:
In the Battle of Stone River.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).
At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
ROSECRANS' ADVANCE, and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
Raid to Richmond.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA).
Raid to Trevillian Station.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
Campaign in the Shenandoah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).
Battle of Five Forks.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
SHERIFF.
SCIRGEREFA.
"The Scirgerefa is, as his name denotes, the person who stands
at the head of the shire, 'pagus' or county: he is also called
Scirman or Scirigman. He is properly speaking the holder of
the county court, scirgemot, or folcmot, and probably at first
was its elected chief. But as this gerefa was at first the
people's officer, he seems to have shared the fate of the
people, and to have sunk in the scale as the royal authority
gradually rose: during the whole of our historical period we
find him exercising only a concurrent jurisdiction, shared in
and controlled by the ealdorman on the one hand and the bishop
on the other. … The sheriff was naturally the leader of the
militia, posse comitatus, or levy of the free men, who served
under his banner, as the different lords with their dependents
served under the royal officers. … In the earliest periods,
the office was doubtless elective, and possibly even to the
last the people may have enjoyed theoretically, at least, a
sort of concurrent choice. But I cannot hesitate for a moment
in asserting that under the consolidated monarchy, the
scirgerefa was nominated by the king, with or without the
acceptance of the county-court, though this in all probability
was never refused."
_J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 2, chapter 5 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_R. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
chapter 4._
See, also,
SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.
SHERIFFMUIR, Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
SHERMAN, General W. T.:
At the first Battle of Bull Run.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).
Removal from command in Kentucky.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
Battle of Shiloh.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
The second attempt against Vicksburg.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
The final Vicksburg campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
The capture of Jackson.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: MISSISSIPPI).
The Chattanooga Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
Meridian expedition.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL; TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
Atlanta campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
(MAY: GEORGIA), and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).
March to the Sea.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER; GEORGIA),
and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).
The last campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS),
and (APRIL 26TH).
SHERMAN SILVER ACT, and its repeal.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1890-1893.
SHERSTONE, Battle of.
The second battle fought between Cnut, or Canute, and Edmund
Ironsides for the English crown. It was in Wiltshire, A. D.
1016.
SHERWOOD FOREST.
"The name of Sherwood or Shirewood is, there can be no
reasonable doubt," says Mr. Llewellyn Jewett, "derived from
the open-air assemblies, or folk-moots, or witenagemotes of
the shire being there held in primitive times." The Forest
once covered the whole county of Nottingham and extended into
both Yorkshire and Derbyshire, twenty-five miles one way by
eight or ten the other. It was a royal forest and favorite
hunting resort of both Saxon and Norman kings; but is best
known as the scene of the exploits of the bold outlaw Robin
Hood. Few vestiges of the great forest now remain.
_J. C. Brown,
The Forests of England._
SHESHATAPOOSH INDIANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
SHETLAND, OR ZETLAND, ISLES:
8-13th Centuries.
The Northmen in possession.
See NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES, and 10-13TH CENTURIES.
SHEYENNES, OR CHEYENNES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
SHI WEI, The.
See MONGOLS: ORIGIN, &c.
SHIAHS, OR SHIAS, The.
See ISLAM;
also PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
SHIITES, Sultan Selim's massacre of the.
See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.
SHILOH, OR PITTSBURG LANDING, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
SHINAR.
See BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.
SHIP OF THE LINE.
In the time of wooden navies, "a ship carrying not less than
74 guns upon three decks, and of sufficient size to be placed
in line of battle," was called a "ship of the line," or a
"line-of-battle ship."
SHIP-MONEY.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637.
SHIPKA PASS, Struggle for the.
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
SHIPWRECK, Law of.
See LAW: ADMIRALTY.
{2902}
SHIRE.
SHIREMOOT.
"The name scir or shire, which marks the division immediately
superior to the hundred, merely means a subdivision or share
of a larger whole, and was early used in connexion with an
official name to designate the territorial sphere appointed to
the particular magistracy denoted by that name. So the diocese
was the bishop's scire. … The historical shires or counties
owe their origin to different causes. … The sheriff or
scir-gerefa, the scir-man of the laws of Ini, was the king's
steward and judicial president of the shire. … The sheriff
held the shiremoot, according to Edgar's law, twice in the
year. Although the ealdorman and bishop sat in it to declare
the law secular and spiritual, the sheriff was the
constituting officer."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, sections 48-50 (volume 1)._
See, also, KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE;
EALDORMAN; and GAU.
SHOE-STRING DISTRICT, The.
See GERRYMANDERING.
SHOGUN.
See JAPAN: SKETCH OF HISTORY.
SHOSHONES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
SHREWSBURY, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1403.
SHREWSBURY SCHOOL.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.—ENGLAND.
SHULUH, The.
See LIBYANS.
SHUMIR, OR SUMIR.
See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.
SHUPANES.
GRAND SHUPANES.
The princes, ultimately kings, of the early Servian people.
_L. Ranke,
History of Servia,
chapter 1._
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 9TH CENTURY (SERVIA).
SHUSHAN.
See SUSA.
SIAM.
"The people known to Europeans as the 'Siamese,' but who call
themselves 'Thai,' that is 'Free Men,' have exercised the
greatest civilising influence on the aboriginal populations of
the interior. Within the historic period Siam has also
generally held the most extensive domain beyond the natural
limits of the Menam basin. Even still, although hemmed in on
one side by the British possessions, on the other by the
French protectorate of Camboja, Siam comprises beyond the
Menam Valley a considerable part of the Malay Peninsula, and
draws tribute from numerous people in the Mekong and Salwen
basins. But this State, with an area about half as large again
as that of France, has a population probably less than
6,000,000. … The inhabitants of Siam, whether Shans, Laos, or
Siamese proper, belong all alike to the same Thai stock, which
is also represented by numerous tribes in Assam, Manipur, and
China. The Shans are very numerous in the region of the Upper
Irrawaddi and its Chinese affluents, in the Salwen Valley and
in the portion of the Sittang basin included in British
territory. … The Lovas, better known by the name of Laos or
Laotians, are related to the Shans, and occupy the north of
Siam. … They form several 'kingdoms,' all vassals of the King
of Siam. … The Siamese, properly so called, are centred
chiefly in the Lower Menam basin and along the seaboard.
Although the most civilised they are not the purest of the
Thai race. … Siam or Sayam is said by some natives to mean
'Three,' because the country was formerly peopled by three
races now fused in one nation. Others derive it from saya,
'independent,' sama, 'brown,' or samo, 'dark'. … The Siamese
are well named 'Indo-Chinese,' their manners, customs, civil
and religious institutions, all partaking of this twofold
character. Their feasts are of Brahmanical origin, while their
laws and administration are obviously borrowed from the
Chinese. … About one-fourth of the inhabitants of Siam had
from various causes fallen into a state of bondage about the
middle of the present century. But since the abolition of
slavery in 1872, the population has increased, especially by
Chinese immigration. … The 'Master of the World,' or 'Master
of Life,' as the King of Siam is generally called, enjoys
absolute power over the lives and property of his subjects. …
A second king, always nearly related to the first, enjoys the
title and a few attributes of royalty. But he exercises no
power. … British having succeeded to Chinese influence, most
of the naval and military as well as of the custom-house
officers are Englishmen."
_É. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
volume 3, chapter 21._
The former capital of Siam was Ayuthia, a city founded A. D.
1351, and now in ruins. "Anterior to the establishment of
Ayuthia … the annals of Siam are made up of traditional
legends and fables, such as most nations are fond of
substituting in the place of veracious history. … There are
accounts of intermarriages with Chinese princesses, of
embassies and wars with neighbouring States, all interblended
with wonders and miraculous interpositions of Indra and other
divinities; but from the time when the city of Ayuthia was
founded by Phaja-Uthong, who took the title of
Phra-Rama-Thibodi, the succession of sovereigns and the course
of events are recorded with tolerable accuracy."
_Sir J. Bowring,
Kingdom and People of Siam,
volume 1, chapter 2._
"For centuries the Siamese government paid tribute to China;
but since 1852 this tribute has been refused. In 1855 the
first commercial treaty with a European power (Great Britain)
was concluded."
_G. G. Chisholm,
The Two Hemispheres,
page 523._
ALSO IN:
_A. R. Colquhoun,
Amongst the Shans,
introduction by T. de La Couperie,
and sup. by H. S. Hallett._
SIBERIA: The Russian conquest.
Siberia was scarcely known to the Russians before the middle
of the 16th century. The first conquest of a great part of the
country was achieved in the latter part of that century by a
Cossack adventurer named Yermac Timoseef, who began his attack
upon the Tartars in 1578. Unable to hold what he had won,
Yermac offered the sovereignty of his conquests to the Czar of
Muscovy, who took it gladly and sent reinforcements. The
conquests of Yermac were lost for a time after his death, but
soon recovered by fresh bodies of Muscovite troops sent into
the country. "This success was the forerunner of still greater
acquisitions. The Russians rapidly extended their conquests;
wherever they appeared, the Tartars were either reduced or
exterminated; new towns were built and colonies planted.
Before a century had elapsed, that vast tract of country now
called Siberia, which stretches from the confines of Europe to
the Eastern Ocean, and from the Frozen Sea to the frontiers of
China, was annexed to the Russian dominions."
_W. Coxe,
Russian Discoveries between Asia and America,
part 2, chapter 1._
{2903}
SIBUZATES, The.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
SIBYLS.
SIBYLLINE BOOKS.
"Tarquinius [Tarquinius Superbus, the last of the kings of
"Rome] built a mighty temple, and consecrated it to Jupiter,
and to Juno, and to Minerva, the greatest of the gods of the
Etruscans. At this time there came a strange woman to the king
and offered him nine books of the prophecies of the Sibyl for
a certain price. "When the king refused them, the woman went
and burnt three of the books, and came back and offered the
six at the same price which she had asked for the nine; but
they mocked at her and would not take the books. Then she went
away and burnt three more, and came back and asked still the
same price for the remaining three. At this the king was
astonished, and asked of the augurs what he should do. They
said that he had done wrong in refusing the gift of the gods,
and bade him by all means to buy the books that were left. So
he bought them; and the woman who sold them was seen no more
from that day forwards. Then the books were put into a chest
of stone, and were kept under ground in the Capitol, and two
men were appointed to keep them, and were called the two men
of the sacred books."
_T. Arnold,
History of Rome,
chapter 4._
"Collections of prophecies similar to the Sibylline books are
met with not only among the Greeks, but also among the
Italians —Etruscans as well as those of Sabellian race. The
Romans had the prophecies of the Marcii ('Carmina Marciana,'
Hartung, 'Religion der Römer,' i. 139); prophetic lines
('sortes') of the nymph Albunea had come down to Rome from
Tibur in a miraculous manner (Marquardt, 'Röm. Alterth., iv.
299). There existed likewise Etruscan 'libri fatales' (Livy,
v. 45; Cicero, 'De Divin., i. 44, 100), and prophecies of the
Etruscan nymph Begoe (quæ artem scripserat fulguritorum apud
Tuscos. Lactant, 'Instit.,' i. 6, 12). Such books as these
were kept in the Capitol, together with the Sibylline books,
in the care of the Quindecemveri sacris faciundis. They are
all called without distinction 'libri fatales' and 'Sibylline'
books, and there seems to have been little difference between
them."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 8, foot-note (volume 1)._
"Every schoolboy is familiar with the picturesque Roman legend
of the Sibyl. It is variously told in connection with the
elder and the later Tarquin, the two Etruscan kings of Rome;
and the scene of it is laid by some in Cumæ, where Tarquinius
Superbus spent the last years of his life in exile—and by
others in Rome. … The original books of the Cumæan Sibyl were
written in Greek, which was the language of the whole of the
south of Italy at that time. The oracles were inscribed upon
palm leaves; to which circumstance Virgil alludes in his
description of the sayings of the Cumæan Sibyl being written
upon the leaves of the forest. They were in the form of
acrostic verses. … It is supposed that they contained not so
much predictions of future events, as directions regarding the
means by which the wrath of the gods, as revealed by prodigies
and calamities, might be appeased. They seem to have been
consulted in the same way as Eastern nations consult the Koran
and Hafiz. … The Cumæan Sibyl was not the only prophetess of
the kind. There were no less than ten females, endowed with
the gift of prevision, and held in high repute, to whom the
name of Sibyl was given. We read of the Persian Sibyl, the
Libyan, the Delphic, the Erythræan, the Hellespontine, the
Phrygian, and the Tiburtine. With the name of the
last-mentioned Sibyl tourists make acquaintance at Tivoli. …
Clement of Alexandria does not scruple to call the Cumæan
Sibyl a true prophetess, and her oracles saving canticles. And
St. Augustine includes her among the number of those who
belong to the 'City of God.' And this idea of the Sibyls'
sacredness continued to a late age in the Christian Church.
She had a place in the prophetic order beside the patriarchs
and prophets of old."
_H. Macmillan,
Roman Mosaics,
chapter 3._
"Either under the seventh or the eighth Ptolemy there appeared
at Alexandria the oldest of the Sibylline oracles, bearing the
name of the Erythræan Sibyl, which, containing the history of
the past and the dim forebodings of the future, imposed alike
on the Greek, Jewish, and Christian world, and added almost
another book to the Canon. When Thomas of Celano composed the
most famous hymn of the Latin Church he did not scruple to
place the Sibyl on a level with David; and when Michel Angelo
adorned the roof of the Sixtine Chapel, the figures of the
weird sisters of Pagan antiquity are as prominent as the seers
of Israel and Judah. Their union was the result of the bold
stroke of an Alexandrian Jew."
_A. P. Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 47 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_Dionysius, History,
book 4, section 62._
See, also, CUMÆ.
SICAMBRI,
SIGAMBRI,
SUGAMBRI.
See USIPETES;
also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.
SICARII, The.
See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.
SICELIOTES AND ITALIOTES.
The inhabitants of the ancient Greek colonies in southern
Italy (Magna Graecia) and Sicily were known as Siceliotes and
Italiotes, to distinguish them from the native Siceli and
Itali.
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1)._
SICELS.
SICANIANS.
See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.
SICILIAN VESPERS, The.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.
SICILIES, The Two.
See Two SICILIES.
----------SICILY: Start--------
SICILY:
The early inhabitants.
The date of the first known Greek settlement in Sicily is
fixed at B. C. 735. It was a colony led from the Eubœan city
of Chalcis and from the island of Naxos, which latter gave
its name to the town which the emigrants founded on the
eastern coast of their new island home. "Sicily was at this
time inhabited by at least four distinct races: by Sicanians,
whom Thucydides considers as a tribe of the Iberians, who,
sprung perhaps from Africa, had overspread Spain and the
adjacent coasts, and even remote islands of the
Mediterranean; by Sicels, an Italian people, probably not
more foreign to the Greeks than the Pelasgians, who had been
driven out of Italy by the progress of the Oscan or Ausonian
race, and in their turn had pressed the Sicanians back toward
the southern and western parts of the island, and themselves
occupied so large a portion of it as to give their name to
the whole. Of the other races, the Phœnicians were in
possession of several points on the coast, and of some
neighbouring islets, from which they carried on their
commerce with the natives.
{2904}
The fourth people, which inhabited the towns of Eryx and
Egesta, or Segesta, at the western end of the island, and bore
the name of Elymians, was probably composed of different
tribes, varying in their degrees of affinity to the Greeks. …
The Sicels and the Phœnicians gradually retreated before the
Greeks. … But the Sicels maintained themselves in the inland
and on the north coast, and the Phœnicians, or Carthaginians,
who succeeded them, established themselves in the west, where
they possessed the towns of Motya, Solus, and Panormus,
destined, under the name of Palermo, to become the capital of
Sicily."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22._
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Sicily,
chapter 2._
See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.
SICILY:
Phœnician and Greek colonies.
"Sicilian history begins when the great colonizing nations of
antiquity, the Phœnicians and the Greeks, began to settle in
Sicily. … It was a chief seat for the planting of colonies,
first from Phœnicia and then from Greece. It is the presence
of these Phœnician and Greek colonies which made the history
of Sicily what it was. These settlements were of course made
more or less at the expense of the oldest inhabitants of the
island, those who were there before the Phœnicians and Greeks
came to settle. … Phœnician and Greek settlers could occupy
the coasts, but only the coasts; it was only at the corners
that they could at all spread from sea to sea. A great inland
region was necessarily left to the older inhabitants. But
there was no room in Sicily, as there was in Asia, for the
growth of great barbarian powers dangerous to the settlers.
Neither Phœnician nor Greek was ever able to occupy or conquer
the whole island; but neither people stood in any fear of
being conquered or driven out, unless by one another. But
instead of conquest came influence. Both Phœnicians and Greeks
largely influenced the native inhabitants. In the end, without
any general conquest, the whole island became practically
Greek. … Carthage at a later time plays so great a part in
Sicilian history that we are tempted to bring it in before its
time, and to fancy that the Phœnician colonies in Sicily were,
as they are sometimes carelessly called, Carthaginian
colonies. This is not so; the Phœnician cities in Sicily did
in after times become Carthaginian dependencies: but they were
not founded by Carthage. We cannot fix an exact date for their
foundation, nor can we tell for certain how far they were
settled straight from the old Phœnicia and how far from the
older Phœnician cities in Africa. But we may be sure that
their foundation happened between the migration of the Sikels
in the 11th century B. C. and the beginning of Greek
settlement in the 8th. And we may suspect that the Phœnician
settlements in the east of Sicily were planted straight from
Tyre and Sidon, and those in the west from the cities in
Africa. We know that all round Sicily the Phœnicians occupied
small islands and points of coast which were fitted for their
trade, but we may doubt whether they anywhere in Eastern
Sicily planted real colonies, cities with a territory attached
to them. In the west they seem to have done so. For, when the
Greeks began to advance in Sicily, the Phœnicians withdrew to
their strong posts in the western part of the island, Motya,
Solous, and Panormos. There they kept a firm hold till the
time of Roman dominion. The Greeks could never permanently
dislodge them from their possessions in this part. Held,
partly by Phœnicians, partly by Sikans and Elymians who had
been brought under Phœnician influence, the northwestern
corner of Sicily remained a barbarian corner. … The greatest
of all Phœnician settlements in Sicily lay within the bay of
which the hill of Solous is one horn, but much nearer to the
other horn, the hill of Herkte, now Pellegrino. Here the
mountains fence in a wonderfully fruitful plain, known in
after times as the Golden Shell (conca d'oro). In the middle
of it there was a small inlet of the sea, parted into two
branches, with a tongue of land between them, guarded by a
small peninsula at the mouth. There could be no better site
for Phœnician traders. Here then rose a Phœnician city, which,
though on the north coast of Sicily, looks straight towards
the rising sun. It is strange that we do not know its
Phœnician name; in Greek it was called Panormos, the
All-haven, a name borne also by other places. This is the
modern Palermo, which, under both Phœnicians and Saracens, was
the Semitic head of Sicily, and which remained the capital of
the island under the Norman kings. … Thus in Sicily the East
became West and the West East. The men of Asia withdrew before
the men of Europe to the west of the island, and thence warred
against the men of Europe to the east of them. In the great
central island of Europe they held their own barbarian corner.
It was the land of Phœnicians, Sikans, and Elymians, as
opposed to the eastern land of the Greeks and their Sikel
subjects and pupils. … For a long time Greek settlement was
directed to the East rather than to the West. And it was said
that, when settlement in Italy and Sicily did begin, the
earliest Greek colony, like the earliest Phœnician colony, was
the most distant. It was believed that Kyme, the Latin Cumæ in
Campania, was founded in the 11th century B. C. The other
plantations in Italy and Sicily did not begin till the 8th.
Kyme always stood by itself, as the head of a group of Greek
towns in its own neighbourhood and apart from those more to
the south, and it may very well be that some accident caused
it to be settled sooner than the points nearer to Greece. But
it is not likely to have been settled 300 years earlier. Most
likely it was planted just long enough before the nearer sites
to suggest their planting. Anyhow, in the latter half of the
8th century B. C. Greek settlement to the West, in Illyria,
Sicily, and Italy, began in good earnest. It was said that the
first settlement in Sicily came of an accident. Chalkis in
Euboia was then one of the chief sea-faring towns of Greece.
Theokles, a man of Chalkis, was driven by storm to the coast
of Sicily. He came back, saying that it was a good land and
that the people would be easy to conquer. So in 735 B. C. he
was sent forth to plant the first Greek colony in Sicily. The
settlers were partly from Chalkis, partly from the island of
Naxos. So it was agreed that the new town should be called
Naxos, but that Chalkis should count as its metropolis. So the
new Naxos arose on the eastern coast of Sicily, on a peninsula
made by the lava. It looked up at the great hill of Tauros, on
which Taormina now stands. The Greek settlers drove out the
Sikels and took so much land as they wanted. They built and
fortified a town, and part of their walls may still be seen. …
Naxos, as the beginning of Greek settlement in Sicily, answers
to Ebbsfleet, the beginning of English settlement in Britain."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Story of Sicily,
chapters 1-4._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Sicily,
chapters 3-4 (volume 1)._
{2905}
SICILY: B. C. 480.
Carthaginian invasion.
Battle of Himera.
During the same year in which Xerxes invaded Greece (B. C.
480), the Greeks in Sicily were equally menaced by an
appalling invasion from Carthage. The Carthaginians, invited
by the tyrant of Himera, who had been expelled from that city
by a neighbor tyrant, sent 300,000 men it is said, to
reinstate him, and to strengthen for themselves the slender
footing they already had in one corner of the island. Gelo,
the powerful tyrant of Syracuse, came promptly to the aid of
the Himerians, and defeated the Carthaginians with terrible
slaughter. Hamilcar the commander was among the slain. Those
who escaped the sword were nearly all taken prisoners and made
slaves. The fleet which brought them over was destroyed, and
scarcely a ship returned to Carthage to bear the deplorable
tidings.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 43._
SICILY: B. C. 415-413.
Siege of Syracuse by the Athenians.
Its disastrous failure.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
SICILY: B. C. 409-405.
Carthaginian invasion.
The quarrels of the city of Egesta, in Sicily, with its
neighbors, brought about the fatal expedition from Athens
against Syracuse, B. C. 415. Six years later, in the same
protracted quarrel, Egesta appealed to Carthage for help,
against the city of Selinus, and thus invited the first of the
Hannibals to revenge terribly the defeat and death of his
grandfather Hamilcar, at Himera, seventy years before.
Hannibal landed an army of more than one hundred thousand
savage mercenaries in Sicily, in the spring of 409 B. C. and
laid siege to Selinus with such vigor that the city was
carried by storm at the end of ten days and most of its
inhabitants slain. The temples and walls of the town were
destroyed and it was left a deserted ruin. "The ruins, yet
remaining, of the ancient temples of Selinus, are vast and
imposing; characteristic as specimens of Doric art during the
fifth and sixth centuries B. C. From the great magnitude of
the fallen columns, it has been supposed that they were
overthrown by an earthquake. But the ruins afford distinct
evidence that these columns have been first undermined, and
then overthrown by crowbars. This impressive fact,
demonstrating the agency of the Carthaginian destroyers, is
stated by Niebuhr." From Selinus, Hannibal passed on to Himera
and, having taken that city in like manner, destroyed it
utterly. The women and children were distributed as slaves;
the male captives were slain in a body on the spot where
Hamilcar fell—a sacrifice to his shade. A new town called
Therma was subsequently founded by the Carthaginians on the
site of Himera. Having satisfied himself with revenge,
Hannibal disbanded his army, glutted with spoil, and returned
home. But three years later he invaded Sicily again, with an
armament even greater than before, and the great city of
Agrigentum was the first to fall before his arms. "Its
population was very great; comprising, according to one
account, 20,000 citizens, among an aggregate total of 200,000
males—citizens, metics, and slaves; according to another
account, an aggregate total of no less than 800,000 persons;
numbers unauthenticated, and not to be trusted further than as
indicating a very populous city. … Its temples and porticos,
especially the spacious temple of Zeus Olympus—its statues and
pictures—its abundance of chariots and horses—its
fortifications—its sewers—its artificial lake of near a mile
in circumference, abundantly stocked with fish—all these
placed it on a par with the most splendid cities of the
Hellenic world." After a siege of some duration Agrigentum was
evacuated and most of its inhabitants escaped. The
Carthaginians stripped it of every monument of art, sending
much away to Carthage and destroying more. Hannibal had died
of a pestilence during the siege and his colleague Imilkon
succeeded him in command. Having quartered his army at
Agrigentum during the winter, he attacked the cities of Gela
and Kamarina in the spring, and both were believed to have
been betrayed to him by the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius, who
had then just established himself in power. A treaty of peace
was presently concluded between Dionysius and Imilkon, which
gave up all the south of Sicily, as well as Selinus, Himera,
and Agrigentum, to the Carthaginians, and made Gela and
Kamarina tributary to them. The Carthaginian army had been
half destroyed by pestilence and the disease, carried home by
its survivors, desolated Carthage and the surrounding country.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 81-82, with foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Sicily,
chapter 9 (volume 3)._
SICILY: B. C. 397-396.
Dionysius, the Tyrant of Syracuse,
and his war with the Carthaginians.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
SICILY: B. C. 394-384.
Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.
SICILY: B. C. 383.
War with Carthage.
Dionysius, the Syracusan despot, was the aggressor in a fresh
war with Carthage which broke out in 383 B. C. The theatre of
war extended from Sicily to southern Italy, where Dionysius
had made considerable conquests, but only two battles of
serious magnitude were fought—both in Sicily. Dionysius was
the victor in the first of these, which was a desperate and
sanguinary struggle, at a place called Kabala. The
Carthaginian commander, Magon, was slain, with 10,000 of his
troops, while 5,000 were made captive. The survivors begged
for peace and Dionysius dictated, as a first condition, the
entire withdrawal of their forces from Sicily. While
negotiations were in progress, Magon's young son, succeeding
to his father's command, so reorganized and reinspirited his
army as to be able to attack the Syracusans and defeat them
with more terrific slaughter than his own side had experienced
a few days before. This battle, fought at Kronium, reversed
the situation, and forced Dionysius to purchase a humiliating
peace at heavy cost.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 83._
SICILY: B. C. 344.
Fall of the Tyranny of Dionysius at Syracuse.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.
SICILY: B. C. 317-289.
Syracuse under Agathokles.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
SICILY: B. C. 278-276.
Expedition of Pyrrhus.
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
{2906}
SICILY: B. C. 264-241.
The Mamertines in Messene.
First war of Rome and Carthage.-
Evacuation of the island by the Carthaginians.
The Romans in possession.
See PUNIC WAR: THE FIRST.
SICILY: B. C. 216-212.
Alliance with Hannibal and revolt against Rome.
The Roman siege of Syracuse.
See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND.
SICILY: B. C. 133-103.
Slave wars.
See SLAVE WARS IN SICILY.
SICILY: A. D. 429-525.
Under the Vandals, and the Goths.
"Sicily, which had been for a generation subjected, first to
the devastations and then to the rule of the Vandal king [in
Africa], was now by a formal treaty, which must have been
nearly the last public act of Gaiseric [or Genseric, who died
A. D. 477] ceded to Odovacar [or Odoacer, who extinguished the
Western Roman Empire and was the first barbarian king of
Italy], all but a small part, probably at the western end of
the island, which the Vandal reserved to himself. A yearly
tribute was to be the price of this concession; but, in the
decay of the kingdom under Gaiseric's successors, it is
possible that this tribute was not rigorously enforced, as it
is also almost certain that the reserved portion of the
island, following the example of the remainder, owned the sway
of Odovacar."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 4._
Under Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who overthrew Odoacer and
reigned in Italy from 493 until 525, Sicily was free both from
invasion and from tribute and shared with Italy the benefits
and the trials of the Gothic supremacy.
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and Her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 9._
SICILY: A. D. 535.
Recovered by Belisarius for the Emperor Justinian.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
SICILY: A. D. 550.
Gothic invasion.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
SICILY: A. D. 827-878.
Conquest by the Saracens.
The conquest of Sicily from the Byzantine empire, by the
Saracens, was instigated in the first instance and aided by an
influential Syracusan named Euphemios, whom the Emperor
Michael had undertaken to punish for abduction of a nun.
Euphemios invited the African Saracens to the island, and
Ziadet Allah, the Aglabite sovereign who had established
himself in power at Cairowan or Kairwan, felt strong enough to
improve the opportunity. In June 827 the admiral of the
Moslems formed a junction with the ships which Euphemios had
set afloat, and the Saracens landed at Mazara. The Byzantines
were defeated in a battle near Platana and the Saracens
occupied Girgenti. Having gained this foothold they waited
some time for reinforcements, which came, at last, in a naval
armament from Spain and troops from Africa. "The war was then
carried on with activity: Messina was taken in 831; Palermo
capitulated in the following year; and Enna was besieged, for
the first time, in 836. The war continued with various
success, as the invaders received assistance from Africa, and
the Christians from Constantinople. The Byzantine forces
recovered possession of Messina, which was not permanently
occupied by the Saracens until 843. … At length, in the year
859, Enna was taken by the Saracens. Syracuse, in order to
preserve its commerce from ruin, had purchased peace by paying
a tribute of 50,000 byzants; and it was not until the reign of
Basil I, in the year 878, that it was compelled to surrender,
and the conquest of Sicily was completed by the Arabs. Some
districts, however, continued, either by treaty or by force of
arms, to preserve their municipal independence, and the
exclusive exercise of the Christian religion, within their
territory, to a later period."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
book 1, chapter 3, section 1._
"Syracuse preserved about fifty years [after the landing of
the Saracens in Sicily] the faith which she had sworn to
Christ and to Cæsar. In the last and fatal siege her citizens
displayed some remnant of the spirit which had formerly
resisted the powers of Athens and Carthage. They stood above
twenty days against the battering-rams and catapultæ, the
mines and tortoises of the besiegers; and the place might have
been relieved, if the mariners of the imperial fleet had not
been detained at Constantinople in building a church to the
Virgin Mary. … In Sicily the religion and language of the
Greeks were eradicated; and such was the docility of the
rising generation that 15,000 boys were circumcised and
clothed on the same day with the son of the Fatimite caliph.
The Arabian squadrons issued from the harbours of Palermo,
Biserta, and Tunis; a hundred and fifty towns of Calabria and
Campania were attacked and pillaged; nor could the suburbs of
Rome be defended by the name of the Cæsars and apostles. Had
the Mahometans been united, Italy must have fallen an easy and
glorious accession to the empire of the prophet."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 52._
A hundred and fifty years after the fall of Syracuse Basil II.
undertook its recovery, but death overcame him in the midst of
his plans. "Ten years later, the Byzantine general Maniakes
commenced the reconquest of Sicily in a manner worthy of Basil
himself, but the women and eunuchs who ruled at Constantinople
procured his recall; affairs fell into confusion, and the
prize was eventually snatched from both parties by the Normans
of Apulia."
_E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5._
SICILY: A. D. 1060-1090.
Norman conquest.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.
SICILY: A. D. 1127-1194.
Union with Apulia in the kingdom of Naples or the Two Sicilies.
Prosperity and peace.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1081-1194.
SICILY: A. D. 1146.
Introduction of Silk-culture and manufacture.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
SICILY: A. D. 1194-1266.
Under the Hohenstaufen.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1183-1250.
SICILY: A. D. 1266.
Invasion and conquest of the kingdom of the Sicilies
by Charles of Anjou.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.
SICILY: A. D. 1282-1300.
The Massacre of the Sicilian Vespers.
Separation from the kingdom of Naples.
Transfer to the House of Aragon.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.
SICILY: A. D. 1313.
Alliance with the Emperor against Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
SICILY: A. D. 1442.
Reunion of the crowns of Sicily and Naples,
or the Two Sicilies, by Alphonso of Aragon.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
SICILY: A. D. 1458.
Separation of the crown of Naples from
those of Aragon and Sicily.
See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
SICILY: A. D. 1530.
Cession of Malta to the Knights of St. John.
See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1530-1565.
{2907}
SICILY: A. D. 1532-1553.
Frightful ravages of the Turks along the coast.
See ITALY: A. D. 1528-1570.
SICILY: A. D. 1713.
Ceded by Spain to the Duke of Savoy.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
SICILY: A. D. 1718-1719.
Retaken by Spain, again surrendered, and acquired by
Austria in exchange for Sardinia.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
SICILY: A. D. 1734-1735.
Occupation by the Spaniards.
Cession to Spain, with Naples,
forming a kingdom for Don Carlos.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
SICILY: A. D. 1749-1792.
Under the Spanish-Bourbon regime.
See ITALY: A. D. 1749-1792.
SICILY: A. D. 1805-1806.
Held by the King, expelled from Naples by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).
SICILY: A. D. 1821.
Revolutionary insurrection.
See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.
SICILY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Patriotic rising.
A year of independence.
Subjugation of the insurgents by King "Bomba."
See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.
SICILY: A. D. 1860-1861.
Liberation by Garibaldi.
Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
----------SICILY: End--------
SICULI, The.
See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.
SICYON,
SIKYON.
"Sicyon was the starting point of the Ionic civilization which
pervaded the whole valley of the Asopus [a river which flows
from the mountains of Argolis to the Gulf of Corinth, in
northeastern Peloponnesus]; the long series of kings of Sicyon
testifies to the high age with which the city was credited. At
one time it was the capital of all Asopia as well as of the
shore in front of it, and the myth of Adrastus has preserved
the memory of this the historic glory of Sicyon. The Dorian
immigration dissolved the political connection between the
cities of the Asopus. Sicyon itself had to admit Dorian
families." The ascendancy which the Dorian invaders then
assumed was lost at a later time. The old Ionian population of
the country dwelling on the shores of the Corinthian gulf,
engaged in commerce and fishing, acquired superior wealth and
were trained to superior enterprise by their occupation. In
time they overthrew the Doric state, under the lead of a
family, the Orthagoridæ, which established a famous tyranny in
Sicyon (about 670 B. C.). Myron and Clisthenes, the first two
tyrants of the house, acquired a great name in Greece by their
wealth, by their liberal encouragement of art and by their
devotion to the sanctuaries at Olympus and at Delphi.
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
See, also, TYRANTS, GREEK.
SICYON: B. C. 280-146.
The Achaian League.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
SIDNEY, Algernon, The execution of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683.
SIDNEY, Sir Philip, The death of.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.
SIDON, The suicidal burning of.
About 346 B. C., Ochus, king of Persia, having subdued a
revolt in Cyprus, proceeded against the Phœnician cities,
which had joined in it. Sidon was betrayed to him by its
prince, and he intimated his intention to take signal revenge
on the city; whereupon the Sidonians "took the desperate
resolution, first of burning their fleet that no one might
escape—next, of shutting themselves up with their families,
and setting fire each man to his own house. In this deplorable
conflagration 40,000 persons are said to have perished; and
such was the wealth destroyed, that the privilege of searching
the ruins was purchased for a large sum of money."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 90._
SIDONIANS, The.
See PHŒNICIANS.
SIEBENBÜRGEN.
The early name given to the principality of Transylvania, and
having reference to seven forts erected within it.
_J. Samuelson,
Roumania,
page 182._
----------SIENA: Start--------
SIENA:
The mediæval factions.
"The way in which this city conducted its government for a
long course of years [in the Middle Ages] justified Varchi in
calling it 'a jumble, so to speak, and chaos of republics,
rather than a well-ordered and disciplined commonwealth.' The
discords of Siena were wholly internal. They proceeded from
the wrangling of five factions, or Monti, as the people of
Siena called them. The first of these was termed the Monte de'
Nobili; for Siena had originally been controlled by certain
noble families. … The nobles split into parties among
themselves. … At last they found it impossible to conduct the
government, and agreed to relinquish it for a season to nine
plebeian families chosen from among the richest and most
influential. This gave rise to the Monte de' Nove. … In time,
however, their insolence became insufferable. The populace
rebelled, deposed the Nove, and invested with supreme
authority 12 other families of plebeian origin. The Monte de'
Dodici, created after this fashion, ran nearly the same course
as their predecessors, except that they appear to have
administered the city equitably. Getting tired of this form of
government, the people next superseded them by 16 men chosen
from the dregs of the plebeians, who assumed the title of
Riformatori. This new Monte de' Sedici or de' Riformatori
showed much integrity in their management of affairs, but, as
is the wont of red republicans, they were not averse to
bloodshed. Their cruelty caused the people, with the help of
the surviving patrician houses, together with the Nove and the
Dodici, to rise and shake them off. The last governing body
formed in this diabolical five-part fugue of crazy statecraft
received the name of Monte del Popolo, because it included all
who were eligible to the Great Council of the State. Yet the
factions of the elder Monti still survived; and to what extent
they had absorbed the population may be gathered from the fact
that, on the defeat of the Riformatori, 4,500 of the Sienese
were exiled. It must be borne in mind that with the creation
of each new Monte a new party formed itself in the city, and
the traditions of these parties were handed down from
generation to generation. At last, in the beginning of the
16th century, Pandolfo Petrucci, who belonged to the Monte de'
Nove, made himself in reality, if not in name, the master of
Siena, and the Duke of Florence later on in the same century
[1557]) extended his dominion over the republic."
_J. A. Symonds,
Renaissance in Italy: The Age of the Despots,
chapter 3._
{2908}
SIENA: A. D. 1460.
War with Florence and victory at Montaperti.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.
----------SIENA: End--------
SIENPI, The.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.
SIERRA LEONE.
"During the war of the [American] Revolution a large number of
blacks, chiefly runaway slaves, ranged themselves under the
British banner. At the close of the war a large number of
these betook themselves to Nova Scotia with the view of making
that their future home; while others followed the army, to
which they had been attached, to London. It was soon
ascertained that the climate of Nova Scotia was too severe for
those who had gone there; and those who followed the army to
London, when that was disbanded, found themselves in a strange
land, without friends and without the means of subsistence. In
a short time they were reduced to the most abject want and
poverty; and it was in view of their pitiable condition that
Dr. Smeathman and Granville Sharp brought forward the plan of
colonizing them on the coast of Africa. They were aided in
this measure by the Government. The first expedition left
England in 1787, and consisted of 400 blacks and about 60
whites, most of whom were women of the most debased character.
… On their arrival at Sierra Leone a tract of land of 20 miles
square was purchased from the natives of the country, and they
immediately commenced a settlement along the banks of the
river. In less than a year their number was reduced more than
one half, owing, in some measure, to the unhealthiness of the
climate, but more perhaps to their own irregularities. Two
years afterward they were attacked by a combination of
natives, and had nigh been exterminated. About this time the
'Sierra Leone Company' was formed to take charge of the
enterprise. Among its directors were enrolled the venerable
names of Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thornton, and Granville Sharp.
The first agent sent out by the Company to look after this
infant colony found the number of settlers reduced to about
60. In 1791 upward of 1,100 colored emigrants were taken from
Nova Scotia to Sierra Leone. About the same time as many as a
hundred whites embarked in England for the same place. … In
1798 it is said that Free-town had attained to the dimensions
of a full-grown town. … About the same time the colony was
farther reinforced by the arrival of more than 500 Maroons
from the Island of Jamaica. These Maroons were no better in
character than the original founders of the colony, and no
little disorder arose from mixing up such discordant elements.
These were the only emigrations of any consequence that ever
joined the colony of Sierra Leone from the Western hemisphere.
Its future accessions … came from a different quarter. In 1807
the slave-trade was declared piracy by the British Government,
and a squadron was stationed on the coast for the purpose of
suppressing it. About the same time the colony of Sierra Leone
was transferred to the Government, and has ever since been
regarded as a Crown colony. The slaves taken by the British
cruisers on the high seas have always been taken to this
colony and discharged there; and this has been the main source
of its increase of population from that time."
_J. L. Wilson,
Western Africa,
part 4, chapter 2._
SIEVERSHAUSEN, Battle of (1553).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.
SIEYES, Abbé, and the French Revolution.
See FRANCE:
A. D. 1789 (JUNE);
1790;
1791 (OCTOBER);
1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);
1799 (NOVEMBER), and (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
SIFFIN, Battle of.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.
SIGAMBRI,
SICAMBRI.
See USIPETES;
also, FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.
SIGEBERT I.,
King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 561-575.
SIGEBERT II.,
King of the Franks (Austrasia), 633-650.
SIGEL, General Franz.
Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI);
1862 (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).
Command in the Shenandoah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).
SIGISMUND,
SIGMUND,
King of Hungary, A. D. 1386-1437;
King of Germany, 1410-1437;
Emperor, 1433-1437;
King of Bohemia, 1434-1437.
Sigismund, King of Sweden, 1522-1604.
Sigismund I., King of Poland, 1507-1548.
Sigismund II., King of Poland, 1548-1574.
Sigismund III., King of Poland, 1587-1632.
SIGNORY, The Florentine.
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.
SIGURD I., King of Norway, A. D. 1122-1130.
SIGURD II., King of Norway, 1136-1155.
SIKANS.
SIKELS.
See SICILY: THE EARLY INHABITANTS.
SIKHS, The.
"The founder of the Sikh religion was Nanak [or Nanuk], son of
a petty Hindu trader named Kalu. Nanak was born in the
vicinity of Lahor in the year 1469. A youth much given to
reflection, he devoted himself at an early period of his life
to a study of the rival creeds then prevailing in India, the
Hindu and the Muhammadan. Neither satisfied him. … After
wandering through many lands in search of a satisfying truth,
Nanak returned to his native country with the conviction that
he had failed. He had found, he said, many scriptures and many
creeds; but he had not found God. Casting off his habit of an
ascetic, he resumed his father's trade, married, became the
father of a family, and passed the remainder of his life in
preaching the doctrine of the unity of one invisible God, of
the necessity of living virtuously, and of practising
toleration towards others. He died in 1539, leaving behind him
a reputation without spot, and many zealous and admiring
disciples eager to perpetuate his creed. The founder of a new
religion, Nanak, before his death, had nominated his
successor—a man of his own tribe named Angad. Angad held the
supremacy for twelve years, years which he employed mainly in
committing to writing the doctrines of his great master and in
enforcing them upon his disciples. Angad was succeeded by
Ummar Das, a great preacher. He, and his son-in-law and
successor, Ram Das, were held in high esteem by the emperor
Akbar. But it was the son of Ram Das, Arjun, who established
on a permanent basis the new religion. … He fixed the seat of
the chief Guru, or high priest of the religion, and of his
principal followers, at Amritsar, then an obscure hamlet, but
which, in consequence of the selection, speedily rose into
importance.
{2909}
Arjun then regulated and reduced to a systematic tax the
offerings of his adherents, to be found even then in every
city and village in the Panjab and the cis-satlaj territories.
… The real successor of Arjun was his son, Hur Govind. Hur
Govind founded the Sikh nation. Before his time the followers
of the Guru had been united by no tie but that of obedience to
the book. Govind formed them into a community of warriors. He
did away with many of the restrictions regarding food,
authorised his followers to eat flesh, summoned them to his
standard, and marched with them to consolidate his power. A
military organisation based upon a religious principle, and
directed by a strong central authority, will always become
powerful in a country the government of which is tainted with
decay. The ties which bound the Mughul empire together were
already loosening under the paralysing influence of the
bigotry of Aurangzile, when, in 1675, Govind, fourth in
succession to the Hur Govind to whom I have adverted, assumed
the mantle of Guru of the Sikhs. … Govind still further
simplified the dogmas of the faith. Assembling his followers,
he announced to them that thenceforward the doctrines of the
'Khalsa,' the saved or liberated, alone should prevail. There
must be no human image or resemblance of the One Almighty
Father; caste must cease to exist; before Him all men were
equal; Muhammadanism was to be rooted out; social
distinctions, all the solaces of superstition, were to exist
no more; they should call themselves 'Singh' and become a
nation of soldiers. The multitude received Govind's
propositions with rapture. By a wave of the hand he found
himself the trusted leader of a confederacy of warriors in a
nation whose institutions were decaying. About 1695, twelve
years before the death of Aurangzile, Govind put his schemes
into practice. He secured many forts in the hill-country of
the Panjab, defeated the Mughul troops in several encounters,
and established himself as a thorn in the side of the empire."
But more than half a century of struggle with Moghul, Afghan
and Mahratta disputants was endured before the Sikhs became
masters of the Panjab. When they had made their possession
secure, they were no longer united. They were "divided into 12
confederacies or misls, each of which had its chief equal in
authority to his brother chiefs, … and it was not until 1784
that a young chieftain named Maha Singh gained, mainly by
force of arms, a position which placed him above his fellows."
The son of Maha Singh was Ranjit Singh, or Runjet Singh, who
established his sovereignty upon a solid footing, made terms
with his English neighbors (see INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816), and
extended his dominions by the capture of Multan in 1818, by
the conquest of Kashmere in 1819-20, and by the acquisition of
Peshawar in 1823.
_G. B. Malleson,
The Decisive Battles of India,
chapter 11._
The wars of the Sikhs with the English, in 1845-6, and 1848-9,
the conquest and annexation of their country to British India,
and the after-career in exile of Dhuleep Singh, the heir, are
related under INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849, and 1849-1893.
ALSO IN:
_J. D. Cunningham,
History of the Sikhs._
_Sir L. Griffin,
Ranjit Singh._
SIKSIKAS,
SISIKAS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.
SIKYON.
See SICYON.
SILBURY HILL.
See ABURY.
SILCHESTER, Origin of.
See CALLEVA.
----------SILESIA: Start--------
SILESIA:
Origin of the name:
See LYGIANS.
SILESIA: 9th Century.
Included in the kingdom of Moravia.
See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.
SILESIA: A. D. 1355.
Declared an integral part of Bohemia.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.
SILESIA: A. D. 1618.
Participation in the Bohemian revolt.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
SILESIA: A. D. 1633.
Campaign of Wallenstein.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.
SILESIA: A. D. 1648.
Religious concessions in the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
SILESIA: A. D. 1706.
Rights of the Protestants asserted and enforced by
Charles XII. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
SILESIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
Invasion and conquest by Frederick the Great.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
SILESIA: A. D. 1742.
Ceded to Prussia by the Treaty of Breslau.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE).
SILESIA: A. D. 1748.
Cession to Prussia confirmed.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.
SILESIA: A. D. 1757.
Overrun by the Austrians.
Recovered by Frederick the Great.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).
SILESIA: A. D. 1758.
Again occupied by the Austrians.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.
SILESIA: A. D. 1760-1762.
Last campaigns of the Seven Years War.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1760; and 1761-1762.
SILESIA: A. D. 1763.
Final surrender to Prussia.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: A. D. 1763.
----------SILESIA: End--------
SILESIAN WARS, The First and Second.
The part which Frederick the Great took in the War of the
Austrian Succession, in 1740-1741, when he invaded and took
possession of Silesia, and in 1743-1745 when he resumed arms
to make his conquest secure, is commonly called the First
Silesian War and the Second Silesian War.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741; 1743-1744; and 1744-1745.
SILESIAN WARS, The Third.
The Seven Years War has been sometimes so-called.
See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1755-1756.
SILINGI, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
SILISTRIA: A. D. 1828-1829.
Siege and capture by the Russians.
See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.
SILK MANUFACTURE; transferred from Greece to Sicily and Italy.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
SILLERY, The Mission at.
See CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.
SILO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 774-783.
SILOAM INSCRIPTION, The.
A very ancient and most important inscription which was
discovered in 1880 on the wall of a rock-cut channel leading
into the so-called Pool of Siloam, at Jerusalem. It relates
only to the excavating of the tunnel which carries water to
the Pool, "yet its importance epigraphically and
philologically is immense. … It shows us that several
centuries must have elapsed, during which the modifications of
form which distinguish the Phoenician, the Moabite and the
Hebrew scripts gradually developed, and that the Hebrews,
therefore, would probably have been in possession of the art
of writing as early at least as the time of Solomon."
_C. R. Conder,
Syrian Stone-Lore,
page 118._
{2910}
SILPHIUM.
See CYRENAICA.
SILURES, The.
An ancient tribe in southern Wales, supposed by some to
represent a mixture of the Celtic and pre-Celtic inhabitants
of Britain.
See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN;
also, BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.
The conquest of the Silures was effected by Claudius.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.
SILVER-GRAYS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
SILVER QUESTION, in America, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1873, 1878, 1890-1893;
also MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893, and 1853-1874.
SILVER QUESTION, in India, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1893.
SIMNEL, Lambert, Rebellion of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1487-1497.
SIMPACH, Battle of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
SIN.
SINÆ.
See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
SINDH.
See SCINDE.
SINDMAN, The.
See COMITATUS.
SINGARA, Battle of (A. D.348).
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
SINGIDUNUM.
See BELGRADE.
SINIM.
See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
SINITES, The.
A Canaanite tribe whose country was the mountain chain of
Lebanon.
SINSHEIM, Battle of (1674).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
SION.
See JERUSALEM: CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION BY DAVID.
SIOUX, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
SIPPARA, The exhumed Library of.
See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.
SIRBONIS LAKE.
See SERBONIAN BOG.
SIRIS.
SIRITIS.
THURII.
METAPONTIUM.
TARENTUM.
"Between the point [on the Tarentine gulf, southeastern Italy]
where the dominion of Sybaris terminated on the Tarentine
side, and Tarentum itself, there were two considerable Grecian
settlements—Siris, afterwards called Herakleia, and
Metapontium. The fertility and attraction of the territory of
Siris, with its two rivers, Akiris and Sins, were well-known
even to the poet Archilochus (660 B. C.). but we do not know
the date at which it passed from the indigenous Chonians, or
Chaonians into the hands of Greek settlers. … At the time of
the invasion of Greece by Xerxes, the fertile territory of
Siritis was considered as still open to be colonised; for the
Athenians, when their affairs appeared desperate, had this
scheme of emigration in reserve as a possible resource. … At
length, after the town of Thurii had been founded by Athens
[B. C. 443, under the administration of Perikles; the
historian Herodotus and the orator Lycias being among the
settlers], in the vicinity of the dismantled Sybaris, the
Thurians tried to possess themselves of the Siritid territory,
but were opposed by the Tarentines. According to the
compromise concluded between them, Tarentum was recognised as
the metropolis of the colony, but joint possession was allowed
both to Tarentines and Thurians. The former transferred the
site of the city, under the new name Herakleia, to a spot
three miles from the sea, leaving Siris as the place of
maritime access to it. About twenty-five miles eastward of
Siris, on the coast of the Tarentine gulf, was situated
Metapontium, a Greek town, … planted on the territory of the
Chonians, or Œnotrians; but the first colony is said to have
been destroyed by an attack of the Samnites, at what period we
do not know. It had been founded by some Achæan settlers. …
The fertility of the Metapontine territory was hardly less
celebrated than that of the Siritid. Farther eastward of
Metapontium, again at the distance of about twenty-five miles,
was situated the great city of Taras, or Tarentum, a colony
from Sparta founded after the first Messenian war, seemingly
about 707 B. C. … The Tarentines … stand first among the
Italiots, or Italian Greeks, from the year 400 B. C. down to
the supremacy of the Romans."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22._
SIRKARS, OR CIRCARS, The Northern.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
SIRMIUM.
Sirmium (modern Mitrovitz, on the Save) was the Roman capital
of Pannonia, and an important center of all military
operations in that region.
SIRMIUM:
Ruined by the Huns.
See HUNS: A. D. 441-446.
SIRMIUM:
Captured by the Avars.
See AVARS.
SISECK, Siege and Battle of (1592).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
SISINNIUS, Pope, A. D. 708, January to February.
SISSETONS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
SISTOVA, Treaty of (1791).
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
SITABALDI HILLS, Battle of the (1817).
See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.
SITVATOROK, Treaty of (1606).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
SIX ACTS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
SIX ARTICLES, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.
SIX HUNDRED, The Charge of the.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
SIX NATIONS OF INDIANS.
See FIVE NATIONS.
SIXTEEN OF THE LEAGUE, in Paris, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
SIXTUS IV., Pope, A. D. 1471-1484.
SIXTUS V., Pope, 1585-1590.
SKALDS.
See SCALDS.
SKINNERS.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
SKITTAGETAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.
SKOBELEFF, General, Campaigns of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881;
and TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
SKODRA (Scutari).
See ILLYRIANS.
SKRÆLINGS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.
SKUPTCHINA.
The Servian parliament or legislature.
{2911}
SKYTALISM.
See SCYTALISM.
SLAVE:
Origin of the servile signification of the word.
The term slave, in its signification of a servile state, is
derived undoubtedly from the name of the Slavic or Sclavic
people. "This conversion of a national into an appellative
name appears to have arisen in the eighth century, in the
Oriental France [Austrasia], where the princes and bishops
were rich in Sclavonian captives, not of the Bohemian
(exclaims Jordan), but of Sorabian race. From thence the word
was extended to general use, to the modern languages, and even
to the style of the last Byzantines."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 55, foot-note._
See, also, AVARS; and SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
SLAVE OR MAMELUKE DYNASTY OF INDIA, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.
SLAVE RISING UNDER SPARTACUS.
See SPARTACUS;
and ROME: B. C. 78-68.
SLAVE TRADE, First measures for the suppression of the.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.
SLAVE WARS IN SICILY AND ITALY.
After the Romans became masters of Sicily the island was
filled rapidly with slaves, of which a vast number were being
continually acquired in the Roman wars of conquest. Most of
these slaves were employed as shepherds and herdsmen on great
estates, the owners of which gave little attention to them,
simply exacting in the most merciless fashion a satisfactory
product. The result was that the latter, half perishing from
hunger and cold, were driven to desperation, and a frightful
rising among them broke out, B. C. 133. It began at Enna, and
its leader was a Syrian called Eunus, who pretended to
supernatural powers. The inhabitants of Enna were massacred,
and that town became the stronghold of the revolt. Eunus
crowned himself and assumed the royal name of Antiochus.
Agrigentum, Messana and Tauromenium fell into the hands of the
insurgents, and more than a year passed before they were
successfully resisted. When, at last, they were overcome, it
was only at the end of most obstinate sieges, particularly at
Tauromenium and Enna, and the vengeance taken was without
mercy. In Italy there were similar risings at the same time,
from like causes, but these latter were quickly suppressed.
Thirty years later a second revolt of slaves was provoked,
both in southern Italy and in Sicily,—suppressed promptly in
the former, but growing to seriousness in the latter. The
Sicilian slaves had two leaders, Salvius and Athenio; but the
former established his ascendancy and called himself king
Triphon. The rebellion was suppressed at the cost of two heavy
battles.
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 48,
and book 6, chapter 55._
ALSO IN:
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
chapter 9._
----------SLAVERY: Start--------
SLAVERY: Ancient.
Among the Oriental races.
"From the writings of the Old Testament a fairly distinct
conception can be formed of slavery among the Hebrews. Many
modern critics hold the picture presented in the Book of
Genesis, of the patriarchal age, its slavery included, to be
not a transcript of reality, but an idealisation of the past.
Whether this is so or not, can only be properly decided by the
historico-critical investigations of specialists. Although the
Hebrews are described as having shown extreme ferocity in the
conquest of Canaan, their legislation as to slavery was, on
the whole, considerate and humane. Slaves were not numerous
among them, at least after the exile. Hebrew slavery has
naturally been the subject of much research and controversy.
The best treatise regarding it is still that of Mielziner.
Slavery in the great military empires, which arose in ancient
times in anterior Asia, was doubtless of the most cruel
character; but we have no good account of slavery in these
countries. The histories of Rawlinson, Duncker, Ranke, Ed.
Meyer, and Maspero, tell us almost nothing about Chaldean,
Assyrian, and Medo-Persian slavery. Much more is known as to
slavery, and the condition of the labouring classes, in
ancient Egypt, although of even this section of the history
there is much need for an account in which the sources of
information, unsealed by modern science, will be fully
utilised. While in Egypt there were not castes, in the strict
sense of the term, classes were very rigidly defined. There
were troops of slaves, and as population was superabundant,
labour was so cheap as to be employed to an enormous extent
uselessly. It may suffice to refer to Wilkinson, Rawlinson,
and Buckle. It does not seem certain that the Vedic Aryans had
slaves before the conquest of India. Those whom they conquered
became the Sudras, and a caste system grew up, and came to be
represented as of divine appointment. The two lower castes of
the Code of Manu have now given place to a great many. There
was not a slave caste, but individuals of any caste might
become slaves in exceptional circumstances. Even before the
rise of Buddhism there were ascetics who rejected the
distinction of castes. Buddhism proclaimed the religious
equality of Brahmans and Sudras, but not the emancipation of
the Sudras."
_R. Flint,
History of the Philosophy of History: France, etc.,
pages 128-129._
ALSO IN:
_E. J. Simcox,
Primitive Civilizations._
SLAVERY:
Among the Greeks.
"The institution of slavery in Greece is very ancient; it is
impossible to trace its origin, and we find it even in the
very earliest times regarded as a necessity of nature, a point
of view which even the following ages and the most enlightened
philosophers adopted. In later times voices were heard from
time to time protesting against the necessity of the
institution, showing some slight conception of the idea of
human rights, but these were only isolated opinions. From the
very earliest times the right of the strongest had established
the custom that captives taken in war, if not killed or
ransomed, became the slaves of the conquerors, or were sold
into slavery by them. … Besides the wars, piracy, originally
regarded as by no means dishonourable, supplied the slave
markets; and though in later times endeavours were made to set
a limit to it, yet the trade in human beings never ceased,
since the need for slaves was considerable, not only in
Greece, but still more in Oriental countries.
{2912}
In the historic period the slaves in Greece were for the most
part barbarians, chiefly from the districts north of the
Balkan peninsula and Asia Minor. The Greek dealers supplied
themselves from the great slave markets held in the towns on
the Black Sea and on the Asiatic coast of the Archipelago, not
only by the barbarians themselves, but even by Greeks, in
particular the Chians, who carried on a considerable slave
trade. These slaves were then put up for sale at home; at
Athens there were special markets held for this purpose on the
first of every month. … A large portion of the slave
population consisted of those who were born in slavery; that
is, the children of slaves or of a free father and slave
mother, who as a rule also became slaves, unless the owner
disposed otherwise. We have no means of knowing whether the
number of these slave children born in the houses in Greece
was large or small. At Rome thy formed a large proportion of
the slave population, but the circumstances in Italy differed
greatly from those in Greece, and the Roman landowners took as
much thought for the increase of their slaves as of their
cattle. Besides these two classes of slave population, those
who were taken in war or by piracy and those who were born
slaves, there was also a third, though not important, class.
In early times even free men might become slaves by legal
methods; for instance foreign residents, if they neglected
their legal obligations, and even Greeks, if they were
insolvent, might be sold to slavery by their creditors [see
DEBT: ANCIENT GREEK], a severe measure which was forbidden by
Solon's legislation at Athens, but still prevailed in other
Greek states. Children, when exposed, became the property of
those who found and educated them, and in this manner many of
the hetaerae and flute girls had become the property of their
owners. Finally, we know that in some countries the Hellenic
population originally resident there were subdued by foreign
tribes, and became the slaves of their conquerors, and their
position differed in but few respects from that of the
barbarian slaves purchased in the markets. Such native serfs
were the Helots at Sparta, the Penestae in Thessaly, the
Clarotae in Crete, etc. We have most information about the
position and treatment of the Helots; but here we must receive
the statements of writers with great caution, since they
undoubtedly exaggerated a good deal in their accounts of the
cruelty with which the Spartans treated the Helots. Still, it
is certain that in many respects their lot was a sad one. …
The rights assigned by law to the master over his slaves were
very considerable. He might throw them in chains, put them in
the stocks, condemn them to the hardest labour —for instance,
in the mills—leave them without food, brand them, punish them
with stripes, and attain the utmost limit of endurance; but,
at any rate at Athens, he was forbidden to kill them. … Legal
marriages between slaves were not possible, since they
possessed no personal rights; the owner could at any moment
separate a slave family again, and sell separate members of
it. On the other hand, if the slaves were in a position to
earn money, they could acquire fortunes of their own; they
then worked on their own account, and only paid a certain
proportion to their owners, keeping the rest for themselves,
and when they had saved the necessary amount they could
purchase their freedom, supposing the owner was willing to
agree, for he was not compelled. … The protection given to
slaves by the State was very small, but here again there were
differences in different states. … It would be impossible to
make a guess at the number of slaves in Greece. Statements on
the subject are extant, but these are insufficient to give us
any general idea. There can be no doubt that the number was a
very large one; it was a sign of the greatest poverty to own
no slaves at all, and Aeschines mentions, as a mark of a very
modest household, that there were only seven slaves to six
persons. If we add to these domestic slaves the many thousands
working in the country, in the factories, and the mines, and
those who were the property of the State and the temples,
there seems no doubt that their number must have considerably
exceeded that of the free population."
_H. Blümner,
The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks,
chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern,
lectures 2-3, third course (volume 2)._
SLAVERY:
Among the Romans.
Slavery, under the Roman Empire, "was carried to an excess
never known elsewhere, before or since.
See ROME: B. C. 159-133.
Christianity found It permeating and corrupting every domain
of human life, and in six centuries of conflict succeeded in
reducing it to nothing. … Christianity, in the early ages,
never denounced slavery as a crime; never encouraged or
permitted the slaves to rise against their masters and throw
off the yoke; yet she permeated the minds of both masters and
slaves with ideas utterly inconsistent with the spirit of
slavery. Within the Church, master and slave stood on an
absolute equality."
_W. R. Brownlow,
Lectures on Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
lectures 1-2._
SLAVERY: Mediæval and Modern.
SLAVERY:
Villeinage.
Serfdom.
"The persons employed in cultivating the ground during the
ages under review [the 7th to the 11th centuries, in Europe]
may be divided into three classes:
I. 'Servi,' or slaves. This seems to have been the most
numerous class, and consisted either of captives taken in war,
or of persons the property in whom was acquired in some one of
the various methods enumerated by Du Cange, voc. Servus,
volume vi. page 447. The wretched condition of this numerous
race of men will appear from several circumstances.
1. Their masters had absolute dominion over their persons.
They had the power of punishing their slaves capitally,
without the intervention of any judge. This dangerous right
they possessed not only in the more early periods, when their
manners were fierce, but it continued as late as the 12th
century. … Even after this jurisdiction of masters came to be
restrained, the life of a slave was deemed to be of so little
value that a very slight compensation atoned for taking it
away. If masters had power over the lives of their slaves, it
is evident that almost no bounds would be set to the rigour of
the punishments which they might inflict upon them. … The
cruelty of these was, in many instances, excessive. Slaves
might be put to the rack on very slight occasions. The laws
with respect to these points are to be found in Potgiesserus,
lib. iii. cap. 7. 2. and are shocking to humanity.
{2913}
2. If the dominion of masters over the lives and persons of
their slaves was thus extensive, it was no less so over their
actions and property. They were not originally permitted to
marry. Male and female slaves were allowed, and even
encouraged, to cohabit together. But this union was not
considered as a marriage. … When the manners of the European
nations became more gentle, and their ideas more liberal,
slaves who married without their master's consent were
subjected only to a fine. …
3. All the children of slaves were in the same condition with
their parents, and became the property of their master. …
4. Slaves were so entirely the property of their masters that
they could sell them at pleasure. While domestic slavery
continued, property in a slave was sold in the same manner
with that which a person had in any other moveable. Afterwards
slaves became 'adscripti glebæ,' and were conveyed by sale,
together with the farm or estate to which they belonged. …
5. Slaves had a title to nothing but subsistence and clothes
from their master; all the profits of their labour accrued to
him. …
6. Slaves were distinguished from freemen by a peculiar dress.
Among all the barbarous nations, long hair was a mark of
dignity and of freedom; slaves were for that reason, obliged
to shave their heads. …
II. 'Villani.' They were likewise 'adscripti glebæ,' or
'villæ,' from which they derived their name, and were
transferable along with it. Du Cange, voc. Villanus. But in
this they differed from slaves, that they paid a fixed rent to
their master for the land which they cultivated, and, after
paying that, all the fruits of their labour and industry
belonged to themselves in property. This distinction is marked
by Pierre de Fontain's Conseil. Vie de St. Louis par
Joinville, page 119, édit. de Du Cange. Several cases decided
agreeably to this principle are mentioned by Muratori, ibid,
page 773.
III. The last class of persons employed in agriculture were
freemen. … Notwithstanding the immense difference between the
first of these classes and the third, such was the spirit of
tyranny which prevailed among the great proprietors of lands …
that many freemen, in despair, renounced their liberty, and
voluntarily surrendered themselves as slaves to their powerful
masters. This they did in order that their masters might
become more immediately interested to afford them protection,
together with the means of subsisting themselves and their
families. … It was still more common for freemen to surrender
their liberty to bishops or abbots, that they might partake of
the security which the vassals and slaves of churches and
monasteries enjoyed. … The number of slaves in every nation of
Europe was immense. The greater part of the inferior class of
people in France were reduced to this state at the
commencement of the third race of kings. Esprit des Loix, liv.
xxx. c. ii. The same was the case in England. Brady, Pref. to
Gen. Hist. … The humane spirit of the christian religion
struggled long with the maxims and manners of the world, and
contributed more than any other circumstance to introduce the
practice of manumission. … The formality of manumission was
executed in a church, as a religious solemnity. … Another
method of obtaining liberty was by entering into holy orders,
or taking the vow in a monastery. This was permitted for some
time; but so many slaves escaped by this means out of the
hands of their masters that the practice was afterwards
restrained, and at last prohibited, by the laws of almost all
the nations of Europe. … Great … as the power of religion was,
it does not appear that the enfranchisement of slaves was a
frequent practice while the feudal system preserved its
vigour. … The inferior order of men owed the recovery of their
liberty to the decline of that aristocratical policy."
_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
notes 9 and 20._
ALSO IN:
_A. Gurowski,
Slavery in History,
chapters 15-20._
_T. Smith,
Arminius,
part 3, chapter 5._
See, also, DEDITITIUS.
SLAVERY: England.
Villeinage.
"Chief of all causes [of slavery] in early times and among all
peoples was capture in war. The peculiar nature of the English
conquests, the frequent wars between the different kingdoms
and the private expeditions for revenge or plunder would
render this a fruitful means whereby the number of slaves
would increase on English soil. In this way the Romanized
Briton, the Welshman, the Angle and Saxon and the Dane would
all go to swell the body of those without legal status. In
those troubled times any were liable to a reduction to
slavery; the thegn might become a thrall, the lord might
become the slave of one who had been in subjection under him,
and Wulfstan, in that strong sermon of his to the English
[against Slavery—preserved by William of Malmesbury], shows
that all this actually took place. It was at the time of the
Danish invasion and the sermon seems to point clearly to a
region infested by Danes, a region in which was the seat of
Wulfstan's labors, for he was Archbishop of York from 1002 to
1023. Wulfstan's graphic picture does not seem to be
corroborated by the evidence of the Domesday Survey. Mr.
Seebohm's map shows that in the west and southwest there
appears the greatest percentage in that record; that in
Gloucestershire nearly one fourth of the population,
twenty-four per cent., were in a state of slavery; that in
Cornwall, Devon, and Stafford the proportion was only one to
every five; in central England about one to every seven; in
the east, Essex, Surrey, Cambridge and Herts one to every
nine; in East Anglia and Wessex one to every twenty-five,
while in the northerly districts in Nottinghamshire one to two
hundred is given, and in York, Rutland, Huntingdon and Lincoln
no slaves at all are recorded. From this it is evident that
the Danish invasion was less serious from this point of view
than had been the original conquest. Domesday records the
social condition 500 years after the settlement, and many
influences, with Christianity as the primary, were at work to
alter the results of that movement. The main inference to be
drawn is that the continued warfare along the Welsh marches
replenished the supply in the west, while in the east the
slave element was rapidly decreasing and in the north,
notwithstanding the Danish invasion, there was rather a
commingling of peoples than a subjection of the one by the
other. A second cause was the surrender into slavery of the
individual's own body either by himself or a relative. This
could be voluntary, the free act of the individual or his
relatives, or it could be forced, resulting from the storm and
stress of evil days: This surrender was one of the most
unfortunate phases of the Anglo-Saxon servitude and indicates
to us the growing increase of the traffic in slaves; and the
personal subjection was largely the outcome of that which was
common to all peoples, the demand for slaves.
{2914}
Even as early as the time of Strabo, in the half century
following Cæsar's conquest, the export of slaves began in
Britain and before the Norman Conquest the sale of slaves had
become a considerable branch of commerce. The insular position
of England, her numerous ports, of which Bristol was one of
the chief, gave rise during the Saxon occupation to a traffic
in the slaves of all nations, and we know that slaves were
publicly bought and sold throughout England and from there
transported to Ireland or the continent. It was the prevalence
of this practice and the wretched misery which it brought upon
so many human beings, as well as the fact that it was against
the precepts if not the laws of the church, that led Wulfstan,
the Wilberforce of his time, to bring about the cessation of
the slave trade at Bristol. From this place lines of women and
children, gathered together from all England, were carried
into Ireland and sold. … Besides this sale into slavery for
purposes of traffic, which as a regular commerce was not
prohibited until after the Norman conquest, many seem to have
submitted themselves to the mastery of another through the
need of food, which a year of famine might bring. A charter in
the Codex Diplomaticus tells us of those men who bowed their
heads for their meat in the evil days. Kemble thinks that such
cases might have been frequent and Simeon of Durham, writing
of the year 1069 when there was a dreadful famine in England,
which raged particularly in the north, says that many sold
themselves into slavery, that they might receive the needed
support. … Even so late as the so-called laws of Henry I, such
an act was recognized and a special procedure provided. … In
addition to all those thus born into slavery or reduced to
that condition in the ways above noted, there was another
class made up of such as were reduced to slavery unwillingly
as a penalty for debt or crime: these were known as
'witetheowas' or 'wite-fæstanmen.' … The legal condition of
the slave was a particularly hard one; as a thing, not as a
person, he was classed with his lord's goods and cattle and
seems to have been rated according to a similar schedule, to
be disposed of at the lord's pleasure like his oxen or horses.
… They had no legal rights before the law and could bear no
arms save the cudgel, the 'billum vel strublum,' as the laws
of Henry I call it. Yet the position of the slave appears to
have improved in the history of Anglo-Saxon law. … Hardly any
part of the work of the Church was of greater importance than
that which related to the moral and social elevation of the
slave class. Its influence did much to mitigate their hard
lot, both directly and indirectly."
_C. McL. Andrews,
The Old English Manor,
page 181-188._
The Domesday Survey "attests the existence [in England, at the
time of the Norman Conquest] of more than 25,000 servi, who
must be understood to be, at the highest estimate of their
condition, landless labourers; over 82,000 bordarii; nearly
7,000 cotarii and cotseti, whose names seem to denote the
possession of land or houses held by service of labour or rent
paid in produce; and nearly 110,000 villani. Above these were
the liberi homines and sokemanni, who seem to represent the
medieval and modern freeholder. The villani of Domesday are no
doubt the ceorls of the preceding period, the men of the
township, the settled cultivators of the land, who in a
perfectly free state of society were the owners of the soil
they tilled, but under the complicated system of rights and
duties which marked the close of the Anglo-Saxon period had
become dependent on a lord, and now under the prevalence of
the feudal idea were regarded as his customary tenants;
irremoveable cultivators, who had no proof of their title but
the evidence of their fellow ceorls. For two centuries after
the Conquest the villani are to be traced in the possession of
rights both social and to a certain extent political. … They
are spoken of by the writers of the time as a distinct order
of society, who, although despicable for ignorance and
coarseness, were in possession of considerable comforts, and
whose immunities from the dangers of a warlike life
compensated for the somewhat unreasoning contempt with which
they were viewed by clerk and knight. During this time the
villein could assert his rights against every oppressor but
his master; and even against his master the law gave him a
standing-ground if he could make his complaint known to those
who had the will to maintain it. But there can be little doubt
that the Norman knight practically declined to recognise the
minute distinctions of Anglo-Saxon dependence, and that the
tendency of both law and social habit was to throw into the
class of native or born villeins the whole of the population
described in Domesday under the heads of servi, bordarii and
villani."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 11, section 132._
"It has become a commonplace to oppose medieval serfdom to
ancient slavery, one implying dependence on the lord of the
soil and attachment to the glebe, the other being based on
complete subjection to an owner. … If, from a general survey
of medieval servitude we turn to the actual condition of the
English peasantry, say in the 13th century, the first fact we
have to meet will stand in very marked contrast to our general
proposition. The majority of the peasants are villains, and
the legal conception of villainage has its roots not in the
connexion of the villain with the soil, but in his personal
dependence on the lord. … As to the general aspect of
villainage in the legal theory of English feudalism there can
be no doubt. The 'Dialogus de Scaccario' gives it in a few
words: the lords are owners not only of the chattels but of
the bodies of their 'ascripticii,' they may transfer them
wherever they please, 'and sell or otherwise alienate them if
they like.' Glanville and Bracton, Fleta and Britton follow in
substance the same doctrine, although they use different
terms. They appropriate the Roman view that there is no
difference of quality between serfs and serfs: all are in the
same abject state. Legal theory keeps a very firm grasp of the
distinction between status and tenure, between a villain and a
free man holding in villainage, but it does not admit of any
distinction of status among serfs: 'servus,' 'villanus' and
'nativus' are equivalent terms as to personal condition,
although this last is primarily meant to indicate something
else besides condition, namely, the fact that a person has
come to it by birth. … Manorial lords could remove peasants
from their holdings at their will and pleasure. An appeal to
the courts was of no avail.
{2915}
… Nor could the villain have any help as to the amount and
nature of his services; the King's Courts will not examine any
complaint in this respect, and may sometimes go so far as to
explain that it is no business of theirs to interfere between
the lord and his man. … Even as to his person, the villain was
liable to be punished and put into prison by the lord, if the
punishment inflicted did not amount to loss of life or injury
to his body. … It is not strange that in view of such
disabilities Bracton thought himself entitled to assume
equality of condition between the English villain and the
Roman slave, and to use the terms 'servus,' 'villanus,' and
'nativus' indiscriminately."
_P. Vinogradoff,
Villainage in England,
chapter 1._
"Serfdom is met with for the last time in the statute-book of
England under Richard II. By reason of the thriving condition
of the towns, many villeins who had betaken themselves
thither, partly with the consent of their owners and partly in
secret, became free. If a slave remained a year and a day in a
privileged town without being reclaimed in the interval, he
became free. The wars carried on against France, the fact that
serf-labour had become more expensive than that of free-men,
thus rendering emancipation an 'economical' consideration, and
finally, frequent uprisings, contributed to diminish the
number of these poor helots. How rapidly serfdom must have
fallen away may be inferred from the fact that the rebels
under Wat Tyler, in 1381, clamored for the removal of serfdom;
the followers of Jack Cade, in 1450, for everything else save
the abolition of slavery. … The few purchasable slaves under
the Tudors were met with only on the property of the churches,
the monasteries, and the bishoprics. This slavery was often of
a voluntary nature. On the king's domains bondmen were only
emancipated by Elizabeth in 1574. The last traces of personal
slavery, and of a subject race permanently annexed to the
soil, are met with in the reign of James I. As a rule, it may
be assumed that, with the Tudors, serfdom disappeared in
England."
_E. Fischel,
The English Constitution,
book 1, chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_F. Hargrave,
Argument in the Case of James Sommersett
(Howell's State Trials, volume 20)._
_W. R. Brownlow,
Slavery and Serfdom in Europe,
lectures 3-4._
See, also, MANORS.
SLAVERY: France.
Villeinage.
On the condition of the servile classes in Gaul during the
first five or six centuries after the barbarian conquest.
See GAUL: 5-10TH CENTURIES.
"In the Salic laws, and in the Capitularies, we read not only
of Servi, but of Tributarii, Lidi, and Coloni, who were
cultivators of the earth, and subject to residence upon their
lord's estate, though not destitute of property or civil
rights. Those who appertained to the demesne lands of the
crown were called Fiscalini. … The number of these servile
cultivators was undoubtedly great, yet in those early times, I
should conceive, much less than it afterwards became. … The
accumulation of overgrown private wealth had a natural
tendency to make slavery more frequent. … As the labour either
of artisans or of free husbandmen was but sparingly in demand,
they were often compelled to exchange their liberty for bread.
In seasons, also, of famine, and they were not unfrequent,
many freemen sold themselves to slavery. … Others became
slaves, as more fortunate men became vassals, to a powerful
lord, for the sake of his protection. Many were reduced into
this state through inability to pay those pecuniary
compositions for offences which were numerous and sometimes
heavy in the barbarian codes of law; and many more by neglect
of attendance on military expeditions of the king, the penalty
of which was a fine called Heribann, with the alternative of
perpetual servitude. … The characteristic distinction of a
villein was his obligation to remain upon his lord's estate. …
But, equally liable to this confinement, there were two
classes of villeins, whose condition was exceedingly
different. In England, at least from the reign of Henry II.,
one only, and that the inferior species, existed; incapable of
property, and destitute of redress, except against the most
outrageous injuries. … But by the customs of France and
Germany, persons in this abject state seem to have been called
serfs, and distinguished from villeins, who were only bound to
fixed payments and duties. … Louis Hutin, in France, after
innumerable particular instances of manumission had taken
place, by a general edict in 1315, reciting that his kingdom
is denominated the kingdom of the Franks, that he would have
the fact to correspond with the name, emancipates all persons
in the royal domains upon paying a just composition, as an
example for other lords possessing villeins to follow. Philip
the Long renewed the same edict three years afterwards; a
proof that it had not been carried into execution. … It is not
generally known, I think, that predial servitude was not
abolished in all parts of France till the revolution. In some
places, says Pasquier, the peasants are taillables à volonté,
that is, their contribution is not permanent, but assessed by
the lord with the advice of prud'hommes, resseants sur les
lieux, according to the peasant's ability. Others pay a fixed
sum. Some are called serfs de poursuite, who cannot leave
their habitations, but may be followed by the lord into any
part of France for the taille upon their goods. … Nor could
these serfs, or gens de mainmorte, as they were sometimes
called, be manumitted without letters patent of the king,
purchased by a fine.-Recherches de la France, l. iv., c. 5.
Dubos informs us that, in 1615, the Tiers État prayed the king
to cause all serfs (hommes de pooste) to be enfranchised on
paying a composition, but this was not complied with, and they
existed in many parts when he wrote."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 2, part 2, and foot-note (volume 1)._
"The last traces of serfdom could only be detected [at the
time of the Revolution] in one or two of the eastern provinces
annexed to France by conquest; everywhere else the institution
had disappeared; and indeed its abolition had occurred so long
before that even the date of it was forgotten. The researches
of archæologists of our own day have proved that as early as
the 13th century serfdom was no longer to be met with in
Normandy."
_A. de Tocqueville,
State of Society in France before the Revolution of 1789,
book 2, chapter 1._
{2916}
SLAVERY:
Germany.
"As the great distinction in the German community was between
the nobles and the people, so amongst the people was the
distinction between the free and the servile. Next to those
who had the happiness to be freeborn were the Freedmen, whom
the indulgence or caprice of their masters relieved from the
more galling miseries of thraldom. But though the Freedman was
thus imperfectly emancipated, he formed a middle grade between
the Freeman and the Slave. He was capable of possessing
property; but was bound to pay a certain rent, or perform a
certain service, to the lord. He was forbidden to marry
without the lord's assent; and he and his children were
affixed to the farm they cultivated. … This mitigated
servitude was called 'Lidum,' and the Freedman, Lidus, Leud,
or Latt. The Lidus of an ecclesiastical master was called
Colonus. … A yet lower class were the Slaves, or Serfs
[Knechte] who were employed in menial or agricultural
services; themselves and their earnings being the absolute
property of their master, and entirely at his disposal. The
number of these miserable beings was gradually increased by
the wars with the Sclavonic nations, and the sale of their
prisoners was one great object of traffic in the German fairs
and markets. But a variety of causes combined to wear out this
abominable system; and as civilization advanced, the
severities of slavery diminished; so that its extinction was
nearly accomplished before the 14th century."
_Sir R. Comyn,
History of the Western Empire,
chapter 27 (volume 2)._
"The following table will show that the abolition of serfdom
in most parts of Germany took place very recently. Serfdom was
abolished:
1. In Baden, in 1783.
2. In Hohenzollern, in 1804.
3. In Schleswig and Holstein, in 1804.
4. In Nassau, in 1808.
5. In Prussia, Frederick William I. had done away with serfdom
in his own domains so early as 1717.
The code of the Great Frederick … was intended to abolish it
throughout the kingdom, but in reality it only got rid of it
in its hardest form, the 'leibeigenschaft,' and retained it in
the mitigated shape of 'erbunterthänigkeit.' It was not till
1809 that it disappeared altogether.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.
6. In Bavaria serfdom disappeared in 1808.
7. A decree of Napoleon, dated from Madrid in 1808, abolished
it in the Grand-duchy of Berg, and in several other smaller
territories, such as Erfurt, Baireuth, &c.
8. In the kingdom of Westphalia, its destruction dates from
1808 and 1809.
9. In the principality of Lippe Detmold, from 1809.
10. In Schomburg Lippe, from 1810.
11. In Swedish Pomerania, from 1810, also.
12. In Hessen Darmstadt, from 1809 and 1811.
13. In Wurtemberg, from 1817.
14. In Mecklenburg, from 1820.
15. In Oldenburgh, from 1814.
16. In Saxony for Lusatia, from 1832.
17. In Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, only from 1833.
18. In Austria, from 1811.
So early as in 1782, Joseph II. had destroyed
'leibeigenschaft;' but serfage in its mitigated form of
'erbunterthänigkeit,' lasted till 1811."
_A. de Tocqueville,
State of Society in France before 1789, note D._
SLAVERY: Hungary and Austria: A. D. 1849.
Completed emancipation of the peasantry.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.
SLAVERY: Ireland: 12th Century.
The Bristol Slave-trade.
See BRISTOL: 12TH CENTURY.
SLAVERY: Moslem relinquishment of Christian slavery.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.
SLAVERY: Papal doctrine of the condemnation of the
Jews to perpetual bondage.
See JEWS: 13-14TH CENTURIES.
SLAVERY: Poland.
"The statements of the Polish nobles and their historians, to
the effect that the peasant was always the hereditary property
of the lord of the manor are false. This relation between
eleven million men and barely half a million masters is an
abuse of the last two hundred years, and was preceded by one
thousand years of a better state of things. Originally the
noble did not even possess jurisdiction over the peasant. It
was wielded by the royal castellans, and in exceptional cases
was bestowed on individual nobles, as a reward for
distinguished services. … Those peasants were free who were
domiciled according to German law, or who dwelt on the land
which they themselves had reclaimed. It was owing to the
feudal lords' need of labourers, that the rest of the peasants
were bound to the soil and could not leave the land without
permission. But the peasant did not belong to the lord, he
could not be sold. … The fact that he could possess land
prevented him from ever becoming a mere serf. … It is
remarkable that the Polish peasant enjoyed these privileges at
a time when villeinage existed in all the rest of Europe, and
that his slavery began when other nations became free.
Villeinage ceased in Germany as early as the 12th and 13th
centuries, except in Mecklenburg, Pomerania, and Lusetia,
which had had a Slavonic population. … In Poland it began in
the 16th century. The kings were forced to promise that they
would grant the peasant no letters of protection against his
lord [Alexander, 1505; Sigismund I., 1543; Sigismund III.,
1588]. Henceforth the lord was to have the right of punishing
his disobedient subjects at his own discretion. … Without the
repeal of a single statute favourable to the peasants, it
became a fundamental principle of the constitution, that
'Henceforth no temporal court in existence can grant the
peasant redress against his lord, though property, honour, or
life be at stake.' The peasant was thus handed over to an
arbitrary power, which had no limit, except that which the
excess of an evil imposes on the evil itself. … There was no
help for the peasant save in the mercy of his lord or in his
own despair. The result was those terrible insurrections of
the peasants—the very threat of which alarmed the nobles—the
ruin of landed property, and the failure of those sources from
which a nation should derive its prosperity and its strength."
_Count von Moltke,
Poland: an Historical Sketch,
chapter 4._
SLAVERY:
Rome, Italy, and the Church.
"It is perhaps hardly surprising that the city of Rome should,
even down to the 16th century, have patronised slavery, and it
was only natural that the rest of Italy should follow the
example of the metropolis of Christianity. The popes were wont
to issue edicts of slavery against whole towns and provinces:
thus for instance did Boniface VIII. against the retainers of
the Colonnas.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1204-13481;
Clement V. against the Venetians; Sixtus IV. against the
Florentines; Gregory XI. against the Florentines;
See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.
Julius II. against the Bolognese and Venetians; and the
meaning of it was, that anyone who could succeed in capturing
any of the persons of the condemned was required to make
slaves of them. The example of Rome encouraged the whole of
Italy, and especially Venice, to carry on a brisk trade in
foreign, and especially female slaves. The privilege which had
sprung up in Rome and lasted for some years, by virtue of
which a slave taking refuge on the Capitol became free, was
abolished in 1548 by Paul III. upon the representation of the
Senate.
{2917}
Rome, of all the great powers of Europe, was the last to
retain slavery. Scholasticism having undertaken in the 13th
century to justify the existing state of things, a theological
sanction was discovered for slavery; Ægidius of Rome, taking
Thomas Aquinas as his authority, declared that it was a
Christian institution, since original sin had deprived man of
any right to freedom."
_J. I. von Döllinger,
Studies in European History,
p. 75._
See, also, CATTANI.
SLAVERY: Russia.
Serfdom and Emancipation.
"In the earliest period of Russian history the rural
population was composed of three distinct classes. At the
bottom of the scale stood the slaves, who were very numerous.
Their numbers were continually augmented by prisoners of war,
by freemen who voluntarily sold themselves as slaves, by
insolvent debtors, and by certain categories of criminals.
Immediately above the slaves were the free agricultural
labourers, who had no permanent domicile, but wandered about
the country and settled temporarily where they happened to
find work and satisfactory remuneration. In the third place,
distinct from these two classes, and in some respects higher
in the social scale, were the peasants properly so called.
These peasants proper, who may be roughly described as small
farmers or cottiers, were distinguished from the free
agricultural labourers in two respects: they were possessors
of land in property or usufruct, and they were members of a
rural Commune. … If we turn now from these early times to the
18th century, we find that the position of the rural
population has entirely changed in the interval. The
distinction between slaves, agricultural labourers, and
peasants has completely disappeared. All three categories have
melted together into a common class, called serfs, who are
regarded as the property of the landed proprietors or of the
State. 'The proprietors [in the words of an imperial ukaze of
April 15, 1721] sell their peasants and domestic servants not
even in families, but one by one, like cattle, as is done
nowhere else in the whole world.'" At the beginning of the
18th century, while the peasantry had "sunk to the condition
of serfs, practically deprived of legal protection and subject
to the arbitrary will of the proprietors, … they were still in
some respects legally and actually distinguished from the
slaves on the one hand and the 'free wandering people' on the
other. These distinctions were obliterated by Peter the Great
and his immediate successors. … To effect his great civil and
military reforms, Peter required an annual revenue such as his
predecessors had never dreamed of, and he was consequently
always on the look-out for some new object of taxation. When
looking about for this purpose, his eye naturally fell on the
slaves, the domestic servants, and the free agricultural
labourers. None of these classes paid taxes. … He caused,
therefore, a national census to be taken, in which all the
various classes of the rural population … should be inscribed
in one category; and he imposed equally on all the members of
this category a poll-tax, in lieu of the former land-tax,
which had lain exclusively on the peasants. To facilitate the
collection of this tax the proprietors were made responsible
for their serfs; and the 'free wandering people' who did not
wish to enter the army were ordered, under pain of being sent
to the galleys, to inscribe themselves as members of a Commune
or as serfs to some proprietor. … The last years of the 18th
century may be regarded as the turning-point in the history of
serfage. Up till that time the power of the proprietors had
steadily increased, and the area of serfage had rapidly
expanded. Under the Emperor Paul we find the first decided
symptoms of a reaction. … With the accession of Alexander I.
in 1801 commenced a long series of abortive projects of a
general emancipation, and endless attempts to correct the more
glaring abuses; and during the reign of Nicholas no less than
six committees were formed at different times to consider the
question. But the practical result of all these efforts was
extremely small."
_D. M. Wallace,
Russia,
chapter 29._
"The reign of Alexander II. [who succeeded Nicholas in 1855],
like that of Alexander I., began with an outburst of reform
enthusiasm in the educated classes. … The serfage question,
which Nicholas had always treated most tenderly, was raised in
a way that indicated an intention of dealing with it boldly
and energetically. Taking advantage of a petition presented by
the Polish landed proprietors of the Lithuanian provinces,
praying that their relations with their serfs might be
regulated in a more satisfactory way—meaning, of course, in a
way more satisfactory for the proprietors—the Emperor
authorized committees to be formed in that part of the country
'for ameliorating the condition of the peasants,' and laid
down the general principles according to which the
amelioration was to be effected. … This was a decided step,
and it was immediately followed by one still more significant.
His Majesty, without consulting his ordinary advisers, ordered
the Minister of the Interior to send to the Governors all over
European Russia copies of the instructions forwarded to the
Governor-General of Lithuania, praising the supposed generous,
patriotic intentions of the Lithuanian landed proprietors, and
suggesting that, perhaps, the landed proprietors of other
provinces might express a similar desire. The hint was, of
course, taken, and in all provinces where serfage existed
emancipation committees were formed. … There were, however,
serious difficulties in the way. The emancipation was not
merely a humanitarian question, capable of being solved
instantaneously by an Imperial ukase. It contained very
complicated problems, affecting deeply the economic, social,
and political future of the nation. … It was universally
admitted that the peasants should not be ejected from their
homes, though their homesteads belonged legally to the
proprietors; but there was great diversity of opinion as to
how much land they should in future enjoy, by what tenure they
should in future hold it, and how the patriarchal, undefined
authority of the landlords should be replaced. … The main
point at issue was whether the serfs should become
agricultural labourers dependent economically and
administratively on the landlords, or should be transformed
into a class of independent communal proprietors. The Emperor
gave his support to the latter proposal, and the Russian
peasantry acquired privileges such as are enjoyed by no other
peasantry in Europe."
_Alexander II.
(Eminent Persons:
Biographies, reprinted from The Times)._
{2918}
"On the 3d of March, 1861 (February, 19, O. S.), the
emancipation act was signed. The rustic population then
consisted of 22,000,000 of common serfs, 3,000,000 of appanage
peasants, and 23,000,000 of crown peasants. The first class
were enfranchised by that act: and a separate law has since
been passed in favor of these crown peasants and appanage
peasants, who are now as free in fact as they formerly were in
name. A certain portion of land, varying in different
provinces according to soil and climate, was affixed to every
'soul'; and government aid was promised to the peasants in
buying their homesteads and allotments. The serfs were not
slow to take this hint. Down to January 1, 1869, more than
half the enfranchised male serfs have taken advantage of this
promise: and the debt now owing from the people to the crown
(that is, to the bondholders) is an enormous sum."
_W. H. Dixon,
Free Russia,
chapter 51._
"Emancipation has utterly failed to realize the ardent
expectations of its advocates and promoters. The great
benefit of the measure was purely moral. It has failed to
improve the material condition of the former serfs, who on
the whole are [1888] worse off than they were before the
Emancipation. The bulk of our peasantry is in a condition not
far removed from actual starvation—a fact which can neither
be denied nor concealed even by the official press."
_Stepniak,
The Russian Peasantry,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
The Empire of the Tsars,
part 1, book 7._
SLAVERY: Modern: Indians.
Barbarity of the Spaniards in America, and
humane labors of Las Casas.
"When Columbus came to Hispaniola on his second voyage [1493],
with 17 ships and 1,500 followers, he found the relations
between red men and white men already hostile, and in order to
get food for so many Spaniards, foraging expeditions were
undertaken, which made matters worse. This state of things led
Columbus to devise a notable expedient. In some of the
neighbouring islands lived the voracious Caribs. In fleets of
canoes they would swoop upon the coasts of Hispaniola, capture
men and women by the score, and carry them off to be cooked
and eaten. Now Columbus wished to win the friendship of the
Indians about him by defending them against these enemies, and
so he made raids against the Caribs, took some of them
captive, and sent them as slaves to Spain, to be taught
Spanish and converted to Christianity, so that they might come
back to the islands as interpreters, and thus be useful aids
in missionary work. It was really, said Columbus, a kindness
to these cannibals to enslave them and send them where they
could be baptized and rescued from everlasting perdition; and
then again they could be received in payment for the cargoes
of cattle, seeds, wine, and other provisions which must be
sent from Spain for the support of the colony. Thus quaintly
did the great discoverer, like so many other good men before
and since, mingle considerations of religion with those of
domestic economy. It is apt to prove an unwholesome mixture.
Columbus proposed such an arrangement to Ferdinand and
Isabella, and it is to their credit that, straitened as they
were for money, they for some time refused to accept it.
Slavery, however, sprang up in Hispaniola before anyone could
have fully realized the meaning of what was going on. As the
Indians were unfriendly and food must be had, while foraging
expeditions were apt to end in plunder and bloodshed, Columbus
tried to regulate matters by prohibiting such expeditions and
in lieu thereof imposing a light tribute or tax upon the
entire population of Hispaniola above 14 years of age. As this
population was dense, a little from each person meant a good
deal in the lump. The tribute might be a small piece of gold
or of cotton, and was to be paid four times a year. … If there
were Indians who felt unable to pay the tribute, they might as
an alternative render a certain amount of personal service in
helping to plant seeds or tend cattle for the Spaniards. No
doubt these regulations were well meant, and if the two races
had been more evenly matched, perhaps they might not so
speedily have developed into tyranny. As it was, they were
like rules for regulating the depredations of wolves upon
sheep. Two years had not elapsed before the alternative of
personal service was demanded from whole villages of Indians
at once. By 1499 the island had begun to be divided into
repartimientos, or shares. One or more villages would be
ordered, under the direction of their native chiefs, to till
the soil for the benefit of some specified Spaniard or
partnership of Spaniards; and such a village or villages
constituted the repartimiento of the person or persons to whom
it was assigned. This arrangement put the Indians into a state
somewhat resembling that of feudal villenage; and this was as
far as things had gone when the administration of Columbus
came abruptly to an end." Queen Isabella disapproved, at
first, of the repartimiento system, "but she was persuaded to
sanction it, and presently in 1503 she and Ferdinand issued a
most disastrous order. They gave discretionary power to Ovando
[who succeeded Columbus in the governorship] to compel Indians
to work, but it must be for wages. They ordered him, moreover,
to see that Indians were duly instructed in the Christian
faith. … The way in which Ovando carried out the order about
missionary work was characteristic. As a member of a religious
order of knights, he was familiar with the practice of
encomienda, by which groups of novices were assigned to
certain preceptors to be disciplined and instructed in the
mysteries of the order. The word encomienda means 'commandery'
or 'preceptory,' and so it came to be a nice euphemism for a
hateful thing. Ovando distributed Indians among the Spaniards
in lots of 50 or 100 or 500, with a deed worded thus: 'To you,
such a one, is given an encomienda of so many Indians, and you
are to teach them the things of our holy Catholic Faith.' In
practice, the last clause was disregarded as a mere formality,
and the effect of the deed was simply to consign a parcel of
Indians to the tender mercies of some Spaniard, to do as he
pleased with them. If the system of repartimientos was in
effect serfdom or villenage, the system of encomiendas was
unmitigated slavery. Such a cruel and destructive slavery has
seldom, if ever, been known. The work of the Indians was at
first largely agricultural, but as many mines of gold were
soon discovered they were driven in gangs to work in the
mines. … In 1500 Ovando was recalled. … Under his successor,
Diego Columbus, there was little improvement. The case had
become a hard one to deal with.
{2919}
There were now what are called 'vested rights,' the rights of
property in slaves, to be respected. But in 1510 there came a
dozen Dominican monks, and they soon decided, in defiance of
vested rights, to denounce the wickedness they saw about
them." Generally, the Spaniards who enjoyed the profit of the
labor of the enslaved Indians hardened their hearts against
this preaching, and were enraged by it; but one among them had
his conscience awakened and saw the guiltiness of the evil
thing. This was Bartolomé de Las Casas, who had joined the
colonists at Hispaniola in 1502 and who had entered the
priesthood in 1510. He owned slaves, whom he now set free, and
he devoted himself henceforth to labors for the reformation of
the system of slavery in the Spanish colonies. In 1516 he won
the ear of Cardinal Ximenes, who appointed a commission of
Hieronymite friars "to accompany Las Casas to the West Indies,
with minute instructions and ample powers for making
investigations and enforcing the laws. Ximenes appointed Las
Casas Protector of the Indians, and clothed him with authority
to impeach delinquent judges or other public officials. The
new regulations, could they have been carried out, would have
done much to mitigate the sufferings of the Indians. They must
be paid wages, they must be humanely treated and taught the
Christian religion. But as the Spanish government needed
revenue, the provision that Indians might be compelled to work
in the mines was not repealed. The Indians must work, and the
Spaniards must pay them. Las Casas argued correctly that so
long as this provision was retained the work of reform would
go but little way. Somebody, however, must work the mines; and
so the talk turned to the question of sending out white
labourers or negroes. … At one time the leading colonists of
Hispaniola had told Las Casas that if they might have license
to import each a dozen negroes, they would coöperate with him
in his plans for setting free the Indians and improving their
condition. … He recalled this suggestion of the colonists, and
proposed it as perhaps the least odious way out of the
difficulty: It is therefore evident that at that period in his
life he did not realize the wickedness of slavery so
distinctly in the case of black men as in the case of red men.
… In later years he blamed himself roundly for making any such
concessions. Had he 'sufficiently considered the matter,' he
would not for all the world have entertained such a suggestion
for a moment. … The extensive development of negro slavery in
the West Indies … did not begin for many years after the
period in the career of Las Casas with which we are now
dealing, and there is nothing to show that his suggestion or
concession was in any way concerned in bringing it about." The
fine story of the life and labours of Las Casas,—of the colony
which he attempted to found on the Pearl Coast of the
mainland, composed of settlers who would work for themselves
and not require slaves, and which was ruined through the
wicked lawlessness of other men,—of the terrible barbarians of
the "Land of War" whom he transformed into peaceful and
devoted Christians,—cannot be told in this place. His final
triumphs in the conflict with slavery were:
1. In 1537, the procuring from Pope Paul III. of a brief
"forbidding the further enslavement of Indians under penalty
of excommunication."
2. In 1542, the promulgation of the New Laws by Charles V.,
the decisive clause in which was as follows: "'We order and
command that henceforward for no cause whatever, whether of
war, rebellion, ransom, or in any other manner, can any Indian
be made a slave.'
This clause was never repealed, and it stopped the spread of
slavery. Other clauses went further, and made such sweeping
provisions for immediate abolition that it proved to be
impossible to enforce them. … The matter was at last
compromised by an arrangement that encomiendas should be
inheritable during two lives, and should then escheat to the
crown. This reversion to the crown meant the emancipation of
the slaves. Meanwhile such provisions were made … that the
dreadful encomienda reverted to the milder form of the
repartimiento. Absolute slavery was transformed into
villenage. In this ameliorated form the system continued."
_J. Fiske,
The Discovery of America,
chapter 11 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_Sir A. Helps,
Spanish Conquest in America._
_Sir A. Helps,
Life of Las Casas._
_G. E. Ellis,
Las Casas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 2, chapter 5)._
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, chapter 5._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1442-1501.
Its beginning in Europe and its establishment in Spanish America.
"The peculiar phase of slavery that will be brought forward in
this history is not the first and most natural one, in which
the slave was merely the captive in war, 'the fruit of the
spear,' as he has figuratively been called, who lived in the
house of his conqueror and laboured at his lands. This system
culminated among the Romans; partook of the fortunes of the
Empire; was gradually modified by Christianity and advancing
civilization; declined by slow and almost imperceptible
degrees into serfage and vassalage; and was extinct, or nearly
so, when the second great period of slavery suddenly uprose.
This second period was marked by a commercial character. The
slave was no longer an accident of war. He had become the
object of war. He was no longer a mere accidental subject of
barter. He was to be sought for, to be hunted out, to be
produced; and this change accordingly gave rise to a new
branch of commerce. Slavery became at once a much more
momentous question than it ever had been, and thenceforth,
indeed, claims for itself a history of its own."
_Sir A. Helps,
The Spanish Conquest in America,
and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
book 1, chapter 1._
"The first negroes imported into Europe after the extinction
of the old pagan slavery were brought in one of the ships of
Prince Henry of Portugal, in the year 1442. There was,
however, no regular trade in negroes established by the
Portuguese; and the importation of human beings fell off,
while that of other articles of commerce increased, until
after the discovery of America. Then the sudden destruction of
multitudes of Indians in war, by unaccustomed labour, by
immense privations, and by diseases new to them, produced a
void in the labour market which was inevitably filled up by
the importation of negroes. Even the kindness and the piety of
the Spanish monarchs tended partly to produce this result.
{2920}
They forbade the enslaving of Indians, and they contrived that
the Indians should live in some manner apart from the
Spaniards; and it is a very significant fact that the great
'Protector of the Indians,' Las Casas, should, however
innocently, have been concerned with the first large grant of
licenses to import negroes into the West India Islands. Again,
the singular hardihood of the negro race, which enabled them
to flourish in all climates, and the comparative debility of
the Indians, also favoured this result. The anxiety of the
Catholic Church for proselytes combined with the foregoing
causes to make the bishops and monks slow to perceive the
mischief of any measure which might tend to save or favour
large communities of docile converts."-
_Sir A. Helps,
The Spanish Conquest in America,
and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
book 21, chapter 5 (volume 4)._
The first notice of the introduction of negro slaves in the
West Indies appears in the instructions given in 1501 to
Ovando, who superseded Columbus in the governorship.
_Sir A. Helps,
The Spanish Conquest in America,
and its Relation to the History of Slavery,
book 3, chapter 1 (volume 1)._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1562-1567.
John Hawkins engages England in the traffic.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1609-1755.
In colonial New York.
"From the settlement of New York by the Dutch in 1609, down to
its conquest by the English in 1664, there is no reliable
record of slavery in that colony. That the institution was
coeval with the Holland government, there can be no historical
doubt. During the half-century that the Holland flag waved
over the New Netherlands, slavery grew to such proportions as
to be regarded as a necessary evil. … The West India Company
had offered many inducements to its patroons. And its pledge
to furnish the colonists with 'as many blacks as they
conveniently could,' was scrupulously performed. … When New
Netherlands became an English colony, slavery received
substantial official encouragement, and the slave became the
subject of colonial legislation. … Most of the slaves in the
Province of New York, from the time they were first
introduced, down to 1664, had been the property of the West
India Company. As such they had small plots of land to work
for their own benefit, and were not without hope of
emancipation some day. But under the English government the
condition of the slave was clearly defined by law and one of
great hardships. On the 24th of October, 1684, an Act was
passed in which slavery was for the first time regarded as a
legitimate institution in the Province of New York under the
English government." After the mad excitement caused by the
pretended Negro Plot of 1741 (see NEW YORK: A. D. 1741) "the
legislature turned its attention to additional legislation
upon the slavery question. Severe laws were passed against the
Negroes. Their personal rights were curtailed until their
condition was but little removed from that of the brute
creation. We have gone over the voluminous records of the
Province of New York, and have not found a single act
calculated to ameliorate the condition of the slave."
_G. W. Williams,
History of the Negro Race in America,
volume 1, chapter 13._
A census of the slaves in the Province of New York was made in
1755, the record of which has been preserved for all except
the most important counties of New York, Albany and Suffolk.
It shows 67 slaves then in Brooklyn.
_Doc. History of New York,
volume 3._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1619.
Introduction in Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.
Beginning and ending in Massachusetts.
In the code of laws called the Body of Liberties, adopted by
the General Court of Massachusetts in 1641, there is the
following provision (Article 91): "There shall never be any
Bond Slavery, Villinage, or Captivity amongst us, unless it be
lawful Captives taken in just Wars, and such strangers as
willingly sell themselves, or are sold to us. And these shall
have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of
God, established in Israel concerning such persons, doth
morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be
judged thereto by authority."
_Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
volume 28, page 231._
"No instance has been discovered of a sale by one man of
himself to another, although the power of doing this was
recognized in the Body of Liberties. But of sales by the way
of punishment for crime, under a sentence of a court, there
are several instances recorded. … Of captives taken in war and
sold into slavery by the colony, the number appears to have
been larger, though it is not easy to ascertain in how many
instances it was done. As a measure of policy, it was adopted
in the case of such as were taken in the early Indian wars. …
It was chiefly confined to the remnants of the Pequod tribe,
and to such as were taken in the war with King Philip. …
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637, and 1676-1678.
If now we recur to negro slavery, it does not appear when it
was first introduced into the colony. … When Josslyn was here
in 1638, he found Mr. Maverick the owner of three negro
slaves. He probably acquired them from a ship which brought
some slaves from the West Indies in that year. And this is the
first importation of which we have any account. But Maverick
was not properly a member of Winthrop's Company. He came here
before they left England, and had his establishment, and lived
by himself, upon Noddle's Island. … The arrival of a
Massachusetts ship with two negroes on board, whom the master
had brought from Africa for sale, in 1645, four years after
the adoption of the Body of Liberties, furnished an
opportunity to test the sincerity of its framers, in seeking
to limit and restrict slavery in the colony. … Upon
information that these negroes had been forcibly seized and
abducted from the coast of Africa by the captain of the
vessel, the magistrates interposed to prevent their being
sold. But though the crime of man-stealing had been committed,
they found they had no cognizance of it, because it had been
done in a foreign jurisdiction. They, however, went as far
towards reaching the wrong done as they could; and not only
compelled the ship-master to give up the men, but sent them
back to Africa, at the charge of the colony. … And they made
this, moreover, an occasion, by an act of legislation of the
General Court, in 1646, 'to bear witness,' in the language of
the act, 'against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing,
as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past, and
such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all
others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most
odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men.' …
In 1767 a bill to restrain the importing of slaves passed the
popular branch of the General Court, but failed in the
Council. Nor would it have availed if it had passed both
branches, because it would have been vetoed by the Governor;
acting under instructions from the Crown.
{2921}
This was shown in 1774, when such a bill did pass both
branches of the General Court, and was thus vetoed. These
successive acts of legislation were a constantly recurring
illustration of the truth of the remark of a modern writer of
standard authority upon the subject, that—'though the
condition of slavery in the colonies may not have been created
by the imperial legislature, yet it may be said with truth
that the colonies were compelled to receive African slaves by
the home government.' … The action of the government [of
Massachusetts] when reorganized under the advice of the
Continental Congress, was shown in September, 1776, in respect
to several negroes who had been taken in an English prize-ship
and brought into Salem to be sold. The General Court, having
learned these facts, put a stop to the sale at once. And this
was accompanied by a resolution on the part of the House—'That
the selling and enslaving the human species is a direct
violation of the natural rights alike vested in them by their
Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the avowed principles
on which this and the other States have carried on their
struggle for liberty.' … In respect to the number of slaves
living here at any one time, no census seems to have been
taken of them prior to 1754. … In 1708, Governor Dudley
estimates the whole number in the colony at 550; 200 having
arrived between 1698 and 1707. Dr. Belknap thinks they were
the most numerous here about 1745. And Mr. Felt, upon careful
calculation, computes their number in 1754 at 4,489. … In
1755, Salem applied to the General Court to suppress slavery.
Boston did the same in 1766, in 1767, and … in 1772. In 1773
the action of the towns was more general and decided." In
1780, the then free state of Massachusetts framed and adopted
a constitution, the opening declaration of which was that
"'all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural,
essential, and unalienable rights.' … When [the next year] the
highest judicial tribunal in the State was called upon to
construe and apply this clause, they gave a response which
struck off the chains from every slave in the commonwealth."
_E. Washburn,
Slavery as it once Prevailed in Massachusetts
(Lowell Inst. Lectures, 1869:
Massachusetts and its Early History, lecture 6)._
ALSO IN:
_W. B. Weeden,
Economic and Social History of New England,
chapters 12 and 22 (volume 2)._
_Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
Fifth Series, v. 3)._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1652.
First Antislavery enactment in Rhode Island.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1651-1652.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1658.
Introduction of slavery in Cape Colony.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1669-1670.
Provided for in Locke's Fundamental Constitutions
for the Carolinas.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1680.
Early importance in South Carolina.
Indian slavery also established.
See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1685-1772.
Black slaves in England.
"The extensive proprietary interests which, during last
century, English merchants and members of the English
aristocracy held in the American colonies and the West Indies,
involved the possession also on their part of many slaves.
Many of these black slaves were trained to act as household
servants and personal attendants, and in this capacity
accompanied their owners when travelling. The presence of
black slaves in this country was therefore not an unfamiliar
sight; but it will perhaps startle many readers to know that
in 1764, according to the estimate of the 'Gentleman's
Magazine' of the period, there were upwards of 20,000 black
slaves domiciled in London alone, and that these slaves were
openly bought and sold on 'Change.' The newspapers of the day
represent these slaves as being upon the whole rather a
trouble to their owners. For one thing, they ceased to
consider themselves 'slaves' in this so-called 'free country';
hence they were often unwilling to work, and when forced to
labour were generally sullen, spiteful, treacherous, and
revengeful. They also frequently, as we shall find from the
press advertisements of the day, made their escape,
necessitating rewards being offered for their recapture. For
instance, in the' London Gazette' for March, 1685, there is an
advertisement to the effect that a black boy of about 15 years
of age, named John White, ran away from Colonel Kirke on the
15th inst. 'He has a silver collar about his neck, upon which
is the colonel's coat of arms and cipher; he has upon his
throat a great scar: &c. A reward is offered for bringing him
back. In the 'Daily Post' of August 4, 1720, is a similar
notice. … Again, in the 'Daily Journal' for September 28,
1728, is an advertisement for a runaway black boy. It is added
that he had the words 'My Lady Bromfield's black in Lincoln's
Inn Fields' engraved on a collar round his neck. … That a
collar was considered as essential for a black slave as for a
dog is shown by an advertisement in the 'London Advertiser'
for 1756, in which Matthew Dyer, working-goldsmith at the
Crown in Duck Lane, Orchard Street, Westminster, intimates to
the public that he makes' silver padlocks for Blacks or Dogs;
collars,' &c. … In the 'Tatler' for 1709, a black boy, 12
years of age, 'fit to wait on gentleman,' is offered for sale
at Dennis's Coffee-house, in Finch Lane, near the Royal
Exchange. From the 'Daily Journal ' of September 28, 1728, we
learn that a negro boy, 11 years of age, was similarly offered
for sale at the Virginia Coffee-house. … Again, in the 'Public
Ledger' for December 31, 1761, we have for sale 'A healthy
Negro Girl, aged about 15 years; speaks good English, works at
her needle, washes well, does household work, and has had the
small-pox.' So far these sales seem to have been effected
privately; but later on we find that the auctioneer's hammer
is being brought into play. In 1763, one John Rice was hanged
for forgery at Tyburn, and following upon his execution was a
sale of his effects by auction, 'and among the rest a negro
boy.' He brought £32. The 'Gentleman's Magazine' of the day,
commenting upon the sale of the black boy, says that this was
'perhaps the first custom of the kind in a free country.' …
The 'Stamford Mercury' for [1771] bears record that 'at a sale
of a gentleman's effects at Richmond, a Negro Boy was put up
and sold for £32.' The paper adds: 'A shocking instance in a
free country!' The public conscience had indeed for many years
been disturbed on this question, the greater number in England
holding that the system of slavery as tolerated in London and
the country generally should be declared illegal. From an
early period in last century the subject had not only been
debated in the public prints and on the platform, but had been
made matter of something like judicial decision.
{2922}
At the first, legal opinion was opposed to the manumission of
slaves brought by their masters to this country. In 1729, Lord
Talbot, Attorney-general, and Mr. Yorke, Solicitor-general,
gave an opinion which raised the whole question of the legal
existence of slaves in Great Britain and Ireland. The opinion
of these lawyers was that the mere fact of a slave coming into
these countries from the West Indies did not render him free,
and that he could be compelled to return again to those
plantations. Even the rite of baptism did not free him—it
could only affect his spiritual, not his temporal, condition.
It was on the strength of this decision that slavery continued
to flourish in England until, as we have seen, there were at
one time as many as 20,000 black slaves in London alone.
Chief-justice Holt had, however, expressed a contrary opinion
to that above given; and after a long struggle the matter was
brought to a final issue in the famous case of the negro
Somersett. On June 22, 1772, it was decided by Lord Mansfield,
in the name of the whole bench, that 'as soon as a slave set
foot on the soil of the British Islands, he became free.' From
that day to the present this has remained the law of our land
as regards slavery. The poet Cowper expressed the jubilant
feeling of the country over Lord Mansfield's dictum when he
sung: … 'Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs
receive our air, that moment they are free.'"
_Black Slaves in England
(Chamber's Journal, January 31, 1891)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Greeley,
History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or Restriction,
pages 2-3._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1688-1780.
Beginning and growth or Antislavery sentiment
among the Quakers.
Emancipation in Pennsylvania.
"So early as the year 1688, some emigrants from Kriesheim in
Germany, who had adopted the principles of William Penn, and
followed him into Pennsylvania, urged in the yearly meeting of
the Society there, the inconsistency of buying, selling, and
holding men in slavery, with the principles of the Christian
religion. In the year 1696, the yearly meeting for that
province took up the subject as a public concern, and the
result was, advice to the members of it to guard against
future importations of African slaves, and to be particularly
attentive to the treatment of those, who were then in their
possession. In the year 1711, the same yearly meeting resumed
the important subject, and confirmed and renewed the advice,
which had been before given. From this time it continued to
keep the subject alive; but finding at length, that, though
individuals refused to purchase slaves, yet others continued
the custom, and in greater numbers that it was apprehended
would have been the case after the public declarations which
had been made, it determined, in the year 1754, upon a fuller
and more serious publication of its sentiments; and therefore
it issued, in the same year, … [a] pertinent letter to all the
members within its jurisdiction. … This truly Christian
letter, which was written in the year 1754, was designed, as
we collect from the contents of it, to make the sentiments of
the Society better known and attended to on the subject of the
Slave-trade. It contains … exhortations to all the members
within the yearly meeting of Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, to
desist from purchasing and importing slaves, and, where they
possessed them, to have a tender consideration of their
condition. But that the first part of the subject of this
exhortation might be enforced, the yearly meeting for the same
provinces came to a resolution in 1755, That if any of the
members belonging to it bought or imported slaves, the
overseers were to inform their respective monthly meetings of
it, that 'these might treat with them, as they might be
directed in the wisdom of truth.' In the year 1774, we find
the same yearly meeting legislating again on the same subject.
By the preceding resolution they, who became offenders, were
subjected only to exclusion from the meetings for discipline,
and from the privilege of contributing to the pecuniary
occasions of the Society; but by the resolution of the present
year, all members concerned in importing, selling, purchasing,
giving, or transferring Negro or other slaves, or otherwise
acting in such manner as to continue them in slavery beyond
the term limited by law or custom, were directed to be
excluded from membership or disowned. … In the year 1776, the
same yearly meeting carried the matter still further. It was
then enacted, That the owners of slaves, who refused to
execute proper instruments for giving them their freedom, were
to be disowned likewise."
_T. Clarkson,
History of the Abolition of the Slave-Trade,
volume 1, chapter 5._
In 1780 Pennsylvania adopted an act for the gradual
emancipation of all slaves within its territory, being the
first among the States to perform that great act of justice.
_W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,
Popular History of the United States,
volume 3, chapter 7._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1698-1776.
England and the Slave-trade.
The Assiento contract with Spain.
After the opening of the slave trade to the English by
Hawkins, in 1562-1564, "the traffic in human flesh speedily
became popular. A monopoly of it was granted to the African
Company, but it was invaded by numerous interlopers, and in
1698 the trade was thrown open to all British subjects. It is
worthy of notice that while by the law of 1698 a certain
percentage was exacted from other African cargoes for the
maintenance of the forts along that coast, cargoes of negroes
were especially exempted, for the Parliament of the Revolution
desired above all things to encourage the trade. Nine years
before, a convention had been made between England and Spain
for supplying the Spanish West Indies with slaves from the
island of Jamaica, and it has been computed that between 1680
and 1700 the English tore from Africa about 300,000 negroes,
or about 15,000 every year. The great period of the English
slave trade had, however, not yet arrived. It was only in 1713
that it began to attain its full dimensions. One of the most
important and most popular parts of the Treaty of Utrecht was
the contract known as the Assiento, by which the British
Government secured for its subjects during thirty years an
absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish
colonies. The traffic was regulated by a long and elaborate
treaty, guarding among other things against any possible
scandal to the Roman Catholic religion from the presence of
heretical slave-traders, and it provided that in the 30 years
from 1713 to 1743 the English should bring into the Spanish
West Indies no less than 144,000 negroes, or 4,800 every year;
that during the first 25 years of the contract they might
import a still greater number on paying certain moderate
duties, and that they might carry the slave trade into
numerous Spanish ports from which it had hitherto been
excluded.
{2923}
The monopoly of the trade was granted to the South Sea
Company, and from this time its maintenance, and its extension
both to the Spanish dominions and to her own colonies, became
a central object of English policy. A few facts will show the
scale on which it was pursued From Christmas 1752 to Christmas
1762 no less than 71,115 negroes were imported into Jamaica.
In a despatch written at the end of 1762, Admiral Rodney
reports that in little more than three years 40,000 negroes
had been introduced into Guadaloupe. In a discussion upon the
methods of making the trade more effectual, which took place
in the English Parliament in 1750, it was shown that 46,000
negroes were at this time annually sold to the English
colonies alone. A letter of General O'Hara, the Governor of
Senegambia, written in 1766, estimates at the almost
incredible figure of 70,000 the number of negroes who during
the preceding fifty years had been annually shipped from
Africa. A distinguished modern historian, after a careful
comparison of the materials we possess, declares that in the
century preceding the prohibition of the slave trade by the
American Congress, in 1776, the number of negroes imported by
the English alone, into the Spanish, French, and English
colonies can, on the lowest computation, have been little less
than three millions, and that we must add more than a quarter
of a million, who perished on the voyage and whose bodies were
thrown into the Atlantic."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of English in the 18th Century,
chapter 5 (volume 2). _
ALSO IN:
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States.
(Author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 16 (volume 2)._
_D. Macpherson,
Annals of Commerce,
volume 4, pages 141-157._
See, also,
UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
AIX LA CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS;
ENGLAND: A. D. 1739, 1741;
GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743;
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1713-1776.
Maintained in the American colonies by the English Crown
and Parliament.
"The success of the American Revolution made it possible for
the different states to take measures for the gradual
abolition of slavery and the immediate abolition of the
foreign slave-trade. On this great question the state of
public opinion in America was more advanced than in England. …
George III. … resisted the movement for abolition with all the
obstinacy of which his hard and narrow nature was capable. In
1769 the Virginia legislature had enacted that the further
importation of negroes, to be sold into slavery, should be
prohibited. But George III. commanded the governor to veto
this act, and it was vetoed. In Jefferson's first draft of the
Declaration of Independence, this action of the king was made
the occasion of a fierce denunciation of slavery, but in
deference to the prejudices of South Carolina and Georgia the
clause was struck out by Congress. When George III. and his
vetoes had been eliminated from the case, it became possible
for the States to legislate freely on the subject."
_J. Fiske,
T/w Critical Period of American History,
page 71._
"During the regal government, we had at one time obtained a
law which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves as
amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate
assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed
the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then
sovereign, and no devices, no expedients, which could ever
after be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and they seldom
met without attempting them, could succeed in getting the
royal assent to a renewal of the duty. In the very first
session held under the republican government, the assembly
passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation
of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this
great political and moral evil, while the minds of our
citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of human
nature."
_T. Jefferson,
Notes on the State of Virginia,
query 8._
"It has been frequently stated that England is responsible for
the introduction of negro slavery into British America; but
this assertion will not stand the test of examination. … It
is, however, true that from a very early period a certain
movement against it may be detected in some American States,
that there was, especially in the Northern Provinces, a great
and general dislike to the excessive importation of negroes,
and that every attempt to prohibit or restrict that
importation was rebuked and defeated by England. … The State
Governors were forbidden to give the necessary assent to any
measures restricting it, and the English pursued this policy
steadily to the very eve of the Revolution."
_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 5 (volume 2)._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1717.
Introduction into Louisiana.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1735-1749.
Questioned early in Georgia.
Slavery prohibited at the beginning, and finally introduced.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1741.
The pretended Negro Plot in New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1756.
Extent and distribution in the English American colonies.
"The number of African slaves in North America in 1756, the
generation preceding the Revolution, was about 292,000. Of
these Virginia had 120,000, her white population amounting at
the same time to 173,000. The African increase in Virginia had
been steady. In 1619 came the first 20, and in 1649 there were
300. In 1670, there were 2,000. In 1714, there were 23,000. In
1756, there were 120,000. The 172,000 who, in addition to
these, made up the African population of America, were
scattered through the provinces from New England to Georgia."
_J. E. Cooke,
Virginia,
page 367._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1769-1785.
The ending of slavery in Connecticut and New Hampshire.
"For the New England States the Revolution was the death knell
of slavery and of the slave-trade protected by the law [see
action in Massachusetts and Rhode Island detailed above and
below]. … In New Hampshire the institution died a natural
death. As Belknap said in 1792, 'Slavery is not prohibited by
any express law. … Those born since the constitution was made
[1776] are free.' Although the legal status of the negro was
somewhat different, he was practically treated in the same
manner in New Hampshire that he was treated in Rhode Island.
Connecticut did not change her royal charter into a state
constitution until 1818, and her slaves were freed in 1784.
The slave-trade in New England vessels did not cease when the
state forbade it within New England territory. It was
conducted stealthily, but steadily, even into the lifetime of
Judge Story. Felt gives instances in 1785, and the inference
is that the business was prosecuted from Salem."
_W. B. Weeden,
Economic and Social History of New England,
volume 2, pages 834-835._
{2924}
"Connecticut was one of the first colonies to pass a law
against the slave-trade. This was done in 1769. The main cause
of the final abolition of slavery in the State was the fact
that it became unprofitable. In 1784 the Legislature passed an
Act declaring that all persons born of slaves, after the 1st
of March in that year, should be free at the age of 25. Most
of those born before this time were gradually emancipated by
their masters, and the institution of slavery had almost died
out before 1806."
_E. B. Sanford,
History of Connecticut,
page 252._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1774.
The bringing of slaves into Rhode Island prohibited.
"Africans had been brought to the shores of this colony in the
earliest of the vessels in which the commerce of Newport had
reached across the Atlantic. Becoming domesticated within the
colony, the black population had in 1730 reached the number of
1,648, and in 1774 had become 3,761. How early the
philanthropic movement in their behalf, and the measures
looking towards their emancipation, had gained headway, cannot
be determined with accuracy. It is probable that the movement
originated with the Society of Friends within the colony. But
little progress had been made towards any embodiment of this
sentiment in legislative enactment, however, until the very
year of the First Continental Congress, when at the direct
instance of Stephen Hopkins (himself for many years an owner
of slaves, though a most humane master), the General Assembly
ordained [June, 1774] 'that for the future no negro or mulatto
slave shall be brought into the colony,' and that all
previously enslaved persons on becoming residents of Rhode
Island should obtain their freedom. 'In this decided action,'
once more, as has been so often seen to be the case with
movements led by Stephen Hopkins, 'Rhode Island,' says Arnold,
'took the lead of all her sister colonies.'"
_W. E. Foster,
Stephen Hopkins,
part 2, pages 98-100._
ALSO IN:
_W. D. Johnston,
Slavery in Rhode Island,
part 2._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1776-1808.
Antislavery sentiment in the Southern (American) States.
The causes of its disappearance.
Jefferson's "'Notes on Virginia' were written in 1781-2. His
condemnation of slavery in that work is most emphatic. 'The
whole commerce between master and slave,' he says, 'is a
perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most
unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading
submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to
imitate it. … The man must be a prodigy who can retain his
manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. With what
execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting
one-half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the
other, transforms those into despots and these into
enemies—destroys the morals of the one part and the amor
patriæ of the other? … Can the liberties of a nation be
thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis—a
conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the
gift of God; that they are not to be violated but with His
wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just—that His justice cannot sleep forever.' … On the
practical question, 'What shall be done about it?' Mr.
Jefferson's mind wavered; he was in doubt. How can slavery be
abolished? He proposed, in Virginia, a law, which was
rejected, making all free who were born after the passage of
the act. And here again he hesitated. What will become of
these people after they are free? … He thought they had better
be emancipated and sent out of the country. He therefore took
up with the colonization scheme long before the Colonization
Society was founded. He did not feel sure on this point. With
his practical mind he could not see how a half million of
slaves could be sent out of the country, even if they were
voluntarily liberated; where they should be sent to, or how
unwilling masters could be compelled to liberate their slaves.
While, therefore, he did not favor immediate emancipation, he
was zealous for no other scheme. … Mr. Jefferson, in August,
1785, wrote a letter to Dr. Richard Price, of London, author
of a treatise on Liberty, in which very advanced opinions were
taken on the slavery question. Concerning the prevalence of
anti-slavery opinions at that period, he says: 'Southward of
the Chesapeake your book will find but few readers concurring
with it in sentiment on the subject of slavery. From the mouth
to the head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will
approve its theory, and it will find a respectable minority, a
minority ready to adopt it in practice; which, for weight and
worth of character, preponderates against the greater number
who have not the courage to divest their families of a
property which, how·ever, keeps their consciences unquiet.
Northward of the Chesapeake you may find, here and there, an
opponent to your doctrine, as you find, here and there, a
robber and murderer, but in no greater number. In that part of
America there are but few slaves, and they can easily
disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put in
such train that in a few years there will be no slaves
northward of Maryland. In Maryland I do not find such a
disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in
Virginia. These [the inhabitants of Virginia] have sucked in
the principles of liberty, as it were, with their mothers'
milk, and it is to these I look with anxiety to turn the fate
of this question. Be not, therefore, discouraged.'" M. Brissot
de Warville visited Washington, at Mount Vernon, in 1788, and
conversed with him freely on the subject of slavery. "This
great man declared to me," he wrote in his narrative,
afterwards published, "that he rejoiced at what was doing in
other States on the subject [of emancipation—alluding to the
recent formation of several state societies]; that he
sincerely desired the extension of it in his own State; but he
did not dissemble that there were still many obstacles to be
overcome; that it was dangerous to strike too vigorously at a
prejudice which had begun to diminish; that time, patience,
and information would not fail to vanquish it."
_W. F. Poole,
Anti-Slavery Opinions before the year 1800,
pages 25-35, and foot-note._
{2925}
"In Virginia all the foremost statesmen—Washington, Jefferson,
Lee, Randolph, Henry, and Madison, and Mason—were opposed to the
continuance of slavery; and their opinions were shared by many
of the largest planters. For tobacco-culture slavery did not
seem so indispensable as for the raising of rice and indigo;
and in Virginia the negroes, half-civilized by kindly
treatment, were not regarded with horror by their masters,
like the ill-treated and ferocious blacks of South Carolina
and Georgia. After 1808 the policy and the sentiments of
Virginia underwent a marked change. The invention of the
cotton-gin, taken in connection with the sudden prodigious
development of manufactures in England, greatly stimulated the
growth of cotton in the ever-enlarging area of the Gulf
states, and created an immense demand for slave-labour, just
at the time when the importation of negroes from Africa came
to an end. The breeding of slaves, to be sold to the planters
of the Gulf states, then became such a profitable occupation
in Virginia as entirely to change the popular feeling about
slavery. But until 1808 Virginia sympathized with the
anti-slavery sentiment which was growing up in the northern
states; and the same was true of Maryland. … In the work of
gradual emancipation the little state of Delaware led the way.
In its new constitution of 1776 the further introduction of
slaves was prohibited, all restraints upon emancipation having
already been removed. In the assembly of Virginia in 1778 a
bill prohibiting the further introduction of slaves was moved
and carried by Thomas Jefferson, and the same measure was
passed in Maryland in 1783, while both these states removed
all restraints upon emancipation. North Carolina was not ready
to go quite so far, but in 1786 she sought to discourage the
slave-trade by putting a duty of £5 per head on all negroes
thereafter imported."
_J. Fiske,
The Critical Period of American History,
page 73._
ALSO IN:
_T. Jefferson,
Notes on the State of Virginia,
query 18._
_J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
chapters 16-17 (volume 1._
_J. R. Brackett,
The Status of the Slave, 1775-1789
(Essays in Constitutional History)._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1777.
Prohibited by the organic law of Vermont.
See VERMONT: A. D.1777-1778.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1781.
Emancipation in Massachusetts.
See, SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
The compromises in the Constitution of the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1787.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
Exclusion forever from the Northwest
Territory of the United States.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1790.
Guaranteed to Tennessee.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1791-1802.
The Revolt of the Haytian blacks, under
Toussaint L' Ouverture, and the ending
of slavery on the island.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792.
The institution entrenched in the Constitution
of the new state of Kentucky.
See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792-1807.
Earliest measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.
"In 1776 the first motion against the trade was made in the
English parliament; and soon leading statesmen of all parties,
including Fox, Burke, and Pitt, declared themselves in favour
of its abolition. In 1792 the Danish King took the lead in the
cause of humanity by absolutely prohibiting his subjects from
buying, selling, and transporting slaves; and at last, in
1807, the moral sense of the British public overrode the
vested interests of merchants and planters; parliament, at
Lord Grenville's instance, passed the famous act for the
Abolition of the Slave trade; and thenceforward successive
British governments set themselves steadily by treaty and
convention to bring other nations to follow their example. …
In 1794 the United States prohibited their subjects from
slave-trading to foreign countries, and in 1807 they
prohibited the importation of slaves into their own."
_C. P. Lucas,
Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
volume 2, pages 67-68._
ALSO IN:
_T. Clarkson,
History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1799.
Gradual emancipation enacted in New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1806.
Act of the English Parliament against the slave-trade.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1815.
Declaration of the Powers against the slave-trade.
The following are passages from the Declaration against the
Slave Trade, which was signed by the representatives of the
Powers at the Congress of Vienna, February 8, 1815: "Having
taken into consideration that the commerce known by the name
of 'the Slave Trade' has been considered by just and
enlightened men of all ages as repugnant to the principles of
humanity and universal morality; … that at length the public
voice, in all civilized countries, calls aloud for its prompt
suppression; that since the character and the details of this
traffic have been better known, and the evils of every kind
which attend it, completely developed, several European
Governments have, virtually, come to the resolution of putting
a stop to it, and that, successively all the Powers possessing
Colonies in different parts of the world have acknowledged,
either by Legislative Acts, or by Treaties, or other formal
engagements, the duty and necessity of abolishing it: That by
a separate Article of the late Treaty of Paris, Great Britain
and France engaged to unite their efforts at the Congress of
Vienna, to induce all the Powers of Christendom to proclaim
the universal and definitive Abolition of the Slave Trade:
That the Plenipotentiaries assembled at this Congress …
declare, in the face of Europe, that, considering the
universal abolition of the Slave Trade as a measure
particularly worthy of their attention, conformable to the
spirit of the times, and to the generous principles of their
august Sovereigns, they are animated with the sincere desire
of concurring in the most prompt and effectual execution of
this measure, by all the means at their disposal. … The said
Plenipotentiaries at the same time acknowledge that this
general Declaration cannot prejudge the period that each
particular Power may consider as most desirable for the
definitive abolition of the Slave Trade. Consequent]y, the
determining the period when this trade is to cease universally
must be a subject of negociation between the Powers; it being
understood, however, that no proper means of securing its
attainment, and of accelerating its progress, are to be
neglected."
_L. Hertslet,
Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
volume 1, page 11._
{2926}
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1816-1849.
The organization of the American Colonization Society.
The founding of Liberia.
"Samuel J. Mills organized at Williams College, in 1808, for
missionary work, an undergraduate society, which was soon
transferred to Andover, and resulted in the establishment of
the American Bible Society and Board of Foreign Missions. But
the topic which engrossed Mills' most enthusiastic attention
was the Negro. The desire was to better his condition by
founding a colony between the Ohio and the Lakes; or later,
when this was seen to be unwise, in Africa. On going to New
Jersey to continue his theological studies, Mills succeeded in
interesting the Presbyterian clergy of that State in his
project. Of this body one of the most prominent members was
Dr. Robert Finley. Dr. Finley succeeded in assembling at
Princeton the first meeting ever called to consider the
project of sending Negro colonists to Africa. Although
supported by few save members of the seminary, Dr. Finley felt
encouraged to set out for Washington in December 1816, to
attempt the formation of a colonization society. Earlier in
this same year there had been a sudden awakening of Southern
interest in colonization. … The interest already awakened and
the indefatigable efforts of Finley and his friend Colonel
Charles Marsh, at length succeeded in convening the assembly
to which the Colonization Society owes its existence. It was a
notable gathering. Henry Clay, in the absence of Bushrod
Washington, presided, setting forth in glowing terms the
object and aspirations of the meeting. … John Randolph of
Roanoke, and Robert Wright of Maryland, dwelt upon the
desirability of removing the turbulent free-negro element and
enhancing the value of property in slaves. Resolutions
organizing the Society passed, and committees appointed to
draft a Constitution and present a memorial to Congress. …
With commendable energy the newly organized Society set about
the accomplishment of the task before it. Plans were discussed
during the summer, and in November two agents, Samuel J. Mills
and Ebenezer Burgess, sailed for Africa to explore the western
coast and select a suitable spot. … Their inspection was
carried as far south [from Sierra Leone] as Sherbro Island,
where they obtained promises from the natives to sell land to
the colonists on their arrival with goods to pay for it. In
May they embarked on the return voyage. Mills died before
reaching home. His colleague made a most favorable report of
the locality selected, though, as the event proved, it was a
most unfortunate one. After defraying the expenses of this
exploration the Society's treasury was practically empty. It
would have been most difficult to raise the large sum
necessary to equip and send out a body of emigrants; and the
whole enterprise would have languished and perhaps died but
for a new impelling force. … Though the importation of slaves
had been strictly prohibited by the Act of Congress of March
2, 1807, no provision had been made for the care of the
unfortunates smuggled in in defiance of the Statute. They
became subject to the laws of the State in which they were
landed; and these laws were in some cases so devised that it
was profitable for the dealer to land his cargo and incur the
penalty. The advertisements of the sale of such a cargo of
'recaptured Africans' by the State of Georgia drew the
attention of the Society and of General Mercer in particular
to this inconsistent and abnormal state of affairs. His
profound indignation shows forth in the Second Annual Report
of the Society, in which the attention of the public is
earnestly drawn to the question; nor did he rest until a bill
was introduced into the House of Representatives designed to
do away with the evil. This bill became a law on March 3,
1819. … The clause which proved so important to the embryo
colony was that dealing with the captured cargoes: 'The
President of the United States is hereby authorized to make
such regulations and arrangements as he may deem expedient for
the safe-keeping, support, and removal beyond the limits of
the United States, of all such negroes, mulattoes, or persons
of color as may be so delivered and brought within their
jurisdiction; and to appoint a proper person or persons
residing upon the coast of Africa as agent or agents for
receiving the negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color,
delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of
the slave trade by commanders of the United States armed
vessels.' The sum of $100,000 was appropriated for carrying
out the provisions of the Act. President Monroe determined to
construe it as broadly as possible in aid of the project of
colonization. After giving Congress, in his message, December
20, 1818, fair notice of his intention, no objection being
made, he proceeded to appoint two agents, the Rev. Samuel
Bacon, already in the service of the Colonization Society, and
John P. Bankson as assistant, and to charter the ship
Elizabeth. The agents were instructed to settle on the coast
of Africa, with a tacit understanding that the place should be
that selected by the Colonization Society. … For the expenses
of the expedition $33,000 was placed in the hands of Mr.
Bacon. Dr. Samuel A. Crozier was appointed by the Society as
its agent and representative; and 86 negroes from various
states—33 men, 18 women, and the rest children, were embarked.
On the 6th of February, 1820, the Mayflower of Liberia weighed
anchor in New York harbor, and, convoyed by the U. S.
sloop-of-war Cyane, steered her course toward the shores of
Africa. The pilgrims were kindly treated by the authorities at
Sierra Leone, where they arrived on the 9th of March; but on
proceeding to Sherbro Island they found the natives had
reconsidered their promise, and refused to sell them land.
While delayed by negotiations the injudicious nature of the
site selected was disastrously shown. The low marshy ground
and the bad water quickly bred the African fever, which soon
carried off all the agents and nearly a fourth of the
emigrants. The rest, weakened and disheartened, were soon
obliged to seek refuge at Sierra Leone. In March, 1821, a body
of 28 new emigrants under charge of J. B. Winn and Ephraim
Bacon, reached Freetown in the brig Nautilus. Winn collected
as many as he could of the first company, also the stores sent
out with them, and settled the people in temporary quarters at
Fourah Bay, while Bacon set out to explore the coast anew and
secure suitable territory. An elevated fertile and desirable
tract was at length discovered between 250 and 300 miles S. E.
of Sierra Leone. This was the region of Cape Montserado. It
seemed exactly suited to the purposes of the colonists, but
the natives refused to sell their land for fear of breaking up
the traffic in slaves; and the agent returned discouraged.
Winn soon died, and Bacon returned to the United States. In
November, Dr. Eli Ayres was sent over as agent, and the U. S.
schooner Alligator, commanded by Lieutenant Stockton, was
ordered to the coast to assist in obtaining a foothold for the
colony. Cape Montserado was again visited; and the address and
firmness of Lieutenant Stockton accomplished the purchase of a
valuable tract of land.
{2927}
The cape upon which the settlers proposed to build their first
habitations consists of a narrow peninsula or tongue of land
formed by the Montserado River, which separates it from the
mainland. Just within the mouth of the river lie two small
islands, containing together less than three acres. To these,
the Plymouth of Liberia, the colonists and their goods were
soon transported. But again the fickle natives repented the
bargain, and the settlers were long confined to 'Perseverance
Island,' as the spot was aptly named. … After a number of
thrilling experiences the emigrants, on April 25, 1822,
formally took possession of the cape, where they had erected
rude houses for themselves; and from this moment we may date
the existence of the colony. Their supplies were by this time
sadly reduced; the natives were hostile and treacherous; fever
had played havoc with the colonists in acclimating; and the
incessant downpour of the rainy season had set in. Dr. Ayres
became thoroughly discouraged, and proposed to lead them back
to Sierra Leone. Then it was that Elijah Johnson, an emigrant
from New York, made himself forever famous in Liberian history
by declaring that he would never desert the home he had found
after two years' weary quest! His firmness decided the
wavering colonists; the agents with a few faint-hearted ones
sailed off to America; but the majority remained with their
heroic Negro leader. The little band, deserted by their
appointed protectors, were soon reduced to the most dire
distress, and must have perished miserably but for the arrival
of unexpected relief. The United States Government had at last
gotten hold of some ten liberated Africans, and had a chance
to make use of the agency established for them at so great an
expense. They were accordingly sent out in the brig Strong
under the care of the Rev. Jehudi Ashmun. A quantity of stores
and some 37 emigrants sent by the Colonization Society
completed the cargo. Ashmun had received no commission as
agent for the colony, and expected to return on the Strong;
under this impression his wife had accompanied him. But when
he found the colonists in so desperate a situation he nobly
determined to remain with them at any sacrifice. … On the 24th
of May, 1823, the brig Oswego arrived with 61 new emigrants
and a liberal supply of stores and tools, in charge of Dr.
Ayres, who, already the representative of the Society, had now
been appointed Government Agent and Surgeon. One of the first
measures of the new agent was to have the town surveyed and
lots distributed among the whole body of colonists. Many of
the older settlers found themselves dispossessed of the
holdings improved by their labor, and the colony was soon in a
ferment of excitement and insurrection. Dr. Ayres, finding his
health failing, judiciously betook himself to the United
States. The arrival of the agent had placed Mr. Ashmun in a
false position of the most mortifying character. … Seeing the
colony again deserted by the agent and in a state of
discontent and confusion, he forgot his wrongs and remained at
the helm. Order was soon restored but the seeds of
insubordination remained. The arrival of 103 emigrants from
Virginia on the Cyrus, in February 1824, added to the
difficulty, as the stock of food was so low that the whole
colony had to be put on half rations. This necessary measure
was regarded by the disaffected as an act of tyranny on
Ashmun's part; and when shortly after the complete prostration
of his health compelled him to withdraw to the Cape De Verde
Islands, the malcontents sent home letters charging him with
all sorts of abuse of power, and finally with desertion of his
post! The Society in consternation applied to Government for
an expedition of investigation, and the Rev. R. R. Gurley,
Secretary of the Society, and an enthusiastic advocate of
colonization, was despatched in June on the U. S. schooner
Porpoise. The result of course revealed the probity, integrity
and good judgment of Mr. Ashmun; and Gurley became thenceforth
his warmest admirer. As a preventive of future discontent a
Constitution was adopted at Mr. Gurley's suggestion, giving
for the first time a definite share in the control of affairs
to the colonists themselves. Gurley brought with him the name
of the colony—Liberia, and of its settlement on the
Cape—Monrovia, which had been adopted by the Society on the
suggestion of Mr. Robert Goodloe Harper of Maryland. He
returned from his successful mission in August leaving the
most cordial relations established throughout the colony.
Gurley's visit seemed to mark the turning of the tide, and a
period of great prosperity now began." The national
independence of the commonwealth of Liberia was not assumed
until 1847, when the first President of the Republic, Joseph
J. Roberts, was elected.
_J. H. T. McPherson,
History of Liberia
(Johns Hopkins University Studies,
series 9, number 10), chapters 2-3 and 5._
ALSO IN:
_S. Wilkeson,
History of the American Colonies in Liberia._
_A. H. Foote,
Africa and the American Flag,
chapters 10-11._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1818-1821.
The opening struggle of the American conflict.
The Missouri Compromise.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1821-1854.
Emancipation in New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1823.
Abolition in Central America.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1825.
Bolivar's Emancipation in Bolivia.
See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1827.
Final Emancipation in New York.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1828-1832.
The rise of the Abolitionists in the United States.
Nat Turner's Insurrection.
While the reign of Andrew Jackson [1828-1836] paved the way on
which the slave-holding interest ascended to the zenith of its
supremacy over the Union, there arose, at the same time, in
the body of the abolitionists, the enemy which undermined the
firm ground under the feet of that same slave-holding
interest. The expression, 'abolition of slavery,' is to be met
with even before the adoption of the constitution. But the
word 'abolitionism,' as descriptive of a definite political
programme, occurs for the first time in this period. … The
immediate precursor, and, in a certain sense, the father of
the abolitionists, was Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, born in New
Jersey. In Wheeling, West Virginia, where he learned the
saddler's trade, he had ample opportunity to become acquainted
with the horrors of slavery, as great cargoes of slaves, on
their way to the southern states, frequently passed the place.
{2928}
Lundy had been endeavoring for some years to awaken an active
interest among his neighbors in the hard lot of the slaves,
when the Missouri question brought him to the resolve to
consecrate his whole life to their cause. In 1821, he began to
publish the 'Genius of Universal Emancipation,' which is to be
considered the first abolition organ. The 19th century can
scarcely point to another instance in which the command of
Christ, to leave all things and follow him, was so literally
construed and followed. Lundy gave up his flourishing
business, took leave of his wife and of his two dearly beloved
children, and began a restless, wandering life, to arouse
consciences everywhere to a deeper understanding of the sin
and curse of slavery. In the autumn of 1829 he obtained, as
associate publisher of his sheet, William Lloyd Garrison, a
young litterateur, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, who,
from the position of a poor apprentice to a tradesman, rose to
be a type-setter, and from being a type-setter to be a
journalist. The removal of Garrison from New England to
Baltimore, where Lundy was then publishing the 'Genius,' was
an event pregnant with consequences. Garrison had long been a
zealous enemy of slavery, but had hitherto seen the right way
of doing away with the evil in the efforts of the colonization
society. What he now saw of slavery and its effects with his
own eyes produced a complete revolution in his views in a few
months. He not only recognized the impossibility of preventing
the extension of slavery by colonizing the free negroes in
Africa, to say nothing of gradually doing away with it
altogether, but he became convinced also that the leading
spirits of the colonization society purposely sought to induce
the philanthropists of the north to enter on a wrong course,
in the interests of slavery. Hence his own profession of faith
was, henceforth, 'immediate and unconditional emancipation.'
His separation from the more moderate Lundy, which was
rendered unavoidable by this course, was hastened by an
outside occurrence. The captain of a ship from New England
took on board at Baltimore a cargo of slaves destined for New
Orleans. Garrison denounced him on that account with
passionate violence. The matter was carried before the court,
and he was sentenced to prison and to pay a money fine for
publishing a libelous article and for criminally inciting
slaves to insurrection. After an imprisonment of seven weeks,
his fine was paid by a New York philanthropist, Arthur Tappan,
and Garrison left the city to spread his convictions by means
of public lectures through New England. Although his success
was not very encouraging, he, in January, 1831, established a
paper of his own in Boston, known as 'The Liberator.' He was
not only its publisher, and sole writer for it, but he had to
be his own printer and carrier. His only assistant was a
negro. … In one year, Garrison had found so many who shared
his views, that it was possible to found the 'New England
Anti-Slavery Society' in Boston [January, 1832]. The example
was imitated in other states. The movement spread so rapidly
that as early as December, 1833, a 'national' anti-slavery
convention could be held in Philadelphia. The immediate
practical result of this was the foundation of the 'American
Anti-Slavery Society.' … In the same year that Garrison raised
the standard of unconditional abolitionism in Boston, an event
happened in Virginia, which, from the opposite side,
contributed powerfully to lead the slavery question over into
its new stage of development. In August, 1831, an uprising of
slaves, under the leadership of Nat Turner, occurred in
Southampton county. It was, however, quickly subdued, but cost
the life of 61 white persons, mostly women and children. The
excitement throughout the entire south, and especially in
Virginia and the states contiguous to it, was out of all
proportion with the number of the victims and the extent of
the conspiracy."
_H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 2, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_W. P. and F. J. Garrison,
William Lloyd Garrison: The Story of his Life,
volume 1, chapters 6-9._
_S. J. May,
Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict,
pages 1-90._
_G. L. Austin,
Life and Times of Wendell Phillips,
chapter 3._
_O. Johnson,
William Lloyd Garrison and his Times,
chapters 1-5._
_J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from 1850,
chapter 1._
_B. Tuckerman,
William Jay and the Constitutional Movement
for the Abolition of Slavery._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1829-1837.
Emancipation in Mexico, resisted in Texas.
Schemes of the American slave power for acquiring that state.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836;
and MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1834-1838.
Emancipation in the British colonies.
"The abolition of slavery, as Fox had said, was the natural
consequence of the extinction of the slave trade; and in 1833
the act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British
colonies was passed. The law was to take effect from the first
of August 1834, but the slaves were to be apprenticed to their
former owners till 1838 and in the case of agricultural slaves
till 1840, and £20,000,000 sterling were voted as compensation
to the slave-holders at the Cape, in Mauritius, and in the
West Indies. As a matter of fact, however, two colonies,
Antigua and the Bermudas, had the good sense to dispense with
the apprenticeship system altogether, and in no case was it
prolonged beyond 1838. … When Burke wrote, there were,
according to his account, in the British West Indies at least
230,000 slaves against at the most 90,000 whites. In 1788 it
is stated that there were 450,000 negroes in the British sugar
colonies. At the last registration prior to emancipation,
after British Guiana and Trinidad had become British
possessions, the number of slaves was given at some 674,000."
_C. P. Lucas,
Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
volume 2, pages 68-69._
See, also,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1836.
The Atherton Gag.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1847.
The Liberty Party and the Liberty League.
"Nothing affords more striking evidence of the gravity and
difficulties of the antislavery struggle [in the United
States] than the conflicting opinions and plans of the honest
and earnest men engaged in it. … The most radical difference
was that which separated those who rejected from those who
adopted the principle of political action. The former were
generally styled the 'old organization,' or Garrisonian
Abolitionists; the latter embraced the Liberty Party and those
antislavery men who still adhered to the Whig and Democratic
parties." In 1847 the Liberty Party became divided, and a
separate body was formed which took the name of the Liberty
League, and which nominated Gerrit Smith for President, with
Elihu Burritt for Vice-President. "As distinguished from the
other wing, it may be said that the members of the Liberty
League were less practical, more disposed to adhere to
theories, and more fearful of sacrificing principle to
policy."
_H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_W. Birney,
James G. Birney and his Times,
chapter 29._
See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1840, and 1844.
{2929}
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1860.
The Underground Railroad.
The Underground Railroad was the popular designation given [in
the United States] to those systematic and co-operative
efforts which were made by the friends of the fleeing slave to
aid him in eluding the pursuit of the slave-hunters, who were
generally on his track. This 'institution,' as it was
familiarly called, played an important part in the great drama
of slavery and anti-slavery. By its timely and effective aid
thousands were enabled to escape from the prison-house of
bondage. … The practical working of the system required
'stations' at convenient distances, or rather the houses of
persons who held themselves in readiness to receive fugitives,
singly or in numbers, at any hour of day or night, to feed and
shelter, to clothe if necessary, and to conceal until they
could be despatched with safety to some other point along the
route. There were others who held themselves in like readiness
to take them by private or public conveyance. … When the wide
extent of territory embraced by the Middle States and all the
Western States east of the Mississippi is borne in mind, and
it is remembered that the whole was dotted with these
'stations,' and covered with a network of imaginary routes,
not found, indeed, in the railway guides or on the railway
maps; that each station had its brave and faithful men and
women, ever on the alert to seek out and succor the coming
fugitive, and equally intent on deceiving and thwarting his
pursuers; that there were always trusty and courageous
conductors waiting, like the 'minute-men' of the Revolution,
to take their living and precious freights, often by
unfrequented roads, on dark and stormy nights, safely on their
way; and that the numbers actually rescued were very great,
many counting their trophies by hundreds, some by thousands,
two men being credited with the incredible estimate of over
2,500 each,—there are materials from which to estimate,
approximately at least, the amount of labor performed, of cost
and risk incurred on the despised and deprecated Underground
Railroad, and something of the magnitude of the results
secured."
_H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_J. F. Clarke,
Anti-Slavery Days,
chapter 3._
_W. Still,
The Underground Railroad._
_M. G. McDougal,
Fugitive Slaves
(Fay House Monographs, 3)._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844.
Attempted insurrection in Cuba.
See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844-1845.
The contest over the annexation of Texas.
See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1845-1846.
Revolt in the Democratic Party against slavery extension.
The Wilmot Proviso.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
Abolition in Venezuela.
See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1855.
Solidification of anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
Birth of the Republican Party of the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1859.
The struggle for Kansas.
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1856.
Abolition in Peru.
See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1857.
The Dred Scott case.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1859.
John Brown at Harper's Ferry.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1860-1865.
The slaveholders' Rebellion in the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (May).
The first war-thrust.
General Butler declares the slaves to be Contraband of War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August).
Act of Congress freeing slaves employed
in the service of the Rebellion.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August-September).
Fremont's premature Proclamation of Emancipation
in Missouri, and Lincoln's modification of it.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Compensated Emancipation proposed by President Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH) PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S
PROPOSAL OF COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Federal officers forbidden, by the amended Military Code,
to surrender fugitive slaves.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH) AMENDMENT OF THE MILITARY
CODE.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Abolition in the District of Columbia and
the Territories of the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-JUNE).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
General Hunter's Emancipation Order,
rescinded by President Lincoln.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY)
GENERAL HUNTER'S EMANCIPATION ORDER.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
First arming of the Freedmen in the War for the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Gradual Emancipation in West Virginia provided for.
See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862
Act confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of Rebels.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
President Lincoln's preliminary or monitory
Proclamation of Emancipation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Abolition in the Dutch West Indies.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1863.
President Lincoln's final Proclamation of Emancipation.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JANUARY).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JUNE).
{2930}
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
Constitutional abolition of slavery in Louisiana.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, forever prohibiting slavery.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Abolition in Tennessee by Constitutional Amendment.
See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MARCH).
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1869-1893.
The slave-trade in Africa and the European measures
for its suppression.
"While Livingstone was making his terrible disclosures
respecting the havoc wrought by the slave-trader in east
central Africa, Sir Samuel Baker was striving to effect in
north central Africa what has been so successfully
accomplished in the Congo State. During his expedition for the
discovery of the Albert Nyanza, his explorations led him
through one of the principal man-hunting regions, wherein
murder and spoliation were the constant occupations of
powerful bands from Egypt and Nubia. These revelations were
followed by diplomatic pressure upon the Khedive Ismail, and
through the personal influence of an august personage he was
finally induced to delegate to Sir Samuel the task of
arresting the destructive careers of the slavers in the region
of the upper Nile. In his book Ismailïa we have the record of
his operations by himself. The firman issued to him was to the
effect that he 'was to subdue to the Khedive's authority the
countries to the south of Gondokoro, to suppress the slave
trade, to introduce a system of regular commerce, to open to
navigation the great lakes of the equator, and to establish a
chain of military stations and commercial depots throughout
central Africa.' This mission began in 1869, and continued
until 1874. On Baker's retirement from the command of the
equatorial Soudan the work was intrusted to Colonel C. G.
Gordon—commonly known as Chinese Gordon. Where Baker had
broken ground, Gordon was to build; what his predecessor had
commenced, Gordon was to perfect and to complete. If energy,
determination and self-sacrifice received their due, then had
Gordon surely won for the Soudan that peace and security which
it was his dear object to obtain for it. But slaving was an
old institution in this part of the world. Every habit and
custom of the people had some connection with it. They had
always been divided from prehistoric time into enslavers and
enslaved. How could two Englishmen, accompanied by only a
handful of officers, removed 2,000 miles from their base of
supplies, change the nature of a race within a few years?
Though much wrong had been avenged, many thousands of slaves
released, many a slaver's camp scattered, and many striking
examples made to terrify the evil-doers, the region was wide
and long; and though within reach of the Nile waters there was
a faint promise of improvement, elsewhere, at Kordofan,
Darfoor, and Sennaar, the trade flourished. After three years
of wonderful work, Gordon resigned. A short time afterwards,
however, he resumed his task, with the powers of a dictator,
over a region covering 1,100,000 square miles. But the
personal courage, energy, and devotion of one man opposed to a
race can effect but little. … After another period of three
years he again resigned. Then followed a revulsion. The
Khedivial government reverted to the old order of things. …
All traces of the work of Baker and Gordon have long ago been
completely obliterated. Attention has been given of late to
Morocco. This near neighbor of England is just twenty years
behind Zanzibar. … While the heart of Africa responds to the
civilizing influences moving from the east and the west and
the south, Morocco remains stupidly indifferent and inert, a
pitiful example of senility and decay. The remaining portion
of North Africa which still fosters slavery is Tripoli. The
occupation of Tunis by France has diverted such traffic in
slaves as it maintained to its neighbor. Though the
watchfulness of the Mediterranean cruisers renders the trade a
precarious one, the small lateen boats are frequently able to
sail from such ports as Benghazi, Derna, Solum, etc., with
living freight, along the coast to Asia Minor. In the
interior, which is inaccessible to travellers, owing to the
fanaticism of the Senoussi sect, caravans from Darfoor and
Wadai bring large numbers of slaves for the supply of
Tripolitan families and Senouissian sanctuaries. … The
partition of Africa among the European powers [by the Berlin
Conference of 1885 and the Anglo-German Convention of 1890] …
was the first effective blow dealt to the slave trade in inner
Africa.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
The east coast, whence a few years ago the slaves marched in
battalions to scatter over the wide interior of the continent
for pillage and devastation, is to-day guarded by German and
British troops. The island of Zanzibar, where they were
equipped for their murderous enterprises, is under the British
flag. … The final blow has been given by the act of the
Brussels Antislavery Conference, lately [1893] ratified by the
powers, wherein modern civilization has fully declared its
opinions upon the question of slavery, and no single power
will dare remain indifferent to them, under penalty of obloquy
and shame. … The Congo State devotes her annual subsidies of
£120,000 and the export tax of £30,000 wholly to the task of
securing her territory against the malign influences of the
slave trade, and elevating it to the rank of self-protecting
states. The German government undertakes the sure guardianship
of its vast African territory as an imperial possession, so as
to render it inaccessible to the slave-hunter. … The coast
towns are fortified and garrisoned; they [the Germans] are
making their advance towards Lake Tanganika by the erection of
military stations; severe regulations have been issued against
the importation of arms and gun-powder; the Reichstag has been
unstinted in its supplies of money; an experienced
administrator, Baron von Soden, has been appointed an imperial
commissioner, and scores of qualified subordinates assist him.
… So far the expenses, I think, have averaged over £100,000
annually. The French government devotes £60,000 annually for
the protection and administration of its Gaboon and Congo
territory."
_H. M. Stanley,
Slavery and the Slave Trade in Africa (1893). _
ALSO IN:
_R. F. Clarke,
Cardinal Lavigerie and the African Slave Trade,
part 2._
SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1871-1888.
Emancipation in Brazil.
See BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.
{2931}
SLAVES AND GLADIATORS, Rising of the.
See SPARTACUS, RISING OF.
----------SLAVONIC PEOPLES: Start--------
SLAVONIC PEOPLES AND LANGUAGE.
"The name under which the Slavonians appear in ancient
literature is generally Venedi or Veneti. … This name, unknown
to the Slavonians themselves, is that by which the Teutonic
tribes have from the first designated these their eastern
neighbours, viz. Wends, and the use of this appellation by the
Roman authors plainly shows that their knowledge of the
Slavonians was derived only from the Germans. The Old German
form of this name was Wineda, and Wenden is the name which the
Germans of the present day give to the remnants of a Slavonic
population, formerly large, who now inhabit Lusatia, while
they give the name of Winden to the Slovens in Carinthia,
Carniola and Styria. … If the Slavonians themselves ever
applied any common name to the whole of their family, it must
most probably have been that by which we now are accustomed to
call them, Slavs, or Slavonians; its original native form was
Slovene. … The most ancient sources from which we derive a
knowledge of the Wends or Slavonians, unanimously place them
by the Vistula. From that river, which must have formed their
western frontier, they extended eastward to the Dnieper, and
even beyond. To the south the Carpathians formed their
boundary. To the north they perhaps crossed the Dwina into the
territory afterwards known as Novgorod. In the extensive woods
and marshes which cover these remote tracts the Slavonians
seem to have dwelt in peace and quiet during the first
centuries after Christ, divided into a number of small tribes
or clans. … It was not long, however, before their primitive
home became too narrow for the Slavs, and as their numbers
could no longer be contained within their ancient
boundaries—and, perhaps, compelled to it by pressure from
without—they began to spread themselves to the west, in which
direction the great migrations of the fourth and fifth
centuries had made abundant room for the new immigrants. By
two different roads the Slavs now begin to advance in great
masses. On the one side, they cross the Vistula and extend
over the tracts between the Carpathian mountains and the
Baltic, right down to the Elbe, the former Germanic population
of this region having either emigrated or been exhausted by
their intestine contests and their deadly struggle with the
Roman empire. By this same road the Poles, and probably also
the Chekhs of Bohemia and Moravia, reached the districts they
have inhabited since that period. In the rest of this western
territory the Slavonians were afterwards almost exterminated
during their bloody wars with the Germans, so that but few of
their descendants exist. The other road by which the
Slavonians advanced lay to the south-west, along the course of
the Danube. These are the so-called South-Slavonians: the
Bulgarians, the Servians, the Croatians, and farthest
westward, the Slovens."
_V. Thomsen,
Relations between Ancient Russia and Scandinavia,
lecture 1._
"A controversy has been maintained respecting the origin of
the name [Slave]. The fact that … it has become among
ourselves a synonyme of servitude, does not of course
determine its real meaning. Those who bear it, naturally
dignify its import and themselves by assigning to it the
signification of 'glory';—the Slavonians to themselves are,
therefore, 'the glorious race.' But the truth seems to be,
that 'Slava' in its primitive meaning, was nothing but
'speech,' and that the secondary notions of 'fama,' 'gloria,'
followed from this, as it does in other tongues. ['If I know
not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that
speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a
barbarian unto me.' I. Corinthians, xiv. 11.]. … Slave or
Slavonian was, therefore, nothing more than the gentile
appellative, derived from the use of the national tongue, and
intended as antithetical to 'foreigner.' In the ancient
historic world, the Slaves played an insignificant part. Some
have identified them with the Scythians of Herodotus. … Like
the Celts, they seemed destined to be driven into corners in
the old world."
_J. G. Sheppard,
The Fall of Rome,
lecture 3._
See SLAVE: ORIGIN, &c.
"The Wendic or Slav group [lingual] … came into Europe during
the first five centuries of our era; it is divided into two
great branches, Eastern and Western. The first includes
Russian, Great Russian in West Central Russia; Little Russian,
Rusniac, or Ruthene in the south of Russia and even into
Austria, … Servian, Croatian, Slovenic, and Bulgarian, of
which the most ancient form is to the whole group what Gothic
is to the German dialects; modern Bulgarian is, on the
contrary, very much altered. … The western branch covered from
the 7th to the 9th century vast districts of Germany in which
only German is now known: Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg,
Saxony, Western Bohemia, Austria, Styria, and Northern
Carinthia. Though now much restricted, it can still boast
numerous dialects; among others the Wendic of Lusatia, which
is dying out, Tzech or Bohemian, which is very vigorous (ten
millions), of which a variety, Slovac, is found in Hungary;
lastly, Polish (ten millions)."
_A. Lefèvre,
Race and Language,
pages 239-240._
See, also: ARYANS; SARMATIA; and SCYTHIANS.
SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6-7th Centuries.
Migrations and settlements.
"The movements of the Avars in the sixth century [see AVARS]
seem to have had much the same effect upon the Slaves which
the movements of the Huns in the fourth century had upon the
Teutons. … The Slaves seem to have been driven by the Turanian
incursions in two directions; to the North-west and to the
South-west. The North-western division gave rise to more than
one European state, and their relations with Germany form an
important part of the history of the Western Empire. These
North-western Slaves do not become of importance till a little
later. But the South-western division plays a great part in
the history of the sixth and seventh centuries. … The Slaves
play in the East, though less thoroughly and less brilliantly,
the same part, half conquerors, half disciples, which the
Teutons played in the West. During the sixth century they
appear only as ravagers; in the seventh they appear as
settlers. There seems no doubt that Heraclius encouraged
Slavonic settlements south of the Danube, doubtless with a
view to defence against the more dangerous Avars. … A number
of Slavonic states thus arose in the lands north and east of
the Hadriatic, as Servia, Chrobatia or Croatia, Carinthia. …
Istria and Dalmatia now became Slavonic, with the exception of
the maritime cities, which, among many vicissitudes, clave to
the Empire. …
{2932}
The Slaves pressed on into a large part of Macedonia and
Greece, and, during the seventh and eighth centuries, the
whole of those countries, except the fortified cities and a
fringe along the coast, were practically cut off from the
Empire. The name of Slavinia reached from the Danube to
Peloponnêsos, leaving to the Empire only islands and detached
points of coast from Venice round to Thessalonica. … The
Slavonic occupation of Greece is a fact which must neither be
forgotten nor exaggerated. It certainly did not amount to an
extirpation of the Greek nation; but it certainly did amount
to an occupation of a large part of the country, which was
Hellenized afresh from those cities and districts which
remained Greek or Roman."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Empire,
chapter 5, section 4._
See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.
SLESWIG.
See SCHLESWIG.
SLIDING SCALE OF CORN DUTIES.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):
A. D. 1815-1828; and 1842.
SLIVNITZA, Battle of (1885).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
A. D. 1878-1886 (BULGARIA).
SLOBADYSSA, Battle of (1660).
See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.
SLOVENES, The.
See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.
SLUYS: A. D. 1587.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1587-1588.
SLUYS: A. D. 1604.
Taken by Prince Maurice of Nassau.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609.
SLUYS, Battle of (1340).
Edward III. of England, sailing with 200 ships on his second
expedition to France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360), found a
French fleet of about equal numbers lying in wait for him in
the harbor of Sluys. The English attacked, June 24, 1340, and
with such success that almost the entire French fleet was
taken or destroyed, and 25,000 to 30,000 men slain.
_W. Warburton,
Edward III.,
pages 77-79. _
ALSO IN:
_Sir J. Froissart,
Chronicles,
(translated by Johnes).
volume 1, book 1, chapter 50._
SMALKALDE, League of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.
SMALL-POX, AND VACCINATION.
See PLAGUE, ETC.: 6-13TH CENTURIES,
and MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY.
SMERWICK, Massacre of (1580).
See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.
SMITH, Captain John:
American voyages and adventures.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610, and 1609-1616;
also, AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
SMITH, Joseph, and the founding of Mormonism.
See MORMONISM.
SMITH, Sir Sidney, and the siege of Acre.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
SMITH COLLEGE.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1804-1891.
SMOLENSK, Battle of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
SMYRNA: Turkish massacre of Christians (1821).
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
SNAKE INDIANS, OR SHOSHONES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
SNUFF-TAKERS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
SOBIESKI, John,
King of Poland, A. D. 1674-1697,
and his deliverance of Vienna.
See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696;
and HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
SOBRAON, Battle of (1846).
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
SOBRARBE, Kingdom of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
SOCAGE TENURE.
FREESOCAGE.
See FEUDAL TENURES.
----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Start--------
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
Communism.
Socialism.
Labor Organization.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:
Utopias, Ancient and Modern.
"Speculative Communism has a brilliant history. It begins
about six hundred years before Christ with Phaleas of
Chalcedon, whom Milton speaks of as the first to recommend the
equalization of property in land. Plato favors Communism. In
the fifth book of the 'Republic,' Socrates is made to
advocate, not merely community of goods, but also community of
wives and children. This was no after-dinner debauch in the
groves of the Academy, as Milton too severely suggests. It was
a logical conclusion from a mistaken premise. … The ideal
aimed at was the unity of the State, whose pattern appears to
have been partly Pythagorean, and partly Spartan. In regard to
property, the formulated purpose was, not to abolish wealth,
but to abolish poverty. In the 'Laws' (volume 13), Plato would
allow to the richest citizen four times as much income as to
the poorest. In regard to women, the aim was not sensual
indulgence, but the propagation and rearing of the fittest
offspring. This community of wives and children was for the
ruling class only; not for the husbandmen, nor for the
artificers. So also, probably, the community of goods. We say
probably, for the scheme is not wrought out in all its
details, and Plato himself had no hope of seeing his dream
realized till kings are philosophers, or philosophers are
kings. The echoes of this Platonic speculation have been loud
and long. About the year 316 B. C., Evemerus, sent eastward by
Cassander, King of Macedon, on a voyage of scientific
discovery, reports in his 'Sacred History' the finding of an
island which he calls Panchaia, the seat of a Republic, whose
citizens were divided into the three classes of Priests,
Husbandmen, and Soldiers; where all property was common; and
all were happy. In 1516 Sir Thomas More published his
'Utopia;' evidently of Platonic inspiration. More also chose
an island for his political and social Paradise. He had Crete
in mind. His island, crescent-shaped, and 200 miles wide at
the widest point, contained 54 cities. It had community of
goods, but not of women.
{2933}
The 'Civitas Solis' of Campanella, published in 1623, was in
imitation perhaps of More's 'Utopia.' This City of the Sun
stood on a mountain in Ceylon, under the equator, and had a
community both of goods and of women. About the same time Lord
Bacon amused himself by writing the 'New Atlantis,' a mere
fragment, the porch of a building that was never finished. In
the great ferment of Cromwell's time the 'Oceana' of
Harrington appeared (1656); a book famous in its day, with
high traditional repute ever since, but now seldom read except
by the very few who feel themselves called upon to master the
literature of the subject. Hallam pronounces it a dull,
pedantic book; and nobody disputes the verdict. Harrington
advocates a division of land, no one to have more than two
thousand pounds' (ten thousand dollars') worth. The upshot of
it all would be, a moderate aristocracy of the middle classes.
Such books belong to a class by themselves, which may be
called Poetico-Political; æsthetic, scholarly, humane, and
hopeful. They are not addressed to the masses. If they make
revolutions, it is only in the long run. They are not battles,
nor half battles, but only the bright wild dreams of tired
soldiers in the pauses of battles. Communistic books with iron
in them … are not modern only, but recent. Modern Communism,
now grown so surly and savage everywhere, began mildly enough.
As a system, it is mostly French, name and all. The famous
writers are Saint-Simon, Fourier, Considérant, Proudhon,
Cabet, and Louis Blanc."
_R. D. Hitchcock,
Socialism,
pages 33-36._
ALSO IN:
_M. Kaufmann,
Utopias._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: Definition of Terms:
Socialism.
Communism.
Collectivism.
"As socialism has been most powerful and most studied on the
Continent, it may be interesting to compare the definitions
given by some leading French and German economists. The great
German economist Roscher defines it as including 'those
tendencies which demand a greater regard for the common weal
than consists with human nature.' Adolf Held says that 'we may
define as socialistic every tendency which demands the
subordination of the individual will to the community.' Janet
more precisely defines it as follows:—'We call socialism every
doctrine which teaches that the State has a right to correct
the inequality of wealth which exists among men, and to
legally establish the balance by taking from those who have
too much in order to give to those who have not enough, and
that in a permanent manner, and not in such and such a
particular case—a famine, for instance, a public calamity,
etc.' Laveleye explains it thus: 'In the first place, every
socialistic doctrine aims at introducing greater equality in
social conditions; and in the second place at realising those
reforms by the law or the State.' Von Scheel simply defines it
as the 'economic philosophy of the suffering classes.'"
_T. Kirkup,
A History of Socialism,
introduction._
"The economic quintessence of the socialistic programme, the
real aim of the international movement, is as follows. To
replace the system of private capital (i. e. the speculative
method of production, regulated on behalf of society only by
the free competition of private enterprises) by a system of
collective capital, that is, by a method of production which
would introduce a unified (social or 'collective ')
organization of national labour, on the basis of collective or
common ownership of the means of production by all the members
of the society. This collective method of production would
remove the present competitive system, by placing under
official administration such departments of production as can
be managed collectively (socially or co-operatively), as well
as the distribution among all of the common produce of all,
according to the amount and social utility of the productive
labour of each. This represents in the shortest possible
formula the aim of the socialism of today."
_A. Schäffle,
The Quintessence of Socialism,
pages 3-4._
"Socialism, … while it may admit the state's right of property
over against another state, does away with all ownership, on
the part of members of the state, of things that do not perish
in the using, or of their own labor in creating material
products. Its first and last policy is to prevent the
acquisition or exclusive use of capital, by any person or
association under the control of the state, with the
exception, perhaps, of articles of luxury or enjoyment
procured by the savings of wages. No savings can give rise to
what is properly called capital, or means of production in
private hands. … Commun·ism, in its ordinary signification, is
a system or form of common life, in which the right of private
or family property is abolished by law, mutual consent, or
vow. … Collectivism, which is now used by German as well as by
French writers, denotes the condition of a community when its
affairs, especially its industry, is managed in the collective
way, instead of the method of separate, individual effort. It
has, from its derivation, some advantages over the vague word
socialism, which may include many varieties of associated or
united life."
_T. D. Woolsey,
Communism and Socialism,
pages 1-8._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1720-1800.
Origin of Trades Unions in England.
"A Trade Union, as we understand the term, is a continuous
association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or
improving the conditions of their employment. … We have, by
our definition, expressly excluded from our history any
account of the innumerable instances in which the manual
workers have formed ephemeral combinations against their
social superiors. Strikes are as old as history itself. The
ingenious seeker of historical parallels might, for instance,
find in the revolt, B. C. 1490, of the Hebrew brickmakers in
Egypt against being required to make bricks without straw, a
curious precedent for the strike of the Stalybridge
cotton-spinners, A. D. 1892, against the supply of bad
material for their work. But we cannot seriously regard, as in
any way analogous to the Trade Union Movement of to-day, the
innumerable rebellions of subject races, the slave
insurrections, and the semi-servile peasant revolts of which
the annals of history are full. … When, however, we pass from
the annals of slavery or serfdom to those of the nominally
free citizenship of the mediæval town, we are on more
debatable ground. We make no pretence to a thorough knowledge
of English town-life in the Middle Ages. But it is clear that
there were at all times, alongside of the independent master
craftsmen, a number of hired journeymen, who are known to have
occasionally combined against their rulers and governors. …
{2934}
After detailed consideration of every published instance of a
journeyman's fraternity in England, we are fully convinced
that there is as yet no evidence of the existence of any such
durable and independent combination of wage-earners against
their employers during the Middle Ages. There are certain
other cases in which associations, which are sometimes assumed
to have been composed of journeymen maintained a continuous
existence. But in all these cases the 'Bachelors' Company,'
presumed to be a journeymen's fraternity, formed a subordinate
department of the masters' gild, by the rulers of which it was
governed. It will be obvious that associations in which the
employers dispensed the funds and appointed the officers can
bear no analogy to modern Trade Unions. The explanation of the
tardy growth of stable combination among hired journeymen is,
we believe, to be found in the prospects of economic
advancement which the skilled handicraftsman still possessed.
… The apprenticed journeyman in the skilled handicrafts
belonged, until comparatively modern times, to the same social
grade as his employer, and was, indeed, usually the son of a
master in the same or an analogous trade. So long as industry
was carried on mainly by small masters, each employing but one
or two journeymen, the period of any energetic man's service
as a hired wage-earner cannot normally have exceeded a few
years. … Under such a system of industry the journeymen would
possess the same prospects of economic advancement that
hindered the growth of stable combinations in the ordinary
handicrafts, and in this fact may lie the explanation of the
striking absence of evidence of any Trade Unionism in the
building trades right down to the end of the eighteenth
century. When, however, the capitalist builder or contractor
began to supersede the master mason, master plasterer, &c.,
and this class of small entrepreneurs had again to give place
to a hierarchy of hired workers, Trade Unions, in the modern
sense, began, as we shall see, to arise. We have dwelt at some
length upon these ephemeral associations of wage-earners and
on the journeymen fraternities of the Middle Ages, because it
might plausibly be argued that they were in some sense the
predecessors of the Trade Union. But strangely enough it is
not in these institutions that the origin of Trade Unionism
has usually been sought. For the predecessor of the modern
Trade Union, men have turned, not to the mediæval associations
of the wage-earners, but to those of their employers—that is
to say, the Craft Gilds. … The supposed descent of the Trade
Unions from the mediæval Craft Gild rests, as far as we have
been able to discover, upon no evidence whatsoever. The
historical proof is all the other way. In London, for
instance, more than one Trade Union has preserved an unbroken
existence from the eighteenth century. The Craft Gilds still
exist in the City Companies, and at no point in their history
do we find the slightest evidence of the branching off from
them of independent journeymen's societies. … We have failed
to discover, either in the innumerable trade pamphlets and
broad-sheets of the time, or in the Journals of the House of
Commons, any evidence of the existence, prior to 1700, of
continuous associations of wage-earners for maintaining or
improving the conditions of their employment. And when we
remember that during the latter decades of the seventeenth
century the employers of labour, and especially the industrial
'companies' or corporations, memorialised the House of Commons
on every conceivable grievance which affected their particular
trade, the absence of all complaints of workmen's combinations
suggests to us that no such combinations existed. In the early
years of the eighteenth century we find isolated complaints of
combinations 'lately entered into' by the skilled workers in
certain trades. As the century progresses we watch the gradual
multiplication of these complaints, met by counter-accusations
presented by organised bodies of workmen. … If we examine the
evidence of the rise of combinations in particular trades, we
see the Trade Union springing, not from any particular
institution, but from every opportunity for the meeting
together of wage-earners of the same trade. Adam Smith
remarked that 'people of the same trade seldom meet together,
even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in
a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to
raise prices.' And there is actual evidence of the rise of one
of the oldest of the existing Trade Unions out of a gathering
of the journeymen 'to take a social pint of porter together.'
More often it is a tumultuous strike, out of which grows a
permanent organisation. … If the trade is one in which the
journeymen frequently travel in search of work, we note the
slow elaboration of systematic arrangements for the relief of
these 'tramps' by their fellow-workers in each town through
which they pass, and the inevitable passage of this
far-extending tramping society into a national Trade Union. …
We find that at the beginning of the eighteenth century the
typical journeyman tailor in London and Westminster had become
a lifelong wage-earner. It is not surprising, therefore, that
one of the earliest instances of permanent Trade Unionism that
we have been able to discover occurs in this trade. The master
tailors in 1720 complain to Parliament that 'the Journeymen
Taylors in and about the Cities of London and Westminster, to
the number of seven thousand and upwards, have lately entered
into a combination to raise their wages and leave off working
an hour sooner than they used to do; and for the better
carrying on their design have subscribed their respective
names in books prepared for that purpose, at the several
houses of call or resort (being publick-houses in and about
London and Westminster) where they use; and collect several
considerable sums of money to defend any prosecutions against
them.' Parliament listened to the masters' complaint, and
passed the Act 7, Geo. 1. st. 1, c. 13, restraining both the
giving and the taking of wages in excess of a stated maximum,
all combinations being prohibited. From that time forth the
journeymen tailors of London and Westminster have remained in
effective though sometimes informal combination, the
organisation centring round the fifteen or twenty 'houses of
call.'"
_S. and B. Webb,
The History of Trade-Unionism,
chapter 1._
{2935}
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1753-1797.
Mably, Morelly, and the conspiracy of Babœuf, in France.
"If Rousseau cannot be numbered among the communistic writers,
strictly so called, two of his contemporaries, Mably and
Morelly—the first more a dreamer, the second of a more
practical spirit —deserve that title. … In the social theory
of Mably, inequality of condition is the great evil in the
world … Mably was a theorist who shrunk back from the
practical application of his own theories. The establishment
of community of goods, and even of equality of fortunes, he
dared not advocate. 'The evil,' he says, 'is too inveterate
for the hope of a cure.' And so he advised half
measures—agrarian laws fixing the maximum of landed estates,
and sumptuary laws regulating expenses. … Morelly, whose
principal works are a communistic poem, called 'The Basiliade'
(1753) and 'The Code of Nature' (1755), is called by a French
writer one of the most obscure authors of the last century.
But he knew what he wanted, and had courage to tell it to
others. … Morelly's power on subsequent opinion consists in
his being the first to put dreams or theories into a code;
from which shape it seemed easy to fanatical minds to carry it
out into action. His starting-point is that men can be made
good or evil by institutions. Private property, or avarice
called out by it, is the source of all vice. 'Hence, where no
property existed there would appear none of its pernicious
consequences.' … In 1782, Brissot de Warville invented the
phrase, used afterward by Proudhon, Propriété c'est le vol. …
Twelve years afterward a war against the rich began, and such
measures as a maximum of property and the abolition of the
right to make a will were agitated. But the right of property
prevailed, and grew stronger after each new revolution. In
1796 the conspiracy of the Equals, or, as it is generally
called, of Babœuf, was the final and desperate measure of a
portion of those Jacobins who had been stripped by the fall of
Robespierre (in 1794) of political power. It was the last hope
of the extreme revolutionists, for men were getting tired of
agitations and wanted rest. This conspiracy seems to have been
fomented by Jacobins in prison; and it is said that one of
them, who was a believer in Morelly and had his work in his
hands, expounded its doctrines to his fellow-prisoner Babœuf.
When they were set at liberty by an amnesty law, there was a
successful effort made to bring together the society or sect
of the Equals; but it was found that they were not all of one
mind. Babœuf was for thorough measures—for a community of
goods and of labor, an equality of conditions and of comforts.
… There was a secret committee of the society of the Equals,
as well as an open society. The latter excited the suspicion
of the Directory, and an order was given to suspend its
sessions in the Pantheon (or (Church of St. Geneviève). The
order was executed by Bonaparte, then general of the army of
the interior, who dispersed the members and put a seal on the
doors of the place of meeting. Next the Equals won over a body
of the police into their measures; and, when this force was
disbanded by the Directory, the Equals established a committee
of public safety. The committee was successful in bringing as
many as sixty of the party of the mountain into their ranks,
and an insurrection was projected. Seventeen thousand fighting
men were calculated upon by the conspirators as at their
disposal. But an officer of the army whom they had tried to
bring into their plots denounced them to the Directory. The
leading conspirators were arrested [1797]. Babœuf and Darthé
suffered death, and five others were banished."
_T. D. Woolsey,
Communism and Socialism,
pages 97-104._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1774-1875.
The Communities of the Shakers.
See SHAKERS.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824.
Robert Owen.
His experiments at New Lanark and his New Harmony Society.
"Whilst in France the hurricane of the Revolution swept over
the land, in England a quieter, but not on that account less
tremendous, revolution was going on. Steam and the new
tool-making machinery were transforming manufacture into
modern industry, and thus revolutionising the whole foundation
of bourgeois society. … With constantly increasing swiftness
the splitting-up of society into large capitalists and
non-possessing proletarians went on. Between these, instead of
the former stable middle-class, an unstable mass of artisans
and small shopkeepers, the most fluctuating portion of the
population, now led a precarious existence. The new mode of
production was, as yet, only at the beginning of its period of
ascent; as yet it was the normal, regular method of
production—the only one possible under existing conditions.
Nevertheless, even then it was producing crying social abuses.
… At this juncture there came forward as a reformer a
manufacturer 29 years old—a man of almost sublime, childlike
simplicity of character, and at the same time one of the few
born leaders of men. Robert Owen had adopted the teaching of
the materialistic philosophers: that man's character is the
product, on the one hand, of heredity, on the other, of the
environment of the indivIdual during his lifetime, and
especially during his period of development. In the industrial
revolution most of his class saw only chaos and confusion, and
the opportunity of fishing in these troubled waters and making
large fortunes quickly. He saw in it the opportunity of
putting into practice his favourite theory, and so of bringing
order out of chaos. He had already tried it with success, as
superintendent of more than 500 men in a Manchester factory.
From 1800 to 1829, he directed the great cotton mill at New
Lanark, in Scotland, as managing partner, along the same
lines, but with greater freedom of action and with a success
that made him a European reputation. A population, originally
consisting of the most diverse and, for the most part, very
demoralised elements, a population that gradually grew to
2,500, he turned into a model colony, in which drunkenness,
police, magistrates, lawsuits, poor laws, charity, were
unknown. And all this simply by placing the people in
conditions worthy of human beings, and especially by carefully
bringing up the rising generation. He was the founder of
infant schools, and introduced them first at New Lanark. …
Whilst his competitors worked their people 13 or 14 hours a
day, in New Lanark the working-day was only 10½ hours. When a
crisis in cotton stopped work for four months, his workers
received their full wages an the time. And with all this the
business more than doubled in value, and to the last yielded
large profits to its proprietors. In spite of all this, Owen
was not content. The existence which he secured for his
workers was, in his eyes, still far from being worthy of human
beings. 'The people were slaves at my mercy.' … 'The working
part of this population of 2,500 persons was daily producing
as much real wealth for society as, less than half a century
before, it would have required the working part of a
population of 600,000 to create. I asked myself, what became
of the difference between the wealth consumed by 2,500 persons
and that which would have been consumed by 600,000?' The
answer was clear.
{2936}
It had been used to pay the proprietors of the establishment 5
per cent. on the capital they had laid out, in addition to
over £300,000 clear profit. And that which held for New Lanark
held to a still greater extent for all the factories in
England. … The newly-created gigantic productive forces,
hitherto used only to enrich individuals and to enslave the
masses, offered to Owen the foundations for a reconstruction
of society; they were destined, as the common property of all,
to be worked for the common good of all. Owen's Communism was
based upon this purely business foundation, the outcome, so to
say, of commercial calculation. Throughout, it maintained this
practical character."
_F. Engels,
Socialism, Utopian and Scientific,
pages 19-24._
Owen's projects "were received with applause at first. 'The
Times' spoke of 'his enlightened zeal in the cause of
humanity;' the Duke of Kent writes to Owen: 'I have a most
sincere wish that a fair trial should be given to your system,
of which I have never hesitated to acknowledge myself an
admirer;' Lord Brougham sympathised with the propounder of
this social scheme; the judicial philosopher Bentham became
actually a temporary ally of the 'wilful Welshman;' a
committee was appointed, including Ricardo and Sir R. Peel,
who recommended Owen's scheme to be tried; it was taken up by
the British and Foreign Philanthropic Society for the
permanent relief of the working-classes; it was actually
presented to Parliament with petitions humbly praying that a
Committee of the House might be appointed to visit and report
on New Lanark. But the motion was lost. The temporary
enthusiasm cooled down. … Contemporaneously with royal
speeches alluding to the prosperity of trade, and
congratulations as to the flourishing appearance of town and
country, the voice of Owen is silenced with his declining
popularity. It must be remembered also that he had by this
time justly incurred the displeasure of the religious public,
by the bold and unnecessarily harsh expressions of his ethical
and religious convictions. Those who could distinguish the man
from his method, who were fully aware of his generous
philanthropy, purity of private life, and contempt of personal
advancement, could make allowance for his rash assertions. The
rest, however, turned away with pious horror or silent
contempt from one who so fiercely attacked positive creeds,
and appeared unnecessarily vehement in his denial of moral
responsibility. Owen set his face to the West, and sought new
adherents in America, where he founded [1824] a 'Preliminary
Society' in 'New Harmony', which was to be the nucleus of his
future society. …
See A. D. 1805-1827: ROBERT OWEN AND THE
COMMUNITY AT NEW HARMONY.
In the following year Owen agreed to a change in the
constitution, in favour of communism, under the title of the
'New Harmony Community of Equality.' The settlement enjoyed a
temporary prosperity, but soon showed signs of decay, and Owen
was destined to meet with as many trials in the new as he had
encountered discouragements in the old world."
_M. Kaufmann,
Utopias,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_W. L. Sargant,
Robert Owen and his Social Philosophy._
_Anonymous
Life of Robert Owen. _
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1875.
Struggle of the Trades Unions in England for a legal existence.
During the 18th century, "the employers succeeded in passing a
whole series of laws, some of them of Draconian severity,
designed to suppress combinations of working men. In England
they are called the Combination Laws, and culminated in the
Act of 40 George Ill., c. 106, which was passed in 1800 in
response to a petition from the employers. It made all trade
combinations illegal. … The result of this law, which was
expressly designed to put an end to strikes altogether, is an
instructive example of the usual effect of such measures. The
workmen's associations, which had frequently hitherto been
formed quite openly, became secret, while they spread through
the length and breadth of England. The time when the books of
the Union were concealed on the moors, and an oath of secrecy
was exacted from its members, is still a living tradition in
labour circles. It was a time when the hatred of the workers
towards the upper classes and the legislature flourished
luxuriantly, while the younger generation of working men who
had grown up under the shadow of repressive legislation,
became the pillars of the revolutionary Chartist movement. The
old struggle against capital assumed a more violent character.
… It was the patent failure of the Combination Laws which gave
the stimulus to the suggestion of repeal soon after 1820," and
the repeal was accomplished by the Act of 1824. "The immediate
consequence of this Act was the outbreak of a number of
somewhat serious strikes. The general public then took fright,
and thus the real struggle for the right of combination began
after it had received legal recognition. In 1825, the
employers rallied and demanded the re-enactment of the earlier
laws on the ground that Parliament had carried their repeal
with undue precipitation. … The Act of 1825 which repealed
that of the previous year, was a compromise in which the
opponents of free combination had gained the upper hand. But
they had been frustrated in their attempt to stamp out the
Unions with all the rigour of the law, for the champions of
the Act of 1824 were in a position to demonstrate that the
recognition of combination had already done something to
improve the relations between capital and labour. It had at
least done away with that secrecy which in itself constituted
a danger to the State; and now that the Unions were openly
avowed, their methods had become less violent. Nevertheless,
the influence of the manufacturers strongly predominated in
framing the Bill. … The only advance on the state of things
previous to 1824 which had been secured was the fundamental
point that a combination of working men was not in itself
illegal-though almost any action which could rise out of such
a combination was prohibited. Yet it was under the Act of 1825
that the Trade Unions grew and attained to that important
position in which we find them at the beginning of the
seventies. Here was emphatically a movement which the law
might force into illegal channels, but could not suppress. …
The most serious danger that the Trade Unions encountered was
in the course of the sixties. Under the leadership of one
Broadhead, certain Sheffield Unions had entered on a course of
criminal intimidation of non-members. The general public took
their action as indicating the spirit of Trade Unions
generally.
{2937}
In point of fact, the workmen employed in the Sheffield trade
were in a wholly exceptional position. … But both in
Parliament and the Press it was declared that the occurrences
at Sheffield called for more stringent legislation and the
suppression of combinations of working men. … But times had
changed since 1825. The Unions themselves called for the most
searching inquiry into their circumstances and methods, which
would, they declared, prove that they were in no way
implicated in such crimes as had been committed in Sheffield.
The impulse given by Thomas Carlyle had raised powerful
defenders for the workmen, first among whom we may mention the
positivist Frederic Harrison, and Thomas Hughes, the
co-operator. … The preliminaries to the appointment of the
Commission of 1867 revealed a change in the attitude of the
employers, especially the more influential of them, which
marked an enormous advance on the debates of 1824 and 1825. …
The investigation of the Commission of 1867-1869 were of a
most searching character, and their results are contained in
eleven reports. The Unions came well through the ordeal, and
it was shown that the outrages had been confined to a few
Unions, for the most part of minor importance. It further
appeared that where no combination existed the relations
between employers and hands were not more friendly, while the
position of the workers was worse and in some cases quite
desperate. The report led up to proposals for the legislation
of Trade Unions, and to the legislation of 1871-1876, which
was supported by many influential employers. The altitude of
Parliament had changed with amazing rapidity. … The Trade
Union Acts of 1871 and 1870 give all Unions, on condition that
they register their rules, the same rights as were already
enjoyed by the Friendly Societies in virtue of earlier
legislation, i. e. the rights of legal personality. They can
sue and be sued, possess real and personal estate, and can
proceed summarily against their officers for fraudulent
conduct. They also possess facilities for the transfer of
investments to new trustees. The Act of 1871 was extended by
that of 1876, framed expressly with the concurrence of the
Trade Union leaders. … The working men, now that they are left
to conduct their meetings in any way they choose, have
gradually developed that sober and methodical procedure which
amazes the Continental observer. … At Common Law, any action
of Trade Unionists to raise wages seemed liable to punishment
as conspiracy, on the ground that it was directed against the
common weal. The course run by the actual prosecutions did,
indeed, prevent this doctrine from ever receiving the sanction
of a sentence expressly founded on it; but it gathered in ever
heavier thunders over the heads of the Unions, and its very
vagueness gave it the appearance of a deliberate persecution
of one class of society in the interests of another. The Act
of 1871 first brought within definite limits the extreme
penalties that could be enforced against Trade Unionists
either at Statute or Common Law. … By the Conspiracy and
Protection of Property Act of 1875 the workmen's economic aims
were at last recognised on precisely the same footing as those
of other citizens."
_G. von Schulze-Gaevernitz,
Social Peace,
pages 86-102. _
ALSO IN:
_Le Comte de Paris,
The Trades' Unions of England._
_W. Trant,
Trade Unions._
_National Association for the Promotion of Social Science,
Report of Committee on Societies and Strikes, 1860._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827.
George Rapp and the Harmony Society.
Robert Owen and the Community at New Harmony.
The "Harmony Society" was first settled in Pennsylvania, on a
tract of land about twenty five miles north of Pittsburgh, in
1805, by George Rapp, the leader of a religious congregation
in Germany which suffered persecution there and sought greater
freedom in America. From the beginning, they agreed "to throw
all their possessions into a common fund, to adopt a uniform
and simple dress and style of house; to keep thenceforth all
things in common; and to labor for the common good of the
whole body. … At this time they still lived in families, and
encouraged, or at any rate did not discourage, marriage." But
in 1807 they became persuaded that "it was best to cease to
live in the married state. … Thenceforth no more marriages
were contracted …, and no more children were born. A certain
number of the younger people, feeling no vocation for a
celibate life, at this time withdrew from the society." In
1814 and 1815 the society sold its property in Pennsylvania
and removed to a new home in Posey County, Indiana, on the
Wabash, where 30,000 acres of land were bought for it. The new
settlement received the name of "Harmony." But this in its
turn was sold, in 1824, to Robert Owen, for his New Lanark
colony, which he planted there, under the name of the "New
Harmony Community," and the Rappists returned eastward, to
establish themselves at a lovely spot on the Ohio, where their
well-known village called "Economy" was built. "Once it was a
busy place, for it had cotton, silk, and woolen factories, a
brewery, and other industries; but the most important of these
have now [1874] ceased. … Its large factories are closed, for
its people are too few to man them; and the members [numbering
110 in 1874, mostly aged] think it wiser and more comfortable
for themselves to employ labor at a distance from their own
town. They are pecuniarily interested in coal-mines, in
saw-mills, and oil-wells; and they control manufactories at
Beaver Falls—notably a cutlery shop. … The society is
reported to be worth from two to three millions of dollars."
_C. Nordhoff,
The Communistic Societies of the United States,
pages 63-91._
At the settlement in Indiana, "on the departure of the
Rappites, persons favorable to Mr. Owen's views came flocking
to New Harmony (as it was thenceforth called) from all parts
of the country. Tidings of the new social experiment spread
far and wide. … In the short space of six weeks from the
commencement of the experiment, a population of 800 persons
was drawn together, and in October 1825, the number had
increased to 900." At the end of two years, in June, 1827, Mr.
Owen seems to have given up the experiment and departed from
New Harmony. "After his departure the majority of the
population also removed and scattered about the country. Those
who remained returned to individualism, and settled as farmers
and mechanics in the ordinary way. One portion of the estate
was owned by Mr. Owen, and the other by Mr. Maclure. They
sold, rented, or gave away the houses and lands, and their
heirs and assigns have continued to do so."
_J. H. Noyes,
History of American Socialisms,
chapter 4._
{2938}
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886.
The modern Co-operative movement in England.
"The co-operative idea as applied to industry existed in the
latter part of the last century. Ambelakia was almost a
co-operative town, as may be read in David Urquhart's 'Turkey
and its Resources.' So vast a municipal partnership of
industry has never existed since. The fishers on the Cornish
coast carried out co-operation on the sea, and the miners of
Cumberland dug ore on the principle of sharing the profits.
The plan has been productive of contentment and advantage.
Gruyère is a co-operative cheese, being formerly made in the
Jura mountains, where the profits were equitably divided among
the makers. In 1777, as Dr. Langford relates in his 'Century
of Birmingham Life,' the tailors of that enterprising town set
up a co-operative workshop, which is the earliest in English
record. In France an attempt was made by Babœuf in 1796, to
establish a despotism of justice and equality by violence,
after the manner of Richelieu, whose policy taught the French
revolutionists that force might be a remedy. … Contemporaneous
with the French revolutionists we had Shute Barrington, Bishop
of Durham, who surpassed all other bishops in human sympathy
and social sagacity. He established at Mongewell, in
Oxfordshire, the first known co-operative store; and he, Count
Rumford, and Sir Thomas Bernard published in 1795, and for
many years after, plans of co·operative and social life, far
exceeding in variety and thoroughness any in the minds of
persons now living. 'The only apostle of the social state in
England at the beginning of this century,' Harriet Martineau
testifies, 'was Robert Owen,' and to him we owe the
co-operation of to-day. With him it took the shape of a
despotism of philanthropy. … The amazing arrangements Mr. Owen
made at his New Lanark Mills for educating his workpeople, and
the large amount of profit which he expended upon their
personal comforts, have had no imitators except Godin of
Guise, whose palaces of industry are to-day the wonder of all
visitors. Owen, like Godin, knew how to make manufacturing
generosity pay. … It was here that Mr. Owen set up a
co-operative store on the primitive plan of buying goods and
provisions wholesale and selling them to the workmen's
families at cost price, he giving storerooms and paying for
the management, to the greater advantage of the industrial
purchasers. The benefit which the Lanark weavers enjoyed in
being able to buy retail at wholesale prices was soon noised
abroad, and clever workmen elsewhere began to form stores to
supply their families in the same way. The earliest instance
of this is the Economical Society of Sheerness, commenced in
1816, and which is still doing business in the same premises
and also in adjacent ones lately erected. … These practical
co-operative societies with economical objects gradually
extended themselves over the land, Mr. Owen with splendid
generosity, giving costly publicity to his successes, that
others might profit likewise according to their means. His
remarkable manufacturing gains set workmen thinking that they
might do something in the same way. … The co-operative stores
now changed their plan. They sold retail at shop charges, and
saved the difference between retail and cost price as a fund
with which to commence co-operative workshops. In 1830 from
300 to 400 co-operative stores had been set up in England.
There are records of 250 existing, cited in the 'History of
Co-operation in Eng]and.' … The Rochdale Society of 1844 was
the first which adopted the principle of giving the
shareholders 5 per cent. only, and dividing the remaining
profit among the customers. There is a recorded instance of
this being done in Huddersfield in 1827, but no practical
effect arose, and no propagandism of the plan was attempted
until the Rochdale co-operators devised the scheme of their
own accord, and applied it. They began under the idea of
saving money for community purposes and establishing
co-operative workshops. For this purpose they advised their
members to leave their savings in the store at 5 per cent.
interest; and with a view to get secular education, of which
there was little to be had in those days, and under the
impression that stupidity was against them, they set apart 2½
per cent. of their profits for the purpose of instruction,
education, and propagandism. By selling at retail prices they
not only acquired funds, but they avoided the imputation of
underselling their neighbours, which they had the good sense
and good feeling to dislike. They intended to live, but their
principle was 'to let live.' By encouraging members to save
their dividends in order to accumulate capital, they taught
them habits of thrift. By refusing to sell on credit they made
no losses; they incurred no expenses in keeping books, and
they taught the working classes around them, for the first
time, to live without falling into debt. This scheme of
equity, thrift, and education constitutes what is called the
'Rochdale plan.' … The subsequent development of co-operation
has been greatly due to the interest which Professor Maurice,
Canon Kingsley, Mr. Vansittart Neale, Mr. Thomas Hughes, and
Mr. J. M. Ludlow took in it. They promoted successive
improvements in the law which gave the stores legal
protection, and enabled them to become bankers, to hold land,
and allow their members to increase their savings to £200. …
The members of co-operative societies of the Rochdale type now
exceed 900,000, and receive more than 2½ millions of profit
annually. There are 1,200 stores in operation, which do a
business of nearly 30 millions a year, and own share capital
of 8 millions. The transactions of their Co-operative Bank at
Manchester amount to 16 millions annually. The societies
devote to education £22,000 a year out of their profits, and
many societies expend important sums for the same purpose,
which is not formally recorded in their returns. In the
twenty-five years from 1861 to 1886 the co-operators have done
business of upwards of 361 millions, and have made for working
people a profit of 30 millions. … Co-operation in other
countries bears no comparison with its rise and progress in
England. The French excel in co-operative workshops, the
Germans in co-operative banks, England in the organisation of
stores. No country has succeeded yet with all three. Italy
excels even Germany in co-operative banks. It has, too, some
remarkable distributive societies, selling commodities at cost
prices, and is now beginning stores on the Rochdale plan.
France has many distributive stores, and is likely to
introduce the Rochdale type. … America … is likely to excel in
industrial partnerships, and is introducing the English system
of co-operation."
{2939}
_G. J. Holyoake,
The Growth of Co-operation in England
(Fortnightly Review, August 1, 1887)._
The "Christian Socialism" which arose in England about 1850,
under the influence of Frederick D. Maurice, Charles Kingsley,
Thomas Hughes, identified itself practically with the
co-operative movement.
_R. T. Ely,
French and German Socialism,
pages 249-251._
ALSO IN:
_G. J. Holyoake,
History of Co-operation in England._
_G. J. Holyoake,
History of the Rochdale Pioneers._
_B. Jones,
Co-operative Production._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825.
Saint Simon and Saint Simonism.
"Comte Henri de Saint-Simon, the founder of French socialism,
was born at Paris in 1760. He belonged to a younger branch of
the family of the celebrated duke of that name. His education,
he tells us, was directed by D'Alembert. At the age of
nineteen he went as volunteer to assist the American colonies
in their revolt against Britain. … It was not till 1817 that
he began, in a treatise entitled 'L'Industrie,' to propound
his socialistic views, which he further developed in
'L'Organisateur' (1819), 'Du Système industriel' (1821),
'Catechisme des Industriels' (1823). The last and most
important expression of his views is the 'Nouveau
Christianisme' (1825). For many years before his death in 1825
Saint-Simon had been reduced to the greatest straits. He was
obliged to accept a laborious post for a salary of £40 a year,
to live on the generosity of a former valet, and finally to
solicit a small pension from his family. In 1823 he attempted
suicide in despair. It was not till very late in his career
that he attached to himself a few ardent disciples. As a
thinker Saint-Simon was entirely deficient in system,
clearness, and consecutive strength. His writings are largely
made up of a few ideas continually repeated. But his
speculations are always ingenious and original; and he has
unquestionably exercised great influence on modern thought,
both as the historic founder of French socialism and as
suggesting much of what was afterwards elaborated into
Comtism. … His opinions were conditioned by the French
Revolution and by the feudal and military system still
prevalent in France. In opposition to the destructive
liberalism of the Revolution he insisted on the necessity of a
new and positive re-organisation of society. So far was he
from advocating social revolt that he appealed to Louis XVIII.
to inaugurate the new order of things. In opposition, however,
to the feudal and military system, the former aspect of which
had been strengthened by the Restoration, he advocated an
arrangement by which the industrial chiefs should control
society. In place of the Mediæval Church, the spiritual
direction of society should fall to the men of science. What
Saint-Simon desired, therefore, was an industrialist State
directed by modern science. The men who are best fitted to
organise society for productive labour are entitled to bear
rule in it. The social aim is to produce things useful to
life; the final end of social activity is 'the exploitation of
the globe by association.' The contrast between labour and
capital, so much emphasised by later socialism, is not present
to Saint-Simon, but it is assumed that the industrial chiefs,
to whom the control of production is to be committed, shall
rule in the interest of society. Later on, the cause of the
poor receives greater attention, till in his greatest work,
'The New Christianity,' it becomes the central point of his
teaching, and takes the form of a religion. It was this
religious development of his teaching that occasioned his
final quarrel with Comte. Previous to the publication of the
'Nouveau Christianisme' Saint-Simon had not concerned himself
with theology. Here he starts from a belief in God, and his
object in the treatise is to reduce Christianity to its simple
and essential elements. … During his lifetime the views of
Saint-Simon had little influence, and he left only a very few
devoted disciples, who continued to advocate the doctrines of
their master, whom they revered as a prophet. … The school of
Saint-Simon insists strongly on the claims of merit; they
advocate a social hierarchy in which each man shall be placed
according to his capacity and rewarded according to his works.
This is, indeed, a most special and pronounced feature of the
Saint-Simon Socialism, whose theory of government is a kind of
spiritual or scientific autocracy. … With regard to the family
and the relation of the sexes the school of Saint-Simon
advocated the complete emancipation of woman and her entire
equality with man."
_T. Kirkup,
A History of Socialism,
chapter 2._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847.
Fourier and Fourierism.
"Almost contemporaneously with St. Simon [see SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825] another Frenchman, Charles
Fourier, was elaborating a different and, in the opinion of
Mill, a more workable scheme of social renovation on
Socialistic lines. The work, indeed, in which Fourier's main
ideas are embodied, called the 'Théorie des quatre
Mouvements,' was published in 1808, long before St. Simon had
given his views to the world, but it received no attention
until after the discredit of the St. Simonian scheme,
beginning in 1832. Association is the central word of
Fourier's as of St. Simon's industrial system. Associated
groups of from 1,600 to 2,000 persons are to cultivate a
square league of ground called the Phalange, or phalanx; and
are likewise to carry on all other kinds of industry which may
be necessary. The individuals are to live together in one pile
of buildings, called the Phalanstery, in order to economize in
buildings, in domestic arrangements, cooking, etc., and to
reduce distributors' profits; they may eat at a common table
or not, as seems good to them: that is, they have life in
common, and a good deal in each other's sight; they do not
work in common more than is necessary under the existing
system; and there is not a community of property. Neither
private property, nor inheritance, is abolished. In the
division of the produce of industry, after a minimum
sufficient for bare subsistence has been assigned to each one,
the surplus, deducting the capital necessary for future
operations, is to be divided amongst the three great interests
of Labour, Capital, and Talent, in the respective proportions
of five-twelfths, four-twelfths, and three-twelfths.
Individuals, according to their several tastes or aptitudes,
may attach themselves to more than one of the numerous groups
of labourers within each association. Everyone must work;
useless things will not be produced; parasitic or unnecessary
work, such as the work of agents, distributors, middlemen
generally, will not exist in the phalanstery; from all which
the Fourierist argues that no one need work excessively. Nor
need the work be disagreeable. On the contrary, Fourier has
discovered the secret of making labour attractive.
{2940}
Few kinds of labour are intrinsically disagreeable; and if any
is unpleasant, it is mostly because it is monotonous or too
long continued. On Fourier's plan the monotony will vanish,
and none need work to excess. Even work regarded as
intrinsically repugnant ceases to be so when it is not
regarded as dishonourable, or when it absolutely must be done.
But should it be thought otherwise, there is one way of
compensating such work in the phalanstery—let those who
perform it be paid higher than other workers, and let them
vary it with work more agreeable, as they will have
opportunity of doing in the new community."
_W. Graham,
Socialism, New and Old,
pages 98-100._
Fourier died in 1837. After his death the leadership of his
disciples, who were still few in number, devolved upon M.
Considérant, the editor of 'La Phalange,' a journal which had
been started during the previous year for the advocacy of the
doctrines of the school. "The activity of the disciples
continued unabated. Every anniversary of the birthday of the
founder they celebrated by a public dinner. In 1838 the number
of guests was only 90; in the following year they had
increased to 200; and they afterwards rose to more than 1,000.
Every anniversary of his death they visited his grave at the
cemetery of Montmartre, and decorated it with wreaths of
immortelles. Upon these solemn occasions representatives
assembled from all parts of the world, and testified by their
presence to the faith they had embraced. In January, 1839, the
Librairie Sociale, in the Rue de I' Ecole de Medicine, was
established, and the works of Fourier and his disciples, with
those of other socialist writers, obtained a large
circulation. … In 1840 'La Phalange,' began to appear, as a
regular newspaper, three times a week. … Some of its
principles began to exercise a powerful influence. Several
newspapers in Paris, and throughout the country, demanded
social revolution rather than political agitation. The cries
of 'Organisation du Travail,' 'Droit au Travail,' that were
now beginning to be heard so frequently in after-dinner
toasts, and in the mouths of the populace, were traced back to
Fourier. Cabet had already published his 'Voyage en Icarie';
Louis Blanc was writing in 'La Revue du Progrès,' and many
other shades of socialism and communism were springing into
existence, and eagerly competing for public favour. … M.
Schneider communicated the theory to his countrymen in
Germany, in 1837. The knowledge was farther extended in a
series of newspaper articles by M. Gatzkow, in 1842; and
separate works treating of the subject were subsequently
published by M. Stein and M. Loose. In Spain, it found au
active disciple in Don Joachin Abreu; and a plan for
realisation was laid before the Regent by Don Manuel de Beloy.
In England, Mr. Hugh Doherty was already advocating it in the
'Morning Star.' In 1841, his paper appeared with the new name
of 'London Phalanx'; and it was announced that thousands of
pounds, and thousands of acres, were at the disposal of the
disciples. The Communists of the school of Owen received the
new opinions favourably, and wished them every success in
their undertaking. In America, Fourier soon obtained
followers; the doctrine seems to have been introduced by M.
Jean Manesca, who was the secretary of a phalansterian
society, established in New York so early as 1838. In 1840, no
less than 50 German families started from New York, under the
leadership of MM. Gaertner and Hempel, both Fourierists, to
establish a colony in Texas. They seem to have prospered for a
time at least, for their numbers subsequently rose to 200,000.
In October of the same year, the first number of the 'Phalanx'
appeared at Buffalo, in New York State. Mr. Albert Brisbane,
who had recently returned from Paris, had just published a
work on the 'Social Destiny of Man,' which is, to a great
extent, an abridgment of M. Considérant's 'Destinée Sociale.'
He became the editor of the 'Future,' which replaced the
'Phalanx,' and was published at New York. This paper obtained
but a small circulation, and Mr. Brisbane thought it advisable
to discontinue it, and, in its stead, to purchase a column in
the 'New York Tribune.' … When Mr. Brisbane began his
propaganda, there was a 'Society of Friends of Progress' in
existence in Boston. It included among its members some of the
most eminent men in the intellectual capital of the New World.
… A paper called the 'Dial' was started, to which Emerson,
Parker, and Margaret Fuller contributed. Their object was to
advocate a community upon the principles of Fourier, but so
modified as to suit their own peculiar views. The result was
the acquisition of Brook Farm. … But the influence of Mr.
Brisbane was not limited to indirectly inspiring these
eccentric experiments. It was said that in New York alone, in
1843, there were three newspapers reflecting the opinions of
Fourier, and no less than forty throughout the rest of the
States. Besides this, many reviews were occupied in discussing
them. The first association in America to call itself a
phalanx was Sylvania. It was begun in October, 1843, and
lasted for about a year and a half. There were 150 members,
and Mr. Horace Greeley's name appears among the list of its
officers; it consisted of 2,300 acres in Pennsylvania. … There
were thirty-four undertaken during the Fourier excitement, but
of these we have complete statistics of only fourteen. … The
years 1846-7 proved fatal to most of them. Indeed, Mr.
Brisbane acknowledged in July, 1847, that only three then
survived."
_A. J. Booth,
Fourier,
(Fortnightly Review, December, 1872)._
"Horace Greeley, under date of July 1847, wrote to the
'People's Journal' the following. 'As to the Associationists
(by their adversaries termed "Fourierites"), with whom I am
proud to be numbered, their beginnings are yet too recent to
justify me in asking for their history any considerable space
in your columns. Briefly, however, the first that was heard in
this country of Fourier and his views (beyond a little circle
of perhaps a hundred persons in two or three of our large
cities, who had picked up some notion of them in France or
from French writings), was in 1840, when Albert Brisbane
published his first synopsis of Fourier's theory of industrial
and household Association. Since then the subject has been
considerably discussed, and several attempts of some sort have
been made to actualize Fourier's ideas, generally by men
destitute alike of capacity, public confidence, energy and
means. In only one instance that I have heard of was the land
paid for on which the enterprise commenced; not one of these
vaunted "Fourier Associations" ever had the means of erecting
a proper dwelling for so many as three hundred people, even if
the land had been given them. Of course the time for paying
the first installment on the mortgage covering their land has
generally witnessed the dissipation of their sanguine dreams.
{2941}
Yet there are at least three of these embryo Associations
still in existence; and, as each of these is in its third or
fourth year, they may be supposed to give some promise of
vitality. They are the North American Phalanx, near
Leedsville, New Jersey; the Trumbull Phalanx, near Braceville,
Ohio; and the Wisconsin Phalanx, Ceresco, Wisconsin. Each of
these has a considerable domain nearly or wholly paid for, is
improving the soil, increasing its annual products, and
establishing some branches of manufactures. Each, though far
enough from being a perfect Association, is animated with the
hope of becoming one, as rapidly as experience, time and means
will allow.' Of the three Phalanxes thus mentioned as the
rear-guard of Fourierism, one—the Trumbull—disappeared about
four months afterward (very nearly at the time of the
dispersion of Brook Farm), and another—the Wisconsin—lasted
only a year longer, leaving the North American alone for the
last four years of its existence."
_J. H. Noyes,
History of American Socialisms,
chapter 40._
ALSO IN:
_R. Brisbane:
Albert Brisbane; a Mental Biography._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894.
Proudhon and his doctrines of Anarchism.
The Individualistic and Communistic Anarchists
of the present generation.
"Of the Socialistic thinkers who serve as a kind of link
between the Utopists and the school of the Socialism of
historical evolution, or scientific Socialists, by far the
most noteworthy figure is Proudhon, who was born at Besançon
in 1809. By birth he belonged to the working class, his father
being a brewer's cooper, and he himself as a youth followed
the occupation of cowherding. In 1838, however, he published
an essay on general grammar, and in 1839 he gained a
scholarship to be held for three years, a gift of one Madame
Suard to his native town. The result of this advantage was his
most important though far from his most voluminous work,
published the same year as the essay which Madame Suard's
scholars were bound to write: it bore the title of 'What is
Property?' (Qu' est-ce que la propriété?) his answer being
Property is Robbery (La propriété est Ie vol). As may be
imagined, this remarkable essay caused much stir and
indignation, and Proudhon was censured by the Besançon Academy
for its production, narrowly escaping a prosecution. In 1841
he was tried at Besançon for a letter he wrote to Victor
Considérant, the Fourierist, but was acquitted. In 1846 he
wrote his 'Philosophie de la Misère' (Philosophy of Poverty),
which received an elaborate reply and refutation from Karl
Marx. In 1847 he went to Paris. In the Revolution of 1848 he
showed himself a vigorous controversialist, and was elected
Deputy for the Seine. … After the failure of the revolution of
'48, Proudhon was imprisoned for three years, during which
time he married a young woman of the working class. In 1858 he
fully developed his system of 'Mutualism' in his last work,
entitled 'Justice in the Revolution and the Church.' In
consequence of the publication of this book he had to retire
to Brussels, but was amnestied in 1860, came back to France
and died at Passy in 1865."
_W. Morris and E. B. Bax,
Socialism, its Growth and Outcome,
chapter 18._
"In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and
communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of
the state that it shall embrace all the more important
concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school,
would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows
therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would
banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the
most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme
individualist. … Anarchism, as a social theory, was first
elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his
work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and
gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign.
In that connection he said: 'In a given society the authority
of man over man is inversely proportional to the stage of
intellectual development which that society has reached. …
Property and royalty have been crumbling to pieces ever since
the world began. As man seeks justice in equality, so society
seeks order in anarchy.' About twelve years before Proudhon
published his views Josiah Warren reached similar conclusions
in America. But as the Frenchman possessed the originality
necessary to the construction of a social philosophy, we must
regard him as altogether the chief authority upon scientific
anarchism. … Proudhon's social ideal was that of perfect
individual liberty. Those who have thought him a communist or
socialist have wholly mistaken his meaning. … Proudhon
believed that if the state in all its departments were
abolished, if authority were eradicated from society, and if
the principle of laissez faire were made universal in its
operation, every form of social ill would disappear. According
to his views men are wicked and ignorant because, either
directly or indirectly, they have been forced to be so: it is
because they have been subjected to the will of another, or
are able to transfer the evil results of their acts to
another. If the individual, after reaching the age of
discretion, could be freed from repression and compulsion in
every form and know that he alone is responsible for his acts
and must bear their consequences, he would become thrifty,
prudent, energetic; in short he would always see and follow
his highest interests. He would always respect the rights of
others; that is, act justly. Such individuals could carry on
all the great industrial enterprises of to-day either
separately or by voluntary association. No compulsion,
however, could be used to force one to fulfil a contract or
remain in an association longer than his interest dictated.
Thus we should have a perfectly free play of enlightened
self-interests: equitable competition, the only natural form
of social organization. … Proudhon's theory is the sum and
substance of scientific anarchism. How closely have the
American anarchists adhered to the teachings of their master?
One group, with its centre at Boston and with branch
associations in a few other cities, is composed of faithful
disciples of Proudhon. They believe that he is the leading
thinker among those who have found the source of evil in
society and the remedy therefor. They accept his analysis of
social phenomena and follow his lead generally, though not
implicitly. They call themselves Individualistic Anarchists,
and claim to be the only class who are entitled to that name.
{2942}
They do not attempt to organize very much, but rely upon
'active individuals, working here and there all over the
country.' It is supposed that they may number in all some five
thousand adherents in the United States. … They, like
Proudhon, consider the government of the United States to be
as oppressive and worthless as any of the European monarchies.
Liberty prevails here no more than there. In some respects the
system of majority rule is more obnoxious than that of
monarchy. It is quite as tyrannical, and in a republic it is
more difficult to reach the source of the despotism and remove
it. They regard the entire machinery of elections as worthless
and a hindrance to prosperity. They are opposed to political
machines of all kinds. They never vote or perform the duties
of citizens in any way, if it can be avoided. … Concerning the
family relation, the anarchists believe that civil marriage
should be abolished and 'autonomistic' marriage substituted.
This means that the contracting parties should agree to live
together as long as it seems best to do so, and that the
partnership should be dissolved whenever either one desires
it. Still, they would give the freest possible play to love
and honor as restraining motives. … The Individualistic
Anarchists … profess to have very little in common with the
Internationalists. The latter are Communistic Anarchists. They
borrow their analysis of existing social conditions from Marx,
or more accurately from the 'communistic manifesto' issued by
Marx and Engels in 1847. In the old International Workingman's
association they constituted the left wing, which, with its
leader, Bakunine, was expelled in 1872. Later the followers of
Marx, the socialists proper, disbanded, and since 1883 the
International in this country has been controlled wholly by
the anarchists. Their views and methods are similar to those
which Bakunine wished to carry out by means of his Universal
Alliance, and which exist more or less definitely in the minds
of Russian Nihilists. Like Bakunine, they desire to organize
an international revolutionary movement of the laboring
classes, to maintain it by means of conspiracy and, as soon as
possible, to bring about a general insurrection. In this way,
with the help of explosives, poisons and murderous weapons of
all kinds, they hope to destroy all existing institutions,
ecclesiastical, civil and economic. Upon the smoking ruins
they will erect the new and perfect society. Only a few weeks
or months will be necessary to make the transition. During
that time the laborers will take possession of all lands,
buildings, instruments of production and distribution. With
these in their possession, and without the interposition of
government, they will organize into associations or groups for
the purpose of carrying on the work of society."
_H. L. Osgood,
Scientific Anarchism
(Political Science Quarterly, March, 1889)._
ALSO IN:
_F. Dubois,
The Anarchist Peril._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D.1840-1848.
Louis Blanc and his scheme of State-aided Co-operation.
"St. Simonism would destroy individual liberty, would weight
the State with endless responsibilities, and the whole details
of production, distribution, and transportation. It would
besides be a despotism if it could be carried out, and not a
beneficent despotism, considering the weakness and
imperfection of men. So objected Louis Blanc to St. Simonism,
in his 'Organisation du Travail' (1840), whilst bringing
forward a scheme of his own, which, he contends, would be at
once simple, immediately applicable, and of indefinite
extensibility; in fact a full and final solution of the Social
Problem. The large system of production, the large factory and
workshop, he saw was necessary. Large capital, too, was
necessary, but the large capitalist was not. On the contrary,
capitalism—capital in the hands of private individuals, with,
as a necessary consequence, unbounded competition, was ruinous
for the working classes, and not good for the middle classes,
including the capitalists themselves, because the larger
capitalists, if sufficiently astute or unscrupulous, can
destroy the smaller ones by under-selling, as in fact they
constantly did. His own scheme was what is now called
co·operative production, with the difference that instead of
voluntary effort, he looked to the State to give it its first
motion, by advancing the capital without interest, by drawing
up the necessary regulations, and by naming the hierarchy of
workers for one year, after which the co-operative groups were
to elect their own officers. He thought that if a number of
these co-operative associations were thus launched State-aided
in each of the greater provinces of industry, they could
compete successfully with the private capitalist, and would
beat him within no very long time. By competition he trusted
to drive him out in a moderate time, and without shock to
industry in general. But having conquered the capitalist by
competition, he wished competition to cease between the
different associations in any given industry; as he expressed
it, he would 'avail himself of the arm of competition to
destroy competition.' … The net proceeds each year would be
divided into three parts: the first to be divided equally
amongst the members of the association; the second to be
devoted partly to the support of the old, the sick, the
infirm, partly to the alleviation of crises which would weigh
on other industries; the third to furnish 'instruments of
labour' to those who might wish to join the association. …
Capitalists would be invited into the associations, and would
receive the current rate of interest at least, which interest
would be guaranteed to them out of the national budget; but
they would only participate in the net surplus in the
character of workers. … Such was the scheme of Louis Blanc,
which, in 1848, when member of the Provisional Government in
France, he had the opportunity, rarely granted to the social
system-maker, of partially trying in practice. He was allowed
to establish a number of associations of working men by the
aid of Government subsidies. The result did not realize
expectations. After a longer or shorter period of struggling,
every one of the associations failed; while, on the other
hand, a number of co-operative associations founded by the
workmen's own capital, as also some industrial partnerships
founded by capitalists, on Louis Blanc's principle of
distribution of the net proceeds, were successful. … I do not
refer to the 'ateliers nationaux,' [see FRANCE: A. D. 1848]
which were not countenanced by Louis Blanc; but to certain
associations of working men who received advances from the
Government on the principle advocated in his book. There were
not many of these at first. L. Blanc congratulated himself on
being able to start a few: after the second rising the
Government subsidized fifty-six associations, all but one of
which had failed by 1875."
_W. Graham,
Socialism, New and Old,
chapter 3, section 5, with foot-note._
{2943}
"In 1848 the Constituent Assembly voted, in July, that is,
after the revolution of June, a subsidy of three millions of
francs in order to encourage the formation of working men's
associations. Six hundred applications, half coming from Paris
alone, were made to the commission entrusted with the
distribution of the funds, of which only fifty-six were
accepted. In Paris, thirty associations, twenty-seven of which
were composed of working men, comprising in all 434
associates, received 890,500 francs. Within six months, three
of the Parisian associations failed; and of the 434
associates, seventy-four resigned, fifteen were excluded, and
there were eleven changes of managers. In July, 1851, eighteen
associations had ceased to exist. One year later, twelve
others had vanished. In 1865 four were still extant, and had
been more or less successful. In 1875 there was but a single
one left, that of the file-cutters, which, as Citizen Finance
remarked, was unrepresented at the Congress."
_E. de Laveleye,
The Socialism of To-day,
chapter 5, foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_L. Blanc,
1848: Historical Revelations,
chapters 5-9, and 19._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883.
Icaria.
In 1840, Etienne Cabet published in France an Utopian romance,
the "Voyage en Icarie," which awakened remarkable interest,
very quickly. He described in this romance an ideal community,
and eight years later, having continued the propagation of his
social theories in the meantime, he undertook to carry them
into practice. A tract of land was secured in Texas, and in
February, 1848, sixty-nine emigrants—the advance guard of what
promised to be a great army of Icarians —set sail from Havre
for New Orleans. They were followed during the year by
others—a few hundreds in all; but even before the later comers
reached New Orleans the pioneers of the movement had abandoned
their Texas lands, disappointed in all their expectations and
finding themselves utterly unprepared for the work they had to
do, the expenditures they had to make, and the hardships they
had to endure. They retreated to New Orleans and were joined
there by Cabet. It happened that the Mormons, at this time,
were deserting their town of Nauvoo, in Illinois, and were
making their hejira to Salt Lake City. Cabet struck a bargain
with the retreating disciples of Joseph Smith, which gave his
community a home ready-made. The followers who adhered to him
were conveyed to Nauvoo in the spring; but two hundred more
gave up the socialistic experiment, and either remained at New
Orleans or returned to France. For a few years the colony was
fairly prosperous at Nauvoo. Good schools were maintained.
"Careful training in manners and morals, and in Icarian
principles and precepts, is work with which the schools are
especially charged. The printing office is a place of great
activity. Newspapers are printed in English, French and
German. Icarian school-books are published. … A library of
5,000 or 6,000 volumes, chiefly standard French works, seems
to be much patronized. … Frequent theatrical entertainments,
social dances, and lectures are common means of diversion. …
These families … are far from the condition of the happy
Icarians of the 'Voyage,' but considering the difficulties
they have encountered they must be accredited with having done
remarkably well." Dissensions arose however. In 1856 Cabet
found himself opposed by a majority of the community. In
November of that year he withdrew, with about 180 adherents,
and went to St. Louis, where he died suddenly, a few days
after his arrival. Those who had accompanied him settled
themselves upon an estate called Cheltenham, six miles west of
St. Louis; but they did not prosper, and were dispossessed, by
the foreclosure of a mortgage, in 1864, and the last of the
community was dispersed. The section left at Nauvoo held no
title to lands there, after Cabet separated from them, and
were forced to remove in 1860. They established themselves on
a tract of land in Adams county, southwestern Iowa, and there
Icaria, in a slender and modest form, has been maintained,
through many vicissitudes, to the present day. A new
secession, occurring 1879-83, sent forth a young colony which
settled at Cloverdale, California, and took the name of the
Icaria-Speranza Community, borrowing the name " Speranza" from
another Utopian romance by Pierre Leroux.
_A. Shaw,
Icaria._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1841-1847.
Brook Farm.
On the 29th day of September, 1841, articles of association
were made and executed which gave existence to an Association
bearing the name and style of "The Subscribers to the Brook
Farm Institute of Agriculture and Education." By the second of
these articles, it was declared to be the object of the
Association "to purchase such estates as may be required for
the establishment and continuance of an agricultural,
literary, and scientific school or college, to provide such
lands and houses, animals, libraries and apparatus, as may be
found expedient or advantageous to the main purpose of the
Association." By article six, "the Association guarantees to
each shareholder the interest of five per cent. annually on
the amount of stock held by him in the Association." By
article seven, "the shareholders on their part, for
themselves, their heirs and assigns, do renounce all claim on
any profits accruing to the Association for the use of their
capital invested in the stock of the Association, except five
per cent. interest on the amount of stock held by them." By
article eight it was provided that "every subscriber may
receive the tuition of one pupil for every share held by him,
instead of five per cent. interest." The subscribers to these
Articles, for shares ranging in amount from $500 to $1,500,
were George Ripley, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Minot Pratt, Charles
A. Dana, William B. Allen, Sophia W. Ripley, Maria T. Pratt,
Sarah F. Stearns, Marianne Ripley, and Charles O. Whitmore.
"The 'Brook Farm Association for Education and Agriculture'
was put in motion in the spring of 1841. There was no
difficulty in collecting a company of men and women large
enough to make a beginning. One third of the subscriptions was
actually paid in, Mr'. Ripley pledging his library for four
hundred dollars of his amount. With the sum subscribed a farm
of a little less than two hundred acres was bought for ten
thousand five hundred dollars, in West Roxbury, about nine
miles from Boston. The site was a pleasant one, not far from
Theodore Parker's meeting-house in Spring Street, and in close
vicinity to some of the most wealthy, capable, and zealous
friends of the enterprise.
{2944}
It was charmingly diversified with hill and hollow, meadow and
upland. … Later experience showed its unfitness for lucrative
tillage, but for an institute of education, a semi-æsthetic,
humane undertaking, nothing could be better. This is the place
to say, once for all, with the utmost possible emphasis, that
Brook Farm was not a 'community' in the usual sense of the
term. There was no element of 'socialism' in it. There was
about it no savor of antinomianism, no taint of pessimism, no
aroma, however faint, of nihilism. It was wholly unlike any of
the 'religious' associations which had been established in
generations before, or any of the atheistic or mechanical
arrangements which were attempted simultaneously or
afterwards. … The institution of Brook Farm, though far from
being 'religious' in the usual sense of the word, was
enthusiastically religious in spirit and purpose. … There was
no theological creed, no ecclesiastical form, no inquisition
into opinions, no avowed reliance on super-human aid. The
thoughts of all were heartily respected; and while some
listened with sympathy to Theodore Parker, others went to
church nowhere, or sought the privileges of their own
communion. … A sympathizing critic published in the 'Dial'
(January, 1842) an account of the enterprise as it then
appeared: … 'They have bought a farm in order to make
agriculture the basis of their life, it being the most direct
and simple in relation to nature. … The plan of the Community,
as an economy, is, in brief, this: for all who have property
to take stock, and receive a fixed interest thereon; then to
keep house or board in common, as they shall severally desire,
at the cost of provisions purchased at wholesale, or raised on
the farm; and for all to labor in community and be paid at a
certain rate an hour, choosing their own number of hours and
their own kind of work. With the results of this labor and
their interest they are to pay their board, and also purchase
whatever else they require, at cost, at the warehouses of the
community, which are to be filled by the community as such. To
perfect this economy, in the course of time they must have all
trades and all modes of business carried on among themselves,
from the lowest mechanical trade which contributes to the
health and comfort of life, to the finest art which adorns it
with food or drapery for the mind. All labor, whether bodily
or intellectual, is to be paid at the same rate of wages, on
the principle that, as the labor becomes merely bodily, it is
a greater sacrifice to the individual laborer to give his time
to it.' … The daily life at Brook Farm was, of course,
extremely simple, even homely. … There was at no time too much
room for the one hundred and fifty inmates. … The highest
moral refinement prevailed in all departments. In the morning,
every species of industrial activity went on. In the
afternoon, the laborers changed their garments and became
teachers, often of abstruse branches of knowledge. The
evenings were devoted to such recreations as suited the taste
of the individual. The farm was never thoroughly tilled, from
the want of sufficient hands. A good deal of hay was raised,
and milk was produced from a dozen cows. … Some worked all day
in the field, some only a few hours, some none at all, being
otherwise employed, or by some reason disqualified. The most
cultivated worked the hardest. … The serious difficulties were
financial. … As early as 1843 the wisdom of making changes in
the direction of scientific arrangement was agitated; in the
first months of 1844 the reformation was seriously begun," and
the model of the new organization was Fourier's "Phalanx."
"The most powerful instrument in the conversion of Brook Farm
was Mr. Albert Brisbane. He had studied the system [of
Fourier] in France, and made it his business to introduce it
here. … In March, 1845, the Brook Farm Phalanx was
incorporated by the Legislature of Massachusetts. The
Constitution breathes a spirit of hope which is pathetic at
this distance of time. … The publication of the Constitution
was followed in the summer by 'The Harbinger,' which became
the leading journal of Fourierism in the country. The first
number appeared on June 14th. … Its list of contributors was
about the most remarkable ever presented. Besides Ripley,
Dwight, Dana, and Rykman, of Brook Farm, there were Brisbane,
Channing, Curtis [George W., who had lived at Brook Farm for
two years], Cranch, Godwin, Greeley, Lowell, Whittier, Story,
Higginson, to say nothing of gentlemen less known. … 'The
Harbinger' lived nearly four years, a little more than two at
Brook Farm, less than two in New York. The last number was
issued on the 10th of February, 1849. … It is unnecessary to
speculate on the causes of the failure at Brook Farm. There
was every reason why it should fail; there was no earthly,
however much heavenly reason there may have been, why it
should succeed." In August, 1847, a meeting of stockholders
and creditors authorized the transfer of the property of the
Brook Farm Phalanx to a board of three trustees, "for the
purpose and with the power of disposing of it to the best
advantage of all concerned." And so the most attractive of all
social experiments came to an end.
_O. B. Frothingham,
George Ripley,
chapters 3-4._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889.
Profit-sharing experiments.
Profit sharing was first practised systematically by M.
Leclaire, a Parisian house-painter and decorator. Beginning to
admit his workmen to participation in the profits of his
business in 1842, he continued the system, with modifications
and developments, until his death in 1872. His financial
success was signal. It was not due to mere good fortune.
Leclaire was a man of high business capacity. … In France, the
increase in the number of participating firms, from 1855
onwards, has been comparatively steady, the number now [1889]
standing between 55 and 60. In Switzerland, the 10 instances,
dating ten years back or more, have no followers recorded in
the sources of information open to me. This fact may be
explained in some degree by the circumstances that Dr.
Böhmert's work, the chief authority thus far on this subject,
was published in 1878, and that the principal investigations
since that time have been concerned mainly with France,
England, and the United States. This remark will apply to
Germany also; but the prevalence there of socialism has
probably been an important reason for the small and slow
increase in the number of firms making a trial of the system
of participation. …
{2945}
In England, the abandonment of their noted trials of
industrial partnership by the Messrs. Briggs and by Fox, Head
and Co. in 1874 checked the advance of the scheme to a more
general trial; but in the last five years, 7 houses have
entered upon the plan. In the United States, the experience of
the Messrs. Brewster and Co. exerted a similar influence, but
by 1882 6 concerns had introduced profit sharing; these were
followed by 11 in 1886, and in 1887 by 12 others. There are,
then, at least 29 cases of profit sharing in actual operation
at this time [1889] in this country, which began in 1887,
1886, or 1882. As compared with France, Germany, and
Switzerland, the United States show a smaller number of cases
of long standing, and a considerably larger number of
instances of adoption of the system in the last three years
[1887-1889]. … Not by mere chance, apparently, the two
republics of France and the United States show the longest
lists of profit sharing firms."
_N. P. Gilman,
Profit Sharing,
chapter 9._
See, also,
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1874.
Ebenezer and Amana, the communities of the
"True Inspiration Congregations."
In 1843 the first detachment of a company of immigrants,
belonging to a sect called the "True Inspiration
Congregations" which had existed in Germany for more than a
century, was brought to America and settled on a tract of land
in Western New York, near the city of Buffalo. Others
followed, until more than a thousand persons were gathered in
the community which they called "Ebenezer." They were a
thrifty, industrious, pious people, who believed that their
leader, Christian Metz, and some others, were "inspired
instruments," through whom Divine messages came to them. These
messages have all been carefully preserved and printed.
Communism appears to have been no part of their religious
doctrine, but practically forced upon them, as affording the
only condition under which they could dwell simply and piously
together. In 1854 they were "commanded by inspiration" to
remove to the West. Their land at Ebenezer was advantageously
sold, having been reached by the widening boundaries of
Buffalo, and they purchased a large tract in Iowa. The removal
was accomplished gradually during the next ten years, and in
their new settlement, comprising seven villages, with the
common name, Amana, the community is said to be remarkably
thriving. In 1874 Amana contained a population of 1,485 men,
women and children.
_C. Nordhoff,
The Communistic Societies of the United States,
pages 25-43._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1843-1883.
Karl Marx.
His theory of Capital.
His socialistic influence.
"The greatest and most influential name in the history of
socialism is unquestionably Karl Marx. … Like Ferdinand
Lassalle, he was of Jewish extraction. He was born at Treves
in 1818, his father being a lawyer in that town; and he
studied at Berlin and Bonn, but neglected the specialty of
law, which he nominally adopted, for the more congenial
subjects of philosophy and history. Marx was a zealous
student, and apparently an adherent of Hegelianism, but soon
gave up his intention of following an academic career as a
teacher of philosophy, and joined the staff of the Rhenish
Gazette, published at Cologne as an organ of the extreme
democracy. While thus engaged, however, he found that his
knowledge of economics required to be enlarged and corrected,
and accordingly in 1843, after marrying the sister of the
Prussian Minister, Von Westfalen, he removed to Paris, where
he applied himself to the study of the questions to which his
life and activity were henceforward to be devoted so entirely.
Here also he began to publish those youthful writings which
must be reckoned among the most powerful expositions of the
early form of German socialism. With Arnold Ruge he edited the
'Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher.' In 1845 he was expelled
from Paris and settled in Brussels, where he published his
'Discours sur Je Libre ÉChange,' and his criticism of
Proudhon's 'Philosophie de la Misère,' entitled, 'Misère de la
Philosophie.' In Paris he had already met Friedrich Engels,
who was destined to be his lifelong and loyal friend and
companion-in-arms, and who in 1845 published his important
work, 'The Condition of the Working Class in England.' The two
friends found that they had arrived at a complete identity of
opinion; and an opportunity soon occurred for an emphatic
expression of their common views. A society of socialists, a
kind of forerunner of the International, had established
itself in London, and had been attracted by the new theories
of Marx and the spirit of strong and uncompromising conviction
with which he advocated them. They entered into relation with
Marx and Engels; the society was re-organised under the name
of the Communist League; and a congress was held, which
resulted (1847) in the framing of the 'Manifesto of the
Communist Party,' which was published in most of the languages
of Western Europe, and is the first proclamation of that
revolutionary socialism armed with all the learning of the
nineteenth century, but expressed with the fire and energy of
the agitator, which in the International and other movements
has so startled the world. During the revolutionary troubles
in 1848 Marx returned to Germany, and along with his comrades,
Engels, Wolff, &c., he supported the most advanced democracy
in the 'New Rhenish Gazette.' In 1849 he settled in London,
where he spent his after-life in the elaboration of his
economic views and in the realisation of his revolutionary
programme. During this period he published 'Zur Kritik der
politischen Oekonomie' (1859), and the first volume of his
great work on capital, 'Das Kapital' (1867). He died in
London, March 14, 1883."
_T. Kirkup,
A History of Socialism,
chapter 7._
"As to the collectivist creed, Marx looks upon history as
ruled by material interests. He borrows from Hegel the idea of
development in history, and sees in the progress of
civilization merely the development of economic production,
which involves a conflict of classes. The older socialists
were idealists, and constructed a perfect social system. Marx
simply studies economic changes, and their effects on the
conflict of classes, as a basis for predicting the future.
Starting from the principle that there are no permanent
economic laws, but merely transitory phases, a principle
denied by the modern French economists, he does not criticise
but explains our modern capitalistic industrial system, and
its effects on society. Formerly, says Engels, an artisan
owned his tools and also the product of his labor. If he chose
to employ wage earners, these were merely apprentices, and
worked not so much for wages, but in order to learn the trade.
{2946}
All this is changed by the introduction of capital and the
modern industrial system. Marx explains the origin of capital
by saying that it was formerly the result of conquest, the
pillage of peasants, and of colonies, and the secularization
of church property. However, he does not hold the present
capitalists to be robbers. He does not deal with the
capitalist but with capital. His primary theory then is that
profit on capital, on which the possibility of accumulating
wealth depends, is due to the fact that the laborer does not
receive the entire product of his labor as his reward, but
that the capitalist takes the lion's share. Under the old
industrial system, the laborer's tools, his means of
production, belonged to him. Now they are owned by the
capitalist. Owing to the improvement of machinery, and the
invention of steam-power, the laborer can no longer apply his
energy in such a way as to be fully remunerated. He now must
sell his muscular energy in the market. The capitalist who
buys it offers him no just reward. He gives the laborers only
a part of the product of his labors, pocketing the remainder
as interest on capital, and returns for risks incurred. The
laborer is cheated out of the difference between his wages and
the full product of his labor, while the capitalist's share is
increased, day by day, by this stolen amount. 'Production by
all, distribution among a few.' This is the gist of Marx's
theories. Capital is not the result of intelligent savings. It
is simply an amount of wealth appropriated by the capitalist
from the laborer's share in his product."
_J. Bourdeau,
German Socialism
(New Englander and Yale Review, September, 1891,
translated from Revue des Deux Mondes)._
"The principal lever of Marx against the present form of
industry, and of the distribution of its results, is the
doctrine that value—that is, value in exchange—is created by
labor alone. Now this value, as ascertained by exchanges in
the market or measured by some standard, does not actually all
go to the laborer, in the shape of wages. Perhaps a certain
number of yards of cotton cloth, for instance, when sold,
actually pay for the wages of laborers and leave a surplus,
which the employer appropriates. Perhaps six hours of labor
per diem might enable the laborer to create products enough to
support himself and to rear up an average family; but at
present he has to work ten hours for his subsistence. Where do
the results of the four additional hours go? To the employer,
and the capitalist from whom the employer borrows money; or to
the employer who also is a capitalist and invests his capital
in his works, with a view to a future return. The laborer
works, and brings new workmen into the world, who in turn do
the same. The tendency of wages being toward an amount just
sufficient for the maintenance of the labor, there is no hope
for the future class of laborers. Nor can competition or
concurrence help the matter. A concurrence of capitalists will
tend to reduce wages to the minimum, if other conditions
remain as they were before. A concurrence of laborers may
raise wages above the living point for a while; but these fall
again, through the stimulus which high wages give to the
increase of population. A general fall of profits may lower
the price of articles used by laborers; but the effect of this
is not to add in the end to the laborer's share. He can live
at less expense, it is true, but he will need and will get
lower wages. Thus the system of labor and capital is a system
of robbery. The capitalist is an 'expropriator' who must be
expropriated, as Marx expresses it. A just system can never
exist as long as wages are determined by free contract between
laborers and employers; that is, as long as the means of
carrying on production are in private hands. The only cure for
the evils of the present industrial system is the destruction
of private property—so far, at least, as it is used in
production; and the substitution of the state, or of bodies or
districts controlled by the state, for the private owner of
the means of production. Instead of a number of classes in
society, especially instead of a bourgeoisie and a
proletariat, there must be but one class, which works directly
or indirectly for the state, and receives as wages what the
state decides to give to them. The state, it is taken for
granted, will give in return for hours of labor as much as can
be afforded, consistently with the interests of future labor
and with the expenses necessary for carrying on the state
system itself."
_T. D. Woolsey,
Communism and Socialism,
pages 162-163._
ALSO IN:
_K. Marx,
Capital._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848.
The founding of the Oneida Community.
The Oneida and Wallingford communities of Perfectionists are
followers of doctrines taught by one John Humphrey Noyes, a
native of Vermont, who began his preaching at Putney, in that
state, about 1834. The community at Oneida, in Madison county,
New York, was formed in 1848, and had a struggling existence
for many years; but gradually several branches of industry,
such as the making of traps, travelling bags, and the like,
were successfully established, and the community became
prosperous. Everything is owned in common, and they extend the
community system" beyond property to persons." That is to say,
there is no marriage among them, and "exclusiveness in regard
to women and children" is displaced by what they claim to be a
scientific regulation of the intercourse of the sexes. In the
early years of the Oneida Community several other settlements
of the followers of Noyes were attempted; but one at
Wallingford, Connecticut, is the only survivor.
_C. Nordhoff,
The Communistic Societies of the United States,
pages 259-293._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Noyes,
History of American Socialisms,
chapter 46._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883.
Schulze-Delitzsch and the Co-operative movement in Germany.
"Hermann Schulze was born at Delitzsch, in Prussian Saxony,
August 29th, 1808. He studied jurisprudence at Leipzig and
Halle, and afterwards occupied judicial posts under the
Government, becoming District Judge at Delitzsch in 1841, a
position which he held until 1850. In 1848, he was elected to
the Prussian National Assembly, and the following year he
became a member of the Second Chamber, in which he sat as
Schulze-Delitzsch, a name which has since adhered to him.
Being a member of the Progressist party, he proved a thorn in
the Government's flesh, and he was made District Judge at
Wreschen, but he returned later to the Prussian Diet, and
became also a member of the North German and German
Reichstags.
{2947}
For more than thirty years Schulze headed the co·operative
movement in Germany, but his self-sacrifice impoverished him,
and although his motto as a social reformer had always been
'Self-help,' as opposed to Lassalle's 'State-help,' he was
compelled in his declining years to accept a gift of £7,000
from his friends. Schulze died honoured if not famous on April
29th, 1883. Schulze-Delitzsch is the father of the
co-operative movement in Germany. He had watched the
development of this movement in England, and as early as 1848
he had lifted up his voice in espousal of co-operative
principles in his own country. Though a Radical, Schulze was
no Socialist, and he believed co-operation to be a powerful
weapon wherewith to withstand the steady advance of
Socialistic doctrines in Germany. Besides carrying on
agitation by means of platform-speaking, he published various
works on the subject, the chief of which are: 'Die arbeitenden
Klassen und das Associationswesen in Deutschland, als Programm
zu einem deutschen Congress,' (Leipzig, 1858); 'Kapitel zu
einem deutschen Arbeitercatechismus,' (Leipzig, 1863); 'Die
Abschaffung des geschäftlichen Risico durch Herrn Lassalle,'
(Berlin, 1865); 'Die Entwickelung des Genossenschaften in
einzelnen Gewerbszweigen,' (Leipzig, 1873). Schulze advocated
the application of the co-operative principle to other
organisations than the English stores, and especially to loan,
raw material, and industrial associations. He made a practical
beginning at his own home and the adjacent town of Eilenburg,
where in 1849 he established two co-operative associations of
shoemakers and joiners, the object of which was the purchase
and supply to members of raw material at cost price. In 1850
he formed a Loan Association (Vorschussverein) at Delitzsch on
the principle of monthly payments, and in the following year a
similar association on a larger scale at Eilenburg. For a long
time Schulze had the field of agitation to himself, and the
consequence was that the more intelligent sections of the
working classes took to his proposals readily. Another reason
for his success, however, was the fact that the movement was
practical and entirely unpolitical. It was a movement from
which the Socialistic element was absent, and one in which,
therefore, the moneyed classes could safely co-operate.
Schulze, in fact, sought to introduce reforms social rather
than Socialistic. The fault of his scheme as a regenerative
agency was that it did not affect the masses of the people,
and thus the roots of the social question were not touched.
Schulze could only look for any considerable support to small
tradesmen and artisans, to those who were really able to help
themselves if' shown the way. But his motto of 'Self-help' was
an unmeaning gospel to the vast class of people who were not
in this happy position. … The movement neared a turning point
in 1858. In that year Schulze identified himself with the
capitalist party at a Congress of German economists, held at
Gotha, and he soon began to lose favour with the popular
classes. The high-water mark was reached in 1860, at which
time the co-operative associations had a membership of
200,000, and the business done amounted to 40,000,000 thalers
or about £6,000,000; the capital raised by contribution or
loan approaching a third of this sum. In the year 1864 no
fewer than 800 Loan and Credit Associations had been
established, while in 1861 the number of Raw Material and
Productive Associations was 172, and that of Co-operative
Stores 66. Possibly the movement might have continued to
prosper, even though Schulze was suspected of sympathy with
the capitalists, had no rival appeared on the scene. But a
rival did appear, and he was none other than Lassalle."
_W. H. Dawson,
German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
chapter 7._
The co-operative societies in Germany on the Schulze-Delitzsch
plan have been regularly organized into an association. "The
number of societies in this association increased from 171 in
1859, to 771 in 1864, and was 3,822 in 1885. At the last named
date they were distributed thus: loan and credit societies,
1,965; co-operative societies in various branches of trade,
1,146; co-operative store societies, 678; building societies,
33. At the end of 1884 the membership was 1,500,000. Of their
own capital, in shares and reserve funds, they possessed
300,000,000 marks; and of borrowed capital 500,000,000 marks."
_Science,
September 9, 1887._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887.
The "Social Palace" of M. Godin at Guise.
"The Familistère founded at Guise (Aisne), France, by the late
M. Jean Baptiste Andre Godin, has a world-wide reputation. The
Social Palace itself, a marvel of ingenious philanthropy,
which realizes successfully some of the characteristic ideas
of Fourier, … entitles M. Godin to a high place among the
social reformers of the 19th century. He was the son of a
worker in iron, and even before his apprenticeship had
conceived the idea that he was destined to set a great example
to the industrial world. … The business carried on in the
great foundries at Guise is the manufacture of cast-iron wares
for the kitchen and general house use, and of heating
apparatus of various kinds. M. Godin was the first man in
France to use cast iron in making stoves, in place of sheet
iron; this was but one example of his inventive powers. He
began in 1840, with 20 workmen, the manufacture which employed
in 1883 over 1,400 at Guise and 300 in the branch
establishment at Laeken, in Belgium. From the beginning there
was an organization for mutual aid among the workmen, assisted
by the proprietor. The Familistère was opened in 1860; but it
was not until 1877, owing to the obstacles presented by the
French law to the plan which he had in mind, that M. Godin
introduced participation by the workmen in the profits of his
gigantic establishment. … In 1880 the establishment became a
joint-stock company with limited liability, and the system of
profit sharing was begun which still [1889] obtains there. M.
Godin's main idea was gradually to transfer the ownership of
the business and of the associated Familistère into the hands
of his workmen. … No workman is admitted to participation [in
the profit-sharing] who is not the owner already of a share.
But the facility of purchase is great: and the interest on his
stock adds materially to the income of the average workman. M.
Godin was gradually disposing of his capital to the workmen up
to his death [in 1888], and this process will go on until
Madame Godin simply retains the direction of the business. But
when this shall have happened, the oldest workmen shall, in
like manner, release their shares to the younger, in order to
keep the ownership of the establishment in the hands of the
actual workers from generation to generation. In this way a
true cooperative productive house will be formed within ten or
a dozen years. M. Godin's capital in 1880 was 4,600,000
francs; the whole capital of the house in 1883 had risen to
6,000,000 francs, and of this sum 2,753,500 francs were held
by various employees in October, 1887.
{2948}
The organization of the workmen as participators forms quite a
hierarchy," at the head of which stand the "associates." "The
'associates' must own at least 500 francs' worth of stock;
they must be engaged in work, and have their home in the
Familistère: they elect new members themselves. … They will
furnish Madame Godin's successor from their ranks."
_N. P. Gilman,
Profit Sharing,
pages 173-177._
In April, 1859, M. Godin began to realize the most important
of his ideas of social reform, namely, "the substitution for
our present isolated dwellings of homes and dwellings combined
into Social Palaces, where, to use M. Godin's expressive
words, 'the equivalents of riches,' that is the most essential
advantages which wealth bestows on our common life, may be
brought within reach of the mass of the population. In April,
1859, he laid the foundation of the east wing of such a
palace, the Familistère of Guise. It was covered in in
September of the same year, completed in 1860, and fully
occupied in the year following. In 1862 the central building
was commenced. It was completed in 1864 and occupied in 1865.
The offices in front of the east wing were built at the same
time as that wing—in 1860. The other appendages of the palace
were added in the following order—the nursery and babies'
school in 1866; the schools and theatre in 1869; and the baths
and wash-houses in 1870. The west wing was begun in 1877,
finished in 1879, and fully occupied in 1880. Till its
completion the inhabitants of the Familistère numbered about
900 persons; at present [1880] it accommodates 1,200. Its
population therefore already assumes the proportion of a
considerable village; while its style of construction would
easily allow of the addition of quadrangles, communicating
with the north-eastern and north-western angles of the central
building, by which the number of occupants might be raised to
1,800 or 2,000, without in any way interfering with the
enjoyments of the present inmates, supposing circumstances
made it desirable to increase their numbers to this extent. …
Of the moral effect upon the population of the free and yet
social life which a unitary dwelling makes possible, M. Godin
wrote in 1874:—'For the edification of those who believe that
the working classes are undisciplined or undisciplinable, I
must say that there has not been in the Familistère since its
foundation a single police case, and yet the palace contains
900 persons; meetings in it are frequent and numerous; and the
most active intercourse and relations exist among all the
inhabitants.' And this is not the consequence of any strict
control exercised over the inmates. On the contrary, the whole
life of the Familistère is one of carefully-guarded individual
liberty, which is prevented from degenerating into license
simply by the influence of public opinion among its
inhabitants, who, administering their own internal affairs as
a united body, exercise a disciplinary action upon each other.
There are no gates, beyond doors turning on a central pivot
and never fastened, introduced in winter for the sake of
warmth; no porter to mark the time of entrance or egress of
anyone. Every set of apartments is accessible to its occupants
at any hour of the day or night, with the same facility as if
it opened out of a well-lighted street, since all the halls of
the Familistère are lighted during the whole night. And as
there are ten different entrances, each freely communicating
with the whole building, it would be less easy for one inmate
to spy the movements of another than it is for the neighbours
in an ordinary street to keep an outlook on each other's
actions. … But one factor, and I conceive a very important
factor, in this effort, must not be lost sight of, namely that
the Social Palace at Guise is not a home provided for the
poor, by a benevolence which houses its own fine clay in its
isolated dwelling over against the abodes where those of
coarser clay are clustered together. It is a home for M. Godin
and members of his family, the heads of departments and other
persons connected with him, whose means rise considerably
above those of the workers, no less than for the workers in
the foundry—a mansion of which it is the glory that all the
rooms on every floor originally differ only by a few inches of
height, and such slight differences in the height and width of
doors and windows as require careful observation to detect,
and that all participate alike, according to the quarter of
the sky to which they look, in air and light. So that the
difference of accommodation is [practically reduced to the
number of square feet which the means of the inmate enables
him to occupy, and the internal arrangement of the space at
his disposal."
_E. V. Neale,
Associated Homes._
ALSO IN:
_E. Howland,
The Social Palace at Guise, and
The Familistère at Guise
(Harper's Monthly Magazine, April, 1872,
and November, 1885)._
_M. Godin,
Social Solutions._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1860-1870.
Nihilism in Russia.
"For the origin of nihilism [which had its period of activity
between 1860 and 1870] we must go back half a century to a
little company of gifted young men, most of whom rose to great
distinction, who used at that time to meet together at the
house of a rich merchant in Moscow, for the discussion of
philosophy, politics and religion. They were of the most
various views. Some of them became Liberal leaders, and wanted
Russia to follow the constitutional development of the West
nations; others became founders of the new Slavophil party,
contending that Russia should be no imitator, but develop her
own native institutions in her own way; and there were at
least two among them—Alexander Herzen and Michael Bakunin—who
were to be prominent exponents of revolutionary socialism. But
they all owned at this period one common master—Hegel. Their
host was an ardent Hegelian, and his young friends threw
themselves into the study of Hegel with the greatest zeal.
Herzen himself tells us in his autobiography how assiduously
they read everything that came from his pen, how they devoted
nights and weeks to clearing up the meaning of single passages
in his writings, and how greedily they devoured every new
pamphlet that issued from the German press on any part of his
system. From Hegel, Herzen and Bakunin were led, exactly like
Marx and the German Young Hegelians, to Feuerbach, and from
Feuerbach to socialism. Bakunin, when he retired from the
army, rather than be the instrument of oppressing the Poles
among whom he was stationed, went for some years to Germany,
where he lived among the Young Hegelians and wrote for their
organ, the 'Hallische Jahrbücher'; but before either he or
Herzen ever had any personal intercommunication with the
members of that school of thought, they had passed through
precisely the same development.
{2949}
Herzen speaks of socialism almost in the very phrases of the
Young Hegelians, as being the new 'terrestrial religion,' in
which there was to be neither God nor heaven; as a new system
of society which would dispense with an authoritative
government, human or Divine, and which should be at once the
completion of Christianity and the realization of the
Revolution. 'Christianity,' he said, 'made the slave a son of
man; the Revolution has emancipated him into a citizen.
Socialism would make him a man.' This tendency of thought was
strongly supported in the Russian mind by Haxthausen's
discovery and laudation of the rural commune of Russia. The
Russian State was the most arbitrary, oppressive, and corrupt
in Europe, and the Russian Church was the most ignorant and
superstitious; but here at last was a Russian institution
which was regarded with envy even by wise men of the west, and
was really a practical anticipation of that very social system
which was the last work of European philosophy. It was with no
small pride, therefore, that Alexander Herzen declared that
the Muscovite peasant in his dirty sheepskin had solved the
social problem of the nineteenth century, and that for Russia,
with this great problem already solved, the Revolution was
obviously a comparatively simple operation. You had but to
remove the Czardom, the services, and the priesthood, and the
great mass of the people would still remain organized in fifty
thousand complete little self-governing communities living on
their common land and ruling their common affairs as they had
been doing long before the Czardom came into being. … All the
wildest phases of nihilist opinion in the sixties were already
raging in Russia in the forties. … Although the only political
outbreak of Nicholas's reign, the Petracheffsky conspiracy of
1849, was little more than a petty street riot, a storm of
serious revolt against the tyranny of the Czar was long
gathering, which would have burst upon his head after the
disasters to his army in the Crimea, had he survived them. He
saw it thickening, however, and on his death-bed said to his
son, the noble and unfortunate Alexander II., 'I fear you will
find the burden too heavy.' The son found it eventually heavy
enough, but in the meantime he wisely bent before the storm,
relaxed the restraints the father had imposed, and gave
pledges of the most liberal reforms in every department of
State—judicial administration, local government, popular
education, serf emancipation. … An independent press was not
among the liberties conceded, but Russian opinion at this
period found a most effective voice in a newspaper started in
London by Alexander Herzen, called the 'Kolokol ' (Bell),
which for a number of years made a great impression in Russia.
… Herzen was the hero of the young. Herzenism, we are told,
became the rage, and Herzenism appears to have meant, before
all, a free handling of everything in Church or State which
was previously thought too sacred to be touched. This
iconoclastic spirit grew more and more characteristic of
Russian society at this period, and presently, under its
influence, Herzenism fell into the shade, and nihilism
occupied the scene. We possess various accounts of the meaning
and nature of nihilism, and they all agree substantially in
their description of it. The word was first employed by
Turgenieff in his novel 'Fathers and Sons,' where Arcadi
Petrovitch surprises his father and uncle by describing his
friend Bazaroff as a nihilist. 'A nihilist,' said Nicholas
Petrovitch. 'This word must come from the Latin nihil,
nothing, as far as I can judge, and consequently it signifies
a man who recognises nothing.' 'Or rather who respects
nothing,' said Paul Petrovitch. 'A man who looks at everything
from a critical point of view,' said Arcadi. 'Does not that
come to the same thing?' asked his uncle. 'No, not at all. A
nihilist is a man who bows before no authority, who accepts no
principle without examination, no matter what credit the
principle has.' … 'Yes, before we had Hegelians; now we have
nihilists. We shall see what you will do to exist in
nothingness, in a vacuum, as if under an air pump.'
Koscheleff, writing in 1874, gives a similar explanation of
nihilism. 'Our disease is a disease of character, and the most
dangerous possible. We suffer from a fatal unbelief in
everything. We have ceased to believe in this or in that, not
because we have studied the subject thoroughly and become
convinced of the untenability of our views, but only because
some author or another in Germany or England holds this or
that doctrine to be unfounded. … Our nihilists are simply
Radicals. Their loud speeches, their fault-finding, their
strong assertions, are grounded on nothing.'"
_J. Rae,
Contemporary Socialism,
chapter 9._
See, also, NIHILISM.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864.
Ferdinand Lassalle and the formation of the
Social Democratic Party in Germany.
"There has probably been no more interesting appearance in the
later political history of Germany than Lassalle's—no
character that has secured more completely the attention of
its world. There may be and there are many difficulties in the
way of accepting Lassalle's political creed, but he had
sufficient breadth and strength to win a secure place in the
two widely separated domains of German science and politics
and to profoundly influence the leading spirits of his time. …
In addition to his worth in the department of science Lassalle
was also a man of affairs, a practical politician, and—however
large an element of the actor and sophist there may have been
in him—the greatest German orator since Luther and John
Tauler. Besides this, he was naturally heroic, as beautiful in
person as Goethe; and when we remember that he was crossed in
love and met in consequence with a romantic death at the age
of thirty-nine, we see at once, as the publicist de Laveleye
has suggested, the making of a story like that of Abelard.
Lassalle has been the poetry of the various accounts of
contemporary socialism, and has already created a literature
which is still growing almost with the rapidity of the Goethe
literature. The estimate of Lassalle's worth has been in each
account naturally influenced by the economical or sentimental
standpoint of the writer. To de Laveleye, who takes so much
interest in socialism, Lassalle was a handsome agitator, whose
merit lies chiefly in his work as interpreter of Karl Marx. To
Montefiore he was a man of science who was led by accident
into politics; and Franz Mehring, who was once the follower of
Lassalle, in his 'Geschichte der deutschen Social-Demokratie,'
discusses his career in the intolerant mood in which one
generally approaches a forsaken worship.
{2950}
The Englishman John Rae, on the contrary, in his account of
socialism, makes Lassalle a hero; and in the narrative of the
talented Dane, Georg Brandes, Lassalle is already on the broad
road to his place as a god. In the same spirit Rudolf Meyer in
his work 'The Fourth Estate's Struggle for Emancipation' does
not hesitate to use the chief hyperbole of our modern writers,
and compares Lassalle with Jesus of Nazareth. Heine also, who
saw in his fellow Israelite that perfect Hegelian 'freedom
from God' which he himself had attempted in vain, hails
Lassalle as the 'Messiah of the age.' Among Lassalle's more
immediate disciples this deification seems to have become a
formal cultus, and it is affirmed, hard as one finds it to
believe the story, that after Lassalle's death he became an
object of worship with the German laborers. … The father of
Lassalle was a Jewish merchant in Breslau, where the future
'fighter and thinker' as Boeckh wrote mournfully over his
tomb, was born on the 11th of April, 1825. The Israelite
Lassal, for so the family name is still written, was a wealthy
wholesale dealer in cloth, and with a consciousness of the
good in such an avocation had from the first intended that
Ferdinand should be a merchant. … But this was not his
destiny. … The first feature in Lassalle was his will, the
source of his strength and his ruin, and one can find no
period in his life when this will seemed in the least capable
of compromise or submission. … When he decided to become a
Christian and a philosopher instead of a merchant, the family
had nothing to do but to accommodate themselves as best they
could to this arrangement."
_L. J. Huff,
Ferdinand Lassalle
(Political Science Quarterly, September, 1887)._
"It was in 1862 that Lassalle began his agitation in behalf of
the laboring classes, an agitation which resulted in the
formation of the German Social Democratic Party. Previous to
his time, German laborers had been considered contented and
peaceable. It had been thought that a working men's party
might be established in France or England, but that it was
hopeless to attempt to move the phlegmatic German laborers.
Lassalle's historical importance lies in the fact that he was
able to work upon the laborers so powerfully as to arouse them
to action. It is due to Lassalle above all others that German
working men's battalions, to use the social democratic
expression, now form the vanguard in the struggle for the
emancipation of labor. Lassalle's writings did not advance
materially the theory of social democracy. He drew from
Rodbertus and Marx in his economic writings, but he clothed
their thoughts in such manner as to enable ordinary laborers
to understand them, and this they never could have done
without such help. … Lassalle gave to Ricardo's law of wages
the designation, the iron law of wages, and expounded to the
laborers its full significance, showing them how it inevitably
forced wages down to a level just sufficient to enable them to
live. He acknowledged that it was the key-stone of his system
and that his doctrines stood or fell with it. Laborers were
told that this law could be overthrown only by the abolition
of the wages system. How Lassalle really thought this was to
be accomplished is not so evident. He proposed to the laborers
that government should aid them by the use of its credit to
the extent of 100,000,000 of thalers, to establish
co-operative associations for production; and a great deal of
breath has been wasted to show the inadequacy of his proposed
measures. Lassalle could not himself have supposed that so
insignificant a matter as the granting of a small loan would
solve the labor question. He recognized, however, that it was
necessary to have some definite party programme to insure
success in agitation. … On the 23d of May, 1863, German social
democracy was born. Little importance was attached to the
event at the time. A few men met at Leipsic, and, under the
leadership of Ferdinand Lassalle, formed a new political party
called the 'Universal German Laborers' Union' ('Der Allgemeine
Deutsche Arbeiterverein'). … Lassalle did not live to see the
fruits of his labors. He met with some success and celebrated
a few triumphs, but the Union did not flourish as he hoped. At
the time of his death he did not appear to have a firm,
lasting hold on the laboring population. There then existed no
social-democratic party with political power. Although
Lassalle lost his life in a duel [1864], which had its origin
in a love affair, and not in any struggle for the rights of
labor, he was canonized at once by the working men. … His
influence increased more than ten-fold as soon as he ceased to
live."
_R. T. Ely,
French and German Socialism in Modern Times,
chapter 12._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1872.
The International in Europe.
The International came into being immediately after the
holding of the International Exhibition at London, in 1862. At
least it was then that it took bodily shape, for the idea, in
its theoretical form, dates from much earlier. … In 1862
certain manufacturers, such as M. Arlès-Dufour, and certain
newspapers, such as 'Le Temps' and 'L' Opinion Nationale,'
started the idea that it would be a good thing to send
delegates from the French working men to the London
Exhibition. 'The visit to their comrades in England,' said 'L'
Opinion Nationale,' 'would establish mutual relations in every
way advantageous. While they would be able to get an idea of
the great artistic and industrial works at the Exhibition,
they would at the same time feel more strongly the mutual
interests which bind the working men of both countries
together; the old leaven of international discord would settle
down, and national jealousy would give place to a healthy
fraternal emulation.' The whole programme of the International
is summed up in these lines; but the manufacturers little
foresaw the manner in which it was going to be carried out.
Napoleon III. appeared to be very favourable to the sending of
the delegates to London. He allowed them to be chosen by
universal suffrage among the members of the several trades,
and, naturally, those who spoke the strongest on the rights of
labour were chosen. By the Emperor's orders, their journey was
facilitated in every way. At that time Napoleon still dreamed
of relying, for the maintenance of his Empire, on the working
men and peasants, and of thus coping with the liberal middle
classes. At London the English working men gave the most
cordial welcome to 'their brothers of France.' On the 5th of
August they organized a fête of 'international fraternization'
at the Freemasons' Tavern. …
{2951}
They proposed to create committees of working men 'as a medium
for the interchange of ideas on questions of international
trade.' The conception of a universal association appears here
in embryo. Two years afterwards it saw the light. On the 28th
of September, 1864, a great meeting of working men of all
nations was held at St. Martin's Hall, London, under the
presidency of Professor Beesly. M. Tolain spoke in the name of
France. Karl Marx was the real inspirer of the movement,
though Mazzini's secretary, Major Wolff, assisted him—a fact
which has given rise to the statement that Mazzini was the
founder of the International. So far was this from being the
case that he only joined it with distrust, and soon left it.
The meeting appointed a provisional committee to draw up the
statutes of the association, to be submitted to the Universal
Congress, which was expected to meet at Brussels in the
following year. In this committee England, France, Italy,
Poland, Switzerland, and Germany were represented; and
afterwards delegates from other countries were admitted. They
were fifty in all. They adopted none of the ways of a secret
society. On the contrary, it was by publicity that they hoped
to carry on their propaganda. Their office was in London. …
Mazzini, by his secretary, Wolff, proposed a highly
centralized organization, which would entrust the entire
management to the leaders. Marx took the other side. … Marx
carried the day. Soon, in his turn, he too was to be opposed
and turned off as too dictatorial. Mazzini and his followers
seceded. … The progress of the new association was at first
very slow." After its second congress, held at Lausanne, in
1867, it spread rapidly and acquired an influence which was
especially alarming to the French government. In 1870 the
International was at the summit of its power. In 1872 its
congress, at the Hague, was a battlefield of struggling
factions and clashing ideas, and practically it perished in
the conflict. "The causes of the rapid decline of the famous
Association are easy to discover, and they are instructive.
First of all, as the organizer of strikes, its principal and
most practical end, it proved itself timid and impotent. The
various bodies of working men were not slow to perceive this,
and gave it up. Next, it had taken for motto, 'Emancipation of
the workers by the workers themselves.' It was intended, then,
to do without the bourgeois-radicals, 'the palaverers,' 'the
adventurers,' who when the revolution was made, would step
into power and leave the working men as they were before. The
majority of the delegates were nevertheless bourgeois; but, in
reality, the sentiment of revolt against the aristocratic
direction of the more intelligent members always persisted,
and it fastened principally on Karl Marx, the true founder of
the International, and the only political brain that it
contained. But to keep in existence a vast association
embracing very numerous groups of different nationalities, and
influenced sometimes by divergent currents of ideas, to make
use of publicity as the sole means of propaganda, and yet to
escape the repressive laws of different States, was evidently
no easy task. How could it possibly have lasted after the only
man capable of directing it had been ostracized? The cause of
the failure was not accidental; it was part of the very
essence of the attempt. The proletariat will not follow the
middle-class radicals, because political liberties, republican
institutions, and even universal suffrage, which the latter
claim or are ready to decree, do not change the relations of
capital and labour. On the other hand, the working man is
evidently incapable of directing a revolutionary movement
which is to solve the thousand difficulties created by any
complete change in the economic order. Revolutionary Socialism
thus leads to an insoluble dilemma and to practical impotence.
A further cause contributed to the rapid fall of the
International, namely, personal jealousies."
_E. de Laveleye,
The Socialism of To-day,
chapter 9._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875.
Rise and growth of the Patrons of Husbandry, or Grangers,
in the United States.
The order, composed of farmers, known as Patrons of Husbandry,
or Grangers, was founded in 1866. It grew rapidly during the
first decade of its existence, and reported a membership, in
November, 1875, of 763,263. After that period the numbers
declined. The general aims of the order were set forth in a
"Declaration of Purposes," as follows: "We shall endeavor to
advance our cause by laboring to accomplishing the following
objects: To develop a better and higher manhood and womanhood
among ourselves. To enhance the comforts and attractions of
our homes, and strengthen our attachments to our pursuits. To
foster mutual understanding and co-operation. … To
discountenance the credit system, the mortgage system, the
fashion system, and every other system tending to prodigality
and bankruptcy. We propose meeting together, talking together,
working together, buying together, selling together, and in
general acting together for our mutual protection and
advancement, as occasion may require. We shall avoid
litigation as much as possible by arbitration in the Grange. …
We are not enemies to capital, but we oppose the tyranny of
monopolies. We long to see the antagonism between labor and
capital removed by common consent and by an enlightened
statesmanship worthy of the nineteenth century. … Last, but
not least, we proclaim it among our purposes to inculcate a
proper appreciation of the abilities and sphere of woman, as
is indicated by admitting her to membership and position in
our order."
_R. T. Ely,
The Labor Movement in America,
chapter 3._
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1867-1875.
The Brocton Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life.
The Community of the Brotherhood of the New Life was
established at Brocton, on the shore of Lake Erie, by Thomas
Lake Harris, in 1867. Harris had been, partly at least, the
founder of an earlier community at Mountain Cove, in North
Carolina, which went to pieces after two years. For some time
he travelled and lectured in America and England, and during a
certain period he engaged in business as a banker, at Amenia,
in Dutchess county, New York. He possessed qualities which
exercised a fascinating influence upon many people of superior
cultivation, and made them docile recipients of a very
peculiar religious teaching. He claimed to have made a strange
spiritual discovery, through which those who disciplined
themselves to the acceptance of what it offered might attain
to a "new life."
{2952}
The discipline required seems to have involved a very complete
surrender to the leader, Harris; and it was on such terms,
apparently, that the Community at Brocton—or Salem-on-Erie as
the Brotherhood renamed the place-was constituted. Among those
who entered it was the brilliant writer, diplomatist, and man
of society, Laurence Oliphant, who joined, with his wife, and
with Lady Oliphant, his mother. The connection of Oliphant
with the society drew to it more attention than it might
otherwise have received. The Community bought and owned about
2,000 acres of land, and devoted its labors extensively and
with success to the culture of grapes and the making of wine.
The breaking up of the Brotherhood appears to be covered with
a good deal of obscurity. Harris left Brocton in 1875 and went
to California, where he is reported to be living, at Sonoma,
on a great estate. Some of the Brotherhood went with him;
others were scattered, and the Brocton vineyards are now
cultivated by other hands.
_W. E. K.,
Brocton (Buffalo Courier, July 19, 1891)._
ALSO IN:
_M. O. W. Oliphant,
Memoir of the life of Laurence Oliphant._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883.
The Knights of Labor.
"The second great attempt [the first having been 'the
International'] to organize labor on a broad basis—as broad as
society itself, in which all trades should be recognized—was
the Noble Order of Knights of Labor of America. This
organization was born on Thanksgiving Day, 1869, in the city
of Philadelphia, and was the result of the efforts of Uriah S.
Stephens, as the leader, and six associates, all
garment-cutters. For several years previous to this date, the
garment-cutters of Philadelphia had been organized as a
trades-union, but had failed to maintain a satisfactory rate
of wages in their trade. A feeling of dissatisfaction
prevailed, which resulted, in the fall of 1869, in a vote to
disband the union. Stephens, foreseeing this result, had
quietly prepared the outlines of a plan for an organization
embracing 'all branches of honorable toil,' and based upon
education, which, through co-operation and an intelligent use
of the ballot, should gradually abolish the present wages
system. Stephens himself was a man of great force of
character, a skilled mechanic, with the love of books which
enabled him to pursue his studies during his apprenticeship,
and feeling withal a strong affection for secret
organizations, having been for many years connected with the
Masonic order. … He believed it was necessary to bring all
wage-workers together in one organization, where measures
affecting the interests of all could be intelligently
discussed and acted upon; and this he held could not be done
in a trades-union. At the last session of the Garment-cutters'
Union, and after the motion to disband had prevailed, Stephens
invited the few members present to meet him, in order to
discuss his new plan of organization. … Stephens then laid
before his guests his plan of an organization, which he
designated 'The Noble and Holy Order of the Knights of Labor.'
It was a new departure in labor organization. The founder
described what he considered a tendency toward large
combinations of capital, and argued that the trades-union form
of organization was like a bundle of sticks when unbound,—weak
and powerless to resist combination. … Stephens' great
controlling ideas may be formulated as follows: first that
surplus labor always keeps wages down; and, second, that
nothing can remedy this evil but a purely and deeply secret
organization, based upon a plan that shall teach, or rather
inculcate, organization, and at the same time educate its
membership to one set of ideas ultimately subversive of the
present wages system. … At a subsequent meeting, held December
28, 1869, upon the report of a Committee on Ritual, involving
obligations and oaths, Mr. Stephens and his six associates
subscribed their names to the obligations; and, when the
ritual was adopted, Mr. James L. Wright moved that the new
Order be named the 'Knights of Labor.' … The members were
sworn to the strictest secrecy. The name even of the Order was
not to be divulged. … The rules of government. … excluded
physicians from the Order, because professional confidence
might force the societies' secrets into unfriendly ears. The
rule prohibiting the admission of physicians, however, was
repealed at Detroit in 1881. Politicians were to be excluded,
because the founders of the Order considered that their moral
character was on too low a plane for the sacred work of the
new Order; and, besides, it was considered that professional
politicians would not keep the secrets of the Order, if such
secrets could be used for their own advantage. Men engaged in
political work are not now excluded for that cause alone.
Lawyers were to be excluded, and still are, because the
founders considered that the logical, if not the practical,
career of the lawyer is to get money by his aptitudes and
cunning, which, if used to the advantage of one, must be at
the expense of another. … Rum-sellers were and are excluded,
because the trade is not only useless, by being non-productive
of articles of use, but results in great suffering and
immorality. … The founders also considered that those who sell
or otherwise handle liquors should be excluded, because such
persons would be a defilement to the Order. In consequence of
the close secrecy thrown around the new organization, it did
not grow rapidly. Stephens, impressed with the Masonic ritual
and that of the Odd Fellows, was unwilling to allow any
change. … So the society struggled on, admitting now and then
a member, its affairs running smoothly, as a whole, but the
name of the organization never divulged. … In January, 1878,
when the whole machinery of the organization was perfected so
far as bodies were concerned, there had been no general
declaration of principles. The Order had been intensely
secret, as much as the society of the Masons or of the Odd
Fellows. The name of the Order began to be whispered about;
but beyond the name and most exaggerated accounts of the
membership, nothing was known of the Knights of Labor. The
membership must have been small,—indeed, not counting far into
the thousands. In fact, it did not reach fifty thousand until
five years later. … About this time [1878] the strict secrecy
in the workings of the Order, and the fact that the
obligations were oaths taken on the Bible, brought on a
conflict with the Catholic Church, and during the years
1877-78 many Local and several District Assemblies lapsed. …
Measures were adopted whereby a satisfactory conciliation was
brought about, on the general ground that the labor movement
could consistently take no interest in the advocacy of any
kind of religion, nor assume any position for or against
creeds.
{2953}
The prejudices against the Knights of Labor on account of
Catholic opposition then naturally, but gradually,
disappeared; and the Order took on new strength, until there
were in 1879 twenty-three District Assemblies and about
thirteen hundred Local Assemblies in the United States. … The
third annual session of the General Assembly was held at
Chicago, in September, 1879, when the federal body busied
itself with general legislation, and was called upon to
consider the resignation of Mr. Stephens as Master Workman.
This resignation, urgently pressed by Mr. Stephens, was
accepted; and Hon. Terrence V. Powderly was elected Grand
Master Workman in his place. … The membership was stated to be
five thousand in good standing. … The next annual meeting of
the General Assembly (the fourth) took place at Pittsburg, in
September, 1880, and consisted of forty delegates. At this
session, strikes were denounced as injurious, and as not
worthy of support except in extreme cases. … The fifth session
was held in September, 1881, at Detroit. This session had to
deal with one of the most important actions in the history of
the Order. The General Assembly then declared that on and
after January 1, 1882, the name and objects of the Order
should be made public. It also declared that women should be
admitted upon an equal footing with men. … A benefit insurance
law was also passed, and an entire change of the ritual was
advised. … The sixth annual assembly was held in New York in
September, 1882, the chief business consisting in the
discussion, and finally in the adoption, of a revised
constitution and ritual. At this Assembly, what is known as
the 'strike' element—that is, the supporters and believers in
strikes—was in the majority, and laws and regulations for
supporting strikes were adopted; and the co-operation of
members was suppressed by a change of the co-operative law of
the Order. … The seventh annual session of the General
Assembly was held at Cincinnati in September, 1883, and
consisted of one hundred and ten representative delegates. …
This large representation was owing to the rapid growth of the
Order since the name and objects had been made public. … The
membership of the Order was reported to this Assembly to be,
in round numbers, fifty-two thousand. In September, 1884, the
eighth annual Assembly convened at Philadelphia. Strikes and
boycotts were denounced. … The ninth General Assembly convened
at Hamilton, Ontario, in October, 1885, and adopted
legislation looking to the prevention of strikes and boycotts.
The session lasted eight days, the membership being reported
at one hundred and eleven thousand. … The tenth annual session
of the General Assembly was held at Richmond, Virginia, in
October, 1886. … Mr. Powderly, in his testimony before the
Strike Investigating Committee of Congress, April 21, 1886,
made the following statement as to membership: 'Our present
membership does not exceed 500,000, although we have been
credited with 5,000,000.' This statement indicates a growth of
nearly 400,000 in one year. The growth was so rapid that the
Executive Board of the Order felt constrained to call a halt
in the initiation of new members. To-day (December 10, 1886),
while the membership has fallen off in some localities, from
various causes, in the whole country it has increased, and is,
according to the best inside estimates, not much less than one
million."
_Carroll D. Wright,
Historical Sketch of the Knights of Labor
(Quarterly Journal of Economics, January, 1887)._
"At the annual convention of the Knights of Labor, held at
Philadelphia, November 14-28 [1893], Grand Master Workman
Powderly, for fifteen years the head of the order, was
succeeded by J. R. Sovereign, of Iowa. The new leader's first
address to the organization, issued December 7, contained in
addition to the usual denunciation of capitalists, a strong
demand for the free coinage of silver and an expansion of the
currency."
_Political Science Quarterly, June, 1894;
Record of Political Events._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1872-1886.
The International in America.
By the order of the congress of the International held at the
Hague in 1872, the General Council of the Association was
transferred to New York. "Modern socialism had then
undoubtedly begun to exist in America. The first proclamation
of the council from their new headquarters was an appeal to
workingmen 'to emancipate labor and eradicate all
international and national strife.' … The 'Exceptional Law'
passed against socialists by the German Parliament in 1878
drove many socialists from Germany to this country, and these
have strengthened the cause of American socialism through
membership in trades-unions and in the Socialistic Labor
Party. There have been several changes among the socialists in
party organization and name since 1873, and national
conventions or congresses have met from time to time. … The
name Socialistic Labor Party was adopted in 1877 at the Newark
Convention. In 1883 the split between the moderates and
extremists had become definite, and the latter held their
congress in Pittsburg, and the former in Baltimore. … The
terrible affair of May 4, 1886, when the Chicago
Internationalists endeavored to resist the police by the use
of dynamite, terminated all possibility of joint action—even
if there could previously have been any remote hope of it; for
that was denounced as criminal folly by the Socialistic Labor
Party. … The Internationalists, at their congress in
Pittsburg, adopted unanimously a manifesto or declaration of
motives and principles, often called the Pittsburg
Proclamation, in which they describe their ultimate goal in
these words:—'What we would achieve is, therefore, plainly
and simply,—First, Destruction of the existing class rule, by
all means, i. e., by energetic, relentless, revolutionary, and
international action. Second, Establishment of a free society
based upon co-operative organization of production. Third,
Free exchange of equivalent products by and between the
productive organizations without commerce and profit-mongery.
Fourth, Organization of education on a secular, scientific and
equal basis for both sexes. Fifth, Equal rights for all
without distinction to sex or race. Sixth, Regulation of all
public affairs by free contracts between the autonomous
(independent} communes and associations, resting on a
federalistic basis.'"
_R. T. Ely,
The Labor Movement in America,
chapters 8-9._
{2954}
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1875-1893.
Socialist parties in Germany.
Their increasing strength.
Before 1875, there existed in Germany two powerful Socialist
associations. The first was called the 'General Association of
German Working Men' (der allgemeine deutsche Arbeiterverein).
Founded by Lassalle in 1863, it afterwards had for president
the deputy Schweizer, and then the deputy Hasenclever. Its
principal centre of activity was North Germany. The second was
the 'Social-democratic Working Men's Party' (die
Social·democratische Arbeiterpartei), led by two well-known
deputies of the Reichstag, Herr Bebel and Herr Liebknecht. Its
adherents were chiefly in Saxony and Southern Germany. The
first took into account the ties of nationality, and claimed
the intervention of the State in order to bring about a
gradual transformation of society; the second, on the
contrary, expected the triumph of its cause only from a
revolutionary movement. These two associations existed for a
long time in open hostility towards each other; less, however,
from the difference of the aims they had in view than in
consequence of personal rivalry. Nevertheless, in May, 1875,
at the Congress of Gotha, they amalgamated under the title of
the 'Socialist Working Men's Party of Germany' (Socialistische
Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands). The deputy Hasenclever was
nominated president; but the union did not last long, or was
never complete, for as early as the month of August following
a separate meeting of the 'General Association of German
Working Men' was held at Hamburg. … The German Socialist party
does not confine itself to stating general principles. Now
that it has gained foothold on political soil, and sends
representatives to Parliament, it endeavours to make known the
means by which it hopes to realize the reforms it has in view.
This is what it claims:—'The German Socialist party demands,
in order to pave the way for the solution of the social
question, the creation of socialistic productive associations
aided by the State, under the democratic control of the
working people. These productive associations for manufacture
and agriculture should be created on a sufficiently large
scale to enable the socialistic organization of labour to
arise out of them. As basis of the State, it demands direct
and universal suffrage for all citizens of twenty years of
age, in all elections both of State and Commune; direct
legislation, by the people, including the decision of peace or
war; general liability to bear arms and a militia composed of
civilians instead of a standing army; the abolition of all
laws restricting the right of association, the right of
assembly, the free expression of opinion, free thought, and
free inquiry; gratuitous justice administered by the people;
compulsory education, the same for all and given by the State;
and a declaration that religion is an object of private
concern.'"
_E. de Laveleye,
The Socialism of To-day,
introduction and chapter 1._
"The social democratic party [in Germany] advanced in
strength, as far as that is measured by votes, until 1878,
when the decrease was only slight. Two attempts were made on
the life of the Emperor William in that year, and the social
democrats had to bear a good share of the blame. … In the
Reichstag the celebrated socialistic law was passed, which
gave government exceptional and despotic powers to proceed
against social democracy. … Governmental persecution united
the divided members and gave new energy to all. … They all
became secret missionaries, distributing tracts and exhorting
individually their fellow-laborers to join the struggle for
the emancipation of labor. The German social democrats have
held two congresses since the socialistic law, both, of
course, on foreign soil, and both have indicated progress. The
first was held at Wyden, Switzerland, August 20-23, 1880. This
resulted in a complete triumph for the more moderate party.
The two leading extremists, Hasselmann and Most, were both
expelled from the party—the former by all save three votes,
the latter by all save two. The next congress was held at
Copenhagen, Denmark, from March 29 to April 2, 1883. It
exhibited greater unanimity of sentiment and plan, and a more
wide-spread interest in social democracy, than any previous
congress."
_R. T. Ely,
French and German Socialism,
chapter 14._
At the general election, February, 1890, in Germany, the
Social Democratic party "polled more votes than any other
single party in the Empire, and returned to the Imperial Diet
a body of representatives strong enough, by skilful alliances,
to exercise an effective influence on the course of affairs.
The advance of the party may be seen in the increase of the
socialist vote at the successive elections since the creation
of the Empire:
In 1871 it was 101,927;
1874, 351,670;
1877, 493,447;
1878, 437,438;
1881, 311,961;
1884, 549,000;
1887, 774,128;
1890, 1,427,000.
The effect of the coercive laws of 1878, as shown by these
figures, is very noteworthy. … The first effect … was, as was
natural, to disorganize the socialist party for the time.
Hundreds of its leaders were expelled from the country;
hundreds were thrown into prison or placed under police
restriction; its clubs and newspapers were suppressed; it was
not allowed to hold meetings, to make speeches, or to
circulate literature of any kind. In the course of the twelve
years during which this exceptional legislation has subsisted,
it was stated at the recent Socialist Congress at Halle
[1890], that 155 socialist journals and 1,200 books or
pamphlets had been prohibited; 900 members of the party had
been banished without trial; 1,500 had been apprehended and
300 punished for contraventions of the Anti-Socialist Laws."
But this "policy of repression has ended in tripling the
strength of the party it was designed to crush, and placing it
in possession of one-fifth of the whole voting power of the
nation. It was high time, therefore, to abandon so ineffectual
a policy, and the socialist coercive laws expired on the 30th
September, 1890. … The strength of the party in Parliament has
never corresponded with its strength at the polls. … In 1890,
with an electoral vote which, under a system of proportional
representation, would have secured for it 80 members, it has
carried only 37."
_J. Rae,
Contemporary Socialism,
pages 33-34._
The Social Democrats "retained their position as the strongest
party in the empire in the elections of 1893, casting nearly
1,800,000 votes, and electing 44 members of parliament. …
Another indication of the growth of social democracy, is the
fact that it has gained a foothold among the students of the
universities."
_R. T. Ely,
Socialism,
page 59._
"The two principal leaders of the Social-Democratic party in
Germany—in fact, the only members of the party to whom the
term leader can properly be applied—are now Wilhelm Liebknecht
and August Bebel. Both men have lived eventful lives and have
suffered often and severely for the sake of their cause. …
Liebknecht has done a great deal to popularise the political
and social theories of men like Marx and Lassalle.
{2955}
He is through and through a Communist and a Republican, and he
is determined upon realising his ideals by hook or by crook. …
He works for the subversion of the monarchical principle and
for the establishment of a Free People's State. In this State
all subjects will stand upon the same level: there will be no
classes and no privileges. … Bebel once summarised his views
in a sentence which, so far as he spoke for himself, is as
true as it is short. 'We aim,' he said, 'in the domain of
politics at Republicanism, in the domain of economics at
Socialism, and in the domain of what is to-day called religion
at Atheism.' Here we see Bebel as in a mirror. He is a
Republican and a Socialist, and he is proud of it; he is
without religion, and he is never tired of parading the fact,
even having himself described in the Parliamentary Almanacs as
'religionslos.' Like his colleague Liebknecht he is a warm
admirer of England."
_W. H. Dawson,
German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle,
chapter 15._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880.
Mr. Henry George, and the proposed confiscation of rent.
The Single-Tax movement.
The doctrine of Mr. Henry George, set forth in his famous
book, "Progress and Poverty," published in 1880, is stated in
his own language as follows: "We have traced the want and
suffering that everywhere prevail among the working classes,
the recurring paroxysms of industrial depression, the scarcity
of employment, the stagnation of capital, the tendency of
wages to the starvation point, that exhibit themselves more
and more strongly as material progress goes on, to the fact
that the land on which and from which all must live is made
the exclusive property of some. We have seen that there is no
possible remedy for these evils but the abolition of their
cause; we have seen that private property in land has no
warrant in justice, but stands condemned as the denial of
natural right—a subversion of the law of nature that as social
development goes on must condemn the masses of men to a
slavery the hardest and most degrading. … I do not propose
either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land.
The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the
individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to,
possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let
them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell,
and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the
shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to
confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. Nor
to take rent for public uses is it necessary that the State
should bother with the letting of lands, and assume the
chances of the favoritism, collusion, and corruption that
might involve. It is not necessary that any new machinery
should be created. The machinery already exists. Instead of
extending it, all we have to do is to simplify and reduce it.
By leaving to land owners a percentage of rent which would
probably be much less than the cost and loss involved in
attempting to rent lands through State agency, and by making
use of this existing machinery, we may, without jar or shock,
assert the common right to land by taking rent for public
uses. We already take some rent in taxation. We have only to
make some changes in our modes of taxation to take it all.
What I, therefore, propose, as the simple yet sovereign
remedy, which will raise wages, increase the earnings of
capital, extirpate pauperism, abolish poverty, give
remunerative employment to whoever wishes it, afford free
scope to human powers, lessen crime, elevate morals, and
taste, and intelligence, purify government and carry
civilization to yet nobler heights, is—to appropriate rent by
taxation. In this way, the State may become the universal
landlord without calling herself so, and without assuming a
single new function. In form, the ownership of land would
remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed, and
no restriction need be placed upon the amount of land any one
could hold. For, rent being taken by the State in taxes, land,
no matter in whose name it stood, or in what parcels it was
held, would be really common property, and every member of the
community would participate in the advantages of its
ownership. Now, insomuch as the taxation of rent, or land
values, must necessarily be increased just as we abolish other
taxes, we may put the proposition into practical form by
proposing—To abolish all taxation save that upon land values."
_H. George,
Progress and Poverty,
book 8, chapter 2._
"Mr. George sent his 'Progress and Poverty' into the world
with the remarkable prediction that it would find not only
readers but apostles. … Mr. George's prediction is not more
remarkable than its fulfilment. His work has had an unusually
extensive sale; a hundred editions in America, and an edition
of 60,000 copies in this country [England, 1891] are
sufficient evidences of that; but the most striking feature in
its reception is precisely that which its author foretold; it
created an army of apostles, and was enthusiastically
circulated, like the testament of a new dispensation.
Societies were formed, journals were devised to propagate its
saving doctrines, and little companies of the faithful held
stated meetings for its reading and exposition. … The author
was hailed as a new and better Adam Smith, as at once a
reformer of science and a renovator of society."
_J. Rae,
Contemporary Socialism,
chapter 12._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889.
State Socialistic measures of the German Government.
"Replying once to the accusation made by an opponent in the
Reichstag that his social-political measures were tainted with
Socialism, Prince Bismarck said, 'You will be compelled yet to
add a few drops of social oil in the recipe you prescribe for
the State; how many I cannot say.' In no measures has more of
the Chancellor's 'social oil' been introduced than in the
industrial insurance laws. These may be said to indicate the
high-water mark of German State Socialism. … The Sickness
Insurance Law of 1883. the Accident Insurance Laws of 1884 and
1885, and the Old Age Insurance Law of 1889 are based upon the
principle of compulsion which was introduced into the sick
insurance legislation of Prussia in 1854. … The trio of
insurance laws was completed in 1889 by the passing of a
measure providing for the insurance of workpeople against the
time of incapacity and old age (Invalidäts und
Altersversicherungsgesetz). This was no after-thought
suggested by the laws which preceded. It formed from the first
part of the complete plan of insurance foreshadowed by Prince
Bismarck over a decade ago, and in some of the Chancellor's
early speeches on the social question he regarded the
pensioning of old and incapacitated workpeople as at once
desirable and inevitable. …
{2956}
The Old Age Insurance Law is expected to apply to about twelve
million workpeople, including labourers, factory operatives,
journeymen, domestic servants, clerks, assistants, and
apprentices in handicrafts and in trade (apothecaries
excluded), and smaller officials (as on railways, etc.), so
long as their wages do not reach 2,000 marks (about £100) a
year; also persons employed in shipping, whether maritime,
river, or lake; and, if the Federal Council so determine,
certain classes of small independent undertakers. The
obligation to insure begins with the completion of the
sixteenth year, but there are exemptions, including persons
who, owing to physical or mental weakness, are unable to earn
fixed minimum wages, and persons already entitled to public
pensions, equal in amount to the benefits secured by the law,
or who are assured accident annuities. The contributions are
paid by the employers and work-people in equal shares, but the
State also guarantees a yearly subsidy of 50 marks (£2.10s.)
for every annuity paid. Contributions are only to be paid when
the insured is in work. The law fixes four wages classes, with
proportionate contributions as follows:
Wages. | Contributions.
| Weekly. | Yearly (47 weeks).
1st class 300 marks (£15) | 14 pfennig | 3'29 marks (3s. 3½d.)
2nd class 500 marks (£25) | 20 pfennig | 4'70 marks (4s. 8½d.)
3rd class 720 marks (£36) | 24 pfennig | 5'64 marks (5s. 7½d.)
4th class 960 marks (£78) | 30 pfennig | 7'05 marks (7s. ).
Of course, of these contributions the workpeople only pay
half. Old age annuities are first claimable at the beginning
of the seventy-first year, but annuities on account of
permanent incapacity may begin at any time after the workman
has been insured for five years. The minimum period of
contribution in the case of old age pensioning is thirty years
of forty-seven premiums each. Where a workman is prevented by
illness (exceeding a week but not exceeding a year), caused by
no fault of his own, or by military duties, from continuing
his contributions, the period of his absence from work is
reckoned part of the contributory year. … Contributions are
made in postage stamps affixed to yearly receipt cards
supplied to the insured. Annuities are to be paid through the
post-office monthly in advance."
_W. H. Dawson,
Bismarck and State Socialism,
chapter 9._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1887-1888.
Development of the "New Trade Unionism."
"The elements composing what is termed the New Trade Unionism
are not to be found in the constitution, organization, and
rules of the Unions started within the last two or three
years. In these respects they either conform to the experience
of modern Unions, or they revive the practices of the older
Unions. There is scarcely a feature in which any of them
differ from types of Unions long in existence. In what, then,
consists the 'New Trade Unionism,' of which we hear so much?
Mainly in the aspirations, conduct, modes of advocacy, and
methods of procedure of, and also in the expressions used, and
principles inculcated by the new leaders in labour movements,
in their speeches and by their acts. This New Unionism has
been formulated and promulgated at Trades Union Congresses, at
other Congresses and Conferences, and at the meetings held in
various parts of the country; and in letters and articles
which have appeared in the newspaper, press, and public
journals from the pens of the new leaders. … The institution
of Labour Bureaus, or the establishment of Labour Registries,
is one of the acknowledged objects of the Dockers' Union.
Singularly enough this is the first time that any such project
has had the sanction of a bona-fide Trade Union. All the older
Unions repudiate every such scheme. It has hitherto been
regarded as opposed in principle to Trade Unionism. … At the
recent Trades Union Congress held in Liverpool, September
1890, the following resolution was moved by one of the London
delegates representing the 'South Side Labour Protection
League'—'That in the opinion of this Congress, in order to
carry on more effectually the organization of the large mass
of unorganized labour, to bring into closer combination those
sections of labour already organized, to provide means for
communication and the interchange of information between all
sections of industry, and the proper tabulation of statistics
as to employment, &c., of advantage to the workmen, it is
necessary that a labour exchange, on the model of the Paris
Bourse des Travail, should be provided and maintained by
public funds in every industrial centre in the kingdom." … The
mover said that 'not a single delegate could deny the
necessity for such an institution, in every industrial
centre.' The Congress evidently thought otherwise, for only 74
voted for the resolution, while 92 voted against it. … The
proposal, however, shows to what an extent the New Trade
Unionism seeks for Government aid, or municipal assistance, in
labour movements. The most astonishing resolution carried by
the Congress was the following—'Whereas the ever-changing
methods of manufacture affect large numbers of workers
adversely by throwing them out of employment, without
compensation for loss of situation, and whereas those persons
are in many instances driven to destitution, crime, and
pauperism: Resolved, that this Congress is of opinion that
power should at once be granted to each municipality or County
Council to establish workshops and factories under municipal
control, where such persons shall be put to useful employment,
and that it be an instruction to the Parliamentary Committee
to at once take the matter in hand.' … The proposal of all
others which the new Trade Unionists sought to ingraft upon,
and had determined to carry as a portion of the programme of
the Trades Union Congress, was the 'legal Eight Hour day;' and
they actually succeeded in their design after a stormy battle.
The new leaders, with their socialist allies, had been working
to that end for over two years."
_G. Howell,
Trade Unionism, New and Old,
chapter 8, part. 2._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893.
Mr. Bellamy's "Looking Backward,"
and the Nationalist movement.
"The so-called 'Nationalist' movement, originating in an
ingenious novel called 'Looking Backward' [published in 1888],
is one of the most interesting phenomena of the present
condition of public opinion in this country. Mr. Edward
Bellamy, a novelist by profession, is the recognized father of
the Nationalist Clubs which have been formed in various parts
of the United States within the last twelve months. His
romance of the year 2000 A. D. is the reason for their
existence, and furnishes the inspiration of their
declarations. …
{2957}
The new society [depicted in Mr. Bellamy's romance] is
industrial, rather than militant, in every feature. There are
no wars or government war powers. But the function has been
assumed by the nation of directing the industry of every
citizen. Every man and woman is enrolled in the 'industrial
army,' this conception being fundamental. This universal
industrial service rests upon the recognized duty of every
citizen 'to contribute his quota of industrial or intellectual
work to the maintenance of the nation.' The period of service'
is twenty-four years, beginning at the close of the course of
education at twenty-one, and terminating at forty-five. After
forty-five, while discharged from labor, the citizen still
remains liable to special calls, in case of emergencies.'
There are, of course, no such numerous exemptions from this
industrial service as qualify very greatly the rigor of the
Continental military service of the present day. Every new
recruit belongs for three years to the class of unskilled or
common laborers. After this term, he is free to choose in what
branch of the service he will engage, to work with hand or
with brain:—'It is the business of the administration to seek
constantly to equalize the attractions of the trades, so far
as the conditions in them are concerned, so that all trades
shall be equally attractive to persons having natural tastes
for them. This is done by making the hours of labor in
different trades to differ according to their arduousness. The
principle is that no man's work ought to be, on the whole,
harder for him than any other man's for him, the workers
themselves to be the judges.' The headship of the industrial
army of the nation is the most important function of the
President of the United States. Promotion from the ranks lies
through three grades up to the officers. These officers are,
in ascending order, lieutenants, captains, or foremen,
colonels, or superintendents, and generals of the guilds. The
various trades are grouped into ten great departments, each of
which has a chief. These chiefs form the council of the
general-in-chief, who is the President. He must have passed
through all the grades, from the common laborers up. …
Congress has but little to do beyond passing upon the reports
of the President and the heads of departments at the end of
their terms of office. Any laws which one Congress enacts must
receive the assent of another, five years later, before going
into effect; but, as there are no parties or politicians in
the year 2000 A. D., this is a matter of little consequence.
In Mr. Bellamy's Utopia, money is unknown: there is,
therefore, no need of banks or bankers. Buying and selling are
processes entirely antiquated. The nation is the sole producer
of commodities. All persons being in the employment of the
nation, there is supposed to be no need of exchanges between
individuals. A credit-card is issued to each person, which he
presents at a national distributing shop when in need of
anything, and the amount due the government is punched out.
The yearly allowance made to each person Mr. Bellamy does not
put into figures. … Every person is free to spend his income
as he pleases; but it is the same for all, the sole basis on
which it is awarded being the fact that the person is a human
being. Consequently, cripples and idiots, as well as children,
are entitled to the same share of the products of the national
industries as is allowed the most stalwart or the most
capable, a certain amount of effort only being required, not
of performance. Such is the force of public opinion that no
one of able body or able mind refuses to exert himself: the
comparative results of his effort are not considered. Absolute
equality of recompense is thus the rule; and the notion of
charity with respect to the infirm in body or mind is
dismissed, a credit-card of the usual amount being issued to
every such person as his natural right. 'The account of every
person, man, woman, and child … is always with the nation
directly, and never through any intermediary, except, of
course, that parents to a certain extent act for children as
their guardians. … It is by virtue of the relation of
individuals to the nation, of their membership in it, that
they are entitled to support.' … The idea naturally occurred
to a considerable number of Bostonians, who had read Mr.
Bellamy's socialistic romance with an enthusiastic conviction
that here at last the true social gospel was delivered, that
associations for the purpose of disseminating the views set
forth in the book could not be formed too soon, as the
forerunners of this National party of the future. Accordingly,
a club, called 'The Boston Bellamy Club,' was started in
September, 1888, which was formally organized as 'The
Nationalist Club,' in the following December."
_N. P. Gilman,
"Nationalism" in the United States
(Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oct., 1889)._
The Nationalists "have very generally entered into the
Populist movement, not because they accept that in its present
form as ideal, but because that movement has seemed to give
them the best opportunity for the diffusion of their
principles; and there can be no doubt that they have given a
socialistic bias to this movement. They have also influenced
the labor movement, and, with the Socialistic Labor Party,
they have succeeded in producing a strong sentiment in favor
of independent political action on the part of the
wage-earners. Especially noteworthy was the platform for
independent political action offered at the meeting of the
American Federation of Labor in Chicago in December, 1893."
_R. T. Ely,
Socialism,
page 69._
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
The American Railway Union and the Pullman Strike.
In May, 1894, some 4,000 workmen, employed in the car shops of
the Pullman Company, at the town of Pullman, near Chicago,
stopped work, because of the refusal of the company to restore
their wages to the standard from which they had been cut down
during the previous year and because of its refusal to
arbitrate the question. While this strike was in progress, the
American Railway Union, a comparatively new but extensive
organization of railway employees, formed by and under the
presidency of Eugene V. Debs, met in convention at Chicago,
and was induced to make the cause of the Pullman workmen its
own. The result was a decision on the part of the Union to
"boycott" all Pullman cars, ordering its members to refuse to
handle cars of that company, on the railways which center at
Chicago. This order went into effect on the evening of June
26, and produced the most extensive and alarming paralysis of
traffic and business that has ever been experienced in the
United States. Acts of violence soon accompanied the strike of
the railway employees, but how far committed by the strikers
and how far by responsive mobs, has never been made clear.
{2958}
The interruption of mails brought the proceedings of the
strikers within the jurisdiction of the federal courts and
within reach of the arm of the United States government. The
powers of the national courts and of the national executive
were both promptly exercised, to restore order and to stop a
ruinous interference with the general commerce of the country.
The leaders of the strike were indicted and placed under
arrest; United States troops were sent to the scene; President
Cleveland, by two solemn proclamations, made known the
determination of the Government to suppress a combination
which obstructed the United States mails and the movements of
commerce between the states. Urgent appeals were addressed by
the leaders of the American Railway Union to other labor
organizations, with the hope of bringing about a universal
strike, in all departments of industry throughout the country;
but it failed. The good sense of workingmen in general
condemned so suicidal a measure. By the 15th of July the
Pullman strike was practically ended, and the traffic of the
railways was resumed. President Cleveland appointed a
commission to investigate and report on the occurrence and its
causes, but the report of the commission has not been
published at the time this is printed (November, 1894).
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894.
The Coxey Movement.
"A peculiar outcome of the social and political conditions of
the winter [of 1893-4] was the organization of various 'armies
of the unemployed' for the purpose of marching to Washington
and petitioning Congress for aid. The originator of the idea
seems to have been one Coxey, of Massillon, Ohio, who took up
the proposition that, as good roads and money were both much
needed in the country, the government should in the existing
crisis issue $500,000,000 in greenbacks, and devote it to the
employment of workers in the improvement of the roads. He
announced that he would lead an 'Army of the Commonweal of
Christ' to Washington to proclaim the wants of the people on
the steps of the Capitol on May 1, and he called upon the
unemployed and honest laboring classes to join him. On March
25 he set out from Massillon at the head of about a hundred
men and marched by easy stages and without disorder through
Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, provisions being donated by
the towns and villages on the way, or purchased with funds
which had been subscribed by sympathizing friends. The numbers
of the army increased as it advanced, and groups of volunteers
set out to join it from distant states. On May 1 the
detachment, numbering about 350, marched to the Capitol, but
under an old District law was prevented by the police from
entering the grounds. Coxey and another of the leaders,
attempting to elude the police and address the assembled
crowds, were arrested and were afterwards convicted of a
misdemeanor. … Somewhat earlier than the start from Massillon,
another organization, 'The United States Industrial Army,'
headed by one Frye, had started from Los Angeles, California,
for Washington, with purposes similar to those of the Coxey
force, though not limiting their demands to work on the roads.
This force, numbering from six to eight hundred men, availed
themselves of the assistance, more or less involuntary, of
freight trains on the Southern Pacific Railway as far as St.
Louis, from which place they continued on foot. Though
observing a degree of military discipline, the various
'armies' were unarmed, and the disturbances that arose in
several places in the latter part of April were mostly due to
the efforts of the marchers, or their friends in their behalf,
to press the railroads into service for transportation. Thus a
band under a leader named Kelly, starting from San Francisco,
April 4, secured freight accommodations as far as Omaha by
simply refusing to leave Oakland until the cars were
furnished. The railroads eastward from Omaha refused
absolutely to carry them, and they went into camp near Council
Bluffs, in Iowa. Then sympathizing Knights of Labor seized a
train by force and offered it to Kelly, who refused, however,
to accept it under the circumstances, and ultimately continued
on foot as far as Des Moines, in Iowa. After a long stay at
that place he was finally supplied with flatboats, on which,
at the close of this Record, his band, now swollen to some
1,200 men, was floating southward. A band coming east on a
stolen train on the Northern Pacific, after overpowering a
squad of United States marshals, was captured by a detachment
of regular troops at Forsyth, Montana, April 26. Two days
later the militia were called out to rescue a train from a
band at Mount Sterling, Ohio."
_Political Science Quarterly:
Record of Political Events, June, 1894._
There were straggling movements, from different quarters of
the country, in imitation of those described, prolonged
through most of the summer of 1894; but the public feeling
favorable to them was limited, and they commonly came to an
ignominious end.
----------SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: End--------
SOCIAL WAR:
In the Athenian Confederacy.
See ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.
SOCIAL WAR:
Of the Achaian and Ætolian Leagues.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
SOCIAL WAR:
Of the Italians.
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.
Some matter first placed under this title, and so referred to,
has been incorporated in the more general article above.
See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
SOCIETY OF JESUS.
See JESUITS.
SOCII, The.
The Italian subject-allies of Rome were called Socii before
the Roman franchise was extended to them.
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
SOCMEN.
Mr. Hallam thinks the Socmen, enumerated in Domesday Book, to
have been ceorls who were small landowners.
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 8, note 3 (volume. 2)._
SOCRATES:
As soldier and citizen.
See ATHENS: B. C. 424-406;
and GREECE: B. C. 406.
SOCRATES:
As teacher. See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE.
SODALITATES.
"There were [among the Romans] … unions originally formed for
social purposes, which were named 'sodalitates,' 'sodalitia,'
and these may be compared with our clubs. These associations
finally were made the centres of political parties, and we may
assume that they were sometimes formed solely for political
purposes."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 11._
See, also, COLLEGIA.
{2959}
SODOR AND MAN, The Bishopric of.
In the 11th century, the peculiar naval empire which the
Norsemen had established in the Hebrides, and on the
neighboring coasts of Ireland and Scotland, under the rulers
known as the Hy Ivar, became divided into two parts, called
Nordureyer or Norderies and Sudureyer or Suderies, the
northern and southern division. The dividing-line was at the
point of Ardnamurchan, the most westerly promontory of the
mainland of Scotland. "Hence the English bishopric of Sod or
and Man—Sodor being the southern division of the Scottish
Hebrides, and not now part of any English diocese.… The Bishop
of Sodor and Man has no seat in the House of Lords, owing, as
it is commonly said, to Man not having become an English
possession when bishops began to sit as Lords by tenure."
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 15, foot-note (volume 2)._
See, also,
NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: 10-13TH CENTURIES.
SOFT-SHELL DEMOCRATS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
SOGDIANA.
"North of the Bactrians, beyond the Oxus, on the western slope
of Belurdagh, in the valley of the Polytimetus (Zarefshan, i.
e. strewing gold), which flows towards the Oxus from the east,
but, instead of joining it, ends in Lake Dengis, lay the
Sogdiani of the Greeks, the Suguda of the Old Persian
inscriptions, and Çughdha of the Avesta, in the region of the
modern Sogd. As the Oxus in its upper course separates the
Bactrians from the Sogdiani, the Jaxartes, further to the
north, separates the latter from the Scyths. According to
Strabo, the manners of the Bactrians and Sogdiani were
similar, but the Bactrians were less rude. Maracanda
(Samarcand), the chief city of the Sogdiani, on the
Polytimetus, is said to have had a circuit of 70 stades in the
fourth century B. C."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5)._
See, also, BOKHARA.
SOGDIANA.
Occupied by the Huns.
See HUNS, THE WHITE.
SOHR, Battle of (1745).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.
----------SOISSONS: Start--------
SOISSONS:
Origin of the name.
See BELGÆ.
SOISSONS: A. D. 457-486.
Capital of the kingdom of Syagrius.
See GAUL: A. D. 457-486;
also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
SOISSONS: A. D. 486.
The capital of Clovis.
See PARIS: THE CAPITAL OF CLOVIS.
SOISSONS: A. D. 511-752.
One of the Merovingian capitals.
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
SOISSONS: A. D. 1414.
Pillage and destruction by the Armagnacs.
In the civil wars of Armagnacs and Burgundians, during the
reign of the insane king Charles VI., the Armagnacs, then
having the king in their hands, and pretendedly acting under
his commands, laid siege to Soissons and took the city by
storm, on the 21st of May, A. D. 1414. "In regard to the
destruction committed by the king's army in Soissons, it
cannot be estimated. … There is not a Christian but would have
shuddered at the atrocious excesses committed by this soldiery
in Soissons: married women violated before their husbands,
young damsels in the presence of their parents and relatives,
holy nuns, gentle women of all ranks, of whom there were many
in the town: all, or the greater part, were violated against
their wills, and known carnally by divers nobles and others,
who, after having satiated their own brutal passions,
delivered them over without mercy to their servants; and there
is no remembrance of such disorder and havoc being done by
Christians. … Thus was this grand and noble city of Soissons,
strong from its situation, walls and towers, full of wealth,
and embellished with fine churches and holy relics, totally
ruined and destroyed by the army of king Charles, and of the
princes who accompanied him. The king, however, before his
departure, gave orders for its rebuilding."
_Monstrelet,
Chronicles (translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapter 120 (volume 1)._
----------SOISSONS: Start--------
SOISSONS, Battle of (718).
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
SOISSONS, Battle of (923).
The revolt against Charles the Simple, which resulted in the
overthrow of the Carolingian dynasty, had its beginning in
918. In 922, Robert, Duke of France and Count of Paris,
grandfather of Hugh Capet, was chosen and crowned king by the
malcontents. On the 15th of June in the next year the most
desperate and sanguinary battle of the civil war was fought at
Soissons, where more than half of each army perished. The
Capetians won the field, but their newly crowned king was
among the slain.
_Sir F. Palgrave,
History of Normandy and England,
volume 2, page 40._
SOISSONS, Peace Congress of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
SOKEMANNI.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND.
SOLEBAY, Naval battle of (1672).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.
SOLES, Society of.
See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
SOLFERINO, Battle of (1859).
See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859.
SOLIDUS, The.
"The solidus or aureus is computed equivalent in weight of
gold to twenty-one shillings one penny English money."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 32, foot-note._
SOLON, The Constitution of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 594;
also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.
SOLWAY-FRITH,
SOLWAY MOSS,
The Battle of.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542.
SOLYMAN,
Caliph, A. D. 715-717.
Solyman I., Turkish Sultan, 1520-1566.
Solyman II., Turkish Sultan, 1687-1691.
SOLYMI, The.
See LYCIANS.
SOMA.
HAOMA.
"It is well known that both in the Veda and the Avesta a plant
is mentioned, called Soma (Zend, haoma). This plant, when
properly squeezed, yielded a juice, which was allowed to
ferment and, when mixed with milk and honey, produced an
exhilarating and intoxicating beverage. This Soma juice has
the same importance in Vedic and Avestic sacrifices as the
juice of the grape had in the worship of Bacchus. The question
has often been discussed what kind of plant this Soma could
have been. When Soma sacrifices are performed at present, it
is confessed that the real Soma can no longer be procured, and
that some ci-près, such as Pûtikâs, etc., must be used
instead." The Soma of later times seems to have been
identified with a species of Sarcostemma. The ancient Soma is
conjectured by some to have been the grape, and by others to
have been the hop plant.
_F. Max Müller,
Biography of Words,
appendix 3._
See, also, ZOROASTRIANS.
{2960}
SOMASCINES, The.
The Somascines, or the Congregation of Somasca, so called from
the town of that name, were an order of regular clergy founded
in 1540 by a Venetian noble, Girolamo Miani. They devoted
themselves to the establishment and maintenance of hospitals,
asylums for orphans, and the education of the poor.
_L. Ranke,
History of the Popes,
book 2, section 3 (volume 1)._
SOMATOPHYLAX.
"A somatophylax in the Macedonian army was no doubt at first,
as the word means, one of the officers who had to answer for
the king's safety; perhaps in modern language a colonel in the
body-guards or house-hold troops; but as, in unmixed
monarchies, the faithful officer who was nearest the king's
person, to whose watchfulness he trusted in the hour of
danger, often found himself the adviser in matters of state,
so, in the time of Alexander, the title of somatophylax was
given to those generals on whose wisdom the king chiefly
leaned, and by whose advice he was usually guided."
_S. Sharpe,
History of Egypt,
chapter 6, section 18 (volume 1)._
SOMERS, Lord,
and the shaping of constitutional government in England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
SOMERSETT, The case of the negro.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.
SOMNAUTH, The gates of.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.
SONCINO, Battle of (1431).
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
SONDERBUND, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
SONOMA: A. D. 1846.
The raising of the Bear Flag.
See CALIFORNIA; A. D. 1846-1847.
SONS OF LIBERTY.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1765 THE RECEPTION OF THE NEWS.
SONS OF LIBERTY, Knights of the Order of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).
SOPHENE, Kingdom of.
See ARMENIA.
SOPHERIM.
See SCRIBES.
SOPHI I.,
Shah of Persia, A. D. 1628-1641.
Sophi II., Shah of Persia, 1666-1694.
SOPHI, The.
See MEGISTANES.
SORA, The School of.
See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.
SORABIANS, The.
A Sclavonic tribe which occupied, in the eighth century, the
country between the Elbe and the Saale. They were subdued by
Charlemagne in 806.
_J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 11._
SORBIODUNUM.
A strong Roman fortress in Britain which is identified in site
with Old Sarum of the present day.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
SORBONNE, The.
See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.
UNIVERSITY OF PARIS.
SORDONES, The.
A people of the same race as the ancient Aquitanians, who
inhabited the eastern Pyrenees and the Aude.
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2). _
SOTIATES, The.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
SOTO, Hernando de, The expedition of.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
SOUDAN, The.
See SUDAN.
SOUFFRANCE, A.
"The word is translated as a truce, but it means something
very different from a modern truce. … The Souffrance was more
of the nature of a peace at the present day; and the reason
why of old it was treated as distinct from a peace was this:
The wars of the time generally arose from questions of
succession or of feudal superiority. When it became desirable
to cease fighting, while yet neither side was prepared to give
in to the other, there was an agreement to give up fighting in
the mean time, reserving all rights entire for future
discussion. A Souffrance or truce of this kind might last for
centuries."
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 21 (volume 2)._
SOULT, Marshal, Campaigns of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER) to 1812-1814;
GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST);
FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
----------SOUTH AFRICA: Start--------
SOUTH AFRICA:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
South Africa in its widest extent is peopled by two great and
perfectly distinct indigenous races—the Kafirs and the
Hottentots. The affinity of the Kafir tribes, ethnographically
including the Kafirs proper and the people of Congo, is based
upon the various idioms spoken by them, the direct
representatives of a common but now extinct mother tongue. The
aggregate of languages is now conventionally known as the
A-bantu, or, more correctly, the Bantu linguistic system. The
more common term Kafir, from the Arabic Kâfir = infidel,
really represents but a small section of this great family,
and being otherwise a term of reproach imposed upon them by
strangers, is of course unknown to the people themselves. All
the Bantu tribes are distinguished by a dark skin and woolly
hair, which varies much in length and quality, but is never
sleek or straight. … According to its geographical position
the Bantu system is divided into the Eastern group, from its
principal representatives known as the Ama-Zulu and Ama-Khosa
or Kafir proper, the Central, or Be-tchuana group, and the
Western or O-va-Herero, or Damara group. … The northern
division of these Bantus bears the name of Ama-Zulu, and they
are amongst the best representatives of dark-coloured races.
The Zulus are relatively well developed and of large size,
though not surpassing the average height of Europeans, and
with decidedly better features than the Ama-Khosa. … The most
wide-spread and most numerous of all these Kafir tribes are
the Bechuanas [including the Basutos], their present domain
stretching from the upper Orange river northwards to the
Zambesi, and over the west coast highland north of
Namaqualand; of this vast region, however, they occupy the
outskirts only. … The Hottentots, or more correctly Koi-Koin
(men), have no material features in common with the great
Bantu family, except their woolly hair, though even this
presents some considerable points of difference. Their general
type is that of a people with a peculiar pale yellow-brown
complexion, very curly 'elf-lock' or matted hair, narrow
forehead, high cheek-bones projecting side-ways, pointed chin,
body of medium size, rather hardy than strong, with small
hands and feet, and platynocephalous cranium. … The Hottentots
are properly divided into three groups: the Colonial, or
Hottentots properly so called, dwelling in Cape Colony, and
thence eastwards to the borders of Kafirland …; the Korana,
settled mainly on the right bank of the Orange river …;
lastly, the Namaqua, whose domain embraces the western portion
of South Africa, bordering eastwards on the Kalahari desert."
_Hellwald-Johnston,
Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
chapter 25._
See, also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.
{2961}
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
Portuguese discovery.-
Dutch possession.
English acquisition.
The Cape of Good Hope, "as far as we know, was first doubled
by Bartholomew Diaz in 1486.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.
He, and some of the mariners with him, called it the Cape of
Torments, or Capo Tormentoso, from the miseries they endured.
The more comfortable name which it now bears was given to it
by King John of Portugal, as being the new way discovered by
his subjects to the glorious Indies. Diaz, it seems, never in
truth saw the Cape, but was carried past it to Algoa Bay. …
Vasco da Gama, another sailor hero, said to have been of royal
Portuguese descent, followed him in 1497. He landed to the
west of the Cape. … Vasco da Gama did not stay long at the
Cape, but proceeding on went up the East Coast as far as our
second South African colony, which bears the name which he
then gave to it. He called the land Tierra de Natal, because
he reached it on the day of our Lord's Nativity. The name has
stuck to it ever since and no doubt will now be preserved.
From thence Da Gama went on to India. … The Portuguese seem to
have made no settlement at the Cape intended even to be
permanent; but they did use the place during the 16th and
first half of the next century as a port at which they could
call for supplies and assistance on their way out to the East
Indies. The East had then become the great goal of commerce to
others besides the Portuguese. In 1600 our own East India
Company was formed, and in 1602 that of the Dutch. Previous to
those dates, in 1591, an English sailor, Captain Lancaster,
visited the Cape, and in 1620 Englishmen landed and took
possession of it in the name of James I. But nothing came of
these visitings and declarations, although an attempt was made
by Great Britain to establish a house of call for her trade
out to the East. For this purpose a small gang of convicts was
deposited on Robben Island, which is just off Capetown, but as
a matter of course the convicts quarrelled with themselves and
the Natives, and came to a speedy end. In 1595 the Dutch came,
but did not then remain. It was not till 1652 that the first
Europeans who were destined to be the pioneer occupants of the
new land were put on shore at the Cape of Good Hope, and thus
made the first Dutch settlement. Previous to that the Cape had
in fact been a place of call for vessels of all nations going
and coming to and from the East. But from this date, 1652, it
was to be used for the Dutch exclusively. … The home Authority
at this time was not the Dutch Government, but the Council of
Seventeen at Amsterdam, who were the Directors of the Dutch
East India Company. … From 1658, when the place was but six
years old, there comes a very sad record indeed. The first
cargo of slaves was landed at the Cape from the Guinea Coast.
In this year, out of an entire population of 360, more than a
half were slaves. The total number of these was 187. To
control them and to defend the place there were but 113
European men capable of bearing arms. This slave element at
once became antagonistic to any system of real colonization,
and from that day to this has done more than any other evil to
retard the progress of the people. It was extinguished, much
to the disgust of the old Dutch inhabitants, under Mr.
Buxton's Emancipation Act in 1834;—but its effects are still
felt." The new land of which the Dutch had taken possession
"was by no means unoccupied or unpossessed. There was a race
of savages in possession, to whom the Dutch soon gave the name
of Hottentots. [The name was probably taken from some sound in
their language which was of frequent occurrence; they seem to
have been called 'Ottentoos,' 'Hotnots," Hottentotes,'
'Hodmodods,' and 'Hadmandods,' promiscuously. —Foot-note.) …
Soon after the settlement was established the burghers were
forbidden to trade with these people at all, and then
hostilities commenced. The Hottentots found that much, in the
way of land, had been taken from them and that nothing was to
be got. They … have not received, as Savages, a bad character.
They are said to have possessed fidelity, attachment, and
intelligence. … But the Hottentot, with all his virtues, was
driven into rebellion. There was some fighting, in which the
natives of course were beaten, and rewards were offered, so
much for a live Hottentot, and so much for a dead one. This
went on till, in 1672, it was found expedient to purchase land
from the natives. A contract was made in that year to prevent
future cavilling, as was then alleged, between the Governor
and one of the native princes, by which the district of the
Cape of Good Hope was ceded to the Dutch for a certain nominal
price. … But after a very early period—1684 —there was no
further buying of land. … The land was then annexed by
Europeans as convenience required. In all this the Dutch of
those days did very much as the English have done since. … The
Hottentot … is said to be nearly gone, and, being a yellow
man, to have lacked strength to endure European seductions.
But as to the Hottentot and his fate there are varied
opinions. I have been told by some that I have never seen a
pure Hottentot. Using my own eyes and my own idea of what a
Hottentot is, I should have said that the bulk of the
population of the Western Province of the Cape Colony is
Hottentot. The truth probably is that they have become so
mingled with other races as to have lost much of their
identity; but that the race has not perished, as have the
Indians of North America and the Maoris. … The last half of
the 17th and the whole of the 18th century saw the gradual
progress of the Dutch depôt,—a colony it could hardly be
called,—going on in the same slow determined way, and always
with the same purpose. It was no colony because those who
managed it at home in Holland, and they who at the Cape served
with admirable fidelity their Dutch masters, never entertained
an idea as to the colonization of the country. … In 1795 came
the English. In that year the French Republican troops had
taken possession of Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1795
(JUNE-DECEMBER)], and the Prince of Orange, after the manner
of dethroned potentates, took refuge in England. He_gave an
authority, which was dated from Kew, to the Governor of the
Cape to deliver up all and everything in his hands to the
English forces.
{2962}
On the arrival of the English fleet there was found to be, at
the same time, a colonist rebellion. … In this double
emergency the poor Dutch Governor, who does not seem to have
regarded the Prince's order as an authority, was sorely
puzzled. He fought a little, but only a little, and then the
English were in possession. … In 1797 Lord Macartney came out
as the first British Governor. Great Britain at this time took
possession of the Cape to prevent the French from doing so. No
doubt it was a most desirable possession, as being a half-way
house for us to India as it had been for the Dutch. But we
should not, at any rate then, have touched the place had it
not been that Holland, or rather the Dutch, were manifestly
unable to retain it. … Our rule over the Dutchmen was uneasy
and unprofitable. Something of rebellion seems to have been
going on during the whole time. … When at the peace of Amiens
in 1802 it was arranged that the Cape of Good Hope should be
restored to Holland [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], English
Ministers of State did not probably grieve much at the loss. …
But the peace of Amiens was delusive, and there was soon war
between England and France. Then again Great Britain felt the
necessity of taking the Cape, and proceeded to do so on this
occasion without any semblance of Dutch authority. At that
time whatever belonged to Holland was almost certain to fall
in to the hands of France. In 1805 … Sir David Baird was sent
with half a dozen regiments to expel, not the Dutch, but the
Dutch Governor and the Dutch soldiers from the Cape. This he
did easily, having encountered some slender resistance; and
thus in 1806, on the 19th January, after a century and a half
of Dutch rule, the Cape of Good Hope became a British colony."
_A. Trollope,
South Africa,
volume 1, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_W. Greswell,
Our South African Empire,
volume 1, chapters 1-4._
_R. Russell,
Natal,
part 2, chapters 1-3._
_Sir B. Frere,
Historical Sketch of South Africa
(Royal Historical Society Transactions N. S.,
volumes 2 and 4). _
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
The English and the Dutch Boers.
The "Great Trek."
Successive Boer republics of Natal, Orange Free State,
and the Transvaal, absorbed in the British dominions.
The Boer War.
The early history of the Cape Colony, after it became a
dependency of the British Crown, "is a record of the struggles
of the settlers, both English and Dutch, against the despotic
system of government established by Lord Charles Somerset; of
Kaffir wars, in which the colonists were often hard put to it
to hold their own; and of the struggle for the liberty of the
Press, sustained with success by John Fairbairn, and Thomas
Pringle, the poet of South Africa, the Ovid of a self-chosen
exile. For a time the Dutch and English settlers lived in
peace and amity together, but the English efforts to alleviate
the condition of, and finally emancipate the slaves, severed
the two races. The Dutch settlers held the old Biblical
notions about slavery, and they resented fiercely the law of
1833 emancipating all slaves throughout the colony in 1834.
The Boers at once determined to 'trek,' to leave the colony
which was under the jurisdiction of the English law, and find
in the South African wilderness, where no human law prevailed,
food for their flocks, and the pastoral freedom of Jacob and
of Abraham. The Boers would live their own lives in their own
way. They had nothing in common with the Englishman, and they
wished for nothing in common. … They were a primitive people,
farming, hunting, reading the Bible, pious, sturdy, and
independent; and the colonial Government was by no means
willing to see them leaving the fields and farms that they had
colonised, in order to found fresh states outside the
boundaries of the newly acquired territory. But the Government
was powerless, it tried, and tried in vain, to prevent this
emigration. There was no law to prevent it. … So, with their
waggons, their horses, their cattle and sheep, their guns, and
their few household goods, the hardy Boers struck out into the
interior and to the north-east, in true patriarchal fashion
[the migration being known as the Great Trek], seeking their
promised land, and that 'desolate freedom of the wild ass'
which was dear to their hearts. They founded a colony at
Natal, fought and baptized the new colony in their own blood.
The Zulu chief, Dingaan, who sold them the territory, murdered
the Boer leader, Peter Retief, and his 79 followers as soon as
the deed was signed. This was the beginning of the Boer hatred
to the native races. The Boers fought with the Zulus
successfully enough, fought with the English who came upon
them less successfully. The Imperial Government decided that
it would not permit its subjects to establish any independent
Governments in any part of South Africa. In 1843, after no
slight struggle and bloodshed, the Dutch republic of Natal
ceased to be, and Natal became part of the British dominion.
Again the Boers, who were unwilling to remain under British
rule, 'trekked' northward; again a free Dutch state was
founded—the Orange Free State. Once again the English
Government persisted in regarding them as British subjects,
and as rebels if they refused to admit as much. Once again
there was strife and bloodshed, and in 1848 the Orange
settlement was placed under British authority, while the
leading Boers fled for their lives across the Vaal River, and,
obstinately independent, began to found the Transvaal
Republic. After six years, however, of British rule in the
Orange territory the Imperial Government decided to give it
back to the Boers, whose stubborn desire for self-government,
and unchanging dislike for foreign rule, made them practically
unmanageable as subjects. In April 1854 a convention was
entered into with the Boers of the Orange territory, by which
the Imperial Government guaranteed the future independence of
the Orange Free State. Across the Vaal River the Transvaal
Boers grew and flourished after their own fashion, fought the
natives, established their republic and their Volksraad. But
in 1877 the Transvaal republic, had been getting rather the
worst of it in some of these struggles, and certain of the
Transvaal Boers seem to have made suggestions to England that
she should take the Transvaal republic under her protection.
Sir Theophilus Shepstone was sent out to investigate the
situation. He seems to have entirely misunderstood the
condition of things, and to have taken the frightened desires
of a few Boers as the honest sentiments of the whole Boer
nation. In an evil hour he hoisted the English flag in the
Transvaal, and declared the little republic a portion of the
territory of the British Crown.
{2963}
As a matter of fact, the majority of the Boers were a fierce,
independent people, very jealous of their liberty, and without
the least desire to come under the rule, to escape which they
had wandered so far from the earliest settlements of their
race. … The Boers of the Transvaal sent deputation after
deputation to England to appeal, and appeal in vain, against
the annexation. Lord Carnarvon had set his whole heart upon a
scheme of South African confederation; his belief in the ease
with which this confederation might be accomplished was
carefully fostered by judiciously coloured official reports. …
Sir Bartle Frere, 'as a friend,' advised the Boers 'not to
believe one word' of any statements to the effect that the
English people would be willing to give up the Transvaal.
'Never believe,' he said, 'that the English people will do
anything of the kind.' 'When the chief civil and military
command of the eastern part of South Africa was given to Sir
Garnet Wolseley, Sir Garnet Wolseley was not less explicit in
his statements. … In spite of the announcements of Sir Bartle
Frere, Sir Garnet Wolseley, and Sir Owen Lanyon, the
disaffected Boers were not without more or less direct English
encouragement. The Boer deputations had found many friends in
England. … One of those who thus sympathised was Mr.
Gladstone. In his Midlothian speeches he denounced again and
again the Conservative policy which had led to the annexation
of the Transvaal. … While all the winds of the world were
carrying Mr. Gladstone's words to every corner of the earth,
it is not surprising that the Boers of the Transvaal … should
have caught at these encouraging sentences, and been cheered
by them, and animated by them to rise against the despotism
denounced by a former Prime Minister of England. … For some
time there seemed to be no reasonable chance of liberty, but
in the end of 1880 the Boers saw their opportunity. … There
were few troops in the Transvaal. The Boer hour had come. As
in most insurrections, the immediate cause of the rising was
slight enough. A Boer named Bezhuidenot was summoned by the
landdrost of Potchefstrom to pay a claim made by the Treasury
officials at Pretoria. Bezhuidenot resisted the claim, which
certainly appears to have been illegal. … The landdrost
attached a waggon of Bezhuidenot's, and announced that it
would be sold to meet the claim. On November 11 the waggon was
brought into the open square of Potchefstrom, and the sheriff
was about to begin the sale, when a number of armed Boers
pulled him off and carried the waggon away in triumph. They
were unopposed, as there was no force in the town to resist
them. The incident, trifling in itself, of Bezhuidenot's cart,
was the match which fired the long-prepared train. Sir Owen
Lanyon sent some troops to Potchefstrom; a wholly unsuccessful
attempt was made to arrest the ringleaders of the Bezhuidenot
affair; it was obvious that a collision was close at hand. …
On Monday, December 13, 1880, almost exactly a month after the
affair of Bezhuidenot's waggon, a mass meeting of Boers at
Heidelberg proclaimed the Transvaal once again a republic,
established a triumvirate Government, and prepared to defend
their republic in arms. … The news of the insurrections
aroused the Cape Government to a sense of the seriousness of
the situation. Movements of British troops were at once made
to put the insurgents down with all speed. It is still an
unsettled point on which side the first shot was fired. There
were some shots exchanged at Potchefstrom on December 15. …
Previously to this the 94th regiment had marched from
Leydenberg to reinforce Pretoria on December 5, and had
reached Middleburgh about a week later. On the way came
rumours of the Boer rising. … Colonel Anstruther seems to have
felt convinced that the force he had with him was quite strong
enough to render a good account of any rebels who might
attempt to intercept its march. The whole strength of his
force, however, officers included, did not amount to quite 250
men. The troops crossed the Oliphants River, left it two days'
march behind them, and on the morning of the 20th were
marching quietly along with their long line of waggons and
their band playing 'God save the Queen' under the bright glare
of the sun. Suddenly, on the rising ground near the Bronkhorst
Spruit a body of armed Boers appeared. A man galloped out from
among them—Paul de Beer—with a flag of truce. Colonel
Anstruther rode out to meet him, and received a sealed
despatch warning the colonel that the British advance would be
considered as a declaration of war. Colonel Anstruther replied
simply that he was ordered to go to Pretoria, and that he
should do so. Each man galloped back to his own force, and
firing began. In ten minutes the fight, if fight it can be
called, was over. The Boers were unrivalled sharp-shooters,
had marked out every officer; every shot was aimed, and every
shot told. The Boers were well covered by trees on rising
ground; the English were beneath them, had no cover at all,
and were completely at their mercy. In ten minutes all the
officers had fallen, some forty men were killed, and nearly
double the number wounded. Colonel Anstruther, who was himself
badly wounded, saw that he must either surrender or have all
his men shot down, and he surrendered. … Colonel Anstruther,
who afterwards died of his wounds, bore high tribute in his
despatch to the kindness and humanity of the Boers when once
the fight was done. … Sir George Colley struggled bravely for
a while to make head against the Boers. At Lang's Nek and
Ingago he did his best, and the men under him fought
gallantly, but the superior positions and marksmanship of the
Boers gave them the advantage in both fights. Under their
murderous fire the officers and men fell helplessly. Officer
after officer of a regiment would be shot down by the unerring
aim of the Boers while trying to rally his men, while the
British fire did comparatively slight damage, and the troops
seldom came to sufficiently close quarters to use the bayonet.
But the most fatal battle of the campaign was yet to come. Sir
Evelyn Wood had arrived at the Cape with reinforcements, had
met Sir George Colley, and had gone to Pietermaritzburg to
await the coming of further reinforcements. On Saturday night,
February 26, Sir George Colley with a small force moved out of
the camp at Mount Prospect, and occupied the Majuba Hill,
which overlooked the Boer camps on the flat beyond Lang's Nek.
Early next morning the Boers attacked the hill; there was some
desultory firing for a while, under cover of which three Boer
storming parties ascended the hill almost unseen.
{2964}
The British were outflanked and surrounded, a deadly fire was
poured in upon them from all sides. The slaughter was
excessive. As usual the officers were soon shot down. Sir
George Colley, who was directing the movements as coolly as if
at review, was killed just as he was giving orders to cease
firing. The British broke and fled, fired upon as they fled by
the sharpshooters. Some escaped; a large number were taken
prisoners. So disastrous a defeat had seldom fallen upon
British arms. The recent memory of Maiwand was quite
obliterated. That was the last episode of the war. General
Wood agreed to a temporary armistice. There had been
negotiations going on between the Boers and the British before
the Majuba Hill defeat, which need never have occurred if
there had not been a delay in a reply of Kruger's to a letter
of Sir George Colley's. The negotiations were now resumed, and
concluded in the establishment of peace, on what may be called
a Boer basis. The republic of the Transvaal was to be
re-established, with a British protectorate and a British
Resident indeed, but practically granting the Boers the
self-government for which they took up arms."
_J. H. McCarthy,
England under Gladstone,
chapter 5. _
ALSO IN:
_J. Nixon,
Complete Story of the Transvaal._
_T. F. Carter,
Narrative of the Boer War._
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.
The Kafir wars.
British absorption of Kafraria.
"In 1811 the first Kafir war was brought on by the
depredations of those warlike natives on the Boers of the
eastern frontier; a war to the knife ensued, the Kafirs were
driven to the other side of the Great Fish River, and military
posts were formed along the border. A second war, however,
broke out in 1818, when the Kafirs invading the colony drove
the farmers completely out of the country west of the Great
Fish River, penetrating as far as Uitenhage. But the Kafirs
could not stand against the guns of the colonists, and the
second war terminated in the advance of an overwhelming force
into Kafirland, and the annexation of a large slice of
territory, east of the Great Fish River, to the colony. … For
a third time, in 1835, a horde of about 10,000 fighting men of
the Kafirs spread fire and slaughter and pillage over the
eastern districts, a war which led, as the previous ones had
done, to a more extended invasion of Kafraria by the British
troops, and the subjugation of the tribes east of the Kei
river. … A fourth great Kafir war in 1846, provoked by the
daring raids of these hostile tribes and their bold invasions
of the colony was also followed up by farther encroachments on
Kafir territory, and in 1847 a proclamation was issued
extending the frontier to the Orange river on the north and to
the Keiskamma river in the east, British sovereignty being
then also declared over the territory extending from the
latter river eastward to the Kei, though this space was at
first reserved for occupation by the Kafirs and named British
Kafraria. But peace was restored only for a brief time; in
1857 a fresh Kafir rebellion had broken out, and for two years
subsequently a sort of guerilla warfare was maintained along
the eastern frontier, involving great losses of life and
destruction of property. In 1863 this last Kafir war was
brought to a conclusion, and British Kafraria was placed under
the rule of European functionaries and incorporated with the
colony. In 1868 the Basutos [or Eastern Bechuanas], who occupy
the territory about the head of the Orange river, between its
tributary the Caledon and the summits of the Drakenberg range,
and who had lived under a semi-protectorate of the British
since 1848, were proclaimed British subjects. … Subsequently
large portions of formerly independent Kafraria between the
Kei river and the southern border of Natal have passed under
the government of the Cape."
_Hellwald-Johnston,
Africa
(Stanford's Compendium),
chapter 23._
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1867-1871.
Discovery of Diamonds.
Annexation of Griqualand west to Cape Colony.
See GRIQUAS.
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.
The Zulu War.
"At this time [1877] besides the three English Colonies of
Cape Town, Natal, and the lately formed Griqualand, there were
two independent Dutch Republics,—the Orange Free State, and
the Transvaal. Much of the white population even of the
English Provinces was Dutch, and a still larger proportion
consisted of reclaimed or half-reclaimed natives. Thus … there
lay behind all disputes the question which invariably attends
frontier settlements—the treatment of the native population.
This difficulty had become prominent in the year 1873 and
1874, when the fear of treachery on the part of a chief of the
name of Langalibalele located in Natal had driven the European
inhabitants to unjustifiable violence. The tribe over which
the chief had ruled had been scattered and driven from its
territory, the chief himself brought to trial, and on most
insufficient evidence sentenced to transportation. It was the
persuasion that he was intriguing with external tribes which
had excited the unreasoning fear of the colonists. For beyond
the frontier there lay the Zulus, a remarkable nation,
organised entirely upon a military system, and forming a great
standing army under the despotic rule of their King Cetchwayo.
Along the frontier of Natal the English preserved friendly
relations with this threatening chief. But the Dutch Boers of
the Transvaal, harsh and arbitrary in their treatment of
natives, had already involved themselves in a war with a
neighbouring potentate of the name of Secocoeni, and had got
into disputes with Cetchwayo, which threatened to bring upon
the European Colonies an indiscriminate assault." Lord
Carnarvon thought it practicable to cure the troubles in South
Africa by a confederation of the colonies. "The difficulty of
the situation was so obvious to the Colonial Minister that he
had chosen as High Commissioner a man whose experience and
energy he could thoroughly trust. Unfortunately in Sir Bartle
Frere he had selected a man not only of great ability, but one
who carried self-reliance and imperialist views to an extreme.
… The danger caused by the reckless conduct of the Boers upon
the frontier, and their proved incapacity to resist their
native enemies, had made it a matter of the last importance
that they should join the proposed Confederation, and thus be
at once restrained and assisted by the central power. Sir
Theophilus Shepstone had been charged with the duty of
bringing the Transvaal Republic to consent to an arrangement
of this sort. … Unable to persuade the Boers to accept his
suggestions for an amicable arrangement, he proceeded, in
virtue of powers intrusted to him, to declare the Republic
annexed, and to take over the government. This high-handed act
brought with it, as some of its critics in the House of
Commons had prophesied, disastrous difficulties.
{2965}
Not only were the Boers themselves almost as a matter of
course disaffected, but they handed over to the Imperial
Government all their difficulties and hostilities. They were
involved in disputes with both their barbarous neighbours. …
In 1875 they had made demands upon Cetchwayo, the most
important of which was a rectification of frontier largely in
their own favour. … Commissioners were appointed in 1878 to
inquire into the rights of the case. … The Commissioners
arrived at a unanimous decision against the Dutch claims. …
But before the Treaty could be carried out it required
ratification from the High Commissioner, and it came back from
his hands clogged with formidable conditions. … While … he
accepted the boundary report, he determined to make it an
opportunity for the destruction of Cetchwayo's power. In
December a Special Commission was despatched to meet the Zulu
Envoys to explain the award, but at the same time to demand
corresponding guarantees from the King. When these were
unfolded they appeared to be the abolition of his military
system and the substitution of a system of tribal regiments
approved by the British Government, the acceptance of a
British Resident by whose advice he was to act, the protection
of missionaries, and the payment of certain fines for
irregularities committed by his subjects. These claims were
thrown into the form of an ultimatum, and Cetchwayo was given
thirty days to decide. … It was to be submission or war. It
proved to be war. Sir Bartle Frere had already prepared for
this contingency; he had detained in South Africa the troops
which should have returned to England, and had applied to the
Home Government for more. … Lord Chelmsford was appointed to
the command of the troops upon the frontier, and on the 12th,
the very day on which the time allowed for the acceptance of
the ultimatum expired, the frontier was crossed. The invasion
was directed towards Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … The first
step across the frontier produced a terrible disaster. The
troops under the immediate command of Lord Chelmsford encamped
at Isandlana without any of the ordinary precautions, and in a
bad position. … In this unprotected situation Lord Chelmsford,
while himself advancing to reconnoitre, left two battalions of
the 24th with some native allies under Colonel Pulleine, who
were subsequently joined by a body of 3,000 natives and a few
Europeans under Colonel Durnford. The forces left in the camp
were suddenly assaulted by the Zulus in overwhelming numbers
and entirely destroyed [January 22, 1879]. It was only the
magnificent defence by Chard and Bromhead of the post and
hospital at Rorke's Drift which prevented the victorious
savages from pouring into Natal. Lord Chelmsford on returning
from his advance hurried from the fearful scene of slaughter
back to the frontier. For the moment all was panic; an
immediate irruption of the enemy was expected. But when it was
found that Colonel Wood to the west could hold his own though
only with much rough fighting, and that Colonel Pearson,
towards the mouth of the river, after a successful battle had
occupied and held Ekowe, confidence was re-established. But
the troops in Ekowe were cut off from all communication except
by means of heliographic signals, and the interest of the war
was for a while centred upon the beleaguered garrison. With
extreme caution, in spite of the clamorous criticism levelled
against him, Lord Chelmsford refused to move to its rescue
till fully reinforced. Towards the end of March however it was
known that the provisions were running low, and on the 29th an
army of 6,000 men again crossed the frontier. On this occasion
there was no lack of precaution. … As they approached the
fortress, they were assaulted at Gingilovo, their strong
formation proved efficient against the wild bravery of their
assailants, a complete victory was won, and the garrison at
Ekowe rescued. A day or two earlier an even more reckless
assault upon Colonel Wood's camp at Kambula was encountered
with the same success. But for the re-establishment of the
English prestige it was thought necessary to undertake a fresh
invasion of the country. … Several attempts at peace had been
made on the part of the Zulus. But their ambassadors were
never, in the opinion of the English generals, sufficiently
accredited to allow negotiations to be opened. Yet it would
appear that Cetchwayo was really desirous of peace, according
to his own account even the assault at Isandlana was an
accident, and the two last great battles were the result of
local efforts. At length in July properly authorised envoys
came to the camp. Terms of submission were dictated to them,
but as they were not at once accepted a final battle was
fought resulting completely in favour of the English, who then
occupied and burnt Ulundi, the Zulu capital. … Sir Garnet
Wolseley was … again sent out with full powers to effect a
settlement. His first business was to capture the King. When
this was done he proceeded to divide Zululand into thirteen
districts, each under a separate chief; the military system
was destroyed; the people were disarmed and no importation of
arms allowed; a Resident was to decide disputes in which
British subjects were involved. The reception of missionaries
against the will of the people was not however insisted on."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 4, pages 545-550._
ALSO IN:
_F. E. Colenso and E. Durnford,
History of the Zulu War._
_A. Wilmot,
History of the Zulu War._
_C. J. Norris-Newman,
In Zululand with the British._
_C. Vijn,
Cetswayo's Dutchman._
SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.
British acquisition of Matabeleland or Zambesia.
Dominion of the British South Africa Company.
War with King Lobengula.
"The Boers, ever on the lookout for new lands into which to
trek, had long ago fixed their eyes on the country north of
the Limpopo, known generally as Matabeleland, ruled over by
Lobengula, the son of the chief of the Matabeles. … The
reports of Mauch, Baines, and others, of the rich gold mines
contained in this territory, were well known. … Other
travellers and sportsmen, Mohr, Oates, Selous, gave the most
favourable accounts not only of the gold of the country, but
of the suitability of a large portion of the high plateau
known as Mashonaland for European settlement and agricultural
operations. When Sir Charles Warren was in Bechuanaland in
1885, several of his officers made journeys to Matabeleland,
and their reports all tended to show the desirability of
taking possession of that country; indeed Sir Charles was
assured that Lobengula would welcome a British alliance as a
protection against the Boers, of whose designs he was
afraid. …
{2966}
As a result of Sir Charles Warren's mission to Bechuanaland,
and of the reports furnished by the agents he sent into
Matabeleland, the attention of adventurers and prospectors was
more and more drawn towards the latter country. The Portuguese
… had been electrified into activity by the events of the past
two years. That the attention of the British Government was
directed to Matabeleland even in 1887 is evident from a
protest in August of that year, on the part of Lord Salisbury,
against an official Portuguese map claiming a section of that
country as within the Portuguese sphere. Lord Salisbury then
clearly stated that no pretensions of Portugal to Matabeleland
could be recognised, and that the Zambesi should be regarded
as the natural northern limit of British South Africa. The
British Prime Minister reminded the Portuguese Government that
according to the Berlin Act no claim to territory in Central
Africa could be recognised that was not supported by effective
occupation. The Portuguese Government maintained (it must be
admitted with justice) that this applied only to the coast,
but Lord Salisbury stood firmly to his position. … Germans,
Boers, Portuguese, were all ready to lay their hands on the
country claimed by Lobengula. England stepped in and took it
out of their hands; and at the worst she can only be accused
of obeying the law of the universe, 'Might is Right.' By the
end of 1887 the attempts of the Transvaal Boers to obtain a
hold over Matabeleland had reached a crisis. It became evident
that no time was to be lost if England was to secure the
Zambesi as the northern limit of extension of her South
African possessions. Lobengula himself was harassed and
anxious as to the designs of the Boers on the one hand, and
the doings of the Portuguese on the north of his territory on
the other. In the Rev. J. Smith Moffat, Assistant Commissioner
in Bechuanaland, England had a trusty agent who had formerly
been a missionary for many years in Matabeleland, and had
great influence with Lobengula. Under the circumstances, it
does not seem to have been difficult for Mr. Moffat to
persuade the King to put an end to his troubles by placing
himself under the protection of Great Britain. On 21st March
1888, Sir Hercules Robinson, Governor of Cape Colony, and Her
Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, was able to
inform the Home Government that on the previous 11th February
Lobengula had appended his mark to a brief document which
secured to England supremacy in Matabeleland over all her
rivals. … The publication of the treaty was, as might be
expected, followed by reclamations both on the part of the
Transvaal and of Portugal. Before the British hold was firmly
established over the country attempts were made by large
parties of Boers to trek into Matabeleland. … Individual Boers
as well, it must be said, as individual Englishmen at the
kraal of Lobengula, attempted to poison the mind of the latter
against the British. But the King remained throughout faithful
to his engagements. Indeed, it was not Lobengula himself who
gave any cause for anxiety during the initial stage of the
English occupation. He is, no doubt, a powerful chief, but
even he is obliged to defer to the wishes of his 'indunas' and
his army. … Lobengula himself kept a firm hand over his
warriors, but even he was at times apprehensive that they
might burst beyond all control. Happily this trying initial
period passed without disaster. … No sooner was the treaty
signed than Lobengula was besieged for concessions of land,
the main object of which was to obtain the gold with which the
country was said to abound, especially in the east, in
Mashonaland." The principal competitors for what was looked
upon as the great prize were two syndicates of capitalists,
which finally became amalgamated, in 1889, under the skilful
diplomacy of Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes, forming the great British
South Africa Company, about which much has been heard in
recent years. "The principal field of the operations of the
British South Africa Company was defined in the charter to be
'the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of
British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South
African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese
dominions.' The Company was also empowered to acquire any
further concessions, if approved of by 'Our Secretary of
State.' … The Company was empowered to act as the
representative of the Imperial Government, without, however,
obtaining any assistance from the Government to bear the
expense of the administration. … The capital of the Company
was a million sterling. It is not easy to define the relations
of the Chartered Company to the various other companies which
had mining interests in the country. In itself it was not a
consolidation of the interests of those companies. Its
functions were to administer the country and to work the
concessions on behalf of the Concessionaires, in return for
which it was to retain fifty per cent. of the profits. … When
the British South African Company was prepared to enter into
active occupation of the territories which they were
authorised to exploit, they had on the one hand the impis of
Lobengula eager to wash their spears in white blood; on the
south the Boers of the Transvaal, embittered at being
prevented from trekking to the north of the Limpopo, and on
the east and on the north-east the Portuguese trying to raise
a wall of claims and historical pretensions against the tide
of English energy. … An agreement was concluded between
England and Portugal in August 1890, by which the eastern
limits of the South Africa Company's claims were fixed, and
the course of the unknown Sabi River, from north to south, was
taken as a boundary. But this did not satisfy either Portugal
or the Company, and the treaty was never ratified. … A new
agreement [was] signed on the 11th June 1891, under which
Portugal can hardly be said to have fared so well as she would
have done under the one repudiated by the Cortes in the
previous year. The boundary between the British Company's
territories was drawn farther east than in the previous
treaty. The line starting from the Zambesi near Zumbo runs in
a general south-east direction to a point where the Mazoe
River is cut by the 33rd degree of east longitude. The
boundary then runs in a generally south direction to the
junction of the Lunde and the Sabi, where it strikes
south-west to the north-east corner of the South African
Republic, on the Limpopo. In tracing the frontier along the
slope of the plateau, the Portuguese sphere was not allowed to
come farther west than 32° 30' East of Greenwich, nor the
British sphere east of 33° East. A slight deflection westwards
was made so as to include Massi Kessi in the Portuguese
sphere. … According to the terms of the arrangement, the
navigation of the Zambesi and the Shiré was declared free to
all nations."
_J S. Keltie,
The Partition of Africa,
chapter 18._
{2967}
By the spring of 1893 the British South Africa Company had
fairly laid hands upon its great dominion of Zambesia.
Matabele was swarming with searchers for gold; a railroad from
the port of Beira, through Portuguese territory, was in
progress: a town at Fort Salisbury was rising. Lobengula, the
Matabele king, repented speedily of his treaty and repudiated
the construction put on it by the English. Quarrels arose over
the Mashonas, whom the Matabeles held in slavery and whom the
new lords of the country protected. Both parties showed
impatience for war, and it was not long in breaking out. The
first shots were exchanged early in October; before the end of
the year the British were complete masters of the country, and
Lobengula had fled from his lost kingdom, to die, it is said,
during the flight. There were two pitched battles, in which
the natives suffered terribly. They obtained revenge in one
instance, only, by cutting off a party of thirty men, not one
of whom survived.
----------SOUTH AFRICA: End--------
SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY, The British.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891,
and SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.
----------SOUTH CAROLINA: Start--------
SOUTH CAROLINA: The aboriginal in:habitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
CHEROKEES, MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY,
SHAWANESE, TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1520.
The coast explored by Vasquez de Ayllon and called Chicora.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1562-1563.
The short-lived Huguenot colony on Broad River.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
The grant to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and others.
The first settlement.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
Locke's Constitution and its failure.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.
The founding of Charleston.
The growth of the Colony.
The expedition of Captain Sayle in 1670 (see NORTH CAROLINA:
A. D. 1663-1670) resulted in a settlement, made in 1671, which
is historically referred to as that of "Old Charleston." This
continued to be for some years the capital of the southern
colony: "but, as the commerce of the colony increased, the
disadvantages of the position were discovered. It could not be
approached by large vessels at low water. In 1680, by a formal
command of the proprietors, a second removal took place, the
government literally following the people, who had in numbers
anticipated the legislative action: and the seat of government
was transferred to a neck of land called Oyster Point,
admirably conceived for the purposes of commerce, at the
confluence of two spacious and deep rivers, the Kiawah and
Etiwan, which, in compliment to Lord Shaftesbury, had already
been called after him, Ashley and Cooper. Here the foundation
was laid of the present city of Charleston. In that year 30
houses were built, though this number could have met the wants
of but a small portion of the colony. The heads of families at
the Port Royal settlement alone, whose names are preserved to
us, are 48 in number: those brought from Clarendon by Yeamans
could not have been less numerous: and the additions which
they must have had from the mother-country, during the seven
or eight years of their stay at the Ashley river settlement,
were likely to have been very considerable. Roundheads and
cavaliers alike sought refuge in Carolina, which, for a long
time, remained a pet province of the proprietors. Liberty of
conscience, which the charter professed to guaranty,
encouraged emigration. The hopes of avarice, the rigor of
creditors, the fear of punishment and persecution, were equal
incentives to the settlement of this favored but foreign
region. … In 1674, when Nova Belgia, now New York, was
conquered by the English, a number of the Dutch from that
place sought refuge in Carolina. … Two vessels filled with
foreign, perhaps French, Protestants, were transported to
Carolina, at the expense of Charles II., in 1679; and the
revocation of the edict of Nantz, a few years afterwards, …
contributed still more largely to the infant settlement, and
provided Carolina with some of the best portions of her
growing population. … In 1696, a colony of Congregationalists,
from Dorchester in Massachusetts, ascended the Ashley river
nearly to its head, and there founded a town, to which they
gave the name of that which they had left. Dorchester became a
town of some importance. … It is now deserted; the habitations
and inhabitants have alike vanished; but the reverend spire,
rising through the forest trees which surround it, still
attests (1840) the place of their worship, and where so many
of them yet repose. Various other countries and causes
contributed to the growth and population of the new
settlement."
_W. G. Simms,
History of South Carolina,
book 2, chapter 1._
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.
Spanish attack from Florida.
Indian and Negro Slavery.
"About 1680 a few leading Scotch Presbyterians planned the
establishment of a refuge for their persecuted brethren within
the bounds of Carolina. The plan shrunk to smaller dimensions
than those originally contemplated. Finally Lord Cardross,
with a colony of ten Scotch families, settled on the vacant
territory of Port Royal. The fate of the settlement
foreshadowed the miseries of Darien. It suffered alike from
the climate and from the jealousy of the English settlers. …
For nearly ten years the dread of a Spanish attack had hung
over South Carolina. … In 1680 the threatened storm broke upon
the colony. Three galleys landed an invading force at Edisto,
where the Governor and secretary had private houses, plundered
them of money, plate, and slaves, and killed the Governor's
brother-in-law. They then fell upon the Scotch settlement,
which had now shrunk to 25 men, and swept it clean out of
existence. The colonists did not sit down tamely under their
injuries. They raised a force of 400 men and were on the point
of making a retaliatory attack when they were checked by an
order from the Proprietors. …
{2968}
The Proprietors may have felt … that, although the immediate
attack was unprovoked, the colonists were not wholly blameless
in the matter. The Spaniards had suffered from the ravages of
pirates who were believed to be befriended by the inhabitants
of Charlestown. In another way too the settlers had placed a
weapon in the hands of their enemies. The Spaniards were but
little to be dreaded, unless strengthened by an Indian
alliance. … But from the first settlement of Carolina the
colony was tainted with a vice which imperilled its relations
with the Indians. Barbadoes … had a large share in the
original settlement of Carolina. In that colony negro slavery
was already firmly established as the one system of industry.
At the time when Yeamans and his followers set sail for the
shores of Carolina, Barbadoes had probably two negroes for
everyone white inhabitant. The soil and climate of the new
territory did everything to confirm the practice of slavery,
and South Carolina was from the outset what she ever after
remained, the peculiar home of that evil usage. To the West
India planter every man of dark colour seemed a natural and
proper object of traffic. The settler in Carolina soon learnt
the same view. In Virginia and Maryland there are but few
traces of any attempt to enslave the Indians. In Carolina …
the Indian was kidnapped and sold, sometimes to work on what
had once been his own soil, sometimes to end his days as an
exile and bondsman in the West Indies. As late as 1708 the
native population furnished a quarter of the whole body of
slaves. It would be unfair to attribute all the hostilities
between the Indians and the colonists to this one source, but
it is clear that it was an import:mt factor. From their very
earliest days the settlers were involved in troubles with
their savage neighbours."
_J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Virginia, Maryland,
and the Carolinas,
chapter 12._
"Of the original thirteen states, South Carolina alone was
from its origin essentially a planting state with slave labor.
… The proprietaries tempted emigrants by the offer of land at
an easy quit-rent, and 150 acres were granted for every able
man-servant. 'In that they meant negroes as well as
Christians.' … It became the great object of the emigrant 'to
buy negro slaves, without which,' adds Wilson, 'a planter can
never do any great matter'; and the negro race was multiplied
so rapidly by importations that, in a few years, we are told,
the blacks in the low country were to the whites in the
proportion of 22 to 12."
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 2, chapter 8 (volume 1)._
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1696.
Beginning of distinctions between the two Carolinas,
North and South.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.
Prosperity of the colony.
Attack on St. Augustine.
French attack on Charleston.
"At the opening of the new century, we must cease to look upon
South Carolina as the home of indigent emigrants, struggling
for subsistence. While numerous slaves cultivated the
extensive plantations, their owners, educated gentlemen, and
here and there of noble families in England, had abundant
leisure for social intercourse, living as they did in
proximity to each other, and in easy access to Charles Town,
where the Governor resided, the courts and legislature
convened, and the public offices were kept. … Hospitality,
refinement, and literary culture distinguished the higher
class of gentlemen." But party strife at this period raged
bitterly, growing mainly out of an attempt to establish the
Church of England in the colony. Governor Moore, who had
gained power on this issue, sought to strengthen his position
by an attack on St. Augustine. "The assembly joined in the
scheme. They requested him to go as commander, instead of
Colonel Daniel, whom he nominated. They voted £2,000; and
thought ten vessels and 350 men, with Indian allies, would be
a sufficient force. … Moore with about 400 men sets sail, and
Daniel with 100 Carolina troops and about 500 Yemassee Indians
march by land. But the inhabitants of St. Augustine had heard
of their coming, and had sent to Havana for reinforcements.
Retreating to their castle, they abandoned their town to
Colonel Daniel, who pillaged it before Moore's fleet arrived.
Governor Moore and Colonel Daniel united their forces and laid
siege to the castle; but they lacked the necessary artillery
for its reduction, and were compelled to send to Jamaica for
it." Before the artillery arrived, "two Spanish ships appeared
off St. Augustine. Moore instantly burned the town and all his
own ships and hastened back by land. … The expense entailed on
the colony was £6,000. When this attack on St. Augustine was
planned, it must have been anticipated in the colony that war
would be declared against Spain and France." Four years later,
the War of the Spanish Succession being then in progress, a
French fleet appeared (August, 1706) in the harbor of
Charleston and demanded the surrender of the town. Although
yellow fever was raging at the time, the governor, Sir
Nathaniel Johnson, organized so effective a resistance that
the invaders were driven off with considerable loss.
_W. J. Rivers,
The Carolinas (Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 5, chapter 5)._
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1740.
War with the Spaniards of Florida.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.
The Cherokee War.
"The Cherokees, who had accompanied Forbes in his expedition
against Fort Du Quesne [see CANADA: A. D. 1758], returning
home along the mountains, had involved themselves in quarrels
with the back settlers of Virginia and the Carolinas, in which
several, both Indians and white men, had been killed. Some
chiefs, who had proceeded to Charleston to arrange this
dispute, were received by Governor Littleton in very haughty
style, and he presently marched into the Cherokee country at
the head of 1,500 men, contributed by Virginia and the
Carolinas, demanding the surrender of the murderers of the
English. He was soon glad, however, of any apology for
retiring. His troops proved very insubordinate; the small-pox
broke out among them; and, having accepted 22 Indian hostages
as security for peace and the future delivery of the
murderers, he broke up his camp, and fell back in haste and
confusion. … No sooner was Littleton's army gone, than the
Cherokees attempted to entrap into their power the commander
of [Fort Prince George, at the head of the Savannah], and,
apprehensive of some plan for the rescue of the hostages, he
gave orders to put them in irons. They resisted; and a soldier
having been wounded in the struggle, his infuriated companions
fell upon the prisoners and put them all to death.
{2969}
Indignant at this outrage, the Cherokees beleaguered the fort,
and sent out war parties in every direction to attack the
frontiers. The Assembly of South Carolina, in great alarm,
voted 1,000 men, and offered a premium of £25 for every Indian
scalp. North Carolina offered a similar premium, and
authorized, in addition, the holding of Indian captives as
slaves. An express, asking assistance, was sent to General
Amherst, who detached 1,200 men, under Colonel Montgomery,
chiefly Scotch Highlanders, lately stationed on the western
frontier, with orders to make a dash at the Cherokees, but to
return in season for the next campaign against Canada. …
Joining his forces with the provincial levies, Montgomery
entered the Cherokee country, raised the blockade of Fort
Prince George, and ravaged the neighboring district. Marching
then upon Etchoe, the chief village of the Middle Cherokees,
within five miles of that place he encountered [June, 1760] a
large body of Indians, strongly posted in a difficult defile,
from which they were only driven after a very severe struggle;
or, according to other accounts, "Montgomery was himself
repulsed. At all events, he retired to Charleston, and, in
obedience to his orders, prepared to embark for service at the
north. When this determination became known, the province was
thrown into the utmost consternation. The Assembly declared
themselves unable to raise men to protect the frontiers; and a
detachment of 400 regulars was presently conceded" to the
solicitations of lieutenant governor Bull, to whom the
administration of South Carolina had lately been resigned.
Before the year closed, the conquest of the French dominions
in America east of the Mississippi had been practically
finished and the French and Indian War at the north was
closed. But, "while the northern colonies exulted in safety,
the Cherokee war still kept the frontiers of Carolina in
alarm. Left to themselves by the withdrawal of Montgomery, the
Upper Cherokees had beleaguered Fort Loudon. After living for
some time on horse-flesh, the garrison, under a promise of
safe-conduct to the settlements, had been induced to
surrender. But this promise was broken; attacked on the way, a
part were killed, and the rest detained as prisoners; after
which, the Indians directed all their fury against the
frontiers. On a new application presently made to Amherst for
assistance, the Highland regiment, now commanded by Grant, was
ordered back to Carolina. New levies were also made in the
province, and Grant presently marched into the Cherokee
country [June, 1761] with 2,600 men. In a second battle, near
the same spot with the fight of the previous year, the Indians
were driven back with loss. … The Indians took refuge in the
defiles of the mountains, and, subdued and humbled, sued for
peace. As the condition on which alone it would be granted,
they were required to deliver up four warriors to be shot at
the head of the army, or to furnish four green Indian scalps
within twenty days. A personal application to Governor Bull,
by an old chief long known for his attachment to the English,
procured a relinquishment of this brutal demand, and peace was
presently made."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 27 (volume 2). _
ALSO IN:
_D. Ramsay,
History of South Carolina,
volume 1, chapter 5, section 2. _
_S. G. Drake,
Aboriginal Races of North America,
book 4, chapter 4._
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1760-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Stamp Act.
The first Continental Congress.
The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1774.
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767, to 1774;
and BOSTON: 1768, to 1773.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Action taken on the news.
Ticonderoga.
The siege of Boston.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775.
Rapid progress of Revolution.
Flight of the Royal Governor.
In January, 1775, a provincial convention for South Carolina
was called together at Charleston, under the presidency of
Charles Pinckney. It appointed delegates to the second
Continental Congress, and took measures to enforce the
non-importation agreements in which the colony had joined. At
a second session, in June, this convention or Provincial
Congress of South Carolina "appointed a Committee of Safety,
issued $600,000, of paper money, and voted to raise two
regiments, of which Gadsden and Moultrie were chosen colonels.
Lieutenant-governor Bull was utterly powerless to prevent or
interrupt these proceedings. While the Convention was still in
session, Lord William Campbell, who had acquired by marriage
large possessions in the province, arrived at Charleston with
a commission as governor. Received with courtesy, he presently
summoned an Assembly; but that body declined to proceed to
business, and soon adjourned on its own authority. The
Committee of Safety pursued with energy measures for putting
the province in a state of defense. A good deal of resistance
was made to the Association [for commercial non-intercourse],
especially in the back counties. Persuasion failing, force was
used. … A vessel was fitted out by the Committee of Safety,
which seized an English powder ship off St. Augustine and
brought her into Charleston. Moultrie was presently sent to
take possession of the fort in Charleston harbor. No
resistance was made. The small garrison, in expectation of the
visit, had already [September] retired on board the ships of
war in the harbor. Lord Campbell, the governor, accused of
secret negotiations with the Cherokees and the disaffected in
the back counties, was soon obliged to seek the same shelter.
A regiment of artillery was voted; and measures were taken for
fortifying the harbor, from which the British ships were soon
expelled."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapters 30-31 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_D. Ramsay,
History of South Carolina,
volume 1, chapter 7, section 1._
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (February-April).
Allegiance to King George renounced, independence
assumed, and a state constitution adopted.
"On the 8th of February 1776, the convention of South
Carolina, by Drayton their president, presented their thanks
to John Rutledge and Henry Middleton for their services in the
American congress, which had made its appeal to the King of
kings, established a navy, treasury, and general post-office,
exercised control over commerce, and granted to colonies
permission to create civil institutions, independent of the
regal authority.
{2970}
The next day arrived Gadsden, the highest officer in the army
of the province, and he in like manner received the welcome of
public gratitude. … When, on the 10th, the report on reforming
the provincial government was considered and many hesitated,
Gadsden spoke out for the absolute independence of America.
The majority had thus far refused to contemplate the end
toward which they were irresistibly impelled. … But the
criminal laws could not be enforced for want of officers;
public and private affairs were running into confusion; the
imminent danger of invasion was proved by intercepted letters,
so that necessity compelled the adoption of some adequate
system of rule. While a committee of eleven was preparing the
organic law, Gadsden, on the 13th, began to act as senior
officer of the army. Companies of militia were called down to
Charleston, and the military forces augmented by two regiments
of riflemen. In the early part of the year Sullivan's Island
was a wilderness, thickly covered with myrtle, live-oak, and
palmettos; there, on the 2d of March, William Moultrie was
ordered to complete a fort large enough to hold 1,000 men.
Within five days after the convention received the act of
parliament of the preceding December which authorized the
capture of American vessels and property, they gave up the
hope of reconciliation; and, on the 26th of March 1776,
asserting 'the good of the people to be the origin and end of
all government,' and enumerating the unwarrantable acts of the
British parliament, the implacability of the king, and the
violence of his officers, they established a constitution for
South Carolina. … On the 27th, John Rutledge was chosen
president, Henry Laurens vice-president, and William Henry
Drayton chief justice. … On the 23d of April the court was
opened at Charleston, and the chief justice after an elaborate
exposition charged the grand jury in these words: 'The law of
the land authorizes me to declare, and it is my duty to
declare the law, that George III., king of Great Britain, has
abdicated the government, that he has no authority over us,
and we owe no obedience to him.'"
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last revision),
epoch 3, chapter 25 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_W. G. Simms,
History of South Carolina,
book 4, chapter 5._
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776 (June).
Sir Henry Clinton's repulse from Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JUNE).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776-1778.
The war in the North.
The Articles of Confederation.
The alliance with France.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1778.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778.
State Constitution framed and adopted.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1778-1779.
The war carried into the south.
Savannah taken and Georgia subdued.
Unsuccessful attempt to recover Savannah.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778-1779 THE WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH;
and 1779 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
Siege and surrender of Charleston.
Defeat of Gates at Camden.
British subjugation of the state.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.
Partisan warfare of Marion and his Men.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780-1781.
Greene's campaign.
King's Mountain.
The Cowpens.
Guilford Court House.
Hobkirk's Hill.
Eutaw springs.
The British shut up in Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1781-1783.
The campaign in Virginia.
Siege of Yorktown and surrender of Cornwallis.
Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:A. D. 1781 to 1783.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787.
Cession of Western land claims to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1787-1788.
Formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1828-1833.
The Nullification movement and threatened Secession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1831.
The first railroad.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.
The plotting of the Rebellion.
Passage of the Ordinance of Secession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860 (December).
Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER) MAJOR ANDERSON.
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).
Beginning the War of Rebellion.
The bombardment of Fort Sumter.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (October-December).
Capture of Hilton Head and occupation of the coast
islands by Union forces.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER:
SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1862 (May).
The arming of the Freedmen at Hilton Head.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).
The repulse of the Monitor-fleet at Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).
Lodgment of Union forces on Morris Island,
and assault on Fort Wagner.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).-
Siege of Fort Wagner.
Bombardment of Fort Sumter and Charleston.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).
Evacuation of Charleston by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February-March).-
Sherman's march through the state.
The burning of Columbia.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (June).
Provisional Government set up under
President Johnson's Plan of Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
{2971}
SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865-1876.
Reconstruction.
"After the close of the war, two distinct and opposing plans
were applied for the reconstruction, or restoration to the
Union, of the State. The first, known as the Presidential plan
[see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY)], was
quickly superseded by the second, known as the Congressional
plan; but it had worked vast mischief by fostering delusive
hopes, the reaction of which was manifest in long enduring
bitterness. Under the latter plan, embodied in the Act of
Congress of March 2, 1867 [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1867 (MARCH)], a convention was assembled in Charleston,
January 14, 1868, 'to frame a Constitution and Civil
Government.' The previous registration of voters made in
October, 1867, showed a total of 125,328, of whom 46,346 were
whites, and 78,982 blacks. … On the question of holding a
constitutional convention the vote cast in November, 1867, was
71,087; 130 whites and 68,876 blacks voting for it, and 2,801
whites against it. Of the delegates chosen to the convention
34 were whites and 63 blacks. The new Constitution was adopted
at an election held on the 14th, 15th, and 16th of April,
1868, all State officers to initiate its operation being
elected at the same time. At this election the registration
was 133,597; the vote for the Constitution 70,758; against it,
27,288; total vote. 98,046; not voting, 35,551. Against the
approval by Congress of this Constitution the Democratic State
Central Committee forwarded a protest," which declared: "The
Constitution was the work of Northern adventurers, Southern
renegades, and Ignorant negroes. Not one per cent. of the
white population of the State approves it, and not two per
cent. of the negroes who voted for its adoption understood
what this act of voting implied." "The new State officers took
office July 9, 1868. In the first Legislature, which assembled
on the same day, the Senate consisted of 33 members, of whom 9
were negroes and but 7 were Democrats. The House of
Representatives consisted of 124 members, of whom 48 were
white men, 14 only of these being Democrats. The whole
Legislature thus consisted of 72 white and 85 colored members.
At this date the entire funded debt of South Carolina amounted
to $5,407,306.27. At the close of the four years (two terms)
of Governor R. K. Scott's administration, December, 1872, the
funded debt of the State amounted to $18,515,033.91, including
past-due and unpaid interest for three years."
_W. Allen,
Governor Chamberlain's Administration in South Carolina,
chapter 1._
"Mr. James S. Pike, late Minister of the United States at the
Hague, a Republican and an original abolitionist, who visited
the state in 1873, after five years' supremacy by Scott and
his successor Moses, and their allies, has published a pungent
and instructive account of public affairs during that trying
time, under the title of 'The Prostrate State.' The most
significant of the striking features of this book is that he
undertakes to write a correct history of the state by dividing
the principal frauds, already committed or then in process of
completion, into eight distinct classes, which he enumerates
as follows:
1. Those which relate to the increase of the state debt.
2. The frauds practiced in the purchase of lands for the
freedmen.
3. The railroad frauds.
4. The election frauds.
5. The frauds practiced in the redemption of the notes of the
Bank of South Carolina.
6. The census fraud.
7. The fraud in furnishing the legislative chamber.
8. General and legislative corruption. …
Mr. Pike in his 'Prostrate State,' speaking of the state
finances in 1873, says; 'But, as the treasury of South
Carolina has been so thoroughly gutted by the thieves who have
hitherto had possession of the state government, there is
nothing left to steal. The note of any negro in the state is
worth as much on the market as a South Carolina bond.'" This
reign of corruption was checked in 1874 by the election to the
governorship of Daniel H. Chamberlain, the regular Republican
nominee, who had been Attorney-General during Scott's
administration. "Governor Chamberlain, quite in contrast with
his predecessors, talked reform after his election as well as
before it," and was "able to accomplish some marked and
wholesome reforms in public expenditures." In 1876 the
Democrats succeeded in overpowering the negro vote and
acquired control of the state, electing General Wade Hampton
governor.
_J. J. Hemphill,
Reconstruction in South Carolina
(Why the Solid South? chapter 4)._
Generally, for an account of the measures connected with
"Reconstruction,"
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.
----------SOUTH CAROLINA: End--------
SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1889.
Admission to the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.
SOUTH MOUNTAIN, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND)
LEE'S FIRST INVASION.
SOUTH RIVER, The.
The Delaware and the Hudson were called respectively the South
River and the North River by the Dutch, during their
occupation of the territory of New Netherland.
SOUTH SEA:
The name and its application.
See PACIFIC OCEAN.
SOUTH SEA BUBBLE, The.
"The South Sea Company was first formed by Harley [Earl of
Oxford, Lord Treasurer of England] in 1711, his object being
to improve public credit, and to provide for the floating
debts, which at that period amounted to nearly £10,000,000.
The Lord Treasurer, therefore, established a fund for that
sum. He secured the interest by making permanent the duties on
wine, vinegar, tobacco, and several others; he allured the
creditors by promising them the monopoly of trade to the
Spanish coasts in America; and the project was sanctioned both
by Royal Charter and by Act of Parliament. Nor were the
merchants slow in swallowing this gilded bait; and the fancied
Eldorado which shone before them dazzled even their discerning
eyes. … This spirit spread throughout the whole nation, and
many, who scarcely knew whereabouts America lies, felt
nevertheless quite certain of its being strewed with gold and
gems. … The negotiations of Utrecht, however, in this as in
other matters, fell far short of the Ministerial promises and
of the public expectation. Instead of a free trade, or any
approach to a free trade, with the American colonies, the
Court of Madrid granted only, besides the shameful Asiento for
negro slaves, the privilege of settling some factories, and
sending one annual ship. … This shadow of a trade was bestowed
by the British Government on the South Sea Company, but it was
very soon disturbed. Their first annual ship, the Royal
Prince, did not sail till 1717; and next year broke out the
war with Spain. … Still, however, the South Sea Company
continued, from its other resources, a flourishing and wealthy
corporation; its funds were high, its influence considerable,
and it was considered on every occasion the rival and
competitor of the Bank of England."
{2972}
At the close of 1719 the South Sea Company submitted to the
government proposals for buying up the public debt. "The great
object was to buy up and diminish the burthen of the
irredeemable annuities granted in the two last reigns, for the
term mostly of 99 years, and amounting at this time to nearly
£800,000 a year." The Bank of England became at once a
competitor for the same undertaking. "The two bodies now
displayed the utmost eagerness to outbid one another, each
seeming almost ready to ruin itself, so that it could but
disappoint its rival. They both went on enhancing their terms,
until at length the South Sea Company rose to the enormous
offer of seven millions and a half. … The South Sea Bill
finally passed the Commons by a division of 172 against 55. In
the Lords, on the 4th of April [1720], the minority was only
17. … On the passing of the Bill very many of the annuitants
hastened to carry their orders to the South Sea House, before
they even received any offer, or knew what terms would be
allowed them!—ready to yield a fixed and certain income for
even the smallest share in vast but visionary schemes. The
offer which was made to them on the 29th of May (eight years
and a quarter's purchase) was much less favourable than they
had hoped; yet nevertheless, six days afterwards, it is
computed that nearly two-thirds of the whole number of
annuitants had already agreed. In fact, it seems clear that,
during this time, and throughout the summer, the whole nation,
with extremely few exceptions, looked upon the South Sea
Scheme as promising and prosperous. Its funds rapidly rose
from 130 to above 300. … As soon as the South Sea Bill had
received the Royal Assent in April, the Directors proposed a
subscription of one million, which was so eagerly taken that
the sum subscribed exceeded two. A second subscription was
quickly opened, and no less quickly filled. … In August, the
stocks, which had been 130 in the winter, rose to 1,000. Such
general infatuation would have been happy for the Directors,
had they not themselves partaken of it. They opened a third,
and even a fourth subscription, larger than the former; they
passed a resolution, that from Christmas next their yearly
dividend should not be less than fifty per cent.; they assumed
an arrogant and overbearing tone. … But the public delusion
was not continued to the South Sea Scheme; a thousand other
mushroom projects sprung up in that teeming soil. … Change
Alley became a new edition of the Rue Quincampoix.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720.
The crowds were so great within doors, that tables with clerks
were set in the street. … Some of the Companies hawked about
were for the most extravagant projects; we find amongst the
number,
'Wrecks to be fished for on the Irish Coast;
Insurance of Horses, and other Cattle (two millions);
Insurance of losses by servants;
To make Salt-Water Fresh;
For Building of Hospitals for Bastard Children;
For Building of Ships against Pirates;
For making of Oil from Sun-flower Seeds;
For improving of Malt Liquors;
For recovering of Seamen's Wages;
For extracting of Silver from Lead;
For the transmuting of Quicksilver into a malleable
and fine Metal;
For making of Iron with Pit-coal;
For importing a Number of large Jack Asses from Spain;
For trading in Human Hair;
For flitting of Hogs;
For a Wheel for a Perpetual Motion.'
But the most strange of all, perhaps, was 'For an Undertaking
which shall in due time be revealed.' Each subscriber was to
pay down two guineas, and hereafter to receive a share of one
hundred with a disclosure of the object; and so tempting was
the offer that 1,000 of these subscriptions were paid the same
morning, with which the projector went off in the afternoon. …
When the sums intended to be raised had grown altogether, it
is said, to the enormous amount of £300,000,000, the first
check to the public infatuation was given by the same body
whence it had first sprung. The South Sea Directors … obtained
an order from the Lords Justices, and writs of scire facias,
against several of the new bubble Companies. These fell, but
in falling drew down the whole fabric with them. As soon as
distrust was excited, all men became anxious to convert their
bonds into money. … Early in September, the South Sea stock
began to decline: its fall became more rapid from day to day,
and in less than a month it had sunk below 300. … The decline
progressively continued, and the news of the crash in France
[of the contemporary Mississippi Scheme of John Law-see
FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720] completed ours. Thousands of families
were reduced to beggary. … The resentment and rage were
universal."
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 11 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_A. Anderson,
History and Chronological Deduction
of the Origin of Commerce,
volume 3, page 43, and after._
_J. Toland,
Secret History of the South Sea Scheme
(Works, volume 1)._
_C. Mackay,
Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions,
chapter 2._
SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY, The.
The organization of the so called Confederate States of
America, formed among the states which attempted in 1861 to
secede from the American Union, is commonly referred to as the
Southern Confederacy. For an account of the Constitution of
the Confederacy, and the establishing of its government.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).
SOUTHERN CROSS, Order or the.
A Brazilian order of knighthood instituted in 1826 by the
Emperor, Pedro I.
SPA-FIELDS MEETING AND RIOT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
SPAHIS.
In the Turkish feudal system, organized by Mahomet II. (A. D.
1451-1481), "the general name for the holders of military
fiefs was Spahi, a Cavalier, a title which exactly answers to
those which we find in the feudal countries of Christian
Europe. … The Spahi was the feudal vassal of his Sultan and of
his Sultan alone. … Each Spahi … was not only bound to render
military service himself in person, but, if the value of his
fief exceeded a certain specified amount, he was required to
furnish and maintain an armed horseman for every multiple of
that sum."
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapters 6 and 10._
"The Spahis cannot properly be considered as a class of
nobles. In the villages they had neither estates nor dwellings
of their own; they had no right to jurisdiction or to feudal
service. … No real rights of property were ever bestowed on
them; but, for a specific service a certain revenue was
granted them."
_L. Ranke,
History of Servia,
chapter 3._
See, also, TIMAR.
{2973}
----------SPAIN: Start--------
SPAIN:
Aboriginal Peoples.
"Spain must either have given birth to an aboriginal people,
or was peopled by way of the Pyrenees and by emigrants
crossing the narrow strait at the columns of Hercules. The
Iberian race actually forms the foundation of the populations
of Spain. The Basks, or Basques, now confined to a few
mountain valleys, formerly occupied the greater portion of the
peninsula, as is proved by its geographical nomenclature.
Celtic tribes subsequently crossed the Pyrenees, and
established themselves in various parts of the country, mixing
in many instances with the Iberians, and forming the so·called
Celtiberians. This mixed race is met with principally in the
two Castiles, whilst Galicia and the larger portion of
Portugal appear to be inhabited by pure Celts. The Iberians
had their original seat of civilisation in the south; they
thence moved northward along the coast of the Mediterranean,
penetrating as far as the Alps and the Apennines. These
original elements of the population were joined by colonists
from the great commercial peoples of the Mediterranean. Cadiz
and Malaga were founded by the Phœnicians, Cartagena by the
Carthaginians, Sagonte by immigrants from Zacynthe, Rosas is a
Rhodian colony, and the ruins of Ampurias recall the Emporium
of the Massilians. But it was the Romans who modified the
character of the Iberian and Celtic inhabitants of the
peninsula."
_E. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Europe,
volume 1, page 372._
SPAIN: B. C. 237-202.
The rule of Hamilcar, Hasdrubal and Hannibal in the south.-
Beginning of Roman conquest.
See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.
SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.
Roman conquest.
"The nations of Spain were subjugated one after another by the
Romans. The contest began with the second Punic war [B. C.
218], and it ended with the defeat of the Cantabri and Astures
by Augustus, B. C. 25. From B. C. 205 the Romans had a
dominion in Spain. It was divided into two provinces, Hispania
Citerior, or Tarraconensis, and Hispania Ulterior, or Baetica.
At first extraordinary proconsuls were sent to Spain, but
afterwards two praetors were sent, generally with proconsular
authority and twelve fasces. During the Macedonian war the two
parts of Spain were placed under one governor, but in B. C.
167 the old division was restored, and so it remained to the
time of Augustus. The boundary between the two provinces was
originally the Iberus (Ebro). … The country south of the Ebro
was the Carthaginian territory, which came into the possession
of the Romans at the end of this [the second Punic] war. The
centre, the west, and north-west parts of the Spanish
peninsula were still independent. At a later time the boundary
of Hispania Citerior extended further south, and it was fixed
at last between Urci and Murgis, now Guardias Viejas, in 36°
41' North latitude."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 1._
See, also, CELTIBERIANS;
LUSITANIA; and NUMANTIAN WAR.
SPAIN: B. C. 83-72.
Sertorius.
Quintus Sertorius, who was the ablest and the best of the
leaders of the Popular Party, or Italian Party, or Marian
Party, as it is variously designated, which contended against
Sulla and the senate, in the first Roman civil war, left
Italy and withdrew to Spain, or was sent thither (it is
uncertain which) in 83 or 82 B. C. before the triumph of Sulla
had been decided. His first attempts to make a stand in Spain
against the authority of Sulla failed complete]y, and he had
thoughts it is said of seeking a peaceful retreat in the
Madeira Islands, vaguely known at that period as the Fortunate
Isles, or Isles of the Blest. But after some adventures in
Mauritania, Sertorius accepted an invitation from the
Lusitanians to become their leader in a revolt against the
Romans which they meditated. Putting himself at the head of
the Lusitanians, and drawing with them other Iberian tribes,
Sertorius organized a power in Spain which held the Romans at
bay for nearly ten years and which came near to breaking the
peninsula from their dominion. He was joined, too, by a large
number of the fugitives from Rome of the proscribed party, who
formed a senate in Spain and instituted a government there
which aspired to displace, in time, the senate and the
republic on the Tiber, which Sulla had reduced to a shadow and
a mockery. First Metellus and then Pompey, who were sent
against Sertorius (see ROME: B. C. 78-68), suffered repeated
defeats at his hands. In the end, Sertorius was only overcome
by treachery among his own officers, who conspired against him
and assassinated him, B. C. 72.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapters 31-33._
ALSO IN:
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 7, chapter 62._
SPAIN: B. C. 49.
Cæsar's first campaign against the Pompeians.
See ROME: B. C. 49.
SPAIN: B. C. 45.
Cæsar's last campaign against the Pompeians.
His victory at Munda.
See ROME: B. C. 45.
SPAIN: 3d Century.
Early Christianity.
See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312 (SPAIN).
SPAIN: A. D. 408.
Under the usurper Constantine.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
Invasion of the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans.
From the end of the year 406 to the autumn of 409, the
barbaric torrent of Alans, Sueves and Vandals which had swept
away the barriers of the Roman empire beyond the Alps, spent
its rage on the unhappy provinces of Gaul. On the 13th of
October, 409, the Pyrenees were passed and the same flood of
tempestuous invasion poured into Spain. "The misfortunes of
Spain may be described in the language of its most eloquent
historian [Mariana], who has concisely expressed the
passionate, and perhaps exaggerated, declamations of
contemporary writers. 'The irruption of these nations was
followed by the most dreadful calamities; as the barbarians
exercised their indiscriminate cruelty on the fortunes of the
Romans and the Spaniards, and ravaged with equal fury the
cities and the open country. The progress of famine reduced
the miserable inhabitants to feed on the flesh of their
fellow-creatures; and even the wild beasts, who multiplied
without control in the desert, were exasperated by the taste
of blood and the impatience of hunger boldly to attack and
devour their human prey. Pestilence soon appeared, the
inseparable companion of famine; a large proportion of the
people was swept away; and the groans of the dying excited
only the envy of their surviving friends. At length the
barbarians, satiated with carnage and rapine, and afflicted by
the contagious evils which they themselves had introduced,
fixed their permanent seats in the depopulated country.
{2974}
The ancient Galicia, whose limits included the kingdom of Old
Castile, was divided between the Suevi and the Vandals; the
Alani were scattered over the provinces of Carthagena and
Lusitania, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic Ocean; and
the fruitful territory of Bætica was allotted to the Silingi,
another branch of the Vandalic nation. … The lands were again
cultivated; and the towns and villages were again occupied by
a captive people. The greatest part of the Spaniards was even
disposed to prefer this new condition of poverty and barbarism
to the severe oppressions of the Roman government; yet there
were many who still asserted their native freedom, and who
refused, more especially in the mountains of Galicia, to
submit to the barbarian yoke.'"
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 31._
SPAIN: A. D. 414-418.
First conquests of the Visigoths.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.
SPAIN: A. D. 428.
Conquests of the Vandals.
See VANDALS: A. D. 428.
SPAIN: A. D. 477-712.
The Gothic kingdom.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 453-484; and 507-711.
SPAIN: A. D. 573.
The Suevi overcome by the Visigoths.
See SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.
SPAIN: A. D. 616.
First expulsion of the Jews.
See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.
SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
Conquest by the Arab-Moors.
The last century of the Gothic kingdom in Spain was, on the
whole, a period of decline. It gained some extension of
boundaries, it is true, by the expulsion of Byzantine
authority from one small southern corner of the Spanish
peninsula, in which it had lingered long; but repeated
usurpations had shaken the throne; the ascendancy of church
and clergy had weakened the Gothic nobility without
strengthening the people; frequent recurrences of political
disorder had interfered with a general prosperity and
demoralized society in many ways. The condition of Spain, in
fact, was such as might plainly invite the flushed armies of
Islam, which now stood on the African side of the narrow
strait of Gibraltar. That another invitation was needed to
bring them in is not probable. The story of the great treason
of Count Illan, or Ilyan, or Julian, and of the betrayed
daughter, Florinda, to whose wrongs he made a sacrifice of his
country, has been woven into the history of the Moorish
conquest of Spain by too many looms of romance and poetry to
be easily torn away,—and it may have some bottom of fact in
its composition; but sober reason requires us to believe that
no possible treason in the case could be more than a chance
incident of the inevitable catastrophe. The final conquest of
North Africa had been completed by the Arab general Musa Ibn
Nosseyr,—except that Ceuta, the one stronghold which the Goths
held on the African side of the straits, withstood them. They
had not only conquered the Berbers or Moors, but had
practically absorbed and affiliated them. Spain, as they
learned, was distracted by a fresh revolution, which had
brought to the throne Roderick —the last Gothic king. The
numerous Jews in the country were embittered by persecution
and looked to the more tolerant Moslems for their deliverance.
Probably their invitation proved more potent than any which
Count Ilyan could address to Musa, or to his master at
Damascus. But Ilyan commanded at Ceuta, and, after defending
the outpost for a time, he gave it up. It seems, too, that
when the movement of Invasion occurred, in the spring of 711,
Count Ilyan was with the invaders. The first expedition to
cross the narrow strait from Ceuta to Gibraltar came under the
command of the valiant one-eyed chieftain, Tarik Ibn Zeyud Ibn
Abdillah. "The landing of Tarik's forces was completed on the
30th of April, 711 (8th Regeb. A. H. 92), and his enthusiastic
followers at once named the promontory upon which he landed,
Dschebel-Tarik [or Gebel-Tarik], the rock of Tarik. The name
has been retained in the modernized form, Gibraltar. It is
also spoken of in the Arabian chronicles as Dschebalu-l-Fata,
the portal or mountain of victory." Tarik entered Spain with
but 7,000 men. He afterwards received reinforcements to the
extent of 5,000 from Musa. It was with this small army of
12,000 men that, after a little more than two months, he
encountered the far greater host which King Roderick had
levied hastily to oppose him. The Gothic king despised the
small numbers of his foe and rashly staked everything upon the
single field. Somewhere not far from Medina Sidonia, —or
nearer to the town of Xeres de la Frontera. —on the banks of
the Guadalete, the decisive battle began on the 19th day of
July, A. D. 711. It lasted obstinately for several days, and
success appeared first on the Gothic side; but treason among
the Christians and discipline among the Moslems turned the
scale. When the battle ended the conquest of Spain was
practically achieved. Its Gothic king had disappeared, whether
slain or fled was never known, and the organization of
resistance disappeared with him. Tarik pursued his success
with audacious vigor, even disobeying the commands of his
superior, Musa. Dividing his small army into detachments, he
pushed them out in all directions to seize the important
cities. Xeres, Moron, Carmona, Cordova, Malaga, and
Gharnatta—Granada—(the latter so extensively peopled with Jews
that it was called "Gharnatta-al-Yahood," or Granada of the
Jews) were speedily taken. Toledo, the Gothic capital,
surrendered and was occupied on Palm Sunday, 712. The same
spring, Musa, burning with envy of his subordinate's
unexpected success, crossed to Spain with an army of 18,00()
and took up the nearly finished task. He took Seville and laid
siege to Merida—the Emerita Augusta of the Romans—a great and
splendid city of unusual strength. Merida resisted with more
valor than other cities had shown, but surrendered in July.
Seville revolted and was punished terribly by the merciless
Moslem sword. Before the end of the second year after Tarik's
first landing at Gibraltar, the Arab, or Arab-Moorish,
invaders had swept the whole southern, central and eastern
parts of the peninsula, clear to the Pyrenees, reducing
Saragossa after a siege and receiving the surrender of
Barcelona, Valencia, and all the important cities. Then, in
the summer of 713, Musa and Tarik went away, under orders from
the Caliph, to settle their jealous dissensions at Damascus,
and to report the facts of the great conquest they made.
_H. Coppée,
History of the Conquest of Spain,
books 2-3 (volume 1)._
{2975}
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Condé,
History of the Arabs in Spain,
chapters 8-17 (volume 1)._
For preceding events;
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS);
and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE.
SPAIN: A. D. 713-910.
The rally of the fugitive Christians.
"The first blow [of the Moslem conquest] had stunned Gothic
Spain; and, before she could recover her consciousness, the
skilful hands of the Moslemah had bound her, hand and foot.
From the first stupor they were not allowed to recover. The
very clemency of the Moslems robbed the Christians of
argument. If their swords were sharp, their conduct after
battle was far better than the inhabitants had any right to
expect, far better than that of the Roman or Gothic conquerors
had been, when they invaded Spain. Their religion, the defence
of which might have been the last rallying-point, was
respected under easy conditions; their lives rendered secure
and comfortable; they were under tribute, but a tribute no
more exacting than Roman taxes or Gothic subsidies. … It was
the Gothic element, and not the Hispano-Romans, that felt the
humiliation most. … The Spanish Goths, at first impelled by
the simple instinct of self-preservation, had fled in all
directions before the fiery march of the Moslemah, after the
first fatal battle in the plains of Sidonia. They had taken
with them in their flight all the movable property they could
carry and the treasures of the churches. Some had passed the
Pyrenees to join their kinsmen in Septimania; and others had
hidden in the mountain valleys of the great chain-barrier;
while a considerable number, variously stated, had collected
in the intricate territory of the Asturias and in Galicia,
where strength of position made amends for the lack of numbers
and organization, and where they could find shelter and time
for consultation as to the best manner of making head against
the enemy. The country is cut up in all directions by
inaccessible, scarped rocks, deep ravines, tangled thickets,
and narrow gorges and defiles." This band of refugees in the
Asturias—the forlorn hope of Christian Spain—are said to have
found a gallant leader in one Pelayo, whose origin and history
are so covered with myth that some historians even question
his reality. But whether by Pelayo or another prince, the
Asturian Spaniards were held together in their mountains and
began a struggle of resistance which ended only, eight
centuries later, in the recovery of the entire peninsula from
the Moors. Their place of retreat was an almost inaccessible
cavern—the Cave of Covadonga—in attacking which the Moslems
suffered a terrible and memorable repulse (A. D. 717). "In
Christian Spain the fame of this single battle will endure as
long as time shall last; and La Cueva de Covadonga, the cradle
of the monarchy, will be one of the proudest spots on the soil
of the Peninsula. … This little rising in the Asturias was the
indication of a new life, new interests, and a healthier
combination. … Pelayo was the usher and the representative of
this new order, and the Christian kingdom of Oviedo was its
first theatre. … The battle of Covadonga, in which it had its
origin, cleared the whole territory of the Asturias of every
Moslem soldier. The fame of its leader, and the glad tidings
that a safe retreat had been secured, attracted the numerous
Christians who were still hiding in the mountain fastnesses,
and infused a new spirit of patriotism throughout the land. …
Pelayo was now king in reality, as well as in name. … With
commendable prudence, he contented himself with securing and
slowly extending his mountain kingdom by descending cautiously
into the plains and valleys. … Adjacent territory, abandoned
by the Moslems, was occupied and annexed; and thus the new
nation was made ready to set forth on its reconquering march."
_H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 5, chapters 1-2 (volume 1)._
"The small province thus preserved by Pelayo [whose death is
supposed to have occurred A. D. 737] grew into the germs of a
kingdom called at different times that of Gallicia, Oviedo,
and Leon. A constant border warfare fluctuated both ways, but
on the whole to the advantage of the Christians. Meanwhile to
the east other small states were growing up which developed
into the kingdom of Navarre and the more important realm of
Aragon. Castile and Portugal, the most famous among the
Spanish kingdoms, are the most recent in date. Portugal as yet
was unheard of, and Castile was known only as a line of
castles on the march between the Saracens and the kingdom of
Leon."
_E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 5. _
"The States of Pelagio [Pelayo] continued, during his reign
and that of his son Favila, to be circumscribed to the
Asturian mountains; but … Alfonso I., the son-in-law of
Pelagio, ascended the throne after Favila, and he soon
penetrated into Galicia up to the Douro, and to Leon and Old
Castile. … Canicas, or Cangas, was the capital of the Asturias
since the time of Pelagio. Fruela (brother of Alfonso I.]
founded Oviedo, to the west, and this State became later on
the head of the monarchy." About a century later, in the reign
of the vigorous king Alfonso III. [A. D. 866-9101, the city of
Leon, the ancient Legio of the Romans, was raised from its
ruins, and Garcia, the eldest son of Alfonso, established his
court there. One of Garcia's brothers held the government of
the Asturias, and another one that of Galicia, "if not as
separate kingdoms, at least with a certain degree of
independence. This equivocal situation of the two princes was,
perchance, the reason why the King of Oviedo changed his title
to that of Leon, and which appears in the reign of Garcia as
the first attempt towards dismembering the Spanish Monarchy.
Previous to this, in the reign of King Alfonso III., Navarre,
always rebellious, had shaken off the Asturian yoke."
_E. McMurdo,
History of Portugal,
introduction, part 3._
SPAIN: A. D. 756-1031.
The Caliphate of Cordova.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE:
A. D. 756-1031.
SPAIN: A. D. 778.
Charlemagne's conquests.
The invasion of Spain by Charlemagne, in 778, was invited by a
party among the Saracens, disaffected towards the reigning
Caliph, at Cordova, who proposed to place the northern Spanish
frontier under the protection of the Christian monarch and
acknowledge his suzerainty. He passed the Pyrenees with a
great army and advanced with little serious opposition to
Saragossa, apparently occupying the country to the Ebro with
garrisons and adding it to his dominions as the Spanish March.
At Saragossa he encountered resistance and undertook a siege,
the results of which are left uncertain.
{2976}
It would seem that he was called away, by threatening news
from the northern part of his dominions, and left the conquest
incomplete. The return march of the army, through a pass of
the Pyrenees, was made memorable by the perfidious ambuscade
and hopeless battle of Roncesvalles, which became immortalized
in romance and song. It was in the country of the Gascons or
Wascones (Basques) that this tragic event occurred, and the
assailants were not Saracens, as the story of the middle ages
would have it, but the Gascons themselves, who, in league with
their neighbors of Aquitaine, had fought for their
independence so obstinately before, against both Charlemagne
and his father. They suffered the Franks to pass into Spain
without a show of enmity, but laid a trap for the return, in
the narrow gorge called the Roscida Vallis—now Roncesvalles.
The van of the army, led by the king, went through in safety.
The rear-guard, "oppressed with baggage, loitered along the
rocky and narrow pathway, and as it entered the solitary gap
of Ibayeta, from the lofty precipices on either side an
unknown foe rolled suddenly down enormous rocks and trunks of
uprooted trees. Instantly many of the troops were crushed to
death, and the entire passage was blockaded. … The Franks who
escaped the horrible slaughter were at once assailed with
forks and pikes; their heavy armor, which had served them so
well in other fights, only encumbered them amid the bushes and
brambles of the ravine; and yet they fought with obstinate and
ferocious energy. Cheered on by the prowess of Eghihard, the
royal sencschal, of Anselm, Count of the Palace, of Roland,
the warden of the Marches of Brittany, and of many other
renowned chiefs, they did not desist till the last man had
fallen, covered with wounds and blood. … How many perished in
this fatal surprise was never told; but the event smote with
profound effect upon the imagination of Europe; it was kept
alive in a thousand shapes by tales and superstitions; heroic
songs and stories carried the remembrance of it from
generation to generation; Roland and his companions, the
Paladins of Karl, untimely slain, became, in the Middle Ages,
the types of chivalric valor and Christian heroism; and, seven
centuries after their only appearance in history, the genius
of Pulci, Boiardo, and Ariosto still preserved in immortal
verse the traditions of their glory. … Roland is but once
mentioned in authentic history, but the romance and songs,
which make him a nephew of Karl, compensate his memory for
this neglect."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 16, with foot-note. _
ALSO IN:
_J. I. Mombert,
History of Charles the Great,
book 2, chapter 5._
_G. P. R. James,
History of Charlemagne,
book 5._
_J. O'Hagan,
Song of Roland._
_T. Bulfinch,
Legends of Charlemagne._
_H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab·Moors,
book 7, chapter 3 (volume 2)._
SPAIN: A. D. 778-885 (?).
Rise of the kingdom of Navarre.
See NAVARRE: ORIGIN OF THE KINGDOM.
SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.
The rise of the kingdom of Castile.
"Ancient Cantabria, which the writers of the 8th century
usually termed Bardulia, and which, at this period [the 8th
century] stretched from the Biscayan sea to the Duero, towards
the close of the same century began to be called
Castella—doubtless from the numerous forts erected for the
defence of the country by Alfonso I. [the third king of
Oviedo, or Leon]. As the boundaries were gradually removed
towards the south, by the victories of the Christians, the
same denomination was applied to the new as well as to the
former conquests, and the whole continued subject to the same
governor, who had subordinate governors dependent on him. Of
the first governors or counts, from the period of its conquest
by that prince in 760, to the reign of Ordoño I. (a full
century), not even the names are mentioned in the old
chroniclers; the first we meet with is that of Count Rodrigo,
who is known to have possessed the dignity at least six
years,—viz. from 860 to 866." The last count of Castile,
Garcia Sanchez, who was the eighth of the line from Rodrigo,
perished in his youth by assassination (A. D. 1026), just as
he was at the point of receiving the title of king from the
sovereign of Leon, together with the hand of the latter's
daughter. Castile was then seized by Sancho el Mayor, king of
Navarre, in right of his queen, who was the elder sister of
Garcia. He assumed it to be a kingdom and associated the crown
with his own. On his death, in 1035, he bequeathed this new
kingdom of Castile to one of his sons, Fernando, while leaving
Navarre to another, and Aragon, then a lordship, to a third.
Fernando of Castile, being involved soon afterwards in war
with the young king of Leon, won the kingdom of the latter in
a single battle, where the last of the older royal dynasty of
Spain fell fighting like a valiant knight. The two kingdoms of
Castile and Leon were united under this prosperous king (see,
also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY) until his death, A. D. 1065,
when Castile passed to Sancho, the eldest of his sons, and
Leon to Alfonso, the second. But Sancho soon ousted Alfonso,
and Alfonso, biding his time, acquired both crowns in 1072,
when Sancho was assassinated. It was this Alfonso who
recovered the ancient capital city, Toledo, from the Moslems,
and it was in his reign that the famous Cid Campeador, Rodrigo
de Bivar, performed his fabulous exploits. The two kingdoms
were kept in union until 1157, when they fell apart again and
continued asunder until 1230. At that time a lasting union of
Castile and Leon took place, under Fernando III., whom the
church of Rome has canonized.
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 2, chapter 1._
{2976a}
{2976b}
[IMAGE:
SPAIN AT ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE NINTH CENTURY
EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE.
KINGDOM OF ASTURIA.
EMIRATE OF CORDOVA.
DURING THIS PERIOD THE BASIN OF THE DOURA
RIVER WAS UNDER LITTLE ORGANIZED RULE. THE RIVER
FORMS MERELY A NOMINAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE
KINGDOM OF ASTURIA AND THE EMIRATE OF CORDOVA
SPAIN IN 1035,
SHOWING THE DIVISIONS OF THE KINGDOM OF NAVARRE AFTER THE DEATH
OF SANCHO THE GREAT (1035) AND OF THE MOHAMEDAN TERRITORIES ON
THE EXTINCTION OF THE CORDOVAN CALIPHATE (1031).
DIVISIONS OF SANCHO'S KINGDOM
NAVARRE
CASTILE
ARAGON AND RIBAGORCA
FRANCE
THE DATES UNDER A NUMBER OF THE MOHAMMEDAN CITIES INDICATE THE
ENCROACHMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN STATES UP TO ABOUT THE MIDDLE
OF THE TWELFTH CENTURY.
SPAIN AT ABOUT THE YEAR 1150.
NAVARRE.
LEON.
CASTILE.
ARAGON.
PORTUGAL.
EMPIRE OF THE ALMOHADES.
SPAIN AT THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY.
CASTILE AND LEON.
ARAGON.
PORTUGAL.
GRANADA.
THE GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REMAINED
PRACTICALLY UNCHANGED UP TO THE LATTER PART OF THE FIFTEENTH
CENTURY.]
SPAIN: A. D. 1031-1086.
Petty and short-lived Moorish kingdoms.
"The decline and dissolution of the Mohammedan monarchy, or
western caliphate, afforded the ambitious local governors
throughout the Peninsula the opportunity for which they had
long sighed—that of openly asserting their independence of
Cordova, and of assuming the title of kings. The wali of
Seville, Mohammed ben Ismail ben Abid, … appears to have been
the first to assume the powers of royalty; … he declared war
against the self-elected king of Carmona, Mohammed ben
Abdalla, on whose cities, Carmona and Ecija, he had cast a
covetous eye. The brother of Yahia, Edris ben Ali, the son of
Hamud, governed Malaga with equal independence. Algeziras had
also its sovereigns. Elvira and Granada obeyed Habus ben
Maksan: Valencia had for its king Abdelasis Abul Hassan,
Almeria had Zohair, and Denia had Mugehid; but these two petty
states were soon absorbed in the rising sphere of Valencia.
Huesca and Saragossa were also subject to rulers, who though
slow to assume the title of kings were not the less
independent, since their sway extended over most of Aragon.
{2977}
The sovereign of Badajos, Abdalla Muslema ben Alaftas, was the
acknowledged head of all the confederated governors of Algarve
and Lusitania; and Toledo was subject to the powerful Ismail
ben Dyluun, who, like the king of Seville, secretly aspired to
the government of all Mohammedan Spain."
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 1, chapter 1 (volume 2)._
"These petty kings were sometimes fighting against each other,
and sometimes joining hands to oppose the down-coming of
Christians, until they were startled by a new incursion from
Africa … which, in consolidating Islam, threatened destruction
to the existing kingdoms by the absorption of everyone of them
in this African vortex. I refer to the coming of the
Almoravides."
_H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 2 (volume 2)._
SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.
The Rise of the Kingdom of Aragon.
The province of Aragon, with Navarre to the west of it and
Catalonia to the east, was included in the Spanish March of
Charlemagne. Navarre took the lead among these provinces in
acquiring independence, and Aragon became for a time a
lordship dependent on the Navarrese monarchy. "The Navarre of
Sancho the Great [the same who gathered Castile among his
possessions, making it a kingdom, and who reigned from 970 to
1035] stretched some way beyond the Ebro; to the west it took
in the ocean lands of Biscay and Guipuzcoa, with the original
Castile; to the east it took in Aragon, Ripacurcia and
Sobrarbe. … At the death of Sancho the Great [A. D. 1035] his
momentary dominion broke up. … Out of the break-up of the
dominion of Sancho came the separate kingdom of Navarre, and
the new kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Sobrarbe. Of these
the two last were presently united, thus beginning the advance
of Aragon. … The power of Aragon grew, partly by conquests
from the Mussulmans, partly by union with the French fiefs to
the east. The first union between the crown of Aragon and the
county of Barcelona [by marriage, 1131] led to the great
growth of the power of Aragon on both sides of the Pyrenees
and even beyond the Rhone. This power was broken by the
overthrow of King Pedro at Muret—[Pedro II. of Aragon, who
allied himself with the Albigenses—see ALBIGENSES: A. D.
1210-1213—and was defeated and slain by Simon de Montfort, at
Muret, near Toulouse. September 12, 1213]. But by the final
arrangement which freed Barcelona, Roussillon, and Cerdagne,
from all homage to France [A. D. 1258], all trace of foreign
superiority passed away from Christian Spain. The independent
kingdom of Aragon stretched on both sides of the Pyrenees, a
faint reminder of the days of the West-Gothic kings."
_E. A. Freeman,
History Geography of Europe,
chapter 12, section 1._
ALSO IN:
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 2, chapter 4._
See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
SPAIN: A. D. 1086-1147.
Domination of the Almoravides.
See ALMORAVIDES.
SPAIN: A. D. 1140.
Separation of Portugal from Castile.
Its erection into an independent kingdom.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.
SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.
Invasion and dominion of the Almohades and the
decisive battle of Tolosa.
The invasion of Spain by the Moorish Almohades (see
ALMOHADES), and their struggle for dominion with the
Almoravides, produced, at the outset, great alarm in
Christendom, but was productive in the end of many
opportunities for the advancement of the Christian cause. In
the year 1212 Pope Innocent III. was moved by an appeal from
Alfonso VIII. of Castile to call on all Christian people to
give aid to their brethren in Spain, proclaiming a plenary
indulgence to those who would take up arms in the holy cause.
Thousands joined the crusade thus preached, and flocked to the
Castilian standards at Toledo. The chief of the Almohades
retorted on his side by proclaiming the Algihed or Holy War,
which summoned every Moslem in his dominions to the field.
Thus the utmost frenzy of zeal was animated on both sides, and
the shock of conflict could hardly fail to be decisive, under
the circumstances. Substantially it proved to be so, and the
fate of Mahometanism in Spain is thought to have been sealed
on Las Navas de Tolosa—the Plains of Tolosa—where the two
great hosts came to their encounter in July, 1212. The rout of
the Moors was complete; "the pursuit lasted till nightfall,
and was only impeded by the Moslem corpses."
_H. Coppée,
Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 4 (volume 2)._
SPAIN: 12-15th Centuries.
The old monarchical constitution.
The Castilian and Aragonese Cortes.
See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.
SPAIN: A. D. 12-16th Centuries.
Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.
See BARCELONA: 12-16TH CENTURIES.
SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.
Progress of the arms of Castile, Leon, and Aragon.
Succession of the count of Champagne to the throne of Navarre.
Permanent union of the crowns of Leon and Castile.
The founding of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.
Castilian conquest of Cordova.
Alfonso of Castile died two years after his great victory [of
'las navas de Tolosa']. He left his crown to his only son
Henry, a boy of eleven, and the regency to his daughter
Berenguela, queen of Leon, who was separated, upon the almost
always available plea of too near consanguinity, from her
husband Alfonso. Berenguela administered her delegated power
ably, but held it only three years: at the end of that time
the young king was accidentally killed by a tile falling upon
his head. Berenguela was her brother's natural heiress; but
idolizing her only son, Ferdinand, whom she had nursed and
educated herself, she immediately renounced her claim to the
throne in his favour, … and caused Ferdinand III. to be
acknowledged king: Alfonso IX., however, long continued to
disturb his wife and son's government. The king of Aragon
[Pedro II.] was recalled immediately after the great battle to
the concerns of his French dominions," where he joined his
kinsman, the count of Toulouse, as stated above, in resisting
the Albigensian crusade, and fell (1213) at Muret. "Whilst
Pedro's uncles and brothers were struggling for his
succession, the queen·dowager obtained from the Pope an order
to Simon de Montfort, the leader of the crusade, to deliver
her son [whom the father had given up as hostage before he
resolved to commit himself to war with the crusaders] into her
hands. Having thus got possession of the rightful heir, she
procured the assembling of the Cortes of Aragon, to whom she
presented the young king, when nobles, clergy, and town
deputies voluntarily swore allegiance to him.
{2978}
This was the first time such an oath was taken in Aragon, the
most limited of monarchies. It had been usual for the
Aragonese kings at their coronation to swear observance of the
laws, but not to receive in return an oath of fidelity from
the people. Henceforward this corresponding oath of fidelity
was regularly taken under the following form, celebrated for
its singularly bold liberty. 'We, who are as good as you, make
you our king to preserve our rights; if not, not.' The
Catalans followed the example of their Aragonese brethren in
proclaiming James king; but many years elapsed ere he could
sufficiently allay the disorders excited by his ambitious
uncles to prosecute the war against the Moors. At length the
several kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, and Portugal, were
ready, unconnectedly, to invade Mussulman Spain, where
Almohade princes and Mohammed aben Hud, a descendant of the
kings of Saragossa, were contending for the sovereignty, and
many 'walis' were struggling for independent royalty; all far
more intent upon gratifying their mutual jealousies and
enmities than upon resisting the common foe, with whom, on the
contrary, all were willing to enter into alliance in
furtherance of their separate views. Under these
circumstances, James of Aragon made himself master of the
greater part of Valencia, and of the island of Majorca [and
subsequently of Minorca]; Ferdinand of Castile extended his
conquests in Andalusia; Alfonso of Leon his in Estremadura:
and Sancho II. of Portugal, who had lately succeeded to his
father Alfonso II., acquired the city of Elvas, … Sancho of
Navarre took no part in these wars. After … the battle of 'las
navas de Tolosa' he quitted the career of arms, devoting
himself wholly to the internal administration of his kingdom.
He had no children, neither had his eldest sister, the queen
of England [Berengaria, wife of Richard Cœur de Lion], any.
Thence his youngest sister's son, Thibalt, count of Champagne,
became his natural heir. But Sancho, judging that the distance
between Navarre and Champagne unfitted the two states for
being governed by one prince, adopted his kinsman, James of
Aragon, and to him, as heir, the Navarese clergy and nobility,
and the count of Champagne himself, prospectively swore
fealty. Upon Sancho's death, in 1234, however, the Navarrese,
preferring independence under the lineal heir to an union with
Aragon, entreated king James to release them from their oaths.
He was then engaged in the conquest of Valencia; and
unwilling, it may be hoped, to turn his arms from Mahometan
enemies against his fellow-Christians, he complied with the
request, and Thibalt was proclaimed king of Navarre. Thibalt
neglected the wars carried on by his Spanish brother kings
against the Mahometans, to accept the command of a crusade for
the recovery of Jerusalem. The expedition was unsuccessful,
but the reputation of the leader did not, suffer. Upon his
return, Thibalt followed the example of his uncle in studying
only to promote the internal welfare of the country. He
introduced the cultivation of the grape and the manufacture of
wine into Navarre, with other agricultural improvements.
Thibalt is more known as one of the most celebrated
troubadours or poets of his day. Prior to Thibalt's accession,
the conquering progress of Leon and Castile had been
temporarily interrupted. Alfonso of Leon died in 1230, and by
his will divided Leon and Galicia between two daughters of his
first marriage, wholly overlooking his son Ferdinand. … By
negociation, however, and the influence which the acknowledged
wisdom and virtues of queen Berenguela appear to have given
her over everyone but her husband, the superior claims of
Ferdinand were admitted. The two infantas were amply endowed,
and the crowns of Leon and Castile were thenceforward
permanently united, With power thus augmented, Ferdinand III.
renewed his invasion of the Mussulman states, about the time
that Yahie, the last of the Almohade candidates for
sovereignty, died, bequeathing his pretensions to Mohammed abu
Abdallah aben Alhamar, an enterprising leader, who, in the
general confusion, had established himself as king of Jaen,
and was the sworn enemy of Yahie's chief rival, Abdallah aben
Hud. Ferdinand invaded the dominions of Abdallah, and Mohammed
took that opportunity of materially enlarging his own. After a
few years of general war, Abdallah aben Hud was assassinated
by the partisans of the king of Jaen, and his brother Aly, who
succeeded to his pretensions, met a similar fate. Mohammed ben
Alhamar was immediately received into the city of Granada,
which he made his capital; and thus, in 1238, founded the
kingdom of Granada, the last bright relic of Moorish
domination in Spain, and the favourite scene of Spanish
romance. Had Mohammed succeeded to the Almohade sovereignty in
Spain, and his authority been acknowledged by all his
Mussulman countrymen, so able and active a monarch might
probably have offered effective resistance to Christian
conquest. But his dominions consisted only of what is still
called the kingdom of Granada, and a small part of Andalusia.
The remaining Mahometan portions of Andalusia, Valencia, and
Estremadura, as well as Murcia and Algarve, swarmed with
independent 'walis' or kings. James of Aragon completed the
subjugation of Valencia the following year. Cordova, so long
the Moorish capital, was taken by Ferdinand [1235], with other
places of inferior note. The Murcian princes avoided invasion
by freely offering to become Castilian vassals; and now the
conquering troops of Castile and Leon poured into the
territories of Mohammed. The king of Granada, unsupported by
his natural allies, found himself unequal to the contest, and
submitted to become, like his Murcian neighbours, the vassal
of Ferdinand. In that capacity he was compelled to assist his
Christian liege lord in conquering Mussulman Seville."
_M. M. Busk,
History of Spain and Portugal,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_Chronicle of James I., King of Aragon,
Surnamed the Conqueror;
translated by J. Forster._
SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.
The Moorish kingdom of Granada.
The building of the Alhambra.
"A new era had begun in the fortunes of the Moors. Reft of
their two magnificent capitals at Cordova and Seville, they
had gathered into the extreme south, under the able and
beneficent rule of Aben-al-Hamar, who, though a tributary to
Castille, termed himself Sultan and Emir of the Faithful, and
is usually called King of Granada. Karnattah, as the Arabs had
named it, meant the Cream of the West. The Spaniards in later
times, deceived by the likeness of the word to Granada, a
pomegranate, fancied it to have been thence named, and took
the fruit as its emblem.
{2979}
The kingdom was a mere fragment, and did not even reach to the
Straits; for Algesira, the green island, and its great
fortresses, belonged to the Africans; and it had in it
elements of no small danger, containing as it did the remnants
of no less than thirty-two Arab and Moorish tribes, many of
them at deadly feud with one another, and divided by their
never-ending national enmities. The two great tribes of
Abencerrages, or sons of Zeragh, and the Zegris, or refugees
from Aragon, were destined to become the most famous of these.
The king himself, Mohammed-Abou-Said, was of the old Arabian
tribe of Al Hamar, by whose name he is usually called. He was
of the best old Arabic type-prudent, just, moderate,
temperate, and active, and so upright as to be worthy to
belong to this age of great kings, and his plans for his
little kingdom were favoured by the peace in which his
Christian neighbours left him; while Alfonso X. of Castille
was vainly endeavouring to become, not Emperor of Spain alone,
but Roman Emperor. The Almohides of Algarve obeyed neither
Alfonso nor Al Hamar, and they united to subdue them. Ten
cities were surrendered by the governor on condition that he
should enjoy the estates of the King's Garden at Seville, and
the tenth of the oil of an oliveyard. There was still a
mar·gin of petty walis who preferred a brief independence to a
secure tenure of existence as tributaries, and these one by
one fell a prey to the Castilians, the inhabitants of their
cities being expelled, and adding to the Granadine population.
AI Hamar received them kindly, but made them work vigorously
for their maintenance. Every nook of soil was in full
cultivation; the mountain-sides terraced with vineyards; new
modes of irrigation invented; the breeds of horses and cattle
carefully attended to; rewards instituted for the best
farmers, shepherds, and artisans. The manufacture of silk and
wool was actively carried on, also leather-work and
sword-cutlery. Hospitals and homes for the sick and infirm
were everywhere; and in the schools of Granada the remnants of
the scholarship of Cordova and Seville were collected. Granada
itself stood in the midst of the Vega, around two hills, each
crowned by a fortress: Albayzin, so called by the fugitives
from Baeza; and the Al Hâmra [or Alhambra], or Red Fortress.
The wall was extended so as to take in its constantly
increasing population, and the king began to render the Al
Hâmra one of the strongest and most beautiful places in
existence. Though begun by Al Hamar it was not completed for
several generations, each adding to the unrivalled beauty of
the interior, for, as usual in Arabian architecture, the
outside has no beauty, being a strong fortification of heavy
red walls. … Mohammed Aben-Al-Hamar died 1273, and his son
Mohammed II. followed in his steps."
_C. M. Yonge,
The Story of the Christians and Moors of Spain,
chapter 20._
ALSO IN:
_W. Irving,
The Alhambra._
_J. C. Murphy,
Arabian Antiquities of Spain._
SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.
The conquest of Seville.
The reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned,
and their three successors in Castile.
Seville, which had become the second city of Moslem Spain, its
schools and universities rivalling those of Cordova, shared
the fate of the latter and surrendered to the Christians on
the 22d of December, 1248. "This was the achievement of King
Ferdinand III., under whom the crowns of Castile and Leon had
become united. His territory extended from the Bay of Biscay
to the Guadalquiver, and from the borders of Portugal as far
as Arragon and Valencia. His glory was great in the estimation
of his countrymen for his conquests over the Moors, and four
centuries afterwards he was canonized by the Pope, and is now
known as Saint Ferdinand. … Ferdinand lived at the same time
with another king who was also canonized—Louis IX. of France,
who became Saint Louis. … The two kings, in fact, were
cousins, and the grandmother of both of them was Eleanor,
daughter of Henry II. of England. … The son of Saint Ferdinand
was Alfonso X., called 'El Sabio,' the learned, and not, as it
is sometimes translated, 'the wise.' He certainly was not very
wise, for he did an immense number of foolish things; but he
was such a strange man that it would be interesting to know
more about him than it is easy to do. It was a period when not
only commerce and industry but literature and art were taking
a new start in Europe—the time of Roger Bacon and Dante.
Alfonso loved his books, and dabbled in science, and was
really one of the learned men of his time. … His mind was very
naturally disturbed by a glimpse he had of being emperor of
Germany [or, to speak accurately, of the Holy Roman Empire]. …
The dignity was elective," and Alfonso became the candidate of
one party among the German electors; but he did not obtain the
dignity.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272.
"Ferdinand de la Cerda, the son and heir of Alfonso, died
during the lifetime of his father, and a difficulty arose
about the succession which extended over a long time. A Cortes
was assembled to decide the question, and it was agreed that
Sancho, brother to Ferdinand de la Cerda, should be heir to
the crown, to the exclusion of the children of Ferdinand,
grandchildren of Alfonso. This decision displeased the king of
France," who was the uncle of the children set aside. Alfonso
"declared in favor of his son Sancho, and came near having a
war with France in consequence." Yet Sancho, soon afterwards,
was persuaded to rebel against his father, and the latter was
reduced to sore straits, having no allies among his neighbors
except the king of Morocco. "At last the goaded king assembled
his few remaining adherents in Seville, and, in a solemn act,
not only disinherited his rebel son Sancho, but called down
maledictions on his head. In the same act he instituted his
grandsons, the infantes de la Cerda, as his heirs, and after
them, in default of issue, the kings of France." But Sancho
fell ill after this, and the fondness of his old father
revived with such intensity that he sickened of anxiety and
grief. "Sancho recovered and was soon as well as ever; but the
king grew worse, and soon died [1284], full of grief and
affection for his son. He had not, however, revoked his will.
Nobody minded the will, and Sancho was proclaimed king. He
reigned, and his son and grandson reigned after him." The son
was Ferdinand IV., who came to the throne in 1295; the
grandson was Alfonso XI., who followed him in 1312. The latter
was succeeded in 1350 by his son Pedro, or Peter, surnamed the
Cruel, and quite eminent under that sinister designation,
especially through the unfortunate connection of the English
Black Prince with his later evil fortunes.
_E. E. and S. Hale,
The Story of Spain,
chapter 18._
{2980}
SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
The slow crumbling of the Moorish kingdom of Granada.
The founder of the kingdom of Granada, Aben-Al-Hamar, or
Ibnu-l-ahmar, died in 1273. He was "succeeded by his son, Abú
Abdillah, known as Mohammed II. Obeying his father's
injunctions, he called upon Yahúb, the Sultan of the Beni
Merines at Fez, to come to his aid, and captured Algeçiras, to
serve as a receptacle and magazine for these African allies.
He also presented Tarifa to Yahúb. The two allied forces then
went out to meet Nuño de Lam with the Christian frontier
troops, and routed him. But Mohammed was soon prevailed upon
by his fears to renew the Christian alliance; and the
Christian troops, thus freed from one enemy, soon wrested
Algeçiras, Tarifa [1291], Ronda, and other towns, from the
Beni Merines, who were, all but a small remnant, driven back
into Africa. … Mohammed II. died in 1302, and was succeeded by
a greater king,—Mohammed III., another Abú Abdillah, …
dethroned by a revolt of his brother, Nasr; but when, in 1312,
Nasr in turn was forced to abdicate, he was succeeded by
Isma'il Abú-l-Waled, after whom came Mohammed IV., in 1315.
Meantime the Christian monarchs were always pressing the
Moorish frontier. In 1309, Ferdinand IV. of Castile succeeded
in taking Gibraltar, while the troops of Aragon besieged
Almeria, and thus the circle was ever narrowing, but not
without bloody dispute. When Don Pedro, Infante of Castile,
made his great effort against Granada in 1319, he was wofully
defeated in the battle of Elvira, and his rich camp despoiled
by the Moors. Mohammed IV. succeeded in retaking Gibraltar
from the Christians [or, rather, according to Condé, it was
taken in 1331 by Mohammed's ally, the king of Fez, to whom
Mohammed was forced to cede it]. … He was assassinated by his
African allies, and succeeded by his brother Yúsuf in 1333.
Prompted purely by self-interest, Abu-l-has, another leader,
with 60,000 men, beside the contingent from Granada,
encountered the Christians near Tarifa in the year 1340, and
was defeated with immense loss [in the battle of the
Guadacelito or the Salado]. Yúsuf was assassinated by a madman
in 1354, and was succeeded by Mohammed V. … Driven from his
throne by a revolt of his half-brother Isma'il, he first fled
for his life to Guadix, and then to Africa, in the year 1359.
And all these intestine quarrels were playing into the
Christians' hands. Isma'il, the usurper, held the nominal
power less than a year, when he was dethroned and put to
death. His successor, Mohammed VI., surrounded by
difficulties, came to the strange determination to place
himself and his kingdom under the protection of that King
Pedro of Castile whom history has named 'el cruel,' but whom
his adherents called 'el justiciero,' the doer of justice. The
Castilian king vindicated his claim to the historic title by
putting Mohammed to death, and seizing 'the countless
treasures which he and the chiefs who composed his suite
brought with them.' To the throne, thus once more vacant by
assassination, Mohammed V. returned, and ruled a second time,
from 1362 to 1391. … Then came the reigns of Yúsuf II. and
Mohammed VII., uneventful, except that, in the words of the
Arabian chronicler, 'the Mohammedan empire still went on
decaying, until it became an easy prey to the infidels, who
surrounded it on every side, like a pack of hungry wolves.'
Many portents of ruin were displayed, and the public mind was
already contemplating the entire success of the Christians." A
century of confused struggles ensued, in the course of which
Gibraltar was several times besieged by the Christians, and
was finally taken by the Duke of Medina Sidonia in 1460. Other
strongholds of the Moors fell, one by one, and they "were
being more and more restricted to their little kingdom of
Granada, and the Christians were strengthening to dislodge and
expel them."
_H. Coppée,
History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Condé,
History of the Dominion of the Arabs in Spain,
part 4, chapters 9-33._
SPAIN: (Aragon): A. D. 1282-1300.
Acquisition of Sicily by King Peter.
It passes as a separate kingdom to his younger son.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1282-1300.
SPAIN: A. D. 1366-1369.
Pedro the Cruel of Castile and
the invasion of the English Black Prince.
"Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile at this time (1350-1369),
had earned his title by a series of murders, which dated from
the time he was sixteen years old, and comprised his wife, his
step-mother, two of his half-brothers, and a great number of
the chief nobles of his kingdom. He was on bad terms with the
pope, for he was the friend of Moors and Jews, and had
plundered bishops and monasteries; he was hated in the court
of France, for his murdered queen was the king's cousin,
Blanche de Bourbon; he was at war with the King of Arragon.
Instigated by this monarch and by the King of Navarre, the
eldest of Pedro's half-brothers, Don Henry of Trastamere, who
had been serving for some time with the Free Companions in
Languedoc, conceived the idea of uniting them in a grand
enterprise against the kingdom of Castile. Charles V. [of
France] approved the project, and lent money and his best
captain, Du Guesclin; Pope Urban V. contributed his blessing
and money; and the Free Lances eagerly embraced a scheme which
promised them the plunder of a new country." The expedition
"succeeded without bloodshed. The people rose to welcome it,
and Don Pedro was forced to escape through Portugal, and take
ship hastily at Corunna. Don Henry was crowned in his palace
at Burgos (April 1366). In his distress Don Pedro applied to
the Prince of Wales [the Black Prince, then holding the
government of Aquitaine] for support. There was no reason why
England or Aquitaine should be mixed up in Spanish politics.
Both countries required rest after an exhausting war. … But
Pedro was a skilful diplomatist. He bribed the Prince of Wales
by a promise to cede the province of Biscay." With the consent
of his father, King Edward III. of England, the Prince took up
the cause of the odious Don Pedro, and led an army of 24,000
horse, besides great numbers of archers, into Spain (A. D.
1367). At the decisive battle of Navarette the Spaniards and
their allies were overwhelmingly defeated, Du Guesclin was
taken prisoner, Don Henry fled, and Pedro was reinstated on
the Castilian throne. "Then came disappointment. The prince
demanded performance of the promises Don Pedro had made, and
proposed to stay in Spain till they were acquitted. … For some
months Edward vainly awaited the performance of his ally's
promises.
{2981}
Then, as his troops were wasting away with dysentery and other
diseases caused by the strange climate, till it was said
scarcely a fifth remained alive, Edward resolved to remove
into Aquitaine, which Don Henry was attacking, and was glad to
find that the passes of the Pyrenees were left open to him by
the Kings of Arragon and Navarre (August 1367). … The results
of Edward's mischievous policy soon became evident. All he had
achieved in Spain was almost instantly undone by Don Henry,
who crossed the Pyrenees a few weeks only after Edward had
left Spain (September 1367) recovered his kingdom in the
course of the next year, and captured and killed Don Pedro a
little later (March 1369). The whole power of Castile, which
was far from being contemptible at sea, was then thrown into
the scale against England."
_C. H. Pearson,
English History in the Fourteenth Century,
chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_J. Froissart,
Chronicles
(translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapters 230-245._
_P. Merimée,
History of Peter the Cruel,
volume 2, chapters 7-11._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.
SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
Castile under the House of Trastamere.
Discord and civil war.
Triumph of Queen Isabella.
The Castilian dynasty in Aragon.
Marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand.
"A more fortunate period began [in Castile] with the accession
of Henry [of Trastamare, or Henry II.]. His own reign was
hardly disturbed by any rebellion; and though his successors,
John I. [1379] and Henry III. [1390], were not altogether so
unmolested, especially the latter, who ascended the throne in
his minority, yet the troubles of their time were slight, in
comparison with those formerly excited by the houses of Lara
and Haro, both of which were now happily extinct. Though Henry
II. 's illegitimacy left him no title but popular choice, his
queen was sole representative of the Cerdas, the offspring …
of Sancho IV. 's elder brother. … No kingdom could be worse
prepared to meet the disorders of a minority than Castile, and
in none did the circumstances so frequently recur. John II.
was but fourteen months old at his accession [1406]; and but
for the disinterestedness of his uncle Ferdinand, the nobility
would have been inclined to avert the danger by placing that
prince upon the throne. In this instance, however, Castile
suffered less from faction during the infancy of her sovereign
than in his maturity. The queen dowager, at first jointly with
Ferdinand, and solely after his accession to the crown of
Aragon, administered the government with credit. … In external
affairs their reigns were not what is considered as glorious.
They were generally at peace with Aragon and Granada, but one
memorable defeat by the Portuguese at Aljubarrota [August 14,
1385] disgraces the annals of John I., whose cause [attempting
the conquest of Portugal] was as unjust as his arms were
unsuccessful. This comparatively golden period ceases at the
majority of John II. His reign was filled up by a series of
conspiracies and civil wars, headed by his cousins John and
Henry, the infants of Aragon, who enjoyed very extensive
territories in Castile, by the testament of their father
Ferdinand. Their brother the king of Aragon frequently lent
the assistance of his arms. … These conspiracies were all
ostensibly directed against the favourite of John II., Alvaro
de Luna, who retained for 35 years an absolute control over
his feeble master. … His fate is among the memorable lessons
of history. After a life of troubles endured for the sake of
this favourite, sometimes a fugitive, sometimes a prisoner,
his son heading rebellions against him, John II. suddenly
yielded to an intrigue of the palace, and adopted sentiments
of dislike towards the man he had so long loved. … Alvaro de
Luna was brought to a summary trial and beheaded; his estates
were confiscated. He met his death with the intrepidity of
Strafford, to whom he seems to have borne some resemblance in
character. John II. did not long survive his minister, dying
in 1454, after a reign that may be considered as inglorious,
compared with any except that of his successor. If the father
was not respected, the son fell completely into contempt. He
had been governed by Pacheco, marquis of Villena, as
implicitly as John by Alvaro de Luna. This influence lasted
for some time afterwards. But the king inclining to transfer
his confidence to the queen, Joanna of Portugal, and to one
Bertrand de Cueva, upon whom common fame had fixed as her
paramour, a powerful confederacy of disaffected nobles was
formed against the royal authority. … They deposed Henry in an
assembly of their faction at Avila with a sort of theatrical
pageantry which has often been described. … The confederates
set up Alfonso, the king's brother, and a civil war of some
duration ensued, in which they had the support of Aragon. The
queen of Castile had at this time borne a daughter, whom the
enemies of Henry IV., and indeed no small part of his
adherents, were determined to treat as spurious. Accordingly,
after the death of Alfonso, his sister Isabel was considered
as heiress of the kingdom. … Avoiding the odium of a contest
with her brother, Isabel agreed to a treaty by which the
succession was absolutely settled upon her [1469]. This
arrangement was not long afterwards followed by the union of
that princess with Ferdinand, son of the king of Aragon. This
marriage was by no means acceptable to a part of the Castilian
oligarchy, who had preferred a connexion with Portugal. And as
Henry had never lost sight of the interests of one whom he
considered, or pretended to consider, as his daughter, he took
the first opportunity of revoking his forced disposition of
the crown and restoring the direct line of succession in
favour of the princess Joanna. Upon his death, in 1474, the
right was to be decided by arms. Joanna had on her side the
common presumptions of law, the testamentary disposition of
the late king, the support of Alfonso king of Portugal, to
whom she was betrothed, and of several considerable leaders
among the nobility. … For Isabella were the general belief of
Joanna's illegitimacy, the assistance of Aragon, the adherence
of a majority both among the nobles and people, and, more than
all, the reputation of ability which both she and her husband
had deservedly acquired. The scale was, however, pretty
equally balanced, till the king of Portugal having been
defeated at Toro in 1476, Joanna's party discovered their
inability to prosecute the war by themselves, and successively
made their submission to Ferdinand and Isabella." Ferdinand of
Aragon, by whose marriage with Isabella of Castile the two
kingdoms became practically united, was himself of Castilian
descent, being the grandson of that magnanimous Ferdinand who
has been mentioned above, as the uncle and joint guardian of
John II. of Castile.
{2982}
In 1410, on the death of King Martin, the right of succession
to the throne of Aragon had been in dispute, and Ferdinand was
one of several claimants. Instead of resorting to arms, the
contending parties were wisely persuaded to submit the
question to a special tribunal, composed of three Aragonese,
three Catalans, and three Valencians. "A month was passed in
hearing arguments; a second was allotted to considering them;
and at the expiration of the prescribed time it was announced
to the people … that Ferdinand of Castile had ascended the
throne. In this decision it is impossible not to suspect that
the judges were swayed rather by politic considerations than a
strict sense of hereditary right. It was therefore by no
means universally popular, especially in Catalonia. …
Ferdinand however was well received in Aragon. … Ferdinand's
successor was his son Alfonso V., more distinguished in the
history of Italy than of Spain. For all the latter years of
his life he never quitted the kingdom that he had acquired by
his arms.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447;
Enchanted by the delicious air of Naples, intrusted the
government of his patrimonial territories to the care of a
brother and an heir. John II., upon whom they devolved by the
death of Alfonso without legitimate progeny, had been engaged
during his youth in the turbulent revolutions of Castile, as
the head of a strong party that opposed the domination of
Alvaro de Luna. By marriage with the heiress of Navarre he was
entitled, according to the usage of those times, to assume the
title of king, and administration of government, during her
life. But his ambitious retention of power still longer
produced events which are the chief stain on his memory.
Charles, prince of Viana, was, by the constitution of Navarre,
entitled to succeed his mother [1442]. She had requested him
in her testament not to assume the government without his
father's consent. That consent was always withheld. The prince
raised what we ought not to call a rebellion; but was made
prisoner. … After a life of perpetual oppression, chiefly
passed in exile or captivity, the prince of Viana died in
Catalonia [1461], at a moment when that province was in open
insurrection upon his account. Though it hardly seems that the
Catalans had any more general provocations, they persevered
for more than ten years [until the capitulation of Barcelona,
after a long siege, in 1472] with inveterate obstinacy in
their rebellion, offering the sovereignty first to a prince of
Portugal, and afterwards to Regnier duke of Anjou, who was
destined to pass his life in unsuccessful competition for
kingdoms." Ferdinand, who married Isabella of Castile, was a
younger half-brother of prince Charles of Viana, and succeeded
his father, John II., on the throne of Aragon, in 1479.
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 4 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
part 1, chapters 1-5._
See, also, NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
SPAIN: A. D. 1458.
Separation of the crown of Naples
from those of Aragon and Sicily.
See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.
The last struggle of the Moors.
Fall of the city and kingdom of Granada.
"The days of the Moorish kingdom were already numbered when,
in 1466, Aboul Hacem succeeded Ismael; but the disturbances in
Castille emboldened him, and when, in 1476, the regular demand
for tribute was made, he answered: 'Those who coined gold for
you are dead. Nothing is made at Granada for the Christians
but sword-blades and lance-points.' Such was the last
proclamation of war from the Moors. Even the Imaums
disapproved, and preached in the mosques of Granada. 'Woe to
the Moslems in Andalusia!' 'The end is come,' they said; 'the
ruins will fall on our heads!' Nevertheless, Aboul Hacem
surprised the Aragonese city of Zahara with 60,000
inhabitants, and put them all to the sword or sold them into
slavery; but he was not welcomed, evil was predicted, and he
became more and more hated when he put four of the
Abencerrages to death. The king and queen [Ferdinand, or
Fernando, and Isabella] now began to prepare the whole
strength of their kingdom for a final effort, not to be
relaxed till Spain should be wholly a Christian land. … Don
Rodrigo Ponce de Leon, who had become Marquis of Cadiz, made a
sudden night attack upon Alhama, only eight leagues from
Granada, and though the inhabitants fought from street to
street he mastered it. … Alhama was a terrible loss to the
Moors, and was bewailed in the ballad, 'Ay de me Al Hama,'
which so moved the hearts of the people that it was forbidden
to be sung in the streets of Granada. It has been translated
by Byron, who has in fact united two ballads. … Alhama had
once before been taken by St. Fernando, but could not then be
kept, and a council was held by the 'Reyes Catolicos'
[Ferdinand and Isabella], in which it was declared that it
would take 5,000 mules' burthen of provisions sent several
times a year, to support a garrison thus in the heart of the
enemy's country. The high spirit of the queen, however,
carried the day. She declared that the right thing to do was
to take Loja to support Alhama, and, after causing the three
chief mosques to be purified as Christian churches, she
strained every effort [1482] to equip an army with which
Fernando was to besiege Loja. On the day before he set out
Isabel gave birth to twins—one dead, the other a daughter: and
this was viewed as an ill omen. … Ali Atar, one of the bravest
of the Moors, defeated Fernando and forced him to retreat with
the loss of his baggage. Aboul Hacem was prevented from
following up his success by the struggles of the women in his
harem. His favourite wife was a Christian by birth, named
Isabel de Solis, the daughter of the Alcayde of Bedmar; but
she had become a renegade, and was commonly called Zoraya, or
the Morning Star. Childless herself, she was vehemently set on
the promotion of Abou-Abd-Allah, son of another wife, Ayescha,
who is generally known by the Spanish contraction of his name,
Boabdil; also in Arabic as Al Zaquir, the little, and in
Spanish as 'el Rey Chico.' Such disaffection was raised that
Aboul Hacem was forced to return home, where he imprisoned
Ayescha and her son; but they let themselves down from the
window with a rope twisted of the veils of the Sultana's
women, and, escaping to the palace or Albaycin, there held out
against him, supported by the Abencerrages. The Zegris held by
Aboul Hacem, and the streets of Granada ran red with the blood
shed by the two factions till, in 1482, while the elder king
was gone to relieve Loja, the younger one seized the Alhamra;
and Aboul Hacem, finding the gates closed against him, was
obliged to betake himself to Malaga, where his brother Abd
Allah, called Al Zagal, or the young, was the Alcayde."
_C. M. Yonge,
The Story of the Christians and Moors in Spain,
chapter 24._
{2983}
"The illegal power of Boabdil was contested by his uncle,
Az-Zagal (El Zagal), who held a precarious sway for four
years, until 1487, when Boabdil again came to the throne. This
was rendered more easy by the fact that, in a battle between
the Moors and Christians in the territory of Lucena, not long
after his accession, Boabdil was taken prisoner by the
Christian forces. By a stroke of policy, the Christian king
released his royal prisoner, in the hope that through him he
might make a treaty. Boabdil went to Loja, which was at once
besieged by Ferdinand, and this time captured, and with it the
Moorish king again fell into the Christian hands. Again
released, after many difficulties he came into power. The
Christian conquests were not stayed by these circumstances. In
1487, they captured Velez Malaga, on the coast a short
distance east of Malaga, and received the submission of many
neighboring towns. In the same year Malaga was besieged and
taken. In 1489, Baeza followed; then the important city of
Almeria, and at last the city of Granada stood alone to
represent the Mohammedan dominion in the Peninsula. The strife
between Boabdil and El Zagal now came to an end; and the
latter, perhaps foreseeing the fatal issue, embarked for
Africa, leaving the nominal rule and the inevitable surrender
to his rival. … The army of Ferdinand and Isabella was in
splendid condition, and reinforcements were arriving from day
to day. System and order prevailed, and the troops, elated
with victory, acknowledged no possibility of failure. Very
different was the condition of things and very depressed the
spirit of the people in Granada. Besides its own disordered
population, it was crowded with disheartened fugitives,
anxious for peace on any terms. The more warlike and ambitious
representatives of the tribes were still quarrelling in the
face of the common ruin, but all parties joined in bitter
denunciations of their king. When he had been released by
Ferdinand after the capture of Loja, he had promised that when
Guadix should be taken and the power of El Zagal destroyed, he
would surrender Granada to the Christian king, and retire to
some seignory, as duke or marquis. But now that the 'casus'
had arrived, he found … that the people would not permit him
to keep his promise. … The only way in which Boabdil could
appease the people was by an immediate declaration of war
against the Christians. This was in the year 1490. When this
was made known, Ferdinand and Isabella were at Seville,
celebrating the marriage of the Infanta Isabel with Alfonso,
crown prince of Portugal. The omen was a happy one. The armies
of Spain and Portugal were immediately joined to put an end to
the crusade. With 5,000 cavalry and 20,000 foot, the Spanish
king advanced to the Sierra Elvira, overlooking the original
site of the Granadine capital. The epic and romantic details
of the conquest may be read elsewhere. … There were sorties on
the part of the Moors, and chivalrous duels between
individuals, until the coming of winter, when, leaving proper
guards and garrisons, the principal Christian force retired to
Cordova, to make ready for the spring. El Zagal had returned
from Africa, and was now fighting in the Christian ranks. It
was an imposing army which was reviewed by Ferdinand on the
26th of April, 1491, in the beautiful Vega, about six miles
from the city of Granada; the force consisted of 10,000 horse
and 40,000 foot, ready to take position in the final siege. …
It was no part of the Spanish king's purpose to assault the
place. … He laid his siege in the Vega, but used his troops in
devastating the surrounding country, taking prisoners and
capturing cattle. … Meantime the Christian camp grew like a
city, and when Queen Isabella came with her train of beauty
and grace, it was also a court city in miniature." In July, an
accidental fire destroyed the whole encampment, and roused
great hopes among the Moors. But a city of wood (which the
pious queen called Santa Fé—the Holy Faith) soon took the
place of the tents, and "the momentary elation of the Moors
gave way to profound depression; and this induced them to
capitulate. The last hour had indeed struck on the great
horologe of history; and on the 25th of November the armistice
was announced for making a treaty of peace and occupancy."
_H. Coppée,
History of the Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
book 8, chapter 5 (volume 2)._
"After large discussion on both sides, the terms of
capitulation were definitively settled. … The inhabitants of
Granada were to retain possession of their mosques, with the
free exercise of their religion, with all its peculiar rights
and ceremonies; they were to be judged by their own laws,
under their own cadis or magistrates, subject to the general
control of the Castilian governor; they were to be unmolested
in their ancient usages, manners, language, and dress; to be
protected in the full enjoyment of their property, with the
right of disposing of it on their own account, and of
migrating when and where they would; and to be furnished with
vessels for the conveyance of such as chose within three years
to pass into Africa. No heavier taxes were to be imposed than
those customarily paid to their Arabian sovereigns, and none
whatever before the expiration of three years. King Abdallah
[Boabdil] was to reign over a specified territory in the
Alpuxarras, for which he was to do homage to the Castilian
crown. … The city was to be surrendered in 60 days from the
date of the capitulation;" but owing to popular disturbances
in Granada, the surrender was actually made on the 2d of
January, 1492. Boabdil soon tired of the petty sovereignty
assigned to him, sold it to Ferdinand and Isabella, passed
over to Fez, and perished in one of the battles of his
kinsmen.
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
chapter 15._
ALSO IN:
_W. Irving,
Chronicle of the Conquest of Granada._
SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1498.-
The reorganization of the Hermandad,
or Holy Brotherhood, in Castile.
See HOLY BROTHERHOOD.
SPAIN: A. D. 1481-1525.
Establishment and organization of the "Spanish Inquisition."
Its horrible work.
See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
SPAIN: A. D. 1492.
Expulsion of the Jews.
See JEWS; 8-15TH CENTURIES.
{2984}
SPAIN: A. D. 1492-1533.
Discovery of America.
First voyages, colonizations and conquests.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, 1493-1406, and after.
SPAIN: A. D. 1493.
The Papal grant of the New World.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1493.
SPAIN: A. D. 1494.
The Treaty of Tordesillas.
Amended partition of the New World with Portugal.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
SPAIN: A. D. 1495.
Alliance with Naples, Venice, Germany and the Pope
against Charles VIII. of France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496.
SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.
Marriage of the Infanta Joanna to the
Austro-Burgundian Archduke Philip.
Birth of their son Charles, the heir of many crowns.
Insanity of Joanna.
Death of Queen Isabella.
Regency of Ferdinand.
His second marriage and his death.
Accession of Charles, the first of the
Austro-Spanish dynasty.
Joanna, second daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, was married
in 1496 to "the archduke Philip, son of the emperor
Maximilian, and sovereign, in right of his mother [Mary of
Burgundy], of the Low Countries. The first fruit of this
marriage was the celebrated Charles V., born at Ghent,
February 24th, 1500, whose birth was no sooner announced to
Queen Isabella than she predicted that to this infant would
one day descend the rich inheritance of the Spanish monarchy.
The premature death of the heir apparent, Prince Miguel, not
long after [and also of the queen of Portugal, the elder
daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand], prepared the way for this
event by devolving the succession on Joanna, Charles's mother.
From that moment the sovereigns were pressing in their
entreaties that the archduke and his wife would visit Spain. …
In the latter part of 1501, Philip and Joanna, attended by a
numerous suite of Flemish courtiers, set out on their
journey," passing through France and being royally entertained
on the way. In Spain, they first received the usual oath of
fealty from the Castilian cortes, and then "were solemnly
recognized by the four 'arms' of Aragon as successors to the
crown, in default of male issue of King Ferdinand. The
circumstance is memorable as affording the first example of
the parliamentary recognition of a female heir apparent in
Aragonese history. Amidst all the honors so liberally lavished
on Philip, his bosom secretly swelled with discontent,
fomented still further by his followers, who pressed him to
hasten his return to Flanders, where the free and social
manners of the people were much more congenial to their tastes
than the reserve and stately ceremonial of the Spanish court.
… Ferdinand and Isabella saw with regret the frivolous
disposition of their son-in-law. … They beheld with
mortification his indifference to Joanna, who could boast few
personal attractions, and who cooled the affections of her
husband by alternations of excessive fondness and irritable
jealousy." Against the remonstrances of king, queen and
cortes, as well as in opposition to the wishes of his wife,
Philip set out for Flanders in December, again traveling
through France, and negotiating on the way a treaty with Louis
XII. which arranged for the marriage of the infant Charles
with princess Claude of France—a marriage which never
occurred. The unhappy Joanna, whom he left behind, was plunged
in the deepest dejection, and exhibited ere long decided
symptoms of insanity. On the 10th of March, 1503, she gave
birth to her second son, Ferdinand, and the next spring she
joined her husband in Flanders, but only to be worse treated
by him than before. Queen Isabella, already declining in
health, was deeply affected by the news of her daughter's
unhappiness and increasing disturbance of mind, and on the
26th of November, 1504, she died. By her will, she settled the
crown of Castile on the infanta Joanna as "queen proprietor,"
and the archduke Philip as her husband, and she appointed King
Ferdinand (who was henceforth king in Aragon, but not in
Castile), to be sole regent of Castile, in the event of the
absence or incapacity of Joanna, until the latter's son
Charles should attain his majority. On the day of the queen's
death Ferdinand resigned the crown of Castile, which he had
worn as her consort, only, and caused to be proclaimed the
accession of Joanna and Philip to the Castilian throne. "The
king of Aragon then publicly assumed the title of
administrator or governor of Castile, as provided by the
queen's testament." He next convened a cortes at Toro, in
January, 1505, which approved and ratified the provisions of
the will and "took the oaths of allegiance to Joanna as queen
and lady proprietor, and to Philip as her husband. They then
determined that the exigency contemplated in the testament, of
Joanna's incapacity, actually existed, and proceeded to tender
their homage to King Ferdinand, as the lawful governor of the
realm in her name." These arrangements were unsatisfactory to
many of the Castilian nobles, who opened a correspondence with
Philip, in the Netherlands, and persuaded him "to assert his
pretensions to undivided supremacy in Castile." Opposition to
Ferdinand's regency increased, and it was fomented not only by
Philip and his friends, but by the king of France, Louis XII.
To placate the latter enemy, Ferdinand sought in marriage a
niece of the French king, Germaine, daughter of Jean de Foix,
and negotiated a treaty, signed at Blois, October 12, 1505, in
which he resigned his claims on Naples to his intended bride
and her heirs. Louis was now detached from the interests of
Philip, and refused permission to the archduke to pass through
his kingdom. But Ferdinand, astute as he was, allowed himself
to be deceived by his son-in-law, who agreed to a compromise,
known as the concord of Salamanca, which provided for the
government of Castile in the joint names of Ferdinand, Philip,
and Joanna, while, at the same time, he was secretly preparing
to transfer his wife and himself to Spain by sea. On the first
attempt they were driven to England by a storm; but in April,
1506, Philip and Joanna landed at Coruña, in Spain, and in
June Ferdinand was forced to sign and swear to an agreement
"by which he surrendered the entire sovereignty of Castile to
Philip and Joanna, reserving to himself only the
grand-masterships of the military orders, and the revenues
secured by Isabella's testament." Philip took the government
into his own hands, endeavoring to obtain authority to place
his wife in confinement, as one insane; but this the
Castilians would not brook. Otherwise he carried things with a
high hand, surrounding himself with Flemish favorites, and
revolutionizing the government in every branch and the court
in every feature. His insolence, extravagance and frivolity
excited general disgust, and would probably have provoked
serious revolts, if the country had been called upon to endure
them long.
{2985}
But Philip's reign was brief. He sickened, suddenly, of a
fever, and died on the 25th of September, 1506. His demented
widow would not permit his body to be interred. A provisional
council of regency carried on the government until December.
After that it drifted, with no better authoritative guidance
than that of the poor insane queen, until July 1507, when
Ferdinand, who had been absent, in Naples, during the year
past, returned and was joyfully welcomed. His unfortunate
daughter "henceforth resigned herself to her father's will. "
Although she survived 47 years, she never quitted the walls of
her habitation; and although her name appeared jointly with
that of her son, Charles V., in all public acts, she never
afterwards could be induced to sign a paper, or take part in
any transactions of a public nature. … From this time the
Catholic king exercised an authority nearly as undisputed, and
far less limited and defined, than in the days of Isabella."
He exercised this authority for nine years, dying on the 23d
of January, 1516. By his last will he settled the succession
of Aragon and Naples on his daughter Joanna and her heirs,
thus uniting the sovereignty of those kingdoms with that of
Castile, in the same person. The administration of Castile
during Charles' absence was intrusted to Ximenes, and that of
Aragon to the king's natural son, the archbishop of Saragossa.
In September, 1517, Charles, the heir of many kingdoms,
arrived in Spain from the Netherlands, where his youth had
been spent. Two months later Cardinal Ximenes died, but not
before Charles had rudely and ungratefully dismissed him from
the government. The queen, Joanna, was still living; but her
arbitrary son had already commanded the proclamation of
himself as king.
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
part 2, chapters 12-13, 16-17,19-20, 24-25._
See, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.
SPAIN: A. D. 1501-1504.
Treaty of Ferdinand with Louis XII. for
the partition of Naples.
Their joint conquest.
Their quarrel and war.
The French expelled.
The Spaniards in possession.
See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.
SPAIN: A. D. 1505-1510.
Conquests on the Barbary coast.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.
SPAIN: A. D. 1508-1509.
The League of Cambrai against Venice.
See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.
SPAIN: A. D. 1511-1513.
Ferdinand of Aragon in the Holy League against France.
See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.
SPAIN: A. D. 1512-1515.
Conquest of Navarre.
Its incorporation in the kingdom of Castile.
See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.
SPAIN: A. D. 1515-1557.
Discovery of the Rio de la Plata and
colonization of Paraguay.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
SPAIN: A. D. 1516-1519.
The great dominion of Charles.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526;
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519.
SPAIN: A. D. 1517.
The Treaty of Noyon, between Charles and Francis I.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.
SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
Popular discontent.
Election of Charles to the German imperial throne.
Rebellion of the Holy Junta, and its failure.
Absolutism of the crown established.
Charles had not been long in Spain before "symptoms of
discontent … were every where visible. Charles spoke the
Spanish language imperfectly: his discourse was consequently
slow, and delivered with hesitation; and from that
circumstance many of the Spaniards were induced to regard him
as a prince of a slow and narrow genius. But the greatest
dissatisfaction arose from his attachment to his Flemish
favourites, who engrossed or exposed to sale every office of
honour or emolument, and whose rapacity was so unbounded that
they are said to have remitted to the Netherlands no less a
sum than 1,100,000 ducats in the space of ten months. … While
Spain, agitated by a general discontent, was ready for
rebellion, a spacious field was opened to the ambition of her
monarch. The death of the Emperor Maximilian [1519] had left
vacant the imperial throne of Germany. The Kings of Spain, of
France, and of England, offered themselves as candidates for
this high dignity," and Charles was chosen, entering now upon
his great career as the renowned Emperor, Charles V.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.
"Charles received the news of his election to the imperial
throne with the joy that was natural to a young and aspiring
mind. But his elevation was far from affording the same
satisfaction to his Spanish subjects, who foresaw that their
blood and their treasures would be lavished in the support of
German politics." With great difficulty he obtained from the
Cortes money sufficient to enable him to proceed to Germany in
a suitable style. Having accomplished this, he sailed from
Corunna in May, 1520, leaving his old preceptor, now Cardinal
Adrian, of Utrecht, to be Regent during his absence. "As soon
as it was understood that, although the Cortes had voted him a
free gift, they had not obtained the redress of any grievance,
the indignation of the people became general and
uncontrollable. The citizens of Toledo took arms, attacked the
citadel, and compelled the governor to surrender. Having, in
the next place, established a democratical form of government,
composed of deputies from the several parishes of the city,
they levied troops, and appointed for their commander Don Juan
de Padilla, son of the Commendator of Castile, a young man of
an ambitious and daring spirit, and a great favourite with the
populace. Segovia, Burgos, Zamora, and several other cities,
followed the example of Toledo." Segovia was besieged by
Fonseca, commander-in-chief in Castile, who, previously,
destroyed a great part of the town of Medino del Campo by
fire, because its citizens refused to deliver to him a train
of artillery. Valladolid now rose in revolt, notwithstanding
the presence of the Regent in the city, and forced him to
disavow the proceedings of Fonseca.
_J. Bigland,
History of Spain,
volume 1, chapter 12._
"In July [1520], deputies from the principal Castilian cities
met in Avila; and having formed an association called the
Santa Junta, or Holy League, proceeded to deliberate
concerning the proper methods of redressing the grievances of
the nation. The Junta declared the authority of Adrian
illegal, on the ground of his being a foreigner, and required
him to resign it; while Padilla, by a sudden march, seized the
person of Joanna at Tordesillas. The unfortunate queen
displayed an interval of reason, during which she authorised
Padilla to do all that was necessary for the safety of the
kingdom; but she soon relapsed into her former imbecility, and
could not be persuaded to sign any more papers.
{2986}
The Junta nevertheless carried on all their deliberations in
her name; and Padilla, marching with a considerable army to
Valladolid, seized the seals and public archives, and formally
deposed Adrian. Charles now issued from Germany circular
letters addressed to the Castilian cities, making great
concessions, which, however, were not deemed satisfactory by
the Junta; who, conscious of their power, proceeded to draw up
a remonstrance, containing a long list of grievances. …
Charles having refused to receive the remonstrance which was
forwarded to him in Germany, the Junta proceeded to levy open
war against him and the nobles; for the latter, who had at
first sided with the Junta, finding their own privileges
threatened as well as those of the King, began now to support
the royal authority. The army of the Junta, which numbered
about 20,000 men, was chiefly composed of mechanics and
persons unacquainted with the use of arms; Padilla was set
aside, and the command given to Don Pedro de Giron, a rash and
inexperienced young nobleman." From this time the insurrection
failed rapidly. In December, the royalists recovered
Tordesillas and the person of Queen Joanna; and in April,
1521, Padilla was defeated, taken prisoner and executed, near
Villalar. "This defeat proved the ruin of the Junta.
Valladolid and most of the other confederated towns now
submitted, but Toledo, animated by the grief and courage of
Padilla's widow, still held out." Even after the surrender of
the city, "Dona Maria retired to the citadel and held it four
months longer; but on the 10th February 1522, she was
compelled to surrender, and escaped in disguise to Portugal;
after which tranquillity was re-established in Castile."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._
"The insurrection was a failure; and the blow which crushed
the insurgents on the plains of Villalar deprived them [the
Spaniards at large] for ever of the few liberties which they
had been permitted to retain. They were excluded from all
share in the government, and were henceforth summoned to the
cortes only to swear allegiance to the heir apparent, or to
furnish subsidies for their master. … The nobles, who had
stood by their master in the struggle, fared no better. … They
gradually sunk into the unsubstantial though glittering
pageant of a court. Meanwhile the government of Castile,
assuming the powers of both making the laws and enforcing
their execution, became in its essential attributes nearly as
absolute as that of Turkey."
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 6, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_W. Robertson,
History of the Reign of Charles V.,
book 3 (volume 2)._
SPAIN: A. D. 1519-1524.
The conquest of Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519, to 1524.
SPAIN: A. D. 1523.
The conspiracy of Charles V. with the Constable of
Bourbon against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.
SPAIN: A. D. 1523-1527.
Double-dealings of Pope Clement VII. with Charles.
The imperial revenge.
Capture and sack of Rome.
See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527; and 1527.
SPAIN: A. D. 1524.
Disputes with Portugal in the division of the New World.
The voyage of Magellan and the Congress of Badajos.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
SPAIN: A. D. 1526.
The Treaty of Madrid.
Perfidy of Francis I.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1525-1526.
SPAIN: A. D. 1526.
Compulsory and nominal Conversion of the Moors,
or Moriscoes, completed.
See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.
SPAIN: A. D. 1528-1542.
The expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto in Florida.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
SPAIN: A. D. 1531-1541.
Pizarro's conquest of Peru.
See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, to 1533-1548.
SPAIN: A. D. 1535.
Conquest and vassalage of Tunis.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.
SPAIN: A. D. 1536-1544.
Renewed war between Charles V. and Francis I.
Treaty of Crespy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.
SPAIN: A. D. 1541.
Disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.
SPAIN: A. D. 1556.
Abdication of Charles.
Accession of Philip II.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.
SPAIN: A. D. 1556-1559.
War with France and the Pope.
Successes in Italy and northwestern France.
Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
SPAIN: A. D. 1559-1563.
Early measures of Philip II.
His stupid and stifling despotism.
His attempt to shut knowledge out of the kingdom.
His destruction of commerce and industry.
His choice of Madrid for a capital.
His building of the Escorial.
"In the beginning of his reign he [Philip II.] issued a most
extraordinary decree. … That document is a signal revelation
of the policy which Philip adopted as the very soul of his
Government. Determined to stop by all imaginable means the
infiltration into Spain of the doctrines of the religious
reformation which agitated Europe, it seems that he planned to
isolate her intellect from that of the rest of the world. …
For this purpose he ordered that none of his subjects, without
any exception whatever, should leave the Kingdom 'to learn, or
to teach, or to read anything,' or even 'reside' in any of the
universities, colleges or schools established in foreign
parts. To those who were thus engaged he prescribed that they
should return home within four months. Any ecclesiastic
violating this decree was to be denationalized and lose all
his temporalities; any layman was to be punished with the
confiscation of his property and perpetual exile. Thus a sort
of Chinese legislation and policy was adopted for Spain. There
was to be on her frontiers a line of custom-houses through
which the thought of man could not pass without examination.
No Spaniard was to receive or to communicate one idea without
the leave of Philip. … In 1560, the Cortes of Castile had
their second meeting under the reign of Philip. … The Cortes
presented to Philip one hundred and eleven petitions. … To
those petitions which aimed at something practicable and
judicious he gave some of his usual evasive answers, but he
granted very readily those which were absurd. For instance, he
promulgated sumptuary ordinances which were ridiculous, and
which could not possibly have any salutary effects. He also
published decrees which were restrictive of commerce, and
prohibited the exportation of gold, silver, grains, cattle and
other products of the soil, or of the manufacturing industry
of the country. …
{2987}
In the meantime, the financial condition of the Kingdom was
rapidly growing worse, and the deficit resulting from the
inequality of expenditure and revenue was assuming the most
alarming proportions. All the ordinary and extraordinary means
and resources had been exhausted. … Yet, on an average, Philip
received annually from his American Dominions alone more than
1,200,000 ducats—which was at least equivalent to $6,000,000
at the present epoch. The Council of Finances, or Hacienda,
after consulting with Philip, could not devise anything else,
to get out of difficulty, than to resort again to the sale of
titles of nobility, the sale of vassals and other Royal
property, the alienation of certain rights, and the concession
of privileges. … It is difficult to give an idea of the
wretched administration which had been introduced in Spain,
and of those abuses which, like venomous leeches, preyed upon
her vitals. Suffice it to say that in Castile, for instance,
according to a census made in 1541, there was a population of
near 800,000 souls, and that out of every eight men there was
one who was noble and exempt from taxation, thereby increasing
the weight of the burden on the shoulders of the rest; and as
if this evil was not already unbearable, Philip was selling
profusely letters patent of nobility. … In these conjunctures
[1560], Philip, who had shown, on all occasions, that he
preferred residing in Madrid, … determined to make that city
the permanent seat of the Court and of the Supreme Government,
and therefore the capital of the Monarchy. That barren and
insalubrious locality presented but one advantage, if it be
one of much value, that of being a central point. … Reason and
common sense condemned it from the beginning. … Shortly after
having selected Madrid as his capital, Philip had laid [1563]
with his own bands, in the vicinity of that city, the first
stone of the foundations of the Escorial, that eighth marvel
of the world, as it is called by the Spaniards."
_C. Gayarré,
Philip II. of Spain,
chapter 4._
"The common tradition that Philip built the Escorial in
pursuance of a vow which he made at the time of the great
battle of St. Quentin, the 10th of August, 1557, has been
rejected by modern critics. … But a recently discovered
document leaves little doubt that such a vow was actually
made. However this may have been, it is certain that the king
designed to commemorate the event by this structure, as is
intimated by its dedication to St. Lawrence, the martyr on
whose day the victory was gained. The name given to the place
was 'El Sitio de San Lorenzo el Real.' But the monastery was
better known from the hamlet near which it stood—El Escurial,
or El Escorial—which latter soon became the orthography
generally adopted by the Castilians. … The erection of a
religious house on a magnificent scale, that would proclaim to
the world his devotion to the Faith, was the predominant idea
in the mind of Philip. It was, moreover, a part of his scheme
to combine in the plan a palace for himself. … The site which,
after careful examination, he selected for the building, was
among the mountains of the Guadarrama, on the borders of New
Castile, about eight leagues northwest of Madrid. … In 1584,
the masonry of the Escorial was completed. Twenty-one years
had elapsed since the first stone of the monastery was laid.
This certainly must be regarded as a short period for the
erection of so stupendous a pile. … Probably no single edifice
ever contained such an amount and variety of inestimable
treasures as the Escorial,—so many paintings and sculptures by
the greatest masters,—so many articles of exquisite
workmanship, composed of the most precious materials." It was
despoiled by the French in 1808, and in 1837 the finest works
of art surviving were removed to Madrid. "The Escorial ceased
to be a royal residence. Tenantless and unprotected, it was
left to the fury of the blasts which swept down the hills of
the Guadarrama."
_W. H. Prescott,
History of the Reign of Philip II.,
book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3)._
SPAIN: A. D. 1560.
Disastrous expedition against Tripoli.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.
SPAIN: A. D. 1563-1564.
Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.
Capture of Penon de Velez.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.
SPAIN: A. D. 1565.
The massacre of French Huguenots in Florida
and occupation of the country.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1565; and 1567-1568.
SPAIN: A. D. 1566-1571.
Edict against the Moriscoes.
Their rebellion and its suppression.
See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.
SPAIN: A. D. 1568-1610.
The Revolt o the Netherlands.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1568-1572, and after.
SPAIN: A. D. 1570-1571.
The Holy League with Venice and the Pope against the Turks.
Great battle and Victory of Lepanto.
See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.
SPAIN: . D. 1572.
Rejoicing of Philip at the news of the
Massacre of St. Bartholomew's day.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1572 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1573.
Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria, and its recovery,
with Goletta, by the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.
SPAIN: A. D. 1572-1580.
Piratical warfare of England.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
SPAIN: A. D. 1580.
The crown of Portugal claimed by Philip II.
and secured by force.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.
SPAIN: A. D. 1585.
Secret alliance with the Catholic League of France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585.
SPAIN: A. D. 1587-1588.
The expedition of the Armada, against England.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1587-1588; and 1588.
SPAIN: A. D. 1590.
Aid rendered to the Catholic League in France.
Parma's deliverance of Paris.
Philip's ambition to wear the French crown.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1590.
SPAIN: A. D. 1595-1598.
War with France.
The Peace of Vervins.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.
SPAIN: A. D. 1596.
Capture and plundering of Cadiz by the English and Dutch.
"In the beginning of 1596, Philip won an important triumph by
the capture of Calais. But this awoke the alarm of England and
of the Hollanders as much as of the French. A joint expedition
was equipped against Spain in which the English took the lead.
Lord Admiral Howard sailed with a fleet of 150 vessels against
Cadiz, and the Earl of Essex commanded the land forces. On
June 21 the Spanish ships which assembled for the defence of
the town were entirely defeated. Essex was the first to leap
on shore, and the English troops easily took the city.
{2988}
The clemency of the English soldiers contrasted favourably
with the terrible barbarities of the Spaniards in the
Netherlands. 'The mercy and the clemency that had been showed
here,' wrote Lord Howard, 'will be spoken of throughout the
world.' No man or woman was needlessly injured; but Cadiz was
sacked, and the shipping in its harbour destroyed. Essex
wished to follow up this exploit by a further attack upon
Spain; but Howard, who had accomplished the task for which he
had been sent, insisted on returning home."
_M. Creighton,
The Age of Elizabeth,
book 7, chapter 3._
"The results of this expedition were considerable, for the
king's navy was crippled, a great city was destroyed, and some
millions of plunder had been obtained. But the permanent
possession of Cadiz, which, in such case, Essex hoped to
exchange for Calais, and the destruction of the fleet at the
Azores—possible achievements both, and unwisely neglected
—would have been far more profitable, at least to England."
_J. L. Motley,
History of the United Netherlands,
chapter 32 (volume 3)._
SPAIN: A. D. 1598.
Accession of Philip III.
SPAIN: A. D. 1598-1700.
The first century of decline and decay.
"Spain became united and consolidated under the Catholic kings
[Ferdinand and Isabella]; it became a cosmopolitan empire
under Charles; and in Philip, austere, bigoted, and
commanding, its height of glory was reached. Thenceforth the
Austrian supremacy in the peninsula—the star of the House of
Habsburg—declined, until a whiff of diplomacy was sufficient
to extinguish its lights in the person of the childless and
imbecile Charles II. Three reigns—Philip III. (1598-1621),
Philip IV. (1621-1665), and Charles II. (1665-1700)—fill this
century of national decline, full as it is of crowned idiocy,
hypochondria, and madness, the result of incestuous marriages,
or natural weakness. The splendid and prosperous Spanish
empire under the emperor and his son—its vast conquests,
discoveries and foreign wars,—becomes transformed into a
bauble for the caprice of favorites, under their successors. …
Amid its immeasurable wealth, Spain was bankrupt. The gold,
and silver, and precious stones of the West, emptied
themselves into a land the poorest and most debt-laden in
Europe, the most spiritually ignorant despite the countless
churches, the most notorious for its dissolute nobility, its
worthless officials, its ignoble family relations, its
horrible moral aberrations pervading all grades of the
population; and all in vain. The mighty fancy, the
enthusiastic loyalty, the fervid faith of the richly endowed
Spaniard were not counter-balanced by humbler but more
practical virtues, —love of industry, of agriculture, of
manufactures. The Castilians hated the doings of citizens and
peasants; the taint of the Arab and the Jew was on the
profession of money-getting. Thousands left their ploughs and
went to the Indies, found places in the police, or bought
themselves titles of nobility, which forthwith rendered all
work dishonorable. The land grew into a literal infatuation
with miracles, relics, cloisters, fraternities, pious
foundations of every description. The church was omnipotent.
Nobody cultivated the soil. Hundreds of thousands lived in the
convents. Begging soup at the monastery gates,—such is a type
of the famishing Spain of the 17th century. In economic,
political, physical, moral, and intellectual aspects, a decay
pervaded the peninsula under the later Habsburgers, such as no
civilized nation has ever undergone. The population declined
from 10,000,000 under Charles V. (Charles I. of Spain) to
6,000,000 under Charles II. The people had vanished from
hundreds of places in New Castile, Old Castile, Toledo,
Estremadura, and Andalusia. One might travel miles in the
lovely regions of the South, without seeing a solitary
cultivated field or dwelling. Seville was almost depopulated.
Pecuniary distress at the end of the 17th century reached an
unexampled height; the soldiers wandered through the cities
begging; nearly all the great fortresses from Barcelona to
Cadiz were ruinous; the king's servants ran away because they
were neither paid nor fed; more than once there was no money
to supply the royal table; the ministers were besieged by high
officials and officers seeking to extort their pay long due;
couriers charged with communications of the highest importance
lingered on the road for lack of means to continue their
journey. Finance was reduced to tricks of low deceit and
robbery. … The idiocy of the system of taxation was
unparalleled. Even in 1594 the cortes complained that the
merchant, out of every 1,000 ducats capital, had to pay 300
ducats in taxes; that no tenant-farmer could maintain himself,
however low his rent might be; and that the taxes exceeded the
income of numerous estates. Bad as the system was under Philip
II., it became worse under his Austrian successors. The tax
upon the sale of food, for instance, increased from ten to
fourteen per cent, Looms were most productive when they were
absolutely silent. Almost the entire household arrangements of
a Spanish family were the products of foreign industries. In
the beginning of the 17th century, five-sixths of the domestic
and nine-tenths of the foreign trade were in the hands of
aliens. In Castile, alone, there were 160,000 foreigners, who
had gained complete possession of the industrial and
manufacturing interests. 'We cannot clothe ourselves without
them, for we have neither linen nor cloth; we cannot write
without them, for we have no paper,' complains a Spaniard.
Hence, the enormous masses of gold and silver annually
transmitted from the colonies passed through Spain into
French, English, Italian, and Dutch pockets. Not a real, it is
said, of the 35,000,000 of ducats which Spain received from
the colonies in 1595, was found in Castile the following year.
In this indescribable retrogression, but one interest in any
way prospered—the Church. The more agriculture, industry,
trade declined, the more exclusively did the Catholic clergy
monopolize all economic and intellectual life."
_J. A. Harrison,
Spain,
chapter 23._
ALSO IN:
_R. Watson,
History of the Reign of Philip III._
_J. Dunlop,
Memoirs of Spain, during the Reigns
of Philip IV. and Charles II._
SPAIN: A. D. 1609.
Final expulsion of the Moriscoes.
The resulting ruin of the nation, materially and morally.
See MOORS: A. D. 1492-1609.
SPAIN: A. D. 1619.
Alliance with the Emperor Ferdinand
against Frederick of Bohemia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.
SPAIN: A. D. 1621.
Accession of Philip IV.
SPAIN: A. D. 1621.
Renewal of war in the Netherlands.
End of the truce.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.
{2989}
SPAIN: A. D. 1624-1626.
Hostile policy of Richelieu.
The Valtelline War in Northern Italy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
SPAIN: A. D. 1627-1631.
War with France in Northern Italy over the
succession to the duchy of Mantua.
See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.
SPAIN: A. D. 1635.
New hostile alliances of France.
Declaration of war.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1636.
The Cardinal Infant in the Netherlands.
His invasion of France.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
SPAIN: A. D. 1635-1642.
The war with France and Savoy in Northern Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.
SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.
The war on the French frontier.
Siege and battle of Fontarabia.
French invasion of Roussillon.
Causes of disaffection in Catalonia.
In 1637, a Spanish army, 12,000 strong, crossed the Pyrenees
under the command of the Duke of Medina del Rio-Seco, Admiral
of Castile. "He took St Jean-de-Luz without difficulty, and
was advancing to the siege of Bayonne, when the old Duke
d'Epernon, governor of Guienne, … threw himself into it. There
was little time for preparations; but the Spanish commander,
on being told he would find Bayonne destitute of defence,
replied that could not be said of any place which contained
the Duke d'Epernon. He accordingly refrained from laying siege
to Bayonne; and all his other enterprises having failed from
the vigilant activity of Epernon, he abandoned St Jean-de-Luz,
with some other posts in its neighbourhood, and the seat of
war was speedily transferred from Guienne to Languedoc:
Olivarez, in forming his plans against that province, had
expected a revolt among its numerous and often rebellious
inhabitants. … The hopes, however, entertained by Olivarez …
proved utterly fallacious." The Spanish army, under
Serbellone, invested Leucate, the first fortress reached on
entering Languedoc from Roussillon, and besieged it for a
month; but was attacked at the end of that time by the Duke de
Halluin, son of the late Mareschal Schomberg, and driven from
its works, with the loss of all its artillery, and 3,000 men.
"In the following season [1638] the French, in their turn,
attempted the invasion of Spain, but with as little success as
the Spaniards had obtained in Guienne or Languedoc. … An army,
amounting to not less than 15,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry,
under the orders of the Prince of Condé, the father of the
great Condé, and a devoted retainer of Richelieu, crossed the
frontier, took Irun, and laid siege to Fontarabia, which is
situated on a peninsula, jutting into the river Bidassoa. A
formidable French fleet was, at the same time, stationed on
the coast of Guipuscoa, to co-operate with this army," and,
after failing in one attack, it succeeded in destroying the
Spanish ships sent to the succor of Fontarabia. "Fontarabia
being considered as the key to Spain, on the entrance to the
kingdom from Bayonne, its natural strength had been greatly
improved by fortifications." Its garrison held out stoutly
until the arrival of a relieving army of 13,000, led by the
Admiral of Castile. Nearly a month elapsed before the latter
ventured to attack the besieging force; but when he did,
"while the Spaniards lost only 200 men, the French were
totally defeated, and precipitately driven forth from their
intrenchments. Many of them were killed in the attack, and a
still greater number were drowned in attempting to pass the
Bidassoa. Those who escaped fled with precipitation to
Bayonne. … But Spain was hardly relieved from the alarm of the
invasion of Navarre when she was threatened with a new danger,
on the side of Roussillon. The Prince of Condé … was again
entrusted with a military expedition against the Spanish
frontiers. … The small county of Roussillon, which had
hitherto belonged to Spain as an appendage of Catalonia, lies
on the French side of the higher Pyrenees; but a lower range
of mountains, called the Courbieres, branching off from them,
and extending within a league of the Mediterranean shore,
divides Roussillon from Languedoc. At the extremity of these
hills, and about a league from the sea, stood the fortress of
Salsas [or Salces], which was considered as the key of Spain
on the dangerous side of Roussillon and Catalonia." Salsas was
invested by the French, 1639, and taken after a siege of forty
days. But Olivarez, the Spanish minister, adopted measures for
the recovery of the important fortress, so energetic, so
peremptory, and so unmeasured in the exactions they made upon
the people of Catalonia, that Salsas was retaken in January,
1640. "The long campaign in the vicinity of Balsas, though it
proved ultimately prosperous to the Spanish arms, fostered in
the bosom of the kingdom the seeds of rebellion. Those
arbitrary measures which Olivarez enjoined to his Generals,
may have gained Salsas, but they lost Catalonia. The frequent
intercourse which took place between the Catalans and French
soldiery, added fuel to those flames nearly ready to burst
forth, and, shortly afterwards, excited the fatal insurrection
at Barcelona."
_J. Dunlop,
Memoirs of Spain during the Reigns of
Philip IV. and Charles II.,
volume 1, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_T. Wright,
History of France,
volume 1, chapter 17._
SPAIN: A. D. 1639-1700.
War with the piratical Buccaneers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
SPAIN: A. D. 1640.
Revolution in Portugal
That country resumes its independence.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
Revolt of Catalonia and Portugal, with the aid of France.
French conquest of Roussillon.
After their defeat of Condé at Salces, Olivarez ordered the
Castilian troops to take up their winter quarters in
Catalonia; and, "commanding the Catalonians to raise and equip
6,000 soldiers for the wars of Italy, he assigned them their
proportion of the expenses of the state, enjoining the states
to raise it, by a decree of the king. Had the Castillian
troops remained tranquil and orderly, overawing the
Catalonians by their presence and their discipline, without
enraging them by their excesses and their insolence, perhaps
Olivarez might have carried through his bold design, and
annihilated, one by one, the destructive privileges of the
various provinces. But, on the contrary, they committed every
sort of violence and injustice. … The Catalonians, stirred up
to vengeance, sought retribution in chance combats, lost their
dread of the Castillian troops by frequent contests with them,
and were excited almost to frenzy by their violence and
rapine. In the mean time, the states of Catalonia refused to
obey the royal decree, and sent two deputies to remonstrate
with the king and his minister.
{2990}
These messengers unfortunately executed their commission in an
insolent and menacing tone; and Olivarez, of a haughty and
inflexible character, caused them instantly to be arrested.
These tidings reached Barcelona at the moment when some fresh
outrage, committed by the Castillian soldiers, had excited
popular indignation to the highest pitch; and a general
insurrection was the immediate consequence. The viceroy was
slain upon the spot, and a negotiation was instantly entered
into with France in order to procure support in rebellion. The
courage of Olivarez did not fail even under this fresh
misfortune: all the disposable troops in Spain were instantly
directed upon Catalonia; and all the other provinces, but more
especially Portugal, were ordered to arm for the suppression
of the revolt. Turbulent subjects and interested allies are
always sure to take advantage of the moment of difficulty. The
Portuguese, hating, with even more bitter animosity than the
Catalonians, the yoke of Castille, oppressed by Vasconcellos,
who ruled them under the vice-queen, duchess of Mantua, and
called upon to aid in suppressing an insurrection to which
they looked with pleasure and hope, now instantly threw off
the rule of Spain. A conspiracy burst forth, which had been
preparing under the knowledge and advice of Richelieu for more
than three years; and the duke of Braganza, a prince of no
great abilities, was proclaimed king. … In the mean time the
marquis de los Velez had taken the command of the army sent
against the Catalonian rebels; and a willing instrument of the
minister's vengeance, he exercised the most barbarous
cruelties as he marched on into the refractory province. The
town of Tortosa was taken and sacked by his soldiers, and the
people subjected to every sort of violence. Fire, massacre,
and desolation marked his progress; but, instead of inspiring
crouching terror, and trembling self-abandonment, his conduct
roused up lion-like revenge. Hurrying on the negotiations with
France, the Catalonians accepted any terms which Richelieu
chose to offer, declared themselves subject to the French
crown, and pronounced the authority of Spain at an end for
ever in Catalonia. A small corps of French troops was
immediately thrown forward from Roussillon, and advanced to
Taragona under the command of D'Espenan, a general who had
shown great skill and courage at Salces. The Catalonians, with
the usual bravado of their nation, had represented their army
as a thousand-fold stronger, both in numbers and discipline,
than it really was; and the French officers were in
consequence lamentably disappointed when they saw the militia
which was to support them, and still more disappointed when
they beheld that militia in face of an enemy. As a last
resource against the large Spanish force under Los Velez,
D'Espenan threw himself into Taragona, in opposition to the
advice of Besançon, who was employed, on the part of France,
in organizing the Catalonians. Here he was almost immediately
besieged; and, being destitute both of provisions and
ammunition, was soon forced to sign a capitulation, whereby he
agreed to evacuate the territory of Spain with all the troops
which had entered Catalonia from France. This convention he
executed, notwithstanding all remonstrances and petitions on
the part of the Catalonians; and, retreating at once from
Taragona to the French frontier, he abandoned the field to the
enemy. Had Olivarez now seized the favourable moment, …. it is
probable—it is more than probable—that Catalonia would at once
have been pacified, and that her dangerous privileges would in
part have been sacrificed to the desire and necessity of
peace. … But the count-duke sought revenge as much as
advantage. … Continued severity only produced a continuance of
resistance: the Catalonians sustained themselves till the
French forces returned in greater numbers, and with more
experienced commanders: the tide of success turned against the
Castillians; and Los Velez was recalled to give place to
Leganez. … In various engagements … the Spanish armies were
defeated by the French: the Catalonians themselves became
better soldiers under the severe discipline of necessity; and
though the Spanish fleet defeated the French off Taragona, and
saved that city from the enterprises of La Mothe, the general
result of the campaign was decidedly unfavourable to Spain. At
the same time, the French were making progress in Roussillon;
and in the year 1642 the king himself prepared to invade that
small territory, with the evident intention of dissevering it
from the Spanish crown. Several minor places having been
taken, siege was laid to Perpignan: the people of the country
were not at all unwilling to pass under the dominion of
France; and another serious misfortune threatened the ministry
of Olivarez. At this time was concerted the conspiracy of Cinq
Mars … and the count-duke eagerly entered into the views of
the French malecontents, and promised them every assistance
they demanded.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.
The failure of the conspiracy, the arrest and execution of
some of the conspirators, and the fall of Perpignan, came
rapidly, one upon the other, showing the fortune of Richelieu
still triumphing over all the best laid schemes of his
adversaries."
_G. P. R. James,
Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
volume 2: Olivarez._
SPAIN: A. D. 1643.
Invasion of France from the Netherlands.
Defeat at Rocroi.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643.
SPAIN: A. D, 1644-1646.
The war in Catalonia.
Sieges of Lerida.
In 1644, Philip IV., "under the prudent and sagacious counsels
of Don Louis de Haro, was directing his principal efforts to
the recovery of Catalonia. … Don Philip de Sylva, an officer
of experience and determination, was put at the head of the
Castilian troops, and immediately advanced to the siege of the
strong town of Lerida, the king himself being nominally in
command of the army. The French troops in Catalonia were at
that time commanded by La Mothe Houdancourt, who no sooner
heard of the advance of the Spanish troops towards Lerida than
he marched with great rapidity to the relief of that place;"
but approached the enemy with so much carelessness that he was
attacked by Sylva and totally defeated, with a loss of 3,000
men and 12 guns. He then, for a diversion, laid siege to
Tarragona, and lost 3,000 more of his men, without
accomplishing the reduction of the place; being forced, in the
end, to retreat to Barcelona, while Lerida was surrendered to
the Spaniards. "La Mothe having been recalled and imprisoned,
… the Count de Harcourt was withdrawn from Savoy, and put at
the head of fresh forces, for the purpose of repairing the
disasters of the former general."
{2991}
Harcourt began operations (April, 1645) by laying siege to the
strong fortress of Rosas, or Roses, which commanded the
principal entrance to Catalonia from Roussillon. The fortress
surrendered the following month, and "the Count de Harcourt, …
after capturing some places of minor import, passed the Segre,
encountered the army of Cantelmo in the neighbourhood of
Llorens, and, gaining a complete victory, made himself master
of Balaguer." After these successes, the Count de Harcourt was
called away from Catalonia for a time, to act against the
insurgents at Barcelona, but returned in 1646 and undertook
the siege of Lerida. He was now opposed by the Marquis de
Leganez, whom he had successfully encountered in Ita]y, and
whom he was foolishly disposed to regard with contempt. While
he pressed his siege in careless security, Leganez surprised
him, in a night attack, and drove him in utter rout from his
lines. "This signal disaster caused the Count de Harcourt to
be recalled; and in order to recover all that had been lost in
Catalonia, the Prince de Condé was appointed to command in
that province, while a considerable part of the army of
Flanders was ordered to proceed towards the frontiers of Spain
to serve once more under his command." But Condé, too, was to
pay the penalty for despising his enemy. He reopened the siege
of Lerida with ostentatious gaiety, marching into the trenches
with music of violins, on the 14th of May. In little more than
a month he marched out again, without music, abandoning the
siege, having lost many men and obtained no sign of success.
_G. P. R. James,
Life and Times of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 3._
SPAIN: A. D. 1645-1646.
French successes in Flanders.
Loss of Dunkirk.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.
SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1648.
Campaign against France in the Netherlands.
The defeat at Lens.
See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.
SPAIN: A. D. 1647-1654.
The revolt of Masaniello at Naples and its termination.
Attempts of the Duke of Guise and the French.
See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
SPAIN: A. D. 1648.
Conclusion of Peace with the United Provinces.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.
SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.
Subjugation of Catalonia.
"During the four years which [in France] had been filled with
the troubles of the Fronde, Spain endeavored, and with
success, to reconquer the province which had abandoned her. In
1650, Mazarin had recognized the peril of Catalonia, and had
endeavored to send assistance in war and money. It was
possible, however, to do but little. In 1651 the Spanish
besieged Barcelona. After Marchin's desertion they hoped to
capture it at once, but it was defended with the courage and
constancy of the Catalonian people. La Mothe Houdancourt was
again put in command of the province. He had been unsuccessful
there when France was strong, and it could hardly have been
expected that he could rescue it when France was weak. He
succeeded, however, in forcing his way into Barcelona, and
defended the city with as much success as could, perhaps, have
been anticipated from the scanty means at his command. The
inhabitants endured, with constancy, the danger and want
caused by the siege, rather than surrender themselves to
Spain. Some French ships sailed for the rescue of the place,
but they acquitted themselves with little valor. Provisions
were sent into the town, but the commander claimed he was not
in condition for a conflict with the Spanish fleet, and he
retreated. Endeavors were made, both by the French troops and
those of the Catalonians, to raise the siege, but without
success. In October [1652], after a siege of fifteen months,
Barcelona surrendered. Roses was captured soon after. Leucate
was betrayed to Spain by its governor for 40,000 crowns. He
intended to enlist under Orleans, but learning the king had
reentered Paris, he made his peace, by agreeing to betray no
more. The Spanish granted an amnesty to the people of
Catalonia. The whole province fell into their hands, and
became again a part of the kingdom of Spain. The loss of
Catalonia was chiefly due to the turbulence and disloyalty of
Condé. Had it not been for the groundless rebellion which he
excited in the autumn of 1651, and which absorbed the energies
of the French armies during the next year, Catalonia might
have been saved for France and have remained a part of that
kingdom. … It was a national misfortune that Catalonia was
lost. This great and important province would have been a
valuable accession to France. Its brave and hardy population
would have become loyal and industrious Frenchmen, and have
added to the wealth and power of that kingdom. For the
Catalonians it was still more unfortunate that their lot
should thus have been determined. They were not closely
related to the people of Aragon or Castile. They were now left
to share in the slow decay of the Spanish kingdom, instead of
having an opportunity for development in intelligence and
prosperity as members of a great and progressive nation."
_J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin,
chapter 15 (volume 2)._
SPAIN: A. D. 1650-1651.
Alliance with the New Fronde in France.
Defeat at Rethel.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.
SPAIN: A. D. 1652.
Campaign on the Flemish frontier.
Invasion of France.
Recovery of Gravelines and Dunkirk.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.
SPAIN: A. D. 1657-1658.
War with England in alliance with France.
Loss of Dunkirk and Gravelines.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.
SPAIN: A. D. 1659.
The Treaty of the Pyrenees.
Territorial cessions to France.
Marriage of the Infanta to Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
SPAIN: A. D. 1665.
Accession of Charles II.
SPAIN: A. D. 1667.
Conquests of Louis XIV. in the Netherlands.
The War of the Queen's Rights.
See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
Towns in Flanders ceded to Louis XIV.
Triple alliance and the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
SPAIN: A. D. 1668.
Peace with Portugal.
Recognition of its independence.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.
SPAIN: A. D. 1673-1679.
The War of the Coalition to resist Louis XIV.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;
also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.
SPAIN: A. D. 1686.
The League of Augsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.
{2992}
SPAIN: A. D. 1690-1696.
The War of the League of Augsburg or the Grand Alliance
against Louis XIV.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.
SPAIN: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
French conquests restored.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.-
The question of the Succession.
The Treaties of Partition.
The will of Charles ll.
As the 17th century approached its close, the king of Spain,
Charles II., was nearing the grave. "His days had been few and
evil. He had been unfortunate in all his wars, in every part
of his internal administration, and in all his domestic
relations. … He was childless; and his constitution was so
completely shattered that, at little more than thirty years of
age, he had given up all hopes of posterity. His mind was even
more distempered than his body. … His sufferings were
aggravated by the thought that his own dissolution might not
improbably be followed by the dissolution of his empire.
Several princes laid claim to the succession. The King's
eldest sister had married Lewis XIV. The Dauphin would,
therefore, in the common course of inheritance, have succeeded
to the crown. But the Infanta had, at the time of her
espousals, solemnly renounced, in her own name, and in that of
her posterity, all claim to the succession.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
This renunciation had been confirmed in due form by the
Cortes. A younger sister of the King had been the first wife
of Leopold, Emperor of Germany. She too had at her marriage
renounced her claims to the Spanish crown, but the Cortes had
not sanctioned the renunciation, and it was therefore
considered as invalid by the Spanish jurists. The fruit of
this marriage was a daughter, who had espoused the Elector of
Bavaria. The Electoral Prince of Bavaria inherited her claim
to the throne of Spain. The Emperor Leopold was son of a
daughter of Philip III., and was therefore first cousin to
Charles. No renunciation whatever had been exacted from his
mother at the time of her marriage. The question was certainly
very complicated. That claim which, according to the ordinary
rules of inheritance, was the strongest, had been barred by a
contract executed in the most binding form. The claim of the
Electoral Prince of Bavaria was weaker. But so also was the
contract which bound him not to prosecute his claim. The only
party against whom no instrument of renunciation could be
produced was the party who, in respect of blood, had the
weakest claim of all. As it was clear that great alarm would
be excited throughout Europe if either the Emperor or the
Dauphin should become King of Spain, each of those Princes
offered to waive his pretensions in favour of his second son;
the Emperor in favour of the Archduke Charles, the Dauphin in
favour of Philip, Duke of Anjou. Soon after the Peace of
Ryswick, William III. and Lewis XIV. determined to settle the
question of the succession without consulting either Charles
or the Emperor. France, England, and Holland, became parties
to a treaty [called the First Partition Treaty] by which it
was stipulated that the Electoral Prince of Bavaria should
succeed to Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands. The
Imperial family were to be bought off with the Milanese, and
the Dauphin was to have the Two Sicilies. The great object of
the King of Spain and of all his counsellors was to avert the
dismemberment of the monarchy. In the hope of attaining this
end, Charles determined to name a successor. A will was
accordingly framed by which the crown was bequeathed to the
Bavarian Prince. Unhappily, this will had scarcely been signed
when the Prince died. The question was again unsettled, and
presented greater difficulties than before. A new Treaty of
Partition was concluded between France, England, and Holland.
It was agreed that Spain, the Indies, and the Netherlands,
should descend to the Archduke Charles. In return for this
great concession made by the Bourbons to a rival house, it was
agreed that France should have the Milanese, or an equivalent
in a more commodious situation. The equivalent in view was the
province of Lorraine. Arbuthnot, some years later, ridiculed
the Partition Treaty with exquisite humour and ingenuity.
Everybody must remember his description of the paroxysm of
rage into which poor old Lord Strutt fell, on hearing that his
runaway servant, Nick Frog, his clothier, John Bull, and his
old enemy, Lewis Baboon, had come with quadrants, poles, and
inkhorns, to survey his estate, and to draw his will for him.
… When the intelligence of the second Partition Treaty arrived
at Madrid, it roused to momentary energy the languishing ruler
of a languishing state. The Spanish ambassador at the court of
London was directed to remonstrate with the government of
William; and his remonstrances were so insolent that he was
commanded to leave England. Charles retaliated by dismissing
the English and Dutch ambassadors. The French King, though the
chief author of the Partition Treaty, succeeded in turning the
whole wrath of Charles and of the Spanish people from himself,
and in directing it against the two maritime powers. Those
powers had now no agent at Madrid. Their perfidious ally was
at liberty to carry on his intrigues unchecked; and he fully
availed himself of this advantage." He availed himself of the
advantage so successfully, in fact, that when the Spanish king
died, November 3, 1700, he was found to have left a will,
bequeathing the whole Spanish monarchy to Philip, Duke of
Anjou, second son of the Dauphin of France. "Lewis acted as
the English ministers might have guessed that he would act.
With scarcely the show of hesitation, he broke through all the
obligations of the Partition Treaty, and accepted for his
grandson the splendid legacy of Charles. The new sovereign
hastened to take possession of his dominions."
_Lord Macaulay,
Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV,
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 4._
_J. W. Gerard,
The Peace of Utrecht,
chapters 6-10._
_J. Dunlop,
Memoirs of Spain, 1621-1700,
volume 2, chapter 9._
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
volume 1, introduction, section 3._
SPAIN: A. D. 1700.
Accession of Philip V.
{2993}
SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.
The Bourbon succession, and the European League against it.
"Louis XIV. having … resolved to accede to the will, Philip of
Anjou was proclaimed King by the Spaniards, and made his solemn
entry into Madrid on the 14th of April 1701. Most of the
European powers, such as the States of Italy, Sweden, England,
Holland, and the kingdoms of the North, acknowledged Philip
V.; the King of Portugal and the Duke of Savoy even concluded
treaties of alliance with him. Moreover, the situation of
political affairs in Germany, Hungary, and the North was such
that it would have been easy for Louis XIV., with prudent
management, to preserve the Spanish crown on the head of his
grandson; but he seemed, as if on purpose, to do everything to
raise all Europe against him. It was alleged that he aimed at
the chimerical project of universal monarchy, and the reunion
of France with Spain. Instead of trying to do away this
supposition, he gave it additional force, by issuing
letters-patent in favour of Philip, at the moment when he was
departing for Spain, to the effect of preserving his rights to
the throne of France. The Dutch dreaded nothing so much as to
see the French making encroachments on the Spanish
Netherlands, which they regarded as their natural barrier
against France; the preservation of which appeared to be
equally interesting to England. It would have been prudent in
Louis XIV. to give these maritime powers some security on this
point, who, since the elevation of William, Prince of Orange,
to the crown of Great Britain, held as it were in their hands
the balance of Europe. Without being swayed by this
consideration, he obtained authority from the Council of
Madrid to introduce a French army into the Spanish
Netherlands; and on this occasion the Dutch troops, who were
quartered in various places of the Netherlands, according to a
stipulation with the late King of Spain, were disarmed. This
circumstance became a powerful motive for King William to
rouse the States-General against France. He found some
difficulty, however, in drawing over the British Parliament to
his views, as a great majority in that House were averse to
mingle in the quarrels of the Continent; but the death of
James II. altered the minds and inclinations of the English.
Louis XIV. having formally acknowledged the son of that prince
as King of Great Britain, the English Parliament had no longer
any hesitation in joining the Dutch and the other enemies of
France. A new and powerful league [the Second Grand Alliance]
was formed against Louis. The Emperor, England, the United
Provinces, the Empire, the Kings of Portugal and Prussia, and
the Duke of Savoy, all joined it in succession. The allies
engaged to restore to Austria the Spanish Netherlands, the
duchy of Milan, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, with the
ports of Tuscany; and never to permit the union of France with
Spain."
_C. W. Koch,
The Revolutions of Europe, period 7._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 25 (volume 5)._
_J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 5 (volume 1)._
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Marlborough,
chapter 9 (volume 1)._
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapters 1-7._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
SPAIN: A. D. 1702.
The War of the Succession: Cadiz defended.
The treasure fleet lost in Vigo Bay.
The first approach to Spain of the War of the
Succession—already raging for months in Northern Italy and the
Spanish Netherlands—was in the form of an expedition against
Cadiz, undertaken in the autumn of 1702 by the English and
Dutch. "King William was the first to plan this expedition
against Cadiz and after his decease the project was resumed.
But had King William lived he would certainly not have
selected as chief the Duke of Ormond, a princely nobleman,
endowed with many amiable qualities, but destitute of the
skill and the energy which a great enterprise requires. Under
him Sir Henry Bellasys commanded the English and General Spaar
a contingent of Dutch troops, amounting together to 14,000
men. Admiral Sir George Rooke had the direction of the fleet.
Their proceedings have been related at full length in another
history [Lord Mahon's (Earl Stanhope's) 'War of the Succession
in Spain']—how the troops were set on shore near Cadiz in the
first days of September—how even before they landed angry
dissensions had sprung up between the Dutch and the English,
the landsmen and the seamen—and how these dissensions which
Ormond wanted the energy to control proved fatal, to the
enterprise. No discipline was kept, no spirit was displayed.
Week after week was lost. … Finally at the close of the month
it was discovered that nothing could be done, and a council of
war decided that the troops should reembark. … On their
return, and off the coast of Portugal, an opportunity arose to
recover in some part their lost fame. The Spanish galleons
from America, laden with treasure and making their yearly
voyage at this time, were bound by their laws of trade to
unload at Cadiz, but in apprehension of the English fleet they
had put into Vigo Bay. There Ormond determined to pursue them.
On the 22nd of October he neared that narrow inlet which winds
amidst the high Gallician mountains. The Spaniards, assisted
by some French frigates, which were the escort of the
galleons, had expected an attack and made the best
preparations in their power. They durst not disembark the
treasure without an express order from Madrid—and what order
from Madrid ever yet came in due time?—but they had called the
neighbouring peasantry to arms; they had manned their forts;
they had anchored their ships in line within the harbour; and
they had drawn a heavy boom across its mouth. None of these
means availed them. The English seamen broke through the boom;
Ormond at the head of 2,000 soldiers scaled the forts; and the
ships were all either taken or destroyed. The greater part of
the treasure was thrown overboard by direction of the French
and Spanish chiefs; but there remained enough to yield a large
amount of booty to the victors."
_Earl Stanhope,
History of England: Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_Colonel A. Parnell,
War of the Succession in Spain,
chapters 3-4._
For the campaigns of the War of the Succession in other
quarters.
See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after.
SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
The War of the Succession: Charles III. claims the kingdom.
The English take Gibraltar.
"The Admiral of Castile, alienated from the cause of Philip V.
by having been dismissed from his office of Master of the
Horse, had retired into Portugal; and he succeeded in
persuading King Pedro II. to accede to the Grand Alliance, who
was enticed by the promise of the American provinces between
the Rio de la Plata and Brazil, as well as a part of
Estremadura and Galicia (May 6th). Pedro also entered into a
perpetual defensive league with Great Britain and the
States-General. In the following December, Paul Methuen, the
English minister at Lisbon, concluded the celebrated
commercial treaty between England and Portugal named after
himself.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703.
{2994}
It is the most laconic treaty on record, containing only two
Articles, to the effect that Portugal was to admit British
cloths, and England to admit Portuguese wines, at one-third
less duty than those of France. Don Pedro's accession to the
Grand Alliance entirely changed the plans of the allies.
Instead of confining themselves to the procuring of a
reasonable indemnity for the Emperor, they now resolved to
drive Philip V. from the throne of Spain, and to place an
Austrian Archduke upon it in his stead. The Emperor and his
eldest son Joseph formally renounced their claims to the
throne of Spain in favour of the archduke Charles, Leopold's
second son, September 12th [1703]; and the Archduke was
proclaimed King of Spain, with the title of Charles III. The
new King was to proceed into Portugal, and, with the
assistance of Don Pedro, endeavour to obtain possession of
Spain. Charles accordingly proceeded to Holland, and embarked
for England in January 1704; whence, after paying a visit to
Queen Anne at Windsor, he finally set sail for Lisbon,
February 17th. … In March 1704, the Pretender, Charles III.,
together with an English and Dutch army of 12,000 men, landed
in Portugal, with the intention of entering Spain on that
side; but so far were they from accomplishing this plan that
the Spaniards, on the contrary, under the Duke of Berwick,
penetrated into Portugal, and even threatened Lisbon, but were
driven back by the Marquis das Minas. An English fleet under
Admiral Rooke, with troops under the Prince of Darmstadt, made
an ineffectual attempt on Barcelona; but were compensated for
their failure by the capture of Gibraltar on their return. The
importance of this fortress, the key of the Mediterranean, was
not then sufficiently esteemed, and its garrison had been
neglected by the Spanish Government. A party of English
sailors, taking advantage of a Saint's day, on which the
eastern portion of the fortress had been left unguarded,
scaled the almost inaccessible precipice, whilst at the same
time another party stormed the South Mole Head. The capture of
this important fortress was the work of a few hours (August
4th). Darmstadt would have claimed the place for King Charles
III., but Rooke took possession of it in the name of the Queen
of England. … The Spaniards, sensible of the importance of
Gibraltar, speedily made an effort to recover that fortress,
and as early as October 1704, it was invested by the Marquis
of Villadarias with an army of 8,000 men. The French Court
afterwards sent Marshal Tessé to supersede Villadarias, and
the siege continued till April 1705; but the brave defence of
the Prince of Darmstadt, and the defeat of the French
blockading squadron under Pointis by Admiral Leake, finally
compelled the raising of the siege."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 5; chapter 6 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of the Reign of Queen Anne,
chapter 9 (volume 2)._
_F. Sayer,
History of Gibraltar,
chapters 6-8._
SPAIN: A. D. 1704.
The War of the Succession: Blenheim.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
SPAIN: A. D. 1705.
The War of the Succession: The capture of Barcelona.
As if to exhibit, upon a different theatre of the same great
warfare, the most remarkable contrast to the patience, the
caution, and the foresight of Marlborough, … Charles Mordaunt,
earl of Peterborough, took the command of an expedition to
Spain. Macaulay calls Peterborough 'the most extraordinary
character of that age, the king of Sweden himself not
excepted, … a polite, learned and amorous Charles XII.' He
sailed from Portsmouth in June, 1705, having the command of
5,000 men; unlimited authority over the land forces, and a
divided command with Sir Cloudesley Shovel at sea. At Lisbon,
Peterborough was reinforced, and he here took on board the
arch-duke Charles, and a numerous suite. At Gibraltar he
received two veteran battalions, in exchange for the same
number of recruits which he had brought from England. The
prince of Darmstadt also here joined Peterborough. The prince
and the arch-duke desired to besiege Barcelona. Peterborough
opposed the scheme of attempting, with 7,000 men, the
reduction of a place which required 30,000 men for a regular
siege. With the squadron under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, the
fleet sailed from Gibraltar. A landing was effected near
Valencia; and here the people were found favourable to the
cause of the Austrian prince, who was proclaimed, upon the
surrender of the castle of Denia, as Charles III., king of
Spain and the Indies. Peterborough, encouraged by this
reception, conceived the enterprise of dashing upon the
capital, whilst all the Spanish forces were on the frontiers
of Portugal, or in Catalonia; and king Philip was at Madrid
with few troops. Such an exploit had every chance of success,
but Peterborough was overruled by a council of war. The troops
were landed before Barcelona on the 27th of August. In three
weeks there was nothing but dissensions amongst the great men
of this expedition. The prince of Darmstadt and the earl of
Peterborough had come to an open rupture. The Dutch officers
said their troops should not join in an enterprise so
manifestly impossible of success for a small force.
Peterborough conceived a plan of attack totally opposed to all
the routine modes of warfare. The citadel of Montjouich, built
on the summit of a ridge of hills skirting the sea, commanded
the town. Peterborough gave notice that he should raise the
siege; sent his heavy artillery on board the ships; and made
every preparation for embarking the troops. With 1,200 foot
soldiers, and 200 horse, he marched out of the camp on the
evening of the 13th of September, accompanied by the prince of
Darmstadt, whom he had invited to join him. They marched all
night by the side of the mountains; and before daybreak were
under the hill of Montjouich, and close to the outer works.
Peterborough told his officers that when they were discovered
at daylight, the enemy would descend into the outer ditch to
repel them, and that then was the time to receive their fire,
leap in upon them, drive them into the outer works, and gain
the fortress by following them close. The scheme succeeded,
and the English were soon masters of the bastion. … The
citadel held out for several days, but was finally reduced by
a bombardment from the hills, the cannon having been relanded
from the ships. The reduction of Montjouich by this
extraordinary act of daring, was very soon followed by the
surrender of Barcelona. … The possession of Barcelona, in
which king Charles III. was proclaimed with great solemnity,
was followed by the adhesion to his cause of the chief towns
of Catalonia. Peterborough was for following up his wonderful
success by other daring operations. The German ministers and
the Dutch officers opposed all his projects." He was able,
notwithstanding, to raise the siege of San Mateo and to save
Valencia from a threatened siege. "It was soon found that king
Charles was incompetent to follow up the successes which
Peterborough had accomplished for him."
_C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 38._
{2995}
The above is substantially, in brief, the account of
Peterborough's campaigns given by Mahon, Macaulay, and most of
the later historians of the War of the Succession, who drew
the narrative largely from a little book published in 1728,
called the "Military Memoirs of Captain George Carleton." The
story has been recently told, however, in a very different way
and to a very different effect, by Colonel Arthur Parnell, who
declines to accept the Carleton Memoirs as authentic history.
Those Memoirs have been judged by some critics, in·deed, to be
a pure work of fiction and attributed to De Foe. They are
included, in fact, in several editions of De Foe's works.
Colonel Parnell, who seems to have investigated the matter
thoroughly, recognizes Captain Carleton as a real personality,
and concludes that he may have furnished some kind of a
note-book or diary that was the substratum of these alleged
Memoirs; but that somebody (he suspects Dean Swift), in the
interest of Peterborough, built up on that groundwork a fabric
of fiction which has most wrongfully become accepted history.
According to Colonel Parnell, it was not Peterborough, but
Prince George of Hesse Darmstadt (killed in the assault on
Montjouich) and De Ruvigny, Earl of Galway, who were entitled
to the credit of the successes for which Peterborough has been
laurelled. "In order to extol a contemptible impostor, the
memory of this great Huguenot general [Ruvigny] has been
aspersed by Lord Macaulay and most English writers of the
present century."
_Colonel A. Parnell,
The War of the Succession in Spain,
preface, chapters 12-18; and appendix C._
ALSO IN:
_E. Warburton,
Memoir of Peterborough,
chapters 7-11 (volume 1)._
_F. S. Russell,
The Earl of Peterborough,
volume 1, chapters 7-9._
SPAIN: A. D. 1706.
The War of the Succession:
Rapid changing of kings and courts at Madrid.
"The Courts of Madrid and Versailles, exasperated and alarmed
by the fall of Barcelona, and by the revolt of the surrounding
country, determined to make a great effort. A large army,
nominally commanded by Philip, but really under the orders of
Marshal Tessé, entered Catalonia. A fleet under the Count of
Toulouse, one of the natural children of Lewis XIV., appeared
before the port of Barcelona. The city was attacked at once by
sea and land. The person of the Archduke was in considerable
danger. Peterborough, at the head of about 3,000 men, marched
with great rapidity from Valencia. To give battle, with so
small a force, to a great regular army under the conduct of a
Marshal of France, would have been madness. … His commission
from the British government gave him supreme power, not only
over the army, but, whenever he should be actually on board,
over the navy also. He put out to sea at night in an open
boat, without communicating his design to any person. He was
picked up, several leagues from the shore, by one of the ships
of the English squadron. As soon as he was on board, he
announced himself as first in command, and sent a pinnace with
his orders to the Admiral. Had these orders been given a few
hours earlier, it is probable that the whole French fleet
would have been taken. As it was, the Count of Toulouse put
out to sea. The port was open. The town was relieved. On the
following night the enemy raised the siege and retreated to
Roussillon. Peterborough returned to Valencia, a place which
he preferred to every other in Spain; and Philip, who had been
some weeks absent from his wife, could endure the misery of
separation no longer, and flew to rejoin her at Madrid. At
Madrid, however, it was impossible for him or for her to
remain. The splendid success which Peterborough had obtained
on the eastern coast of the Peninsula had inspired the
sluggish Galway with emulation. He advanced into the heart of
Spain. Berwick retreated. Alcantara, Ciuadad Rodrigo, and
Salamanca fell, and the conquerors marched towards the
capital. Philip was earnestly pressed by his advisers to
remove the seat of government to Burgos. … In the mean time
the invaders had entered Madrid in triumph, and had proclaimed
the Archduke in the streets of the imperial city. Arragon,
ever jealous of the Castilian ascendeney, followed the example
of Catalonia. Saragossa revolted without seeing an enemy. The
governor whom Philip had set over Carthagena betrayed his
trust, and surrendered to the Allies the best arsenal and the
last ships which Spain possessed. … It seemed that the
struggle had terminated in favour of the Archduke, and that
nothing remained for Philip but a prompt flight into the
dominions of his grandfather. So judged those who were
ignorant of the character and habits of the Spanish people.
There is no country in Europe which it is so easy to overrun
as Spain; there is no country in Europe which it is more
difficult to conquer. Nothing can be more contemptible than
the regular military resistance which Spain offers to an
invader; nothing more formidable than the energy which she
puts forth when her regular military resistance has been
beaten down. Her armies have long borne too much resemblance
to mobs; but her mobs have had, in an unusual degree, the
spirit of armies. … Castile, Leon, Andalusia, Estremadura,
rose at once; every peasant procured a firelock or a pike; the
Allies were masters only of the ground on which they trod. No
soldier could wander a hundred yards from the main body of the
invading army without imminent risk of being poinarded; the
country through which the conquerors had passed to Madrid, and
which, as they thought, they had subdued, was all in arms
behind them. Their communications with Portugal were cut off.
In the mean time, money began, for the first time, to flow
rapidly into the treasury of the fugitive king. … While the
Castilians were everywhere arming in the cause of Philip, the
Allies were serving that cause as effectually by their
mismanagement. Galway staid at Madrid, where his soldiers
indulged in such boundless licentiousness that one half of
them were in the hospitals. Charles remained dawdling in
Catalonia. Peterborough had taken Requena, and wished to march
from Valencia towards Madrid, and to effect a junction with
Galway; but the Archduke refused his consent to the plan.
{2996}
The indignant general remained accordingly in his favourite
city, on the beautiful shores of the Mediterranean, reading
Don Quixote, giving balls and suppers, trying in vain to get
some good sport out of the Valencian bulls, and making love,
not in vain, to the Valencian women. At length the Archduke
advanced into Castile, and ordered Peterborough to join him.
But it was too late. Berwick had already compelled Galway to
evacuate Madrid; and, when the whole force of the Allies was
collected at Quadalaxara, it was found to be decidedly
inferior in numbers to that of the enemy. Peterborough formed
a plan for regaining possession of the capital. His plan was
rejected by Charles. The patience of the sensitive and
vain-glorious hero was worn out. He had none of that serenity
of temper which enabled Marlborough to act in perfect harmony
with Eugene, and to endure the vexatious interference of the
Dutch deputies. He demanded permission to leave the army,
Permission was readily granted; and he set out for Italy. …
From that moment to the end of the campaign, the tide of
fortune ran strong against the Austrian cause. Berwick had
placed his army between the Allies and the frontiers of
Portugal. They retreated on Valencia, and arrived in that
province, leaving about 10,000 prisoners in the hands of the
enemy."
_Lord Macaulay,
Mahon's War of the Succession (Essays)._
In the Netherlands the Allies won the important victory of
Ramillies, and in Italy, Prince Eugene inflicted a sore defeat
on the French and rescued Turin.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1706-1707;
and ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713.
ALSO IN:
_C. T. Wilson,
The Duke of Berwick,
chapters 5-6._
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapter 14 (volume 1)._
SPAIN: A. D. 1707.
The War of the Succession:
The fortunes of the Bourbons retrieved at Almanza.
"The enemy [the Allies] began to move again in February. After
some weeks of manœuvring on the confines of the kingdom of
Valencia and of New Castile, April 25, Galway and Las Minas,
wishing to anticipate the arrival of a reinforcement expected
from France, attacked Berwick at Almanza. Singularly enough,
the English were commanded by a French refugee (Ruvigni, Earl
of Galway), and the French by a royal bastard of England [the
Duke of Berwick, natural son of James II.]. The enemy
numbered, it is said, 26,000 foot and 7,000 horse; the
Franco-Castilians were somewhat inferior in infantry, somewhat
superior in cavalry and artillery." The battle, decided by the
cavalry, was disastrous to the Allies. "The English, Dutch and
Portuguese infantry were cut to pieces: the Portuguese foot
showed a courage less fortunate, but not less intrepid, than
the Spanish cavalry. Another corps had fought with still
greater fury, —the French refugees, commanded by Jean
Cavalier, the renowned Camisard chieftain. They had engaged a
French regiment, and the two corps had almost destroyed each
other. Six battalions were surrounded and taken in a body.
Thirteen other battalions, five English, five Dutch, and three
Portuguese, retired, at evening, to a wooded hill; seeing
themselves cut off from the mountains of Valencia, they
surrendered themselves prisoners the next morning. Hochstadt
[Blenheim] was fully avenged. Five thousand dead, nearly
10,000 prisoners, 24 cannon, 120 flags or standards, were
purchased on the part of the conquerors by the loss of only
about 2,000 men. Many Frenchmen, taken at Hochstadt or at
Ramillies, and enrolled by force in the ranks of the enemies,
were delivered by the victory. The Duke of Orleans reached the
army the next day. … He marched with Berwick on Valencia,
which surrendered, May 8, without striking a blow. The
generals of the enemies, both wounded, retired with the wrecks
of their armies towards the mouths of the Ebro. The whole
kingdom of Valencia submitted, with the exception of three or
four places. Berwick followed the enemy towards the mouth of
the Ebro, whilst Orleans returned to meet a French corps that
was coming by the way of Navarre, and with this corps entered
Aragon. Nearly all Aragon yielded without resistance. Berwick
joined Orleans by ascending the Ebro; they moved together on
the Segre and began the blockade of Lerida, the bulwark of
Catalonia." Lerida was taken by storm on the 12th of October,
and "pillaged with immense booty. … The castle of Lerida
surrendered, November 11. A great part of the Catalan
mountaineers laid down their arms. … Fortune had favored the
Franco-Castilians on the Portuguese frontier as in the States
of Aragon; Ciudad-Rodrigo had been taken by assault, October
4, with the loss of more than 3,000 men on the side of the
enemy. The news of Almanza had everywhere reanimated the
hearts of the French armies."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_Colonel A. Parnell,
The War of the Succession in Spain,
chapters 23-26._
_C. T. Wilson,
The Duke of Berwick,
chapter 7._
SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
The War of the Succession:
Bourbon reverses and final triumph.
"In less than a month after the victory of Almanza, the
Bourbon troops had recovered all Arragon, with Valencia and
Murcia, excepting the ports of Denia and Alicant; but the war
still continued in Catalonia, where General Stanhope now
filled the double office of ambassador to Charles and general
of the English forces, and prince Staremberg was sent by the
emperor Joseph to take the command of the Austrian troops. The
Spanish government was reduced to still greater pecuniary
distress than it had suffered before, by the success of the
English squadron off Carthagena, under the command of Sir
Charles Wager, which took three of the great galleons and
dispersed fourteen, which were expected to furnish an unusual
supply of the precious metals from America. After a short
siege of Port Mahon, General Stanhope took possession of
Minorca and Majorca [A. D. 1708]; the count of Cifuentes
gained Sardinia; and all the efforts, spirit, and talents of
the duke of Orleans were insufficient to make the slightest
impression in Catalonia. He consequently complained, in his
letters to Versailles, that his operations were thwarted or
retarded by the intrigues of the Princess Orsini and the
ambassador Amelot. He was accused in return, and that not
without reason, of forming designs on the crown of Spain, and
corresponding with the enemies of Philip on the subject. The
fortunes of France and Spain still continued to decline, and
Louis felt that peace was the only measure which could stop
the progress of that ruin which menaced the house of Bourbon.
Conferences were accordingly opened at the Hague, and Louis
pretended that he was willing to give up the interest of
Philip; at the same time his grandson himself protested that
he would never quit Spain, or yield his title to its crown. …
{2997}
The disastrous campaign of 1710 rendered Louis more desirous
than ever of obtaining peace, and though his professions of
abandoning his grandson were insincere, he certainly would not
have scrupled to sacrifice the Spanish Netherlands and the
American commerce to Holland, as the price of an advantageous
peace to France. Meantime the Austrians had gained the
victories of Almenara and Zaragoza, and had once more driven
the Spanish court from Madrid. This time it fled to
Valladolid, and the king and queen talked of taking refuge in
America, and re-establishing the empire of Mexico or Peru,
rather than abandon their throne. But the Castilians once more
roused themselves to defend the king; the duke of Vendome's
arrival supplied their greatest want, that of a skilful
general; and the imprudence of the allies facilitated the
recovery of the capital. The disasters of the allies began
with their retreat; Staremburg, after a doubtful though bloody
battle [Villa Viciosa, December 10, 1710], at the end of which
he was victor, was yet obliged to retire with the
disadvantages of defeat; and Stanhope, with a small body of
English, after a desperate resistance [at Brihuega, December
9, 1710], was taken prisoner."
_M. Callcott,
Short History of Spain,
chapter 22 (volume 2)._
"As the result of the actions at Brihuega and Villa Viciosa
and the subsequent retreat, the Austrians lost 3,600 killed or
wounded, and 3,036 prisoners, or a total of 7,536 men; whilst
the Bourbon casualties were 6,700 placed hors-de-combat, and
100 captured, or in all 6,800 men. These operations
constituted a decisive victory for Vendôme, who thus, in less
than four months after the battle of Saragossa, had
re-established King Philip and the Bourbon cause."
_Colonel A. Parnell,
The War of the Succession in Spain,
chapters 27-34._
ALSO IN:
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapters 15-18 (volumes 1-2)._
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of the War of Succession in Spain,
chapters 6-8._
SPAIN: A. D. 1711.
The Austrian claimant of the throne becomes Emperor.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.
SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
The betrayal of the Catalans.
"Alone among the Spaniards the Catalans had real reason to
regret the peace. They had clung to the cause of Charles with
a desperate fidelity, and the Peace of Utrecht rang the
death-knell of provincial liberties to which they were
passionately attached. From the beginning of 1705 they had
been the steady and faithful allies of England; they had again
and again done eminent service in her cause; they had again
and again received from her ministers and generals the most
solemn assurances that they would never be abandoned. When
England first opened a separate negotiation for peace she
might easily have secured the Catalonian liberties by making
their recognition an indispensable preliminary of peace; but,
instead of this, the English ministers began by recognising
the title of Philip, and contented themselves with a simple
prayer that a general amnesty might be granted. When the
convention was signed for the evacuation of Catalonia by the
Imperial troops, the question of the provincial liberties was
referred to the definite peace, the Queen and the French King
promising at that time to interpose their good offices to
secure them. The Emperor, who was bound to the Catalans by the
strongest ties of gratitude and honour, could have easily
obtained a guarantee of their fueros at the price of an
acknowledgment of the title of Philip; but he was too proud
and too selfish for such a sacrifice. The English, it is true,
repeatedly urged the Spanish King to guarantee these
privileges, … but these were mere representations, supported
by no action, and were therefore peremptorily refused. The
English peace with Spain contained a clause granting the
Catalans a general armistice, and also a promise that they
should be placed in the same position as the Castilians, which
gave them the right of holding employments and carrying on a
direct trade with the West Indies, but it made no mention of
their provincial privileges. The Peace of Rastadt was equally
silent, for the dignity of the Emperor would not suffer him to
enter into any negotiations with Philip. The unhappy people,
abandoned by those whom they had so faithfully served, refused
to accept the position offered them by treaty, and, much to
the indignation of the English Government, they still
continued in arms, struggling with a desperate courage against
overwhelming odds. The King of Spam then called upon the
Queen, as a guarantee of the treaty of evacuation, 'to order a
squadron of her ships to reduce his subjects to their
obedience, and thereby complete the tranquillity of Spain and
of the Mediterranean commerce.' A fleet was actually
despatched, which would probably have been employed against
Barcelona, but for an urgent address of the House of Lords,
and the whole moral weight of England was thrown into the
scale against the insurgents. The conduct of the French was
more decided. Though the French King had engaged himself with
the Queen by the treaty of evacuation to use his good offices
in the most effectual manner in favour of the Catalan
liberties, he now sent an army to hasten the capture of
Barcelona. The blockade of that noble city lasted for more
than a year. The insurgents hung up over the high altar the
Queen's solemn declaration to protect them. They continued the
hopeless struggle till 14,000 bombs had been thrown into the
city; till a great part of it had been reduced to ashes; till
seven breaches had been made; till 10,000 of the besieging
army had been killed or wounded; and till famine had been
added to the horrors of war. At last, on September 11, 1714,
Barcelona was taken by storm. A frightful massacre took place
in the streets. Many of the inhabitants were afterwards
imprisoned or transported, and the old privileges of Catalonia
were finally abolished. Such was the last scene of this
disastrous war."
_W. E. R. Lecky,
History of England, 18th century,
chapter 1 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
_C. T. Wilson,
The Duke of Berwick,
chapter 21._
{2998}
SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
Continued war with the Emperor.
The Triple Alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance.
The Peace of Vienna.
The Alliance of Hanover.
"The treaty of Utrecht, although it had tranquilized a great
part of Europe, was nevertheless defective, in as far as it
had not reconciled the Emperor and the King of Spain, the two
principal claimants to the Spanish succession. The Emperor
Charles VI. did not recognize Philip V. in his quality of King
of Spain; and Philip, in his turn [instigated by his queen,
Elizabeth Farnese—see ITALY:' A. D. 1715-1735] refused to
acquiesce in those partitions of the Spanish monarchy which
the treaty of Utrecht had stipulated in favour of the Emperor.
To defeat the projects and secret intrigues of the Spanish
minister [Cardinal Alberoni], the Duke of Orleans [Regent of
France], thought of courting an alliance with England, as
being the power most particularly interested in maintaining
the treaty of Utrecht, the fundamental articles of which had
been dictated by herself. That alliance, into which the United
Provinces also entered, was concluded at the Hague (January
4th, 1717). … Cardinal Alberoni, without being in the least
disconcerted by the Triple Alliance, persisted in his design
of recommencing the war. No sooner had he recruited the
Spanish forces, and equipped an expedition, than he attacked
Sardinia [1717], which he took from the Emperor. This conquest
was followed by that of Sicily, which the Spaniards took from
the Duke of Savoy (1718). France and England, indignant at the
infraction of a treaty which they regarded as their own work,
immediately concluded with the Emperor, at London (August 2nd,
1718) the famous Quadruple Alliance, which contained the plan
of a treaty of peace, to be made between the Emperor, the King
of Spain, and the Duke of Savoy. The allied powers engaged to
obtain the consent of the parties interested in this proposal,
and, in case of refusal, to compel them by force of arms. The
Emperor was to renounce his right to the Spanish crown, and to
acknowledge Philip V. as the legitimate King of Spain, in
consideration of that prince renouncing the provinces of Italy
and the Netherlands, which the treaty of Utrecht and the
quadruple alliance adjudged to the Emperor. The Duke of Savoy
was to cede Sicily to Austria, receiving Sardinia in exchange,
which the King of Spam was to disclaim. The right of reversion
to the crown of Spain was transferred from Sicily to Sardinia.
That treaty likewise granted to Don Carlos, eldest son of
Philip V., by his second marriage, the eventual reversion and
investiture of the duchies of Parma and Placentia, as well as
the grand duchy of Tuscany, on condition of holding them as
fiefs-male of the Emperor and the Empire after the decease of
the last male issue of the families of Farnese and Medici, who
were then in possession. …. The Duke of Savoy did not hesitate
to subscribe the conditions of the quadruple alliance; but it
was otherwise with the King of Spain, who persisted in his
refusal; when France and England declared war against him. The
French invaded the provinces of Guipuscoa and Catalonia [under
Berwick, A. D. 1710], while the English seized Gallicia and
the port of Vigo. These vigorous proceedings shook the
resolutions of the King of Spain. He signed the quadruple
alliance, and banished the Cardinal Alberoni from his court,
the adviser of those measures of which the allies complained.
The Spanish troops then evacuated Sicily and Sardinia, when
the Emperor took possession of the former and Victor Amadeus,
Duke of Savoy, of the latter. The war to all appearance was at
an end." But fresh difficulties arose, one following another.
The reversion of Tuscany, Parma, and Placentia, promised to
the Infant of Spain, was stoutly opposed in Italy. The Emperor
provoked commercial jealousies in England and Holland by
chartering a Company of Ostend (1722) with exclusive
privileges of trading to the East and West Indies and the
coasts of Africa. An attempted congress at Cambrai was long
retarded and finally broken up. Meantime the French court gave
mortal offense to the King of Spain by sending home his
daughter, who had been the intended bride of the young King
Louis XV., and marrying the latter to a Polish princess. The
final result was to draw the Emperor and the King of Spain—
the two original enemies in the embroilment—together, and a
treaty between them was concluded at Vienna, April 30, 1725.
"This treaty renewed the renunciation of Philip V. to the
provinces of Italy and the Netherlands, as well as that of the
Emperor to Spain and the Indies. The eventual investiture of
the duchies of Parma and Placentia, and that of the grand
duchy of Tuscany, were also confirmed. The only new clause
contained in the treaty was that by which the King of Spain
undertook to guarantee the famous Pragmatic Sanction of
Charles VI., which secured to the daughter of that prince the
succession of all his estates. It was chiefly on this account
that Philip V. became reconciled to the court of Vienna. The
peace of Vienna was accompanied by a defensive alliance
between the Emperor and the King of Spain." The terms of the
alliance were such as to alarm England for the security of her
hold on Gibraltar and Minorca, and Holland for her commerce,
besides giving uneasiness to France. By the action of the
latter, a league was set on foot "capable of counteracting
that of Vienna, which was concluded at Herrenhausen, near
Hanover, (September 3, 1725) and is known by the name of the
Alliance of Hanover. All Europe was divided between these two
alliances."
_C. W. Koch,
The Revolutions of Europe, period 8._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
volume 1, chapters 7-10._
_G. P. R. James,
Eminent Foreign Statesmen,
volume 4: Alberoni._
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapters 22-30._
_E. Armstrong,
Elisabeth Farnese. "The Termagant of Spain."
chapters 2-10._
SPAIN: A. D. 1714.
The Peace of Utrecht.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.
SPAIN: A. D. 1725-1740.
The Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.
SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
Fresh quarrels with England.
Siege of Gibraltar.
Treaty of Seville.
Second Treaty of Vienna.
Acquisition of the Italian Duchies.
"All Europe became divided between the alliances of Vienna and
Hanover; and though both sides pretended that these treaties
were only defensive, yet each made extensive preparations for
war. George I. entered into a treaty with the Landgrave of
Hesse Cassel for the supply of 12,000 men; manifests were
published, ambassadors withdrawn, armies put on foot; the sea
was covered with English fleets; an English squadron under
Admiral Hosier annoyed the trade of Spain; and in February
1727, the Spaniards laid siege to Gibraltar, and seized at
Vera Cruz a richly laden merchant vessel belonging to the
English South Sea Company. But all these vast preparations led
to no results of importance. Of all the European Powers, Spain
alone had any real desire for war. …
{2999}
The preliminaries of a general pacification were signed at
Paris, May 31st 1727, by the ministers of the Emperor, France,
Great Britain, and Holland, and a Congress was appointed to
assemble at Aix-la-Chapelle to arrange a definitive peace. But
Spain still held aloof and sought every opportunity to
temporise. The hopes of Philip being again awakened by the
death of George I. in July 1727, he renewed his intrigues with
the Jacobites, and instigated the Pretender to proceed to a
port in the Low Countries, and to seize an opportunity to pass
over into England. But these unfounded expectations were soon
dispelled by the quiet accession of George II. to the throne
and policy of his father. … The Spanish Queen [Elizabeth
Farnese], however, still held out; till, alarmed by the
dangerous state of Philip's health, whose death might
frustrate her favourite scheme of obtaining the Italian
duchies, and leave her a mere cypher without any political
influence, she induced her husband to accept the preliminaries
by the Act of the Pardo, March 6th 1728. A congress was now
opened at Soissons, to which place it had been transferred for
the convenience of Fleury [French minister], who was bishop of
that diocese. But though little remained to be arranged except
the satisfaction of Spain in the matter of the Italian
duchies, the negociations were tedious and protracted." In the
end they "became a mere farce, and the various
plenipotentiaries gradually withdrew from the Congress.
Meanwhile the birth of a Dauphin (September 4th 1729) having
dissipated the hopes of Philip V. and his Queen as to the
French succession, Elizabeth devoted herself all the more
warmly to the prosecution of her Italian schemes; and finding
all her efforts to separate France and England unavailing, she
at length determined to accept what they offered. … She
persuaded Philip to enter into a separate treaty with France
and England, which was concluded at Seville, November 9th
1729. England and Spain arranged their commercial and other
differences; the succession of Don Carlos to the Italian
duchies was guaranteed; and it was agreed that Leghorn, Porto
Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza should be garrisoned by 6,000
Spaniards, who, however, were not to interfere with the civil
government. Nothing more was said about Gibraltar. Philip,
indeed, seemed now to have abandoned all hope of recovering
that fortress; for he soon afterwards caused to be constructed
across the isthmus the strong lines of San Roque, and thus
completely isolated Gibraltar from his Spanish dominions. The
Dutch acceded to the Treaty of Seville shortly after its
execution, on the understanding that they should receive
entire satisfaction respecting the India Company established
by the Emperor at Ostend. Charles VI. was indignant at being
thus treated by Spain. … On the death of Antonio Farnese, Duke
of Parma, January 10th 1731, he took military possession of
that state. … The versatility of the cabinets of that age,
however, enabled the Emperor to attain his favourite object at
a moment when he least expected it. The Queen of Spain,
wearied with the slowness of Cardinal Fleury in carrying out
the provisions of the Treaty of Seville, suddenly declared, in
a fit of passion, that Spain was no longer bound by that
treaty (January 1731). Great Britain and the Dutch States, in
concert with the Spanish Court, without the concurrence of
France, now entered into negociations with the Emperor, which
were skilfully conducted by Lord Waldegrave, to induce him to
accede to the Treaty of Seville; and, on March 16th 1731, was
concluded what has been called the Second Treaty of Vienna.
Great Britain and the States guaranteed the Pragmatic
Sanction; and the Emperor, on his side, acceded to the
provisions of Seville respecting the Italian duchies, and
agreed to annihilate the commerce of the Austrian Netherlands
with the Indies by abolishing the obnoxious Ostend Company. He
also engaged not to bestow his daughter on a Bourbon prince,
or in any other way that might endanger the balance of power
in Europe. … In the following November an English squadron
disembarked at Leghorn 6,000 Spaniards, who took possession of
that place, as well as Porto Ferrajo, Parma, and Piacenza, in
the name of Don Carlos, as Duke of Parma and presumptive heir
of Tuscany."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 1 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 14-15 (volume 2)._
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 88 (volume 3)._
_W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapters 36-40 (volume 3)._
_E. Armstrong,
Elisabeth Farnese, "The Termagant of Spain,"
chapters 11-14._
SPAIN: A. D. 1733.
The First Bourbon Family Compact (France and Spain).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.
SPAIN: A. D. 1734-1735.
Acquisition of Naples and Sicily,
as a kingdom for Don Carlos.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.
SPAIN: A. D. 1739.
Outbreak of hostilities with England.
The War of Jenkins' Ear.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.
SPAIN: A. D. 1740.
Unsuccessful attack of the English on Florida.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
SPAIN: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
SPAIN: A. D. 1741-1747.
The War of the Austrian Succession: Operations in Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747.
SPAIN: A. D. 1743.
The Second Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
Arrangements concerning Italy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1746.
Accession of Ferdinand VI.
SPAIN: A. D. 1748.
Termination and results of the
War of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
SPAIN: A. D. 1759.
Accession of Charles III.
SPAIN: A. D. 1761-1762.
The Third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
England declares War.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).
SPAIN: A. D. 1762-1763.
Havana lost and recovered.
See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
SPAIN: A. D. 1763.
End and results of the Seven Years War.
Florida ceded to Great Britain.
Louisiana acquired from France.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.
SPAIN: A. D. 1766-1769.
Occupation of Louisiana.
The revolt of New Orleans and its suppression.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768; and 1769.
SPAIN: A. D. 1767.
Suppression of the order of the Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.
SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1781.
Reconquest of West Florida.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.
SPAIN: A. D. 1779-1782.
The unsuccessful siege of Gibraltar.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
{3000}
SPAIN: A. D. 1782.
Aims and interests in the settlement of peace between
Great Britain and the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1783-1800.
The question of Florida boundaries and of the navigation
of the Mississippi, in dispute with the United States.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
SPAIN: A. D. 1788.
Accession of Charles IV.
SPAIN: A. D. 1791-1793.
The Coalition against revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;
1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
and 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1793.
Successes on the French frontier.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)
PROGRESS OF THE WAR.
SPAIN: A. D. 1794.
French successes in the Pyrenees.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
SPAIN: A. D. 1795.
Peace and alliance with the French Republic.
Cession of Spanish San Domingo.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1797.
Naval defeat by the English off Cape St. Vincent.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
SPAIN: A. D. 1797.
Cession of western part of Hayti, or San Domingo, to France.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
SPAIN: A. D. 1801.
Re-cession of Louisiana to France.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
SPAIN: A. D. 1802.
The Peace of Amiens.
Recovery of Minorca and Port Mahon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
SPAIN: A. D. 1805.
The naval defeat at Trafalgar.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.
Napoleon's plots for the theft of the Spanish crown.
The popular rising.
Accession of Ferdinand VII.
"For more than ten years Spain had been drawn in the wake of
revolutionary France. To Napoleon from the beginning of his
reign she had been as subservient as Holland or Switzerland;
she had made war and peace at his bidding, had surrendered
Trinidad to make the treaty of Amiens, had given her fleet to
destruction at Trafalgar. In other states equally subservient,
such as Holland and the Italian Republic, Napoleon had
remodelled the government at his pleasure, and in the end had
put his own family at the head of it. After Tilsit he thought
himself strong enough to make a similar change in Spain, and
the occupation of Portugal seemed to afford the opportunity of
doing this. By two conventions signed at Fontainebleau on
October 27, the partition of Portugal was arranged with Spain.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
The Prince of the Peace was to become a sovereign prince of
the Algarves, the King of Spain was to have Brazil with the
title of Emperor of the two Americas, &c.; but the main
provision was that a French army was to stand on the threshold
of Spain ready to resist any intervention of England. The
occupation of Portugal took place soon after, Junot arriving
at Lisbon on November 30, just as the royal family with a
following of several thousands set sail for Brazil under
protection of the English fleet. At the same time there
commenced in defiance of all treaties a passage of French
troops into Spain, which continued until 80,000 had arrived,
and had taken quiet possession of a number of Spanish
fortresses. At last Murat was appointed to the command of the
army of Spain. He entered the country on March 1, 1808, and
marched on Madrid, calculating that the king would retire and
take refuge at Seville or Cadiz. This act revealed to the
world, and even to a large party among the French themselves,
the nature of the power which had been created at Tilsit. The
lawless acts of Napoleon's earlier life were palliated by the
name of the French Revolution, and since Brumaire he had
established a character for comparative moderation. But here
was naked violence without the excuse of fanaticism; and on
what a scale! One of the greater states of Europe was in the
hands of a burglar, who would moreover, if successful, become
king not only of Spain but of a boundless empire in the New
World. The sequel was worse even than this commencement,
although the course which events took seems to show that by
means of a little delay he might have attained his end without
such open defiance of law. The administration of Spain had
long been in the contemptible hands of Manuel Godoy, supposed
to be the queen's lover, yet at the same time high in the
favor of King Charles IV. Ferdinand, the heir apparent, headed
an opposition, but in character he was not better than the
trio he opposed, and he had lately been put under arrest on
suspicion of designs upon his father's life. To have fomented
this opposition without taking either side, and to have
rendered both sides equally contemptible to the Spanish
people, was Napoleon's game. The Spanish people, who
profoundly admired him, might then have been induced to ask
him for a king. Napoleon, however, perpetrated his crime
before the scandal of the palace broke out. The march of Murat
now brought it to a head. On March 17 a tumult broke out at
Aranjuez, which led to the fall of the favourite, and then to
the abdication of the king, and the proclamation of Ferdinand
amid universal truly Spanish enthusiasm. It was a fatal
mistake to have forced on this popular explosion, and Napoleon
has characteristically tried to conceal it by a supposititious
letter, dated March 29, in which he tries to throw the blame
upon Murat, to whom the letter professes to be addressed. It
warns Murat against rousing Spanish patriotism and creating an
opposition of the nobles and clergy, which will lead to a
'levée en masse,' and to a war without end. It predicts, in
short, all that took place, but it has every mark of
invention, and was certainly never received by Murat. The
reign of Ferdinand having thus begun, all that the French
could do was to abstain from acknowledging him, and to
encourage Charles to withdraw his abdication as given under
duress. By this means it became doubtful who was king of
Spain, and Napoleon, having carefully refrained from taking a
side, now presented himself as arbiter. Ferdinand was induced
to betake himself to Napoleon's presence at Bayonne, where he
arrived on April 21; his father and mother followed on the
30th. Violent scenes took place between father and son: news
arrived of an insurrection at Madrid and of the stern
suppression of it by Murat. In the end Napoleon succeeded in
extorting the abdication both of Charles and Ferdinand. It was
learned too late that the insurrection of Spain had not really
been suppressed.
{3001}
This crime, as clumsy as it was monstrous, brought on that
great popular insurrection of Europe against the universal
monarchy, which has profoundly modified all subsequent
history, and makes the Anti-Napoleonic Revolution an event of
the same order as the French Revolution. A rising unparalleled
for its suddenness and sublime spontaneousness took place
throughout Spain and speedily found a response in Germany. A
new impulse was given, out of which grew the great nationality
movement of the nineteenth century."
_J. R. Seeley,
Short History of Napoleon I.,
chapter 5, lecture 1._
ALSO IN:
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1800-1815,
chapter 52 (volume 11)._
_R. Southey,
History of the Peninsular War,
chapters 2-5 (volume 1)._
_M. de Bourrienne,
Private Memoirs of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapter 32._
_P. Lanfrey,
History of Napoleon,
volume 3, chapters 4 and 6-8._
SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (May-September).
The stolen crown conferred on Joseph Bonaparte.
National revolt.
Organization of Juntas and planning of guerilla war.
French reverses.
Quick flight of Joseph Bonaparte from Madrid.
Arrival of English forces to aid the people.
"Murat was disappointed of the crown of Spain, on which he had
fixed his hopes. It had been refused with surprise and
indignation by Napoleon's brother Louis, who wore reluctantly
even that of Holland, but was unwilling to exchange it for a
still deeper royal servitude. Joseph Bonaparte, however,
consented to abandon his more tranquil throne of Naples for
the dangers and discontents which surrounded that of Spain.
Napoleon, who had nominated him to it June 6th, was desirous
of procuring at least the apparent consent of the Spanish
nation. The Council of Castile, the chief political body of
Spain, when informed of the Treaties of Bayonne, was at last
induced to give a cold and reluctant assent to the accession
of Joseph. Its example was followed by the Supreme Junta and
the municipality of Madrid. There was, indeed, no alternative
but war. Ferdinand displayed on the occasion all the baseness
of his soul in its true colours. He not only wrote to Napoleon
to express his satisfaction at the elevation of Joseph, he
even addressed a letter of congratulation to the man who had
usurped his crown! thus testifying under his own hand his
utter unworthiness to wear it. A Junta of 150 Spanish
notables, which had been summoned to Bayonne, accepted a
constitution proposed by Napoleon, July 7th, and a day or two
after Joseph left Bayonne for Madrid. He had signed on the 5th
a treaty with his brother Napoleon, by which he renounced the
crown of Naples, made, as King of Spain, a perpetual offensive
alliance with France, fixed the number of troops and ships to
be provided by each nation, and agreed to the establishment of
a commercial system. By an act called Constitutional Statute,
July 15th, the vacant throne of Naples was bestowed upon
Joachim Murat. Ferdinand had found means to despatch from
Bayonne a proclamation addressed to the Asturians, and dated
May 8th, in which he called upon them to assert their
independence and never to submit to the perfidious enemy who
had deprived him of his rights. This letter naturally made a
great impression on a proud and sensitive people; nor was its
effect diminished by another proclamation which Ferdinand and
his brothers were compelled to sign at Bordeaux, May 12th,
calling upon the Spaniards not to oppose 'the beneficent
views' of Napoleon. At this last address, evidently extorted
from a prisoner, a general cry of indignation arose in Spain;
the people everywhere flew to arms, except where prevented by
the presence of French troops. The city of Valencia renounced
its obedience to the Government of Madrid, May 23rd; Seville
followed its example; and on the 27th, Joseph Palafox
organised at Saragossa the insurrection of Aragon. As these
insurrections were accompanied with frightful massacres,
principally of persons who had held high civil or military
posts under Charles IV., the better classes, to put an end to
these horrible scenes, established central Juntas in the
principal towns. … They proposed not to meet the enemy in
pitched battles in the open field, but to harass, wear out,
and overcome him by 'guerilla,' or the discursive and
incessant attacks of separate small bands. The Supreme Junta
issued instructions for conducting this mode of warfare.
Andalusia was better fitted for organising the revolt, if such
it can be called, than any other province of Spain. Its
population formed one-fifth of the whole nation, it possessed
the sole cannon-foundry in the kingdom, it contained half the
disposable Spanish army, and it could receive assistance from
the English both by means of Gibraltar and of Collingwood's
fleet that was cruising on the coast. One of the first feats
of arms of the Spaniards was to compel the surrender of five
French ships of the line and a frigate, which had remained in
the port of Cadiz ever since the battle of Trafalgar (June
14th). Marshal Moncey was repulsed towards the end of June in
an advance upon Valencia, and compelled to retreat upon Madrid
with a loss of one-third of his men. In the north-west the
Spaniards were less fortunate. Cuesta, with a corps of 25,000
men, was defeated by Marshal Bessières, July 14th, at Medina
del Rio Seco. The consequence of this victory was the
temporary submission of Leon, Palencia, Valladolid, Zamora,
and Salamanca to the French. But this misfortune was more than
counterbalanced by the victory of General Castaños over the
French in Andalusia, a few days after. Generals Dupont and
Vedel had advanced into that province as far as Cordova, but
they were defeated by Castaños with the army of Andalusia at
Baylen, July 20th. On this occasion, the commencement of the
French reverses in Spain, 18,000 French soldiers laid down
their arms. Joseph Bonaparte found it prudent to leave Madrid
August 1st, which he had only entered on the day of the
battle, and fly to Burgos. This important victory not only
inspired the Spaniards with confidence, but also caused them
to be regarded in Europe as a substantive Power. On the day
after the battle Castaños issued a proclamation which does him
great honour. He invoked the Spaniards to show humanity
towards the French prisoners of war, and threatened to shoot
those who should maltreat them. Such, however, was the
exasperation of the people against their invaders, that
numbers of the French were massacred on their route to Cadiz
for embarkation, and the remainder were treated with barbarous
inhumanity. These cruelties had, however, been provoked by the
atrocities of the French at the capture and sack of Cordova.
The campaign in Aragon was still more glorious for the
Spaniards.
{3002}
Palafox, whether or not he was the poltroon described by
Napier, had at all events the merit of organising, out of
almost nothing, the means by which the French were repulsed in
several desperate assaults upon Saragossa, and at length
compelled to retreat after a siege of some weeks (August
14th). The patriot cause was soon after strengthened by the
arrival at Corunna of General La Romana, with 7,000 of his men
from Denmark (September 20th). Keats, the English admiral in
the Baltic, had in·formed him of the rising of his countrymen
and provided him the means to transport his troops from
Nyborg. The English Government, soon after the breaking out of
the insurrection, had proclaimed a peace with the Spanish
nation (July 4th 1808), and had prepared to assist them in
their heroic struggle. The example of Spain had also
encouraged the Portuguese to throw off the insufferable yoke
of the French. A Junta was established at Oporto, June 6th,
and an insurrection was organised in all parts of the kingdom
where the French forces were not predominant. Sir Arthur
Wellesley, with about 10,000 British troops, landed at Mondego
Bay, July 31st."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 7, chapter 14 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_T. Hamilton,
Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,
volume 1, chapters 4-10._
_Baron Jomini,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 12 (volume 2)._
_General Foy,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
volume 2, part 1._
_Count Miot de Melito,
Memoirs,
chapters 23-28._
SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (September-December).
Napoleon's overwhelming campaign against the Spanish armies.
Joseph reinstated at Madrid.
The French disasters in the Peninsula shook the belief in
Napoleon's invincibility which had prevailed throughout the
Continent, and the Emperor saw that he must crush the
Spaniards at once, before the English could advance from the
fortified base they had acquired on the flank of the Spanish
plains. To secure his power on the side of Germany, he had a
prolonged interview with the Czar at Erfurt. … On the 14th
October the two Emperors parted; and at the end of the month
Napoleon set out from Paris for Bayonne, and continued his
journey to Vitoria. In September the French had evacuated
Tudela and Burgos, and had been driven from Bilbao by General
Joachim Blake [a Spanish officer of Irish descent]. But such
vast reinforcements had been poured across the Pyrenees, that
the French armies in Spain now numbered 250,000 men, and of
these 180,000 were drawn up behind the Ebro. On the last day
of October Lefevre re-took Bilbao; and Blake, after a defeat
at Tornosa, fell back upon Espinosa, where Napoleon, upon his
arrival, directed Marshal Victor … and Lefevre to assail him
with 40,000 men. The Spaniards, though numbering only 25,000,
held their ground till the morning of the second day's
fighting (11th November). With one part of the fugitives Blake
made a stand at Reynosa on the 13th against Marshal Soult, who
had achieved a victory over Belvedere at Burgos on the 10th;
but they were again broken, and fled to the mountains of the
Cantabrian chain. With the other part of the fugitives, about
10,000, the Marquis of La Romana made his way into Leon.
Castaños and Palafox had a united force of 43,000 men and 40
guns; but they were wrangling over their plans when Marshal
Lannes, the intrepid Duke of Montebello, … appeared with
35,000 men, and broke their centre at Tudela. But on the
Spanish left, the troops who had conquered at Baylen not only
maintained their ground with obstinacy, but drove back the
French. At length they were outnumbered, and Castaños fell
back in admirable order upon Madrid through Calatayud. The
right, under Palafox, retired in disorder to Saragossa; and
now the road to Madrid was blocked only by General San Juan
with 12,000 men, who had entrenched the Somo Sierra Pass. But
this post also was carried on the 30th November by the Polish
lancers of the Imperial Guard, who rode up and speared the
artillerymen at their guns. Aranjuez was at once abandoned by
the central Junta, and on the 2nd December the French vanguard
appeared on the heights north of Madrid. The capital became at
once a scene of tumult and confusion: barricades were erected,
and the bells sounded the alarm, but no discipline was visible
in the assembling bands; and when the heights of the Retiro,
overlooking the city, were carried by the French on the
morning of the 3rd December, the authorities sent out to
arrange a surrender. On the following morning … the French
entered the city, Joseph was again installed in the palace,
where deputations waited upon him to congratulate him and
renew their professions of devoted attachment, and the city
settled down once more to tranquil submission to the
foreigner."
_H. R. Clinton,
The War in the Peninsula,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_General Vane (Marquis of Londonderry),
Story of the Peninsular War,
chapter 8._
SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (August-January).
Wellington's first campaign.
Convention of Cintra.
Evacuation of Portugal by the French.
Napoleon in the field.
Sir John Moore's advance into Spain.
His retreat.
His repulse of Soult at Corunna.
His death.
"Sir Arthur Wellesley's division comprised 9,000 men. Another
corps, under Sir John Moore, which had just arrived from the
Baltic, numbered 11,000 men. These two detachments were to
co-operate. But their united efforts were to be directed by
Sir Hew Dalrymple and Sir Harry Burrard, two generals whose
exploits were better known in the private records of the Horse
Guards than in the annals of their country. … Sir Arthur
Wellesley landed his troops at Figuiera, a difficult task on
an iron coast. On the 7th of August, major-general Spencer's
corps joined the army. With 10,000 British and 5,000
Portuguese, Sir Arthur Wellesley then prepared to march
towards Lisbon. On the 17th he defeated at Roliça the French
under Laborde. On the 20th he was at Vimiero, having been
joined by General Anstruther and General Acland with their
corps. He had now an army of 17,000 men. Junot had joined
Laborde and Loison at Torres Vedras, and their united force
was about 14,000 men, of whom 1,600 were cavalry. Early in the
morning of the 21st, the French attacked the British in their
position. Sir Harry Burrard had arrived on the night of the
20th, but did not land. The principal attack on the British
was on the centre and left; the sea being in their rear. The
attack was repulsed. Kellermann then attacked with the French
reserve, and he also was driven back. Junot's left wing and
centre were discomfited. The road of Torres Vedras, the
shortest road to Lisbon, was uncovered. When the action was
nearly over, Sir Harry Burrard had landed. In a private
letter, Sir Arthur Wellesley wrote, 'The French got a terrible
beating on the 21st.
{3003}
They did not lose less, I believe, than 4,000 men, and they
would have been entirely destroyed, if Sir H. Burrard had not
prevented me from pursuing them. Indeed, since the arrival of
the great generals, we appear to have been palsied, and
everything has gone on wrong.' Sir John Moore arrived with his
corps on the 21st, and his troops were nearly all landed when
hostilities were suspended by the Convention of Cintra for the
evacuation of Portugal by the French. Sir Arthur writes to
Lord Castlereagh, 'Although my name is affixed to this
instrument, I beg that you will not believe that I negotiated
it, that I approve of it, or that I had any hand in wording
it.' On the 5th of September, he writes, 'It is quite
impossible for me to continue any longer with this army; and I
wish, therefore, that you would allow me to return home and
resume the duties of my office.' Dalrymple, Burrard, and
Wellesley were all recalled home. Sir John Moore remained at
Lisbon, having been appointed to command the army. A Court of
Inquiry was ordered on the subject of 'the late transactions
in Portugal.' Wellesley had to bear much before the publicity
of those proceedings was to set him right in public opinion.
The Inquiry ended in a formal disapprobation of the armistice
and convention on the part of the king being communicated to
Sir How Dalrymple. Neither of the two 'great generals' was
again employed. One advantage was gained by the Convention.
The Russian fleet in the Tagus was delivered up to the
British. Sir John Moore, late in October, began his march into
Spain, 'to co-operate,' as his instructions set forth, 'with
the Spanish armies in the expulsion of the French.' He was to
lead the British forces in Portugal; and to be joined by Sir
David Baird, with 10,000 men to be landed at Corunna. Instead
of finding Spanish armies to co-operate with, he learned that
the French had routed and dispersed them. Napoleon had himself
come to command his troops; and had arrived at Bayonne on the
3rd of November. Moore was separated from Baird by a wide
tract of country. He had been led by false information to
divide his own army. He remained for some time at Salamanca,
inactive and uncertain. Madrid was soon in the hands of the
French. Moore made a forward movement against the advanced
corps of Soult; and then, learning that the French armies were
gathering all around him, he determined to retreat. Sir David
Baird had previously joined him. Moore had abandoned all hopes
of defending Portugal, and had directed his march towards
Corunna. He commenced his retreat from Sahagun on the evening
of the 24th of December. During this retreat, the retiring
army constantly turned upon the pursuers, always defeating
them, and on one occasion capturing General Lefebvre. The
winter had set in with terrible severity; the sufferings of
the troops were excessive; disorganization, the common
consequence of a retreat, added to their danger. Moore saved
his army from destruction by an overwhelming force when he
carried it across the Esla, effectually destroying the bridge
by which they passed the swollen stream. But Moore could not
save his men from their own excesses, which made enemies of
the inhabitants of every place through which they passed. At
Lugo, on the 7th of January, 1809, the British general halted
his exhausted troops, determined to give battle to Soult, to
whom Napoleon had given up the pursuit of the English army,
having received despatches which indicated that war with
Austria was close at hand. Soult declined the conflict; and on
the British marched to Corunna. On the 11th, when they had
ascended the heights from which Corunna was visible, there
were no transports in the bay. The troops met with a kind
reception in the town; and their general applied himself to
make his position as strong as possible, to resist the enemy
that was approaching. On the evening of the 14th the
transports arrived. The sick and wounded were got on board;
and a great part of the artillery. Fourteen thousand British
remained to fight, if their embarkation were molested. The
battle of Corunna began at two o'clock on the 16th of January.
Soult had 20,000 veterans, with numerous field-guns; and he
had planted a formidable battery on the rocks, commanding the
valley and the lower ridge of hills. Columns of French
infantry descended from the higher ridge; and there was soon a
close trial of strength between the combatants. From the lower
ridge Moore beheld the 42nd and 50th driving the enemy before
them through the village of Elvina. He sent a battalion of the
guards to support them; but through a misconception the 42nd
retired. Moore immediately dashed into the fight; exclaimed
'Forty-second, remember Egypt,' and sent them back to the
village. The British held their ground or drove off their
assailants; and victory was certain under the skilful
direction of the heroic commander, when he was dashed to the
earth by a shot from the rock battery. Sir David Baird, the
second in command, had also fallen. Moore was carried into
Corunna; and endured several hours of extreme torture before
he yielded up his great spirit. The command had devolved upon
General Hope, who thought that his first duty was now to
embark the troops. … When the sufferers in Moore's campaign
came home the hospitals were filled with wounded and sick; and
some of the troops brought back a pestilential fever."
_C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 57
(abridgment of chapter 28, volume 7,
of Popular History of England)._
ALSO IN:
_General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
books 2-4 (volume 1)._
_J. M. Wilson,
Memoirs of the Duke of Wellington,
volume 1, chapters 13-16._
_Dispatches of the Duke of Wellington,
volume 4._
_G. R. Gleig,
General Sir John Moore
(Eminent British Military Commanders, volume 3)._
_Baron Jomini,
Life of Napoleon,
chapter 13 (volume 2)._
_Duke de Rovigo,
Memoirs,
volume 2, part 2, chapters 2-3._
_General Foy,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
volume 2, part 2._
SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (December-March).
The siege of Saragossa.
"When Moore was pursued by Napoleon, the Duke of Infantado,
who had rallied 20,000 men in New Castile after the fall of
Madrid, formed the Quixotic design of re-taking the capital.
Marshal Victor, Duke of Belluno, utterly crushed his force at
Ucles on the 13th January, 1809, where 1,500 Spaniards were
slain, and 9,000 men and all the stores and artillery were
taken. The French, in retaliation for the Spaniards having
hanged some soldiers who had been captured, murdered many of
the prisoners in cold blood, and perpetrated infamous
atrocities on the inhabitants of Ucles.
{3004}
The Spaniards, however, showed their extraordinary valour
behind walls in their second defence of Saragossa, the siege
of which [abandoned the previous August, after a fierce
struggle] was renewed by 35,000 French under Marshals Moncey
and Mortier, on the 20th December, 1808. The city was defended
by Palafox, who had retired into it after his defeat at
Tudela. The second siege of this renowned city—though the
defence eventually proved unsuccessful—crowns with everlasting
glory the Spanish War of Independence. … 'The citizens gave up
their goods, their houses, and their bodies to the war, and,
mingling with the peasants and soldiers, formed one mighty
garrison suited to the vast fortress they had formed. For
doors and windows were built up, house-fronts loopholed,
internal communications opened, streets trenched and crossed
by earthen ramparts mounted with cannon, and every strong
building was a separate fortification: there was no weak
point—there could be none in a city which was all fortress,
where the space covered by houses was the measure of the
ramparts' (Napier). All the trees outside the walls were cut
down, the houses destroyed, and the materials carried into the
town. … The public magazines were provisioned for six months,
and all the conventual communities and the inhabitants had
large private stores. Nearly 3,000 artillerymen and sappers,
and 30,000 men of the regular army, had taken refuge in the
city, and at least 20,000 citizens and fugitive peasants were
fit for arms. The popular leaders had recourse to all the aid
which superstition could give them: denunciations of the wrath
of Heaven were hurled on those who were suspected of wavering,
and the clergy readily recounted stories of miracles to
encourage the faithful. Saragossa was 'believed to be
invincible through the protection of Our Lady of the Pillar,
who had chosen it for the seat of her peculiar worship. … An
appearance in the sky, which at other times might have passed
unremembered, and perhaps unnoticed, had given strong
confirmation to the popular faith. About a month before the
commencement of the first siege, a white cloud appeared at
noon, and gradually assumed the form of a palm-tree; the sky
being in all other parts clear, except that a few specks of
fleecy cloud hovered about the larger one. It was first
observed over the church of N. Senora del Portillo, and moving
from thence till it seemed to be immediately above that of the
pillar, continued in the same form about half an hour, and
then dispersed. The inhabitants were in a state of such
excitement that crowds joined in the acclamation of the first
beholder, who cried out, "A miracle!"—and after the defeat of
the besiegers had confirmed the omen, a miracle it was
universally pronounced to have been, the people proclaiming
with exultation that the Virgin had by this token prefigured
the victory she had given them, and promised Zaragoza her
protection as long as the world should endure' (Southey). … At
daybreak on the 21st December, General Suchet carried the
works on the Monte Torrero; but Count Gazan de la Peyrière—a
general highly distinguished in the Swiss and Italian
campaigns—failed in his attack upon the suburbs on the left
bank of the Ebro, and the confidence of the Spaniards in their
leaders was restored. Three days later the town was completely
invested, the siege operations being directed by General La
Coste. On the 30th December, the trenches being completed, the
town was summoned to surrender, and the example of Madrid was
referred to; but Palafox replied proudly, 'If Madrid has
surrendered, Madrid has been sold: Saragossa will neither be
sold nor surrendered.' Marshal Moncey being recalled to
Madrid, Junot took command of his corps. The besieged
attempted several sallies, which were repulsed; and after a
heavy bombardment, the St. Joseph convent was carried by the
French on the 11th January, 1809. The Spanish leaders
maintained the courage of their countrymen by proclaiming a
forged despatch narrating the defeat of Napoleon. The
guerrilla bands began to gather in round the French, and their
condition was becoming perilous. But the command had now been
taken by the invincible Marshal Lannes, Duke of Montebello
(who had been detained by a long illness); the approaches were
steadily pushed on, the breaches in the walls became wider,
and on the 29th the French rushed forward and took possession
of the ramparts. 'Thus the walls of Zaragoza went to the
ground; but Zaragoza remained erect, and as the broken girdle
fell from the heroic city, the besiegers started at her naked
strength. The regular defences had crumbled, but the popular
resistance was instantly called with all its terrors into
action; and as if fortune had resolved to mark the exact
moment when the ordinary calculations of science should cease,
the chief engineers on both sides [La Coste and San Genis]
were simultaneously slain' (Napier). … The Junta was in no
degree cowed: they resolved on resistance to the last
extremity, and a row of gibbets was raised for any who should
dare to propose surrender. Additional barricades were
constructed, and alarm-bells were rung to summon the citizens
to the threatened points. As each house was in itself a fort
which had to be separately attacked, mining now was had
recourse to. In this art the skill of the French was
unquestioned, and room after room and house after house was
carried. But still the constancy of the besieged was unshaken,
and the French soldiers began to murmur at their excessive
toil. From so many of the women and children being huddled
together in the cellars of the city, for safety from the
shells and cannon-balls, a pestilence arose, and slowly spread
from the besieged to the besiegers. 'The strong and the weak,
the daring soldier and the shrinking child, fell before it
alike; and such was the predisposition to disease, that the
slightest wound gangrened and became incurable. In the
beginning of February the daily deaths were from four to five
hundred;—the living were unable to bury the dead; and
thousands of carcases, scattered about the streets and
courtyards, or piled in heaps at the doors of the churches,
were left to dissolve in their own corruption, or be licked up
by the flames of burning houses as the defence became
concentrated' (Napier). On the 18th February a great assault
took place, and so much of the town was carried that further
resistance was hopeless. Terms of capitulation were offered by
the besieged, but were rejected by Lannes, and on the 19th the
heavy guns opened from the batteries on the left bank of the
Ebro, to sweep the houses on the quays. On the 20th, when all
the great leaders were dead or prostrated with fever, and none
but the soldier-priest Ric remained to lead the diminished
and of heroes, Saragossa surrendered,—at discretion, according
to the French: on honourable terms, according to the
Spaniards.
{3005}
Such was the close of one of the most heroic defences in the
history of the world. If any conditions were really accepted,
they were ill observed by the victors: the churches were
plundered, and many of the clergy and monks were put to death.
… The other strongholds in Aragon, one after another,
surrendered to the French before the end of March. In
Catalonia the French, under General Gouvion St. Cyr, had met
with equal success. With 30,000 men St. Cyr had taken Rosas
after a month's siege—which was prolonged by the presence of
that brilliant naval commander, Lord Cochrane (afterwards Earl
of Dundonald), with an English frigate in the harbour—in
December, 1808, had routed Reding at Cardadeu, had relieved
Barcelona (where General Duhesme was shut up with 8,000
Frenchmen), and had again, on the 21st December, routed Reding
at Molinos del Hey, where all the Spanish stores, including
30,000 muskets from England, were taken. In the spring of 1809
Reding made another attempt to achieve the independence of the
north-east, and moved to relieve Saragossa; but on the 17th
February he was met by St. Cyr at Igualada, where Reding
himself was killed and his army was dispersed. The siege of
Gerona alone in the north-east of Spain remained to be
undertaken."
_H. R. Clinton,
The War in the Peninsula,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_C. M. Yonge,
Book of Golden Deeds,
page 365._
_R. Southey,
History of the Peninsular War,
chapter 18 (volume 3)._
_Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
book 5, chapters 2-3 (volume 1)._
_Baron de Marbot,
Memoirs,
volume 1, chapter 40._
SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-June).
The war in Aragon.
Siege of Gerona.
"This decisive victory [of Igualada] terminated the regular
war in Catalonia; and St. Cyr, retiring to Vich, commenced
preparations for the siege of Gerona. The undertaking was for
some time delayed by the discord of St. Cyr and Verdier; but
in the beginning of May they appeared before the town, and on
the 1st of June the investment was completed. But the prowess
of the Spaniards nowhere appeared to greater advantage than in
the defence of their walled towns: it was not till 12th
August, after 37 days of open trenches, and two unsuccessful
assaults, that the French possessed themselves of the fort of
Monjuich, which commands the town: yet the gallant governor,
Alvarez, still held out, and the safe arrival of a convoy sent
by Blake reanimated the spirit of the garrison. The grand
assault of the lower town was given (September 17); but the
French were repulsed from the breach with the loss of 1,600
men; and St. Cyr, despairing of carrying the place by force,
converted the siege into a blockade. The capture of three
successive convoys, sent by Blake for their relief, reduced
the besieged at last to extremity; famine and pestilence
devastated the city; but it was not till the inhabitants were
reduced to the necessity of eating hair that the place was
yielded (December 12) to Augereau, who had superseded St. Cyr
in the command. A more memorable resistance is not on record;
but the heroic Alvarez, to the eternal disgrace of Augereau,
was immured in a dungeon at Figueras, where he soon afterwards
died. Junot, in the mean time, had been taken ill, and was
succeeded in the command in Aragon by Suchet, a young general
whose talents and success gave him a brilliant career in the
later years of the empire. His first essay, however, was
unfortunate; for the indefatigable Blake, encouraged by the
retreat of St. Cyr towards the Pyrenees, had again advanced
with 12,000 men; and an action ensued (May 23) at Alcaniz, in
which the French, seized with a panic, fled in confusion from
the field. This unwonted success emboldened Blake to approach
Saragossa; but the discipline and manœuvres of the French
asserted their wonted superiority in the plains; the Spaniards
were routed close to Saragossa (June 16), and more decisively
at Belchite the next day. The army of Blake was entirely
dispersed; and all regular resistance ceased in Aragon, as it
had done in Catalonia, after the fall of Gerona."
_Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
sections 566-567._
SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (February-July).
Wellington again in the English command.
The French advance into Portugal checked.
Passage of the Douro by the English.
Battle of Talavera.
"Napoleon, before Moore's corps had actually left Corunna,
conceived the war at an end, and, in issuing instructions to
his marshals, anticipated, with no unreasonable confidence,
the complete subjugation of the Peninsula. Excepting, indeed,
some isolated districts in the east, the only parts now in
possession of the Spaniards or their allies were Andalusia,
which had been saved by the precipitate recall of Napoleon to
the north; and Portugal, which, still in arms against the
French, was nominally occupied by a British corps of 10,000
men, left there under Sir John Cradock at the time of General
Moore's departure with the bulk of the army for Spain. The
proceedings of the French marshals for the recovery of the
entire Peninsula were speedily arranged. Lannes took the
direction of the siege of Saragossa, where the Spaniards,
fighting as usual with admirable constancy from behind stone
walls, were holding two French corps at bay. Lefebvre drove
one Spanish army into the recesses of the Sierra Morena, and
Victor chased another into the fastnesses of Murcia. Meantime
Soult, after recoiling awhile from the dying blows of Moore,
had promptly occupied Gallicia upon the departure of the
English, and was preparing to cross the Portuguese frontier on
his work of conquest. In aid of this design it was concerted
that while the last-named marshal advanced from the north,
Victor, by way of Elvas, and Lapisse by way of Almeida, should
converge together upon Portugal, and that when the English at
Lisbon had been driven to their ships the several corps should
unite for the final subjugation of the Peninsula by the
occupation of Andalusia. Accordingly, leaving Ney to maintain
the ground already won, Soult descended with 30,000 men upon
the Douro, and by the end of March was in secure possession of
Oporto. Had he continued his advance, it is not impossible
that the campaign might have had the termination he desired;
but at this point he waited for intelligence of the English in
his front and of Victor and Lapisse on his flank. His caution
saved Portugal, for, while he still hesitated on the brink of
the Douro, there again arrived in the Tagus that renowned
commander before whose genius the fortunes not only of the
marshals, but of their imperial master, were finally to fail.
England was now at the commencement of her greatest war.
{3006}
The system of small expeditions and insignificant diversions,
though not yet conclusively abandoned, was soon superseded by
the glories of a visible contest: and in a short time it was
known and felt by a great majority of the nation, that on the
field of the Peninsula England was fairly pitted against
France. … At the commencement of the year 1809, when the
prospects of Spanish independence were at their very gloomiest
point, the British Cabinet had proposed and concluded a
comprehensive treaty of alliance with the Provisional
Administration of Spain; and it was now resolved that the
contest in the Peninsula should be continued on a scale more
effectual than before, and that the principal, instead of the
secondary, part should be borne by England. … England’s
colonial requirements left her little to show against the
myriads of the continent. It was calculated at the time that
60,000 British soldiers might have been made disposable for
the Peninsular service, but at no period of the war was such a
force ever actually collected under the standards of
Wellington, while Napoleon could maintain his 300,000 warriors
in Spain, without materially disabling the arms of the Empire
on the Danube or the Rhine. We had allies, it is true, in the
troops of the country; but these at first were little better
than refractory recruits, requiring all the accessories of
discipline, equipment, and organisation; jealous of all
foreigners, even as friends, and not unreasonably suspicious
of supporters who could always find in their ships a refuge
which was denied to themselves. But above all these
difficulties was that arising from the inexperience of the
Government in continental warfare. … When, however, with these
ambiguous prospects, the Government did at length resolve on
the systematic prosecution of the Peninsular war, the eyes of
the nation were at once instinctively turned on Sir Arthur
Wellesley as the general to conduct it. … He stoutly declared
his opinion that Portugal was tenable against the French, even
if actual possessors of Spain, and that it offered ample
opportunities of influencing the great result of the war. With
these views he recommended that the Portuguese army should be
organised at its full strength; that it should be in part
taken into British pay and under the direction of British
officers, and that a force of not less than 30,000 English
troops should be despatched to keep this army together. … Such
was the prestige already attached to Wellesley’s name that his
arrival in the Tagus changed every feature of the scene. No
longer suspicious of our intentions, the Portuguese Government
gave prompt effect to the suggestions of the English
commander. … The command-in-chief of the native army was
intrusted to an English officer of great distinction, General
Beresford; and no time was lost in once more testing the
efficacy of the British arms. … Of the Spanish armies we need
only say that they had been repeatedly routed with invariable
certainty and more or less disgrace, though Cuesta still held
a nominal force together in the valley of the Tagus. There
were, therefore, two courses open to the British commander:
—either to repel the menaced advance of Soult by marching on
Oporto, or to effect a junction with Cuesta, and try the
result of a demonstration against Madrid. The latter of these
plans was wisely postponed for the moment, and, preference
having been decisively given to the former, the troops, at
once commenced their march upon the Douro. The British force
under Sir Arthur Wellesley’s command amounted at this time to
about 20,000 men, to which about 15,000 Portuguese, in a
respectable state of organisation, were added by the exertions
of Beresford. Of these about 24,000 were now led against
Soult, who, though not inferior in strength, no sooner
ascertained the advance of the English commander, than he
arranged for a retreat by detaching Loison with 6,000 men to
dislodge a Portuguese post from his left rear. Sir Arthur’s
intention was to envelope, if possible, the French corps by
pushing forward a strong force upon its left, and thus
intercepting its retreat toward Ney’s position, while the main
body assaulted Soult in his quarters at Oporto. The former of
these operations he intrusted to Beresford, the latter he
directed in person. On the 12th of May the troops reached the
southern bank of the Douro; the waters of’ which, 800 yards in
width, rolled between them and their adversaries. … Availing
himself of' a point where the river by a bend in its course
was not easily visible from the town, Sir Arthur determined on
transporting, if possible, a few troops to the northern bank,
and occupying an unfinished stone building, which he perceived
was capable of affording temporary cover. The means were soon
supplied by the activity of Colonel Waters—an officer whose
habitual audacity rendered him one of the heroes of this
memorable war. Crossing in a skiff to the opposite bank, he
returned with two or three boats, and in a few minutes a
company of the Buffs was established in the building.
Reinforcements quickly followed, but not without discovery.
The alarm was given, and presently the edifice was enveloped
by the eager battalions of the French. The British, however,
held their ground; a passage was effected at other points
during the struggle; the French, after an ineffectual
resistance, were fain to abandon the city in precipitation,
and Sir Arthur, after his unexampled feat of arms, sat down
that evening to the dinner which had been prepared for Soult.
… This brilliant operation being effected, Sir Arthur was now
at liberty to turn to the main project of the campaign—that to
which, in fact, the attack upon Soult had been subsidiary—the
defeat of Victor in Estremadura. … Cuesta would take no
advice, and insisted on the adoption of his own schemes with
such obstinacy, that Sir Arthur was compelled to frame his
plans accordingly. Instead, therefore, of circumventing Victor
as he had intended, be advanced into Spain at the beginning of
July, to effect a junction with Cuesta and feel his way
towards Madrid. The armies, when united, formed a mass of
78,000 combatants; but of these 56,000 were Spanish, and for
the brunt of war Sir Arthur could only reckon on his 22,000
British troops, Beresford’s Portuguese having been despatched
to the north of Portugal. On the other side, Victor’s force
had been strengthened by the succours which Joseph Bonaparte,
alarmed for the safety of Madrid, had hastily concentrated at
Toledo; and when the two armies at length confronted each
other at Talavera, it was found that 55,000 excellent French
troops were arrayed against Sir Arthur and his ally, while
nearly as many more were descending from the north on the line
of the British communications along the valley of the Tagus.
{3007}
On the 28th of July the British commander, after making the
best dispositions in his power, received the attack of the
French, directed by Joseph Bonaparte in person, with Victor
and Jourdan at his side, and after an engagement of great
severity, in which the Spaniards were virtually inactive, he
remained master of the field against double his numbers,
having repulsed the enemy at all points with heavy loss, and
having captured several hundred prisoners and 17 pieces of
cannon in this the first great pitched battle between the
French and English in the Peninsula. In this well fought field
of Talavera, the French had thrown, for the first time, their
whole disposable force upon the British army without success;
and Sir Arthur Wellesley inferred, with a justifiable
confidence, that the relative superiority of his troops to
those of the Emperor was practically decided. Jomini, the
French military historian, confesses almost as much; and the
opinions of Napoleon himself, as visible in his
correspondence, underwent from that moment a serious change."
_Memoir of Wellington,
from "The Times" of September 15-16, 1852. _
ALSO IN:
_R. Southey,
History of the Peninsular War,
chapters 22-24 (volumes 3-4)._
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 62 (volume 13)._
SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-November).
Battles of Almonacid, Puerto de Baños, Ocana,
and Alba de Tormes.
Soon after Wellington's unfruitful victory at Talavera,
"Venegas had advanced as far as Aranjuez, and was besieging
Toledo; but the retreat of the British having set the French
armies at liberty, he was attacked and defeated after a sharp
action at Almonacid (August 11) by Dessoles and Sebastiani;
and Sir Robert Wilson, who had approached Madrid with 6,000
Spaniards and Portuguese, was encountered and driven back by
Ney (August 8) at Puerto de Banos. The British at length,
after lying a month at Deleitosa, were compelled, by the
scandalous failure of the Spanish authorities to furnish them
with supplies or provisions, to cross the mountains and fix
their headquarters at Badajos, after an angry correspondence
between Wellesley and Cuesta, who soon after was removed from
his command. A gleam of success at Tamanes, where Marchand was
routed with loss (October 24) by Romana's army under the Duke
del Parque, encouraged the Spaniards to make another effort
for the recovery of Madrid; and an army of 50,000 men,
including 7,000 horse and 60 pieces of cannon, advanced for
this purpose from the Sierra Morena, under General Areizaga.
The battle was fought (November 12) at Ocana, near Aranjuez;
but though the Spaniards behaved with considerable spirit, the
miserable incapacity of their commander counterbalanced all
their efforts, and an unparalleled rout was the result.
Pursued over the wide plains of Castile by the French cavalry,
20,000 prisoners were taken, with all the guns and stores: the
wreck was complete and irretrievable; and the defeat of the
Duke del Parque (November 25) at Alba de Tormes, dispersed the
last force which could be called a Spanish army. It was
evident from these events that Portugal was the only basis
from which the deliverance of the Peninsula could be
effected."
_Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
section 576 (chapter 62, volume 13 of complete work)._
SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (August-December).
Wellington's difficulties.
His retreat into Portugal.
"In the course of the 29th, the army was reinforced by the
arrival of a troop of horse-artillery, and a brigade of light
troops from Lisbon, under General Crawford. Under the
circumstances of his situation, however, it was impossible for
Sir Arthur Wellesley to follow up his victory. The position he
occupied was still one of extreme peril. A powerful enemy was
advancing on his rear; and no reliance could be placed for the
supply of his army, either on the promises of the Spanish
General, or of the Junta. The army of Vanegas, which, in
obedience to the orders of the Supreme Junta, had advanced
from Madrilejos, was engaged, during the 28th and 29th, in
endeavouring to dislodge the French garrison from Toledo. His
advance pushed on during the night to the neighbourhood of
Madrid, and took prisoners some patroles of the enemy.
Vanegas, however no sooner learned from the prisoners that
Joseph and Sebastiani were approaching, than he … desisted
from any further offensive operations. The intelligence that
Vanegas had failed in executing the part allotted to him, was
speedily followed by information that Soult had with facility
driven the Spaniards from the passes leading from Salamanca to
Placentia. It was in consequence arranged between the
Generals, that the British army should immediately march to
attack Soult, and that Cuesta should remain in the position of
Talavera, to protect this movement from any operation of
Victor. The wounded likewise were to be left in charge of
Cuesta. … On the morning of the 3rd of August, the British
accordingly commenced their march on Oropesa. On his arrival
there, Sir Arthur Wellesley received intelligence that Soult
was already at Naval Moral. … Shortly after, a courier arrived
from Cuesta, announcing, that, as the enemy were stated to be
advancing on his flank, and as it was ascertained that the
corps of Ney and Mortier had been united under Soult, he had
determined on quitting his position, and joining the British
army at Oropesa. This movement was executed the same night;
and nearly the whole of the British wounded were left
unprotected in the town of Talavera. The conduct of Cuesta, in
this precipitate retreat, is altogether indefensible. … In
quitting the position of Talavera, Cuesta had abandoned the
only situation in which the advance of Victor on the British
rear could be resisted with any prospect of success. … The
whole calculations of Sir Arthur Wellesley were at once
overthrown. … Sir Arthur determined to throw his army across
the Tagus by the bridge of Arzobisbo. … Cuesta … followed the
British in their retreat to the bridge of Arzobisbo, and
leaving the Duke del Albuquerque with two divisions of
infantry and one of cavalry to defend it, he withdrew the
remainder of his army to Paraleda de Garben. The French,
however, having taken post on the opposite side of the river,
soon succeeded in discovering a ford by which they crossed,
and surprising the Spaniards, drove them at once from the
works, with the loss of 30 pieces of cannon. After this,
Cuesta with his whole force fell back on Deleytosa, while the
British moved to Xaraicejo. … Vanegas … remained with his army
in the neighbourhood of Aranjuez. On the 5th of August, he
succeeded in gaining a decided advantage over an advanced
division of the enemy. …
{3008}
Harassed by inconsistent orders, Vanegas was unfortunately
induced again to advance, and give battle to the corps of
Sebastiani at Almonacid. This engagement, though many of the
Spanish troops behaved with great gallantry, terminated in the
complete defeat of the army of Vanegas. It was driven to the
Sierra Morena, with the loss of all its baggage and artillery.
With this action terminated the campaign which had been
undertaken for the relief of Madrid, and the expulsion of the
enemy from the central provinces of Spain. The British army at
Xaraicejo, still served as a shield to the southern provinces,
and Sir Arthur Wellesley, (whom the gratitude of his country
had now ennobled,) [raising him to the peerage as Baron Duke
of Wellesley and Viscount Wellington of Talavera] considered
it of importance to maintain the position he then occupied.
But the total failure of supplies rendered this impossible,
and about the 20th of August he fell back through Merida on
Badajos, in the neighbourhood of which he established his
army. At this period all operations in concert ceased between
the English and Spanish armies. The Supreme Junta complained
bitterly of the retreat of the former, which left the road to
Seville and Cadiz open to the enemy, while the Marquis
Wellesley, then ambassador in Spain, made strong
representations of the privations to which the British army
had been exposed, by the inattention and neglect of the
authorities. In the correspondence which ensued, it appeared
that the measure of retreat had been forced on Lord
Wellington, by the absolute impossibility of supporting his
army in the ground he occupied. … The year had closed in Spain
triumphantly for the French arms, as it had commenced. The
Spanish armies had sustained a series of unparalleled defeats.
The British had retired into Portugal; and the efforts of Lord
Wellington, were for the present, limited to the defence of
that kingdom."
_T. Hamilton,
Annals of the Peninsular Campaigns,
chapters 7 and 9._
ALSO IN:
_R. Waite,
Life of the Duke of Wellington,
chapter 6._
_Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
book 8, chapters 7-9, book 9 (volume 2). _
SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (October-September).
The Lines of Torres Vedras.
"Since Austria had laid down arms by signing the peace of
Vienna, and had thus proved the inefficiency of England's last
allies—since among the sovereigns of the Continent Napoleon
boasted none but courtiers or subjects, Wellington saw that
all the resources and all the efforts of his gigantic power
would be turned against the only country which still struggled
for the liberty of Europe. What could Spain achieve with her
bands of insurgents and her defeated armies, albeit so
persevering? or the small English army effect against so
formidable an adversary, aided by the combined forces of so
many nations? But during the very time when the world looked
upon all as lost, and Napoleon's proudest enemies were growing
weak, Wellington never despaired of the cause he had embraced.
Far from allowing himself to be cast down by the magnitude or
the imminence of the danger, he derived from that very
circumstance, not only the resolution of fighting to the last
extremity, but also the energy to conceive and to execute a
project which will continue to be the admiration of the world,
and an everlasting lesson to nations oppressed by foreign
rule. He had always thought that some day, sooner or later,
the whole of Europe would rise against Napoleon's tyranny,
provided that an opportunity for such a rising were afforded
to it by a prolonged resistance in certain points. The end to
aim at therefore was, in his opinion, not so much to drive the
French out of the Peninsula, as the tacticians of the central
junta wildly fancied, but rather to keep the contest there
alive at any cost, until the moment should arrive for so
inevitable and universal a revolt. In view of the new invasion
pouring into Spain, he could not dream of undertaking any
offensive operations against the French. Even if conducted
with genius, they would have rapidly exhausted his very
limited forces. His small army … could not have lasted a month
amidst the large masses of French troops then in Spain. He
therefore resolved to entrench it in strong positions,
rendered still more formidable by every resource of defensive
warfare, where he might defy superiority in numbers and the
risk of surprise, where he could also obtain supplies by sea,
and whence if necessary he might embark in case of disaster;
where, also, he might take advantage of the distances and the
difficulties of communication which were so rapidly exhausting
our troops, by creating around us a desert in which we should
find it impossible to live. To stand out under these
restricted but vigorously conceived conditions, and to resist
with indomitable obstinacy until Europe, ashamed to let him
succumb, should come to his succour, was the only course which
afforded Wellington some chance of success in view of the
feeble means at his disposal; and such, with equal firmness
and decision, was the one he now adopted. The necessity which
suggested it to him in no wise diminishes the merit or
originality of an operation which was, one may say, without
precedent in military history. The position he was seeking for
he found in the environs of Lisbon, in the peninsula formed by
the Tagus at its entrance to the sea. Protected on almost
every side either by the ocean or the river, which at this
point is nearly as wide as an inland sea, this peninsula was
accessible only on the north where it joined the mainland.
There, however, the prolongation of the Sierra d'Estrella
presented a series of rugged heights, craggy precipices and
deep ravines filled with torrents, forming a true natural
barrier, the strength of which had already struck more than
one military observer. … Wellington was the first who
conceived and executed the project of transforming the whole
peninsula into a colossal fortress, of more than a hundred
miles in circumference. He desired that this fortress should
be composed of three concentric enclosures, defended by
cannon, and large enough to contain not only his army and the
Portuguese allies—comprising the regular troops, the militia
and Ordenanzas—but the whole available population of the
Southern provinces of Portugal, with their harvests, their
cattle and their provisions, so that the country surrounding
Lisbon should offer no resource whatever to the invaders. He
at the same time secured his retreat by means of a spacious
and fortified port, in which, should any untoward accident
occur, the English army and even the Portuguese troops might
embark in safety.
{3009}
This immense citadel extended to the north from Zizembre and
the heights of Torres Vedras, which protected its front, as
far as Alemquer; thence to the east by Sobral and Alvera it
followed the counterforts of the Estrella which overhang the
Tagus, and extended to Lisbon, where it was covered alike by
the mouth of the river and by the ocean. … From the beginning
of the month of October, 1809, with the aid of Colonel
Fletcher of the Engineers, he had employed thousands of
workmen and peasants, without intermission, in throwing up
intrenchments, constructing redoubts, and forming sluices for
inundating the plain."
_P. Lanfrey,
Life of Napoleon I.,
volume 4, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_W. H. Maxwell,
Life of Wellington,
volume 2, chapters 9-12._
_General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
book 11, chapter 8 (volume 2)._
SPAIN: A D. 1810.
Revolt of the Argentine provinces.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
SPAIN: A D. 1810-1812.
The French advance into Portugal.
Their recoil from the Lines of Torres Vedras.
"By the spring of 1810, the French armies in Spain numbered
fully 350,000 men, and Napoleon had intended to cross the
Pyrenees, at the head of this enormous force. His marriage,
however, or more probably the innumerable toils and cares of
Empire prevented him from carrying out his purpose; and this
was one of the capital mistakes of his life, for his presence
was necessary on the scene of events. He still despised the
insurrection of Spain; he held Wellington cheap as a 'Sepoy
general'; strange as it may appear, he was wholly ignorant of
the existence of the Lines of Torres Vedras, and he persisted
in maintaining that the only real enemy in the Peninsula was
the British army, which he estimated at 25,000 men. He gave
Masséna 70,000, with orders 'to drive the English into the
sea'; and at the same time, he sent a great army to subdue
Andalusia and the South, false to his art in thus dividing his
forces. A contest followed renowned in history, and big with
memorable results for Europe. Massena took the fortresses on
the northeast of Portugal, and by the close of September had
entered Beira; he met a bloody reverse at Busaco [September
27], but he succeeded in turning Wellington's flank, and he
advanced, in high heart, from Coimbra, on Lisbon. To his
amazement, however, the impregnable lines, a gigantic obstacle
utterly unforeseen, rose before him, and brought the invaders
to a stand, and the 'spoiled child of victory,' daring as he
was, after vain efforts to find a vulnerable point, recoiled
from before the invincible rampart, baffled and indignant, but
as yet hopeful. Massena, with admirable skill, now chose a
formidable position near the Tagus, and held the British
commander in check. … But Wellington, with wise, if stern,
forethought, had wasted the adjoining region with fire and
sword; Napoleon, meditating a new war, was unable to despatch
a regiment from France; Soult, ordered to move from Andalusia
to the aid of his colleague, paused and hung back; and
Massena, his army literally starved out, and strengthened by a
small detachment only, was at last reluctantly forced to
retreat. The movement began in March, 1811; it was conducted
with no ordinary skill; but Wellington had attained his object
and the French general re-entered Spain with the wreck only of
a once noble force. Massena, however, would not confess
defeat; having restored and largely increased his army, he
attacked Wellington at Fuentes de Onoro, and possibly only
missed a victory, owing to the jealousies of inferior men.
This, nevertheless, was his last effort; he was superseded in
his command by Napoleon, unjust in this instance to his best
lieutenant, and Wellington's conduct of the war had been
completely justified. Torres Vedras permanently arrested
Napoleon's march of conquest; the French never entered
Portugal again. … Meantime, the never-ceasing insurrection of
Spain continued to waste the Imperial forces, and surrounded
them, as it were, with a circle of fire. It was all in vain
that another great army was struck down in the field at Ocana;
that Suchet invaded and held Valencia; that Soult ravaged
Andalusia; that Victor besieged Cadiz. The resistance of the
nation became more intense than ever; Saguntum, which had
defied Hannibal, Girona, Tortosa, and, above all, Tarragona,
defended their walls to the last; and not a village from
Asturias to Granada acknowledged Joseph at Madrid, as its
lawful king. … After Fuentes de Onoro the contest in Spain had
languished in 1811, though Marmont and Soult missed a great
chance of assailing Wellington, with very superior numbers. In
the following year the British commander pounced on Ciudad
Rodrigo, and Badajoz, the keys of Spain from the Portuguese
frontier, completely deceiving the distant Emperor, who would
direct operations from Paris; and he defeated Marmont in a
great battle, at Salamanca, beside the Tormes, which threw
open to him the gates of Madrid. Yet, in an effort made
against the communications of the French, the object he
steadily kept in view, he was baffled by the resistance of
Burgos, and before long he was in retreat on Portugal, having
just escaped from a great French army, so various were the
fortunes of this most instructive war."
_W. O'C. Morris,
Napoleon,
chapters 10-11._
ALSO IN:
_G. Hooper,
Wellington,
chapter 7._
_J. H. Stocqueler,
Life of Wellington,
volume 1, chapters 4-10._
_General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
volumes 2-3._
_R. Southey,
History of the Peninsular War,
volumes 4-5._
_A. Thiers,
History of the Consulate and Empire,
book 42 (volume 4)._
_General Sir J. T. Jones,
Journal of the Sieges in Spain,
volume 1._
SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1821.
Revolt and achievement of independence in
Venezuela and New Granada.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
A. D. 1810-1825.
Revolt and independence of Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819; and 1820-1826.
SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (June-August).
Wellington's victory at Salamanca.
Abandonment of Madrid by King Joseph.
"In the month of May, 1812, that rupture took place [between
Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia] which was to determine,
by its issue, whether Europe should acknowledge one master;
and Napoleon, too confident in his own fortunes, put himself
at the head of his armies and marched on Moscow. The war in
Spain, which had hitherto occupied the first place in public
attention, became from that hour, as far as France was
concerned, a matter of minor consideration. Whatever effective
battalions were at the disposal of the war-minister, were
forwarded to the Vistula; while to recruit the regiments in
Spain, depôts were formed in the south, out of which, from
time to time, a body of conscripts were equipped and
dispatched to reinforce the French armies.
{3010}
Lord Wellington's army consisted of 60,000 men, Portuguese and
Spaniards included. Of these, 10,000 infantry, with about
1,200 cavalry, were cantoned on the Tagus at Almarez; while
the commander-in-chief, with the remainder, prepared to
operate, on the north of that river, against Marmont. The
capture of the redoubts at Almarez had, in some degree,
isolated the French marshal; and, although he was at the head
of 50,000 veterans, Lord Wellington felt himself in a
condition to cope with him. At the same time Lord Wellington
had to observe Soult, who, commanding the army of the south,
was around Seville and Cordova with 58,000 men—while Suchet
held the eastern provinces with 50,000 excellent troops—Souham
was in the north with 10,000—and the army of the centre,
probably 15,000 more, was disposed around the capital, and
kept open the communications between the detached corps. On
the other hand, there were on foot no Spanish armies deserving
of the name. Bands of guerrillas moved, indeed, hither and
thither, rendering the communications between the French
armies and their depots exceedingly insecure; but throughout
the north, and west, and centre of Spain, there was no single
corps in arms of any military respectability. In the east,
Generals Lacy and Sarsfield were at the head of corps which
did good service, and occupied Suchet pretty well; while
D'Eroles, more bold than prudent, committed himself at Rhonda
with General Rourke, in a combat which ended in his total
defeat and the dispersion of his troops. Yet were the French
far from being masters of the country. Few fortified towns,
Cadiz and Alicante excepted, continued to display the standard
of independence, but every Sierra and mountain range swarmed
with the enemies of oppression, out of whom an army,
formidable from its numbers, if not for its discipline, might
at any moment be formed. But it had never entered into the
counsels of the allies to furnish a nucleus round which such
an army might be gathered. … Meanwhile, the
commander-in-chief, after having given his army a few weeks'
repose, … broke up from his cantonments, and advanced in the
direction of Salamanca. On the 17th of June his divisions
crossed the Tormes, by the fords above and below the town,
and, finding no force in the field competent to resist them,
marched direct upon the capital of the province." Salamanca
was taken on the 27th of June, after a siege of ten days, and
a series of manœuvres—a great game of tactics between the
opposing commanders—ensued, which occupied their armies
without any serious collision, until the 22d of July, when the
decisive battle of Salamanca was fought. "The dispositions of
the French, though masterly against one less self-collected,
had been, throughout the day, in Wellington's opinion, full of
hazard. They aimed at too much—and, manœuvring to throw
themselves in force upon the English right, risked, as the
event proved fatally, the weakening of their own right and
centre. Lord Wellington saw that filing constantly in one
direction disconnected the divisions of Marmont's army, and
left an interval where he might strike to advantage. … It was
the first mistake that Marmont had made, and Wellington never
permitted him to retrieve it. Lord Wellington had dined amid
the ranks of the third division, and Packenham, its frank and
chivalrous leader, was one of those who shared his simple and
soldier-like meal. To him the commander-in-chief gave his
orders, somewhat in the following words: 'Do you see those
fellows on the hill, Packenham? Throw your division into
columns of battalions —at them directly—and drive them to the
devil.' Instantly the division was formed—and the order
executed admirably. … By this magnificent operation, the whole
of the enemy's left was destroyed. Upward of 3,000 prisoners
remained in the hands of the victors, while the rest, broken
and dispirited, fell back in utter confusion upon the
reserves, whom they swept away with them in their flight.
Meanwhile, in the centre, a fiercer contest was going on. …
Marmont, … struck down by the explosion of a shell, was
carried off the field early in the battle, with a broken arm
and two severe wounds in the side. The command then devolved
upon Clausel, who did all that man in his situation could do
to retrieve the fortune of the day. … But Lord Wellington was
not to be arrested in his success, nor could his troops be
restrained in their career of victory. … Seven thousand
prisoners, two eagles, with a number of cannon and other
trophies, remained in the hands of the English: 10,000 men, in
addition, either died on the field or were disabled by wounds;
whereas the loss on the part of the allies amounted to
scarcely 5,000 men. … After this disaster, Clausel continued
his retreat by forced marches. … Meanwhile, Joseph, ignorant
of the result of the late battle, was on his way, with 20,000
men, to join Marmont, and had arrived at the neighbourhood of
Arevolo before the intelligence of that officer's defeat was
communicated to him. He directed his columns instantly toward
Segovia. … On the 7th of August the British army moved; …
while Joseph, retreating with precipitation, left the passes
of the Guadarama open, and returned to Madrid, where the
confusion was now extreme. … Lord Wellington's march was
conducted with all the celerity and good order which
distinguished every movement of his now magnificent army. On
the 7th, he entered Segovia. … On the 12th [he] entered Madrid
in triumph. … The city exhibited the appearance of a carnival,
and the festivities were kept up till the dawn of the 13th
came in. … Immediately the new constitution was proclaimed;
Don Carlos D'Espana was appointed governor of the city, and
the people, still rejoicing, yet restrained from excesses of
every sort, returned to their usual employments."
_General Vane (Marquess of Londonderry),
Story of the Peninsular War,
chapter 30._
ALSO IN:
_General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the Peninsula,
book 18 (volume 4)._
_Lieutenant Colonel Williams,
Life, and Times of Wellington,
volume 1, pages 275-290._
{3011}
SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
Final campaigns of the Peninsular War.
Expulsion of the French.
"The south and centre of Spain … seemed clear of enemies, but
the hold of the French was as yet shaken only, not broken; for
in fact though Wellington's march had forced his enemies in two
directions (Clausel, with the remainder of Marmont's army,
having retired north, while the king withdrew south-east),
such were their numbers that each division became the centre
of an army as powerful as his own. … Of the two armies against
which Wellington had to contend by far the largest was the army
of Soult, and the king, on the south-east. On the other hand,
Clausel's forces were beaten and retreating, so that it
appeared to the general better to leave a detachment under
Hill to cover Madrid, while he himself repaired with the bulk
of his army to strike a final blow at Clausel by the capture
of Burgos, intending to return at once and with his whole
combined forces fight a great battle with Soult and the king
before the capital. … The resistance offered by Burgos and the
deficiency of proper artillery proved greater obstacles than
had been expected. The delay thus caused allowed the French to
recover. … As Soult began to draw towards Madrid from
Valencia, thus threatening the safety of Hill, there was no
course left but to summon that general northward, and to make
a combined retreat towards Salamanca and Portugal. … This was
the last of Wellington's retreats. Events in Europe lessened
the power of his enemies; while fighting for his very
existence on the main continent of Europe, Napoleon could not
but regard the war in Spain as a very secondary concern, and a
great many old and valuable soldiers were withdrawn. The
jealousy which existed between Joseph and the generals, and
the dislike of the great generals to take upon themselves the
Spanish war, threw it into inferior hands for some little
while, and there is little more to chronicle than a succession
of hard-won victories. … A vigorous insurrection had arisen
all along the northern provinces; and it was this more than
anything else which decided Wellington's course of action.
While leaving troops to occupy the attention of the French in
the valley of the Tagus, he intended to march northwards, …
connect himself with the northern insurgents, and directly
threaten the communications with France. … As he had expected,
the French had to fall back before him; he compelled them to
evacuate Burgos and attempt to defend the Ebro. Their position
there was turned, and they had again to fall back into the
basin of Vittoria. This is the plain of the river Zadora,
which forms in its course almost a right angle at the
south-west corner of the plain, which it thus surrounds on two
sides. Across the plain and through Vittoria runs the high
road to France, the only one in the neighbourhood sufficiently
large to allow of the retreat of the French army, encumbered
with all its stores and baggage, and the accumulated wealth of
some years of occupation of Spain. While Wellington forced the
passage of the river in front south of the great bend, and
drove the enemy back to the town of Vittoria, Graham beyond
the town closed this road. The beaten enemy had to retreat as
best he could towards Salvatierra, leaving behind all the
artillery, stores, baggage, and equipments [June 21, 1813].
The offensive armies of France had now to assume the defensive
and to guard their own frontier. Before advancing to attack
them in the mountains, Wellington undertook the blockade of
Pampeluna and the siege of St. Sebastian. It was impossible
for the French any longer to regard diplomatic or dynastic
niceties. Joseph was superseded, and the defence of France
intrusted to Soult, with whom the king had hopelessly
quarrelled. He proved himself worthy of the charge. A series
of terrible battles was fought in the Pyrenees, but one by one
his positions were forced. With fearful bloodshed, St.
Sebastian was taken, the Bidasoa was crossed (October 7), the
battle of the Nivelle fought and won (November 10), and at
length, in February, the lower Adour was passed, Bayonne
invested, and Soult obliged to withdraw towards the east. But
by this time events on the other side of France had changed
the appearance of the war. … Napoleon was being constantly
driven backward upon the east. The effect could not but be
felt by the southern army, and Soult deserves great credit for
the skill with which he still held at bay the victorious
English. He was however defeated at Orthes (February 27), lost
Bordeaux (March 8), and was finally driven eastward towards
Toulouse, intending to act in union with Suchet, whose army in
Catalonia was as yet unbeaten. On the heights upon the east of
Toulouse, for Wellington had brought his army across the
Garonne, was fought, with somewhat doubtful result, the great
battle of Toulouse [April 10]. The victory has been claimed by
both parties; the aim of the English general was however won,
the Garonne was passed, the French position taken, Toulouse
evacuated and occupied by the victors. The triumph such as it
was had cost the victors 7,000 or 8,000 men, a loss of life
which might have been spared, for Napoleon had already
abdicated, and the battle was entirely useless."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, pages. 1317-1321._
ALSO IN:
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapters 76-77 (volume 16)._
_Count Miot de Melito,
Memoirs,
chapters 33-34._
_General Sir W. F. P. Napier,
History of the War in the! Peninsula,
volumes 4-5._
SPAIN: A. D. 1813.
Possession of West Florida taken by the United States.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.
SPAIN: A. D. 1813-1814 (December-May).
Restoration of Ferdinand and despotic government.
Abolition of the Cortes.
Re-establishment of the Inquisition.
Hostility of the people to freedom.
"The troops of the allies in Catalonia were paralyzed, when
just about to take their last measures against Suchet, and, as
they hoped, drive out the last of the French from Spain. An
envoy arrived from the captive Ferdinand, with the news that
Ferdinand and Napoleon had made a treaty, and that the
Spaniards might not fight the French any more, nor permit the
English to do so on their soil. Ferdinand had been a prisoner
at Valençay for five years and a half; and during that time he
had, by his own account, known nothing of what was doing in
Spain, but from the French newspapers. The notion uppermost in
his little mind at this time appears to have been that the
Cortes and the liberal party in Spain were 'Jacobins and
infidels,' and that it was all-important that he should
return, to restore absolutism and the Inquisition. In sending
to Spain the treaty he had made with Napoleon, he took no
notice whatever of the Cortes, but addressed himself solely to
the Regency: and with them, his business was to consult
whether he should adhere to the treaty or break through it;—
which he might easily do on the plea that it was an extorted
act, agreed to under deficient knowledge of the state of
Spain. Thus crooked was the policy, even at the moment of
restoration, of the foolish prince who seems to have had no
ability for any thing but mean and petty intrigue. The terms
of the treaty might easily be anticipated from the
circumstances under which it was made.
{3012}
Napoleon wanted to shake out the British from his southwestern
quarter; he was in great need of the veteran French troops who
were prisoners in Spain: and he had no longer any hope of
restoring his brother Joseph. The treaty of December, 1813,
therefore provided that Ferdinand and his successors should be
recognised as monarchs of Spain and of the Indies: that the
territory of Spain should be what it had been before the
war—the French giving up any hold they had there: that
Ferdinand should maintain the integrity of this territory,
clearing it completely of the British: that France and Spain
should ally themselves to maintain their maritime rights
against England: that all the Spaniards who had adhered to
King Joseph should be reinstated in whatever they had enjoyed
under him: that all prisoners on both sides should immediately
be sent home: and that Joseph and his wife should receive
large annuities from Spain. The General of the Spanish forces
in Catalonia, Copons, was in so much haste to conclude a
separate armistice for himself, with Suchet, without any
regard to his British comrades, that the Cortes had to act
with the utmost rapidity to prevent it. Since the Cortes had
invested themselves with executive, as well as legislative
power, the Regency had become a mere show: and now, when the
Cortes instantly quashed the treaty, the Regency followed the
example. On the 8th of January, the Regency let his Majesty
know how much he was beloved and desired; but also, how
impossible it was to ratify any act done by him while in a
state of captivity. As Napoleon could not get back his troops
from Spain in this way, he tried another. He released some of
Ferdinand's chief officers, and sent them to him, with
advocates of his own, to arrange about an end to the war, and
exchanging prisoners; and General Palafox, one of the late
captives, went to Madrid, where, however, he met with no
better success than his predecessor. By that time (the end of
January) it was settled that the Spanish treaty, whatever it
might be, was to be framed under the sanction of the Allies,
at the Congress of Chatillon. With the hope of paralyzing the
Spanish forces by division, Napoleon sent Ferdinand back to
Spain. He went through Catalonia, and arrived in his own
dominions on the 24th of March. … These intrigues and
negotiations caused extreme vexation to Wellington. They
suddenly stopped every attempt to expel the French from
Catalonia, and threatened to bring into the field against him
all the prisoners he had left behind him in Spain: and there
was no saying how the winding-up of the war might be delayed
or injured by the political quarrels which were sure to break
out whenever Ferdinand and the Cortes came into collision. …
He therefore lost no time: and the war was over before
Ferdinand entered Madrid. It was on the 14th of May that he
entered Madrid, his carriage drawn by the populace. As he went
through the city on foot, to show his confidence, the people
cheered him. They were aware of some suspicious arrests, but
were willing to hope that they were merely precautionary. Then
followed the complete restoration of the religious orders to
the predominance which had been found intolerable before; the
abolition of the Cortes; and the re-establishment of the
Inquisition. The Constitution had been rejected by the King
before his entry into Madrid. In a few weeks, the whole
country was distracted with discontent and fear; and, in a few
months, the prisons of Madrid were so overflowing with state
prisoners—ninety being arrested on one September night—that
convents were made into prisons for the safe-keeping of the
King's enemies. Patriots were driven into the mountains, and
became banditti, while Ferdinand was making arrests right and
left, coercing the press, and ceremoniously conveying to the
great square, to be there burned in ignominy, the registers of
the proceedings of the late Cortes."
_H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book 2, chapter 6._
"Ferdinand was a person of narrow mind, and his heart seems to
have been incapable of generous feeling; but he was not a
wicked man, nor would he have been a bad King if he had met
with wise ministers, and had ruled over an enlightened people.
On the two important subjects of civil and religious freedom
he and the great body of the nation were in perfect
sympathy,—both, upon both subjects, imbued with error to the
core; and the popular feeling in both cases outran his. The
word Liberty ('Libertad') appeared in large bronze letters
over the entrance of the Hall of the Cortes in Madrid. The
people of their own impulse hurried thither to remove it. …
The Stone of the Constitution, as it was called, was
everywhere removed. … The people at Seville deposed all the
existing authorities, elected others in their stead to all the
offices which had existed under the old system, and then
required those authorities to re-establish the Inquisition. In
reestablishing that accursed tribunal by a formal act of
government, in suppressing the freedom of the press, which had
been abused to its own destruction, and in continuing to
govern not merely as an absolute monarch, but as a despotic
one, Ferdinand undoubtedly complied with the wishes of the
Spanish nation. … But, in his treatment of the more
conspicuous persons among the 'Liberales,' whom he condemned
to strict and long imprisonment, many of them for life, he
brought upon himself an indelible reproach."
_R. Southey,
History of the Peninsular War,
chapter 46 (volume 6)._
SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.
The Constitution of 1812.
Abrogated by Ferdinand.
Restored by the Revolution of 1820.
Intervention of the Holy Alliance.
Absolutism and bigotry reinstated by the arms of France.
"During the war and the captivity of Ferdinand, the Cortès
had, in March 1812 established a new Constitution, by which
the royal authority was reduced to little more than a name. …
Ferdinand VII., after his return, immediately applied himself
to restore the ancient regime in all its unmitigated bigotry
and exclusiveness. He issued decrees, in May, 1814, by which
all Liberals and Free·masons, and all adherents of the Cortès,
and of the officers appointed by them, were either compelled
to fly, or subjected to imprisonment, or at least deposed. All
national property was wrested from the purchasers of it, not
only without compensation, but fines were even imposed upon
the holders. All dissolved convents were re-established. The
Inquisition was restored, and Mir Capillo, Bishop of Almeria,
appointed Grand Inquisitor, who acted with fanatical severity,
and is said to have incarcerated 50,000 persons for their
opinions, many of whom were subjected to torture. … Ten
thousand persons are computed to have fled into France. The
kingdom was governed by a Camarilla, consisting of the King's
favourites, selected from the lowest and most worthless of the
courtiers. … The French invasion of Spain had occasioned a
revolution in Spanish America.
See
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820;
COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819;
MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819, and 1820-1826;
CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818;
PERU: A. D. 1820-18261.
{3013}
The loss of the American colonies, and a bad system of rural
economy, by which agriculture was neglected in favour of
sheep-breeding, had reduced Spain to great poverty. This state
of things naturally affected the finances; the troops were
left unpaid, and broke out into constant mutinies. A
successful insurrection of this kind, led by Colonels Quiroga
and Riego, occurred in 1820. Mina, who had distinguished
himself as a guerilla leader, but, having compromised himself
in a previous mutiny, had been compelled to fly into France,
now recrossed the Pyrenees to aid the movement. The
Constitution of 1812 was proclaimed at Saragossa; and the
cowardly Ferdinand … was also obliged to proclaim it at
Madrid, March 8th 1820. The Cortès was convened in July, when
Ferdinand opened the Assembly with an hypocritical speech;
remarkable for its exaggeration of Liberal sentiments. The
Cortès immediately proceeded again to dissolve the convents,
and even to seize the tithes of the secular clergy, on the
pretext that the money was required for the necessities of the
State. The Inquisition was once more abolished, the freedom of
the press ordained, the right of meeting and forming clubs
restored. … The Spanish revolutionists were divided into three
parties: the Decamisados, answering to the French
'Sans-culottes'; the Communeros, who were for a moderate
constitutional system; and the Anilleros, known by the symbol
of a ring; who, dreading the interference of the Holy
Alliance, endeavoured to conciliate the people with the crown.
On the whole, the insurgents used their victory with
moderation, and, with the exception of some few victims of
revenge, contented themselves with depriving their opponents,
the Serviles, of their places and emoluments. … The
revolution, though originated by the soldiery, was adopted by
the more educated class of citizens. On the other hand, the
clergy and the peasantry were bitterly opposed to it. In the
summer of 1821, guerilla bands were organised in the provinces
in the cause of Church and King, and obtained the name of
'Armies of the Faith.' … In these civil disturbances dreadful
atrocities were committed on both sides. … The French
Government, with the ulterior design of interfering in Spanish
affairs, seized the pretext of this disorder to place a cordon
of troops on the Pyrenees; to which the Spaniards opposed an
army of observation. Ferdinand, relying on the Army of the
Faith, and on his Foreign Minister, Martinez de la Rosa, a
Moderado, thought he might venture on a coup d'etat before the
appearance of the French; but his guards were worsted in a
street fight, July 7th 1822. … Ferdinand was now base enough
to applaud and thank the victors, to dismiss the Moderados
from the Ministry, and to replace them by Exaltados, or
Radicals. This state of things had attracted the attention of
the Holy Alliance. In October 1822, the three northern
monarchs assembled in congress at Verona, to adopt some
resolution respecting Spain. …
See VERONA: THE CONGRESS OF.
They addressed a note to the Spaniards requiring the
restoration of absolutism. … In the spring, the French army of
observation, which had been increased to 100,000 men, was
placed under the command of the Duke of Angoulême." The
Spanish troops "were few and ill disciplined; while in Old
Castile stood guerilla bands, under the priest Merino, ready
to aid the French invasion. An attempt on the part of
Ferdinand to dismiss his Liberal ministry induced the
ministers and the Cortès to remove him to Seville (March, 20th
1823), whither the Cortès were to follow. The Duke of
Angoulême addressed a proclamation to the Spaniards from
Bayonne, April 2nd, in which he told them that he did not
enter Spain as an enemy, but to liberate the captive King,
and, in conjunction with the friends of order, to re-establish
the altar and the throne. The French crossed the Bidassoa,
April 7th. The only serious resistance which they experienced
was from Mina [in Catalonia]. Ballasteros [in Navarre] was not
strong enough to oppose them, while the traitor O'Donnell
[commanding a reserve in New Castile] entered into
negociations with the enemy, and opened to them the road to
the capital. Ballasteros was compelled to retire into
Valencia, and the French entered Madrid, May 23rd. A Regency …
was now instituted till the King should be rescued. … A French
corps was despatched … against Seville, where the Cortès had
reopened their sittings; but on the advance of the French they
retired to Cadiz, June 12th, taking with them the King, whom
they declared of unsound mind, and a provisional Regency was
appointed." The French advanced and laid siege to Cadiz, which
capitulated October 1st, after a bombardment, the Cortès
escaping by sea. Mina, in Catalonia, gave up resistance in
November. "The Duke of Angoulême returned to Paris before the
end of the year, but Spain continued to be occupied by an army
of 40,000 French. The first act of Ferdinand after his release
was to publish a proclamation, October 1st, revoking all that
had been done since March 7th 1820. The Inquisition, indeed,
was not restored; but the vengeance exercised by the secular
tribunals was so atrocious that the Duke of Angoulême issued
an order prohibiting arrests not sanctioned by the French
commander: an act, however, which on the principle of
non-interference was disavowed by the French Government. … It
is computed that 40,000 Constitutionalists, chiefly of the
educated classes, were thrown into prison. The French remained
in Spain till 1827. M. Zea Bermudez, the new Minister,
endeavoured to rule with moderation. But he was opposed on all
sides. … His most dangerous enemy was the Apostolic Junta,
erected in 1824 for the purpose of carrying out to its full
extent, and independently of the Ministry, the victory of
bigotry and absolutism." In 1825, Bermudez was driven to
resign. "The Junta … in the spring of 1827 excited in
Catalonia an insurrection of the Serviles. The insurgents
styled themselves Aggraviados (aggrieved persons), because the
King did not restore the Inquisition, and because he sometimes
listened to his half Liberal ministers, or to the French and
English ambassadors, instead of suffering the Junta to rule
uncontrolled. The history of the revolt is obscure. … The
object seems to have been to dethrone Ferdinand in favour of
his brother Carlos." The insurrection was suppressed, "the
province disarmed, and many persons executed."
_T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 8 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_E. Blaquiere,
Historical Review of the Spanish Revolution._
_F. A. de Châteaubriand,
Memoirs: Congress of Verona,
volume 1._
_S. Walpole,
History of England,
chapter 9 (volume 2)._
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-1852,
chapters 7, and 11-12._
{3014}
SPAIN: A. D. 1815.
The Allies in France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
SPAIN: A. D. 1815.
Accession to the Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
SPAIN: A. D. 1818.
Chile lost to the Spanish crown.
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
SPAIN: A. D. 1821.
Mexican independence practically gained.
Iturbide's empire.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
SPAIN: A. D. 1822-1823.
The Congress of Verona.
French intervention approved.
See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.
SPAIN: A. D. 1824.
Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
SPAIN: A. D. 1833.
Accession of Isabella II.
SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.
The civil war of Carlists and Christinos.
Abdication of Christina.
Regency of Espartero.
Revolution of 1843.
Accession of Queen Isabella.
Louis Philippe and his Spanish marriages.
"The eyes of King Ferdinand VII. were scarcely closed,
September 29th, 1833, when the Apostolic party—whose strength
lay in the north of Spain, and especially in Navarre and the
Basque provinces —proclaimed his brother, Don Carlos, king
under the title of Charles V. In order to offer a successful
resistance to the Carlists, who were fighting for absolutism
and priestcraft, there was no other course for the regent,
Maria Christina, than to throw herself into the arms of the
liberal party. So the seven years' war between Carlists and
Christinos, from a war of succession, became a strife of
principles and a war of citizens. At the outset, owing to the
skill of General Zumalacarreguy, to whom the Christinos could
oppose no leader of equal ability, the Carlists had the
advantage in the field. Don Carlos threatened the Spanish
frontiers from Portugal, where he had been living in exile
with his dear nephew, Don Miguel. In this strait, Christina
applied to England and France, and between those two states
and Spain and Portugal was concluded the quadruple alliance of
April 22d, 1834, the aim of which was to uphold the
constitutional thrones of Isabella and Maria da Gloria, and to
drive out the two pretenders, Carlos and Miguel. In that year
both pretenders, who enjoyed to a high degree the favor of the
Pope and the Eastern powers, had to leave Portugal. Carlos
reached England on an English ship in June, but fled again in
July, and, after an adventurous journey through France,
appeared suddenly in Navarre, to inspire his followers with
courage by the royal presence. The war was conducted with
passion and cruelty on both sides. After the death of
Zumalacarreguy at the siege of Bilbao, June 14th, 1835, the
Christinos, who were superior in point of numbers, seemed to
have the advantage. … The turning-point was reached when the
command of the Christino army was committed to Espartero. In
1836 he defeated the Carlists in the murderous battle of
Luchana. In 1837, when Carlos advanced into the neighborhood
of Madrid, he hastened to the succor of the capital, and
compelled him to retreat. To these losses were added disunion
in the Carlist camp. The utterly incapable, dependent
pretender was the tool of his Camarilla, which made excellence
in the catechism a more important requisite for the chief
command than military science, and which deposed the most
capable generals to put its own creatures in command. The new
commander-in-chief, Guergué, said, bluntly, to Carlos, 'We,
the blockheads and ignoramuses, have yet to conduct your
Majesty to Madrid; and whoever does not belong in that
category is a traitor.' This Apostolic hero was defeated
several times by Espartero in 1838, and the enthusiasm of the
northern provinces gradually cooled down. He was deposed, and
the chief command intrusted to the cunning Maroto. … As he
[Maroto] did not succeed in winning victories over Espartero,
who overmatched him, he concluded, instead, August 31st, 1839,
the treaty of Vergara, in accordance with which he went over
to the Christinos, with his army, and by that means obtained
full amnesty, and the confirmation of the privileges of
Navarre and the Basque provinces. After this, Don Carlos's
cause was hopelessly lost. He fled, in September, to France,
with many of his followers, and was compelled to pass six
years in Bourges under police supervision. In 1845, after he
had resigned his claims in favor of his eldest son, the Duke
of Montemolin, he received permission to depart, and went to
Italy. He died in Trieste, March 10th, 1855. His followers,
under Cabrera, carried on the war for some time longer in
Catalonia. But they, too, were overcome by Espartero, and in
July, 1840, they fled, about 8,000 strong, to France, where
they were put under surveillance. The civil war was at an end,
but the strife of principles continued. Espartero, who had
been made Duke of Victory (Vittoria), was the most important
and popular personage in Spain, with whom the regent, as well
as everybody else, had to reckon. In the mean time Christina
had contrived to alienate the respect and affection of the
Spaniards, both by her private life and her political conduct.
Her liberal paroxysms were not serious, and gave way, as soon
as the momentary need was past, to the most opposite tendency.
… In 1836 the Progressists apprehended a reaction, and sought
to anticipate it. Insurrections were organized in the larger
cities, and the constitution of 1812 was made the programme of
the revolt. … Soldiers of the guard forced their way into the
palace, and compelled [Christina] to accept the constitution
of 1812. A constitutional assembly undertook a revision of
this, and therefrom resulted the new constitution of 1837.
Christina swore to it, but hoped, by controlling the
elections, to bring the Moderados into the Cortes and the
ministry. When she succeeded in this, in 1840, she issued a
municipal ordinance placing the appointment of the municipal
authorities in the hands of the administration. This
occasioned riots in Madrid and other cities; and when
Christina commissioned Espartero, who was just returning
victorious, to suppress the revolt in Madrid, he refused to
constitute himself the tool of an unpopular policy. But he was
the only man who could hold in check the revolution which
threatened to break out on all sides; and so, September 16th,
1840, he had to be named minister president. … Under such
circumstances the regency had but little charm for Christina,
and there were, moreover, other causes working with these to
the same result.
{3015}
Soon after the death of her husband, she had bestowed her
favor on a young lifeguardsman named Munoz, made him her
chamberlain, and been secretly married to him. This union soon
published itself in a rich blessing of offspring, but it was
not until the year 1844 that her public marriage with Munoz,
and his elevation to the rank of duke (of Rianzares) and
grandee of Spain took place. Having by this course of life
forfeited the fame of an honest woman, and exposed herself to
all sorts of attacks, she preferred to leave the country.
October 12th, she abdicated the regency, and journeyed to
France. May 8th, 1841, the newly elected Cortes named
Espartero regent of Spain, and guardian of Queen Isabella and
her sister, the Infanta Luisa Fernanda. … Since he knew how
actively Christina, supported by Louis Philippe, was working
against him with gold and influence, he entered into closer
relations with England, whereupon his envious foes and rivals
accused him of the sale of Spanish commercial interests to
England. Because he quieted rebellious Barcelona by a
bombardment in 1842, he was accused of tyranny. In 1843 new
insurrections broke out in the south; Colonel Prim hastened to
Catalonia, and set himself at the head of the soldiers whom
Christina's agents had won over by a liberal use of money;
Espartero's deadliest foe, General Narvaez, landed in
Valencia, and marched into Madrid at the head of the troops.
Espartero, against whom Progressists and Moderados had
conspired together, found himself forsaken, and embarked at
Cadiz, July 26th 1843, for England, whence he did not dare to
return to his own country until 1848. In November, 1843, the
thirteen-year-old Isabella was declared of age. She assumed
the government, made Narvaez, now Duke of Valencia, minister
president, and recalled her mother. Thereby gate and doors
were opened to the French influence, and the game of intrigue
and reaction recommenced. In 1845 the constitution of 1837 was
altered in the interests of absolutism. … In order to secure
to his house a lasting influence in Spain, and acquire for it
the reversion of the Spanish throne, Louis Philippe, in
concert with Christina, effected, October 16th, 1846, the
marriage of Isabella with her kinsman Francis of Assis, and of
the Infanta Luisa with the Duke of Montpensier, his own
youngest son. (At first his plan was to marry Isabella also to
one of his sons, the Duke of Aumale, but he abandoned it on
account of the energetic protest of the Palmerston cabinet,
and, instead, chose for Isabella, in Francis of Assis, the
person who, by reason of his mental and physical weakness,
would be least likely to stand in the way of his son
Montpensier.) This secretly negotiated marriage cost Louis
Philippe the friendship of the English cabinet."
_W. Müller,
Political History of Modern Times,
section 9._
ALSO IN:
_W. Bollaert,
The Wars of Succession in Portugal and Spain, 1826 to 1840,
volume 2._
_C. F. Henningsen,
A Twelve Months' Campaign with Zumalacarregui._
_Sir H. L. Bulwer (Lord Dalling),
Life of Palmerston,
volume 3, chapter 7._
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, chapter 6._
SPAIN: A. D. 1845-1860.
Cuba in danger from the United States.
Filibustering movements.
The Ostend Manifesto.
See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.
SPAIN: A. D. 1861.
Allied intervention in Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
SPAIN: A. D. 1866.
War with Peru.
Repulse from Callao.
See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.
SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.
Vices and misgovernment of Isabella.
Revolution of 1868.
Flight of the Queen.
Constitution of 1869.
Religious toleration.
Candidates for the vacant throne.
Election of Amadeo of Italy.
Unfriendliness of the nation to him.
His abdication.
"In January, 1866, occurred an insurrection headed by General
Prim, a leading officer of the army, which, failing, caused
his temporary exile. In June there originated in the barrack
of San Gil, a few hundred yards from the palace, a more
serious revolt, which extended over a great part of Madrid. In
October of the same year the Ministry, in a public
proclamation, alleged as a justification for an autocratic
exercise of power, that 'revolutionary tendencies constituted
an imposing organism with dangerous pretensions; that a
rebellion adverse to the fundamental institutions of the
country and the dynasty of Isabella, such as had never been
seen in Spain, had obtained possession of important
municipalities, and triumphed in the deputations from all the
provinces,' and that it was necessary to dissolve the
municipalities and renew the provisional deputations. … By
this arbitrary assumption Spain was under as complete a
despotism as existed in the neighboring empire of Morocco. The
dissatisfaction at such maladministration, such abuses in the
government, and the thinly disguised immoralities of the
Queen, soon found expression in audible murmurs and severe
criticism. These verbal protests were followed by machinations
for the overthrow or control of a sovereign subject to
ambitious priests and a venal coterie. Two exiles, Marshal
Serrano and Marshal Prim, united with Admiral Topete at Cadiz,
and began a revolution which soon had the sympathy and
co-operation of a large part of the army and the navy. A
provisional revolutionary junta of forty-one persons—a few
others, notably Sagasta and Martos, were afterwards added —was
appointed, which signed decrees and orders having the force
and effect of laws. In less than a month Francisco Serrano was
authorized by the junta to form a temporary ministry to rule
the country until the Cortes should meet. The defeat of the
royal troops near Alcolea prevented the return of Isabella to
Madrid, and on September 30, 1868, she fled across the border
into France. … With the flight of the Queen vanished for a
time the parliamentary monarchy, and, despite her impotent
proclamations from France, and offers of amnesty, a
provisional government was at once established. A decree of
the Government to take inventories of 'all the libraries,
collections of manuscripts, works of art, or objects of
historical value—a measure necessary to make useful and
available these treasures, and to prevent spoliation and
transfer —was peacefully executed except at Burgos. Here,
under instigation of the priests and aided by them, a mob
assembled, broke down the doors of the cathedral, assassinated
the Governor, wounded the chief of police, and expelled those
engaged in making the required examination and inventory. This
outbreak, attributed to a clerical and Carlist conspiracy,
awakened opposition and horror. A strong pressure was created
for the immediate establishment of freedom of worship.
{3016}
The atrocious butchery at Burgos aroused the inhabitants of
the capital. The Nuncio was so imperilled by the excited
populace that the diplomatic corps interposed for the safety
and protection of their colleague. Marshal Serrano quieted the
angry multitude gathered at his residence by saying that the
Government had prepared the project of a constitution to be
submitted to the Constitutional Assembly, one of whose first
articles was liberty of worship. On February 12, 1869, the
Constitutional Cortes convoked by the Provisional Government,
assembled with unusual pomp and ceremony and with striking
demonstrations of popular enthusiasm. … The Republicans, among
whom the eloquent Castelar was influential, were a compact
phalanx, and to them the independent Progresistas, led by
General Prim, made overtures which were accepted. On Sunday
June 5, 1869, the Constitution was promulgated. … While
recognizing the provinces and endowing them with important
functions, the Cortes rejected the plan of a federal republic,
and adhered to the monarchical form of government as
corresponding with and a concession to Spanish traditions, and
as most likely to secure a larger measure of the liberal
principles of the revolution. The Constitution, the legitimate
outgrowth of that popular uprising, recognized the natural and
inherent rights of man, and established an elective monarchy.
… Congress was chosen by universal suffrage. The provincial
assemblies and the municipal authorities were elected by the
people of their respective localities. The ancient privileges
of the aristocracy were annulled, and the equality of all men
before the law was recognized. … The Clerical party claimed
the continued maintenance of the Roman Catholic Church and the
exclusion of all other worship, but the country had outgrown
such intolerance. … The Catholic form of faith was retained in
the organic law as the religion of the State, but a larger
liberty of worship was secured to the people. In Article XXI.
the Catholic Apostolic Roman religion was declared the State
religion, and the obligation to maintain its worship and
ministers was imposed. Foreigners were granted toleration for
public and private worship under the limitations of the
universal rules of morals and right, and Spaniards, even,
professing another than the Catholic religion were to have the
like toleration. … Spain quietly passed from the anomalous
condition of a provisional into a regular constitutional
government, the title of Provisional Government having been
changed to that of Executive Power. In June a regency was
established, and Serrano was chosen by a vote of 193 to 45.
From June 16, 1869, the date of Prim's first cabinet, until
December 27, 1870, when he was shot [as he rode through the
street, by assassins, who escaped], he had four separate
ministries besides several changes of individual ministers;
and this instability is characteristic of Spanish politics. …
For the vacant throne some Spaniards turned to the Duke of
Montpensier; some to the Court of Portugal, and in default
thereof to the house of Savoy. … At the moment of greatest
embarrassment, the candidature of Leopold, Prince of
Hohenzollern, was proposed [—a proposal which led to the
Franco-German war: see FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY)]. …
Leopold's declension was a welcome relief. His candidacy being
removed, the strife for the throne became fiercer. On November
3, 1870, General Prim announced to the Cortes the Duke of
Aosta, son of Victor Emmanuel, as the Ministerial candidate
for the crown. Castelar impetuously denounced the attempt to
put a foreigner over Spaniards. On the 15th, Amadeo was
elected king, receiving on a vote by ballot a majority of
seventy-one of those present and a majority of eighteen in a
full house. … The choice excited no enthusiasm, elicited no
applause, nor was a viva given by the multitude outside the
building where the Cortes had made a sovereign. Thirty
thousand troops, discreetly posted in principal thoroughfares,
prevented any hostile demonstration, and the leading
Republicans, Figueras, Castelar, and Piyy Margall, advised
against any acts of violence. Many journals condemned the
Cortes. Grandees, protested, placards caricatured and
ridiculed. … Nevertheless, Zorrilla went to Italy to make the
formal tender of the crown, and on January 2, 1871, the prince
reached Madrid and took the prescribed oaths of office in the
presence of the regent, the Cortes, and the diplomatic corps.
The ceremony was brief and simple. The reception by the
populace was respectful and cold. The Provisional Government
resigned, and a new ministry was appointed, embracing such men
as, Serrano, Martos, Moret, Sagasta, and Zorrilla. … Amadeo
never had the friendship of the Carlists nor of the simon-pure
Monarchists. The dynasty was offensive to the adherents of Don
Carlos and of Alfonso, and to the Republicans, who were
opposed to any king. … Becoming [after two years] convinced
that the Opposition was irreconcilable, that factions were
inevitable, that a stable ministry was impossible, Amadeo,
resolved on the singular course of abdicating the royal
authority, and returning to the nation the powers with which
he had been intrusted;" and this abdication he performed on
the 11th of February, 1873.
_J. L. M. Curry,
Constitutional Government in Spain,
chapters 3-4._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Harrison,
Spain,
chapters 27-28._
SPAIN: A. D. 1873-1885.
Reign of Alphonso XII., son of Queen Isabella.
On the abdication of King Amadeo, "a republic was declared by
the Cortes, and the gifted and eminent statesman, Castelar,
strove to give it a constitutional and conservative character.
But during the disorders of the last few years the Basque
provinces of Navarre and Biscay had been in a ferment excited
by the Carlists. The grandson of the Don Carlos who had
troubled Spain from 1833 to 1839 appeared in those provinces
which were still favourable to his cause, and this ardent
young champion of divine right of course received the support
of French legitimists. On the other hand, the doctrines of the
Paris Commune had found in the south of Spain many adherents,
who desired that their country should form a federation of
provincial republics. Malaga, Seville, Cadiz, Cartagena, and
Valencia revolted, and were reduced only after sharp fighting.
A group of generals then determined to offer the crown to
Alphonso, the young son of Isabella II, in whose favour she
had abdicated in 1868. Castelar, the moderate republican
statesman, reluctantly consented, and young Alphonso XII, on
landing in Spain, 1874, received the support of most
republicans and Carlists, disgusted by the excesses of their
extreme partisans.
{3017}
His generals gradually hemmed in the Carlists along the north
coast by battles near Bilbao and Irun; and when the rebels
shot a German subject Prince Bismarck sent German ships to aid
the Alphonsists. These in the spring of 1876 forced Don Carlos
and most of his supporters to cross the French frontier. The
Madrid Government now determined to put an end to the fueros
or local privileges of the Basque provinces, which they had
misused in openly preparing this revolt. So Biscay and Navarre
henceforth contributed to the general war expenses of Spain,
and their conscripts were incorporated with the regular army
of Spain. Thus the last municipal and provincial privileges of
the old Kingdom of Navarre vanished, and national unity became
more complete in Spain, as in every other country of Europe
except Austria and Turkey. The Basque provinces resisted the
change which placed them on a level with the rest of Spain,
and have not yet become reconciled to the Madrid Government.
The young King, Alphonso XII, had many other difficulties to
meet. The government was disorganised, the treasury empty, and
the country nearly ruined; but he had a trusty adviser in
Canovas del Castillo, a man of great prudence and talent, who,
whether prime minister or out of office, has really held power
in his hands. He succeeded in unifying the public debt, and by
lowering its rate of interest he averted State bankruptcy. He
also strove to free the administration from the habits of
bribe-taking which had long enfeebled and disgraced it; but in
this he met with less success, as also in striving for purity
of parliamentary election. … The Senate is composed of (1)
nobles, (2) deputies elected by the corporations and wealthy
classes, and (3) of life senators appointed by the crown. The
Chamber of Deputies is elected by universal suffrage, one
deputy for every 50,000 inhabitants. The king or either House
of Parliament has the right of proposing laws. In 1883 King
Alphonso paid a visit to Berlin, and was made honorary colonel
of a Uhlan regiment. For this he was hooted and threatened by
the Parisians on his visit to the French capital; and this
reception increased the coldness of Spain toward the French,
who had aggrieved their southern neighbour by designs on
Morocco. The good understanding between Spain and Germany was
over-clouded by a dispute about the Caroline Islands in the
Pacific, which Spain rightly regarded as her own. This
aggravated an illness of Alphonso, who died suddenly (November
25, 1885). His young widow, as queen-regent for her infant
child, has hitherto [1889] succeeded with marvellous tact."
_J. H. Rose,
A Century of Continental History,
chapter 43._
SPAIN: A. D. 1885-1894.
Alphonso XIII.
At the time of this writing (November, 1894), the
queen-regent, Maria Christina, is still reigning in the name
of her young son, Alphonso XIII.
----------SPAIN: End--------
SPALATO.
See SALONA, ANCIENT.
----------SPANISH AMERICA: Start--------
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1492-1517.
Discoveries and early settlements.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1492, to 1513-1517.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1524.
Discovery and conquest of Mexico.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518;
and MEXICO: 1519, to 1521-1524.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1527-1533.
Discovery and conquest or Peru.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528;
and PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1533.
Conquest of the kingdom of Quito.
See ECUADOR.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.
Spanish conquests in Chile.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.
Conquest of New Granada.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1542-1568.
Establishment of the audiencias of Quito, Charcas,
New Granada, and Chile, under the viceroyalty of Peru.
See AUDIENCIAS.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1546-1724.
The Araucanian War.
See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1580.
Final founding of the city of Buenos Ayres.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1767.
The Jesuits in Paraguay.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
Formation of the government of Rio de La Plata.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1767.
Expulsion of the Jesuits.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1776.
Creation of the viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;
and PERU: A. D. 1550-1816.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
Revolt, independence and
confederation of the Argentine Provinces.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1818.
Chilean independence achieved.
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1821.
The War of Independence in Venezuela and New Granada.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
Paraguayan independence accomplished.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1826.
The independence of Mexico.
Brief Empire of Iturbide.
The Federal Republic established.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1821.
Independence acquired in the Central American States.
See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.
See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1826.
The Congress of Panama.
See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.
SPANISH AMERICA: A. D. 1828.
The Banda Oriental becomes the Republic of Uruguay.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
----------SPANISH AMERICA: End--------
SPANISH ARMADA, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.
SPANISH COINS.
"The early chroniclers make their reckonings of values under
different names at different times. Thus during the
discoveries of Columbus we hear of little else but
'maravedis'; then the 'peso de oro' takes the lead, together
with the 'castellano'; all along 'marco' and 'ducado' being
occasionally used. At the beginning of the 16th century, and
before and after, Spanish values were reckoned from a mark of
silver, which was the standard. A mark was half a pound either
of gold or silver. The gold mark was divided into 50
castellanos; the silver mark into eight ounces. In the reign
of Ferdinand and Isabella the mark was divided by law into 65
'reales de vellon' of 34 maravedis each, making 2,210
maravedis in a mark. … In the reign of Alfonso Xl., 1312-1350,
there were 125 maravedis to the mark, while in the reign of
Ferdinand VII., 1808-1833, a mark was divided into 5,440
maravedis.
{3018}
In Spanish America a 'real' is one-eighth of a 'peso,' and
equal to 2½ reales de vellon. The peso contains one ounce of
silver; it was formerly called 'peso de ocho reales de plata,'
whence came the term 'pieces of eight,' a vulgarism at one
time in vogue among the merchants and buccaneers in the West
Indies. … The castellano, the one fiftieth of the golden mark,
in the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, was equivalent to 490
maravedis of that day. The 'peso de oro,' according to Oviedo,
was exactly equivalent to the castellano, and either was one
third greater than the ducado or ducat. The 'doblon' … was
first struck by Ferdinand and Isabella as a gold coin of the
weight of two castellanos. The modern doubloon is an ounce of
coined gold, and is worth 16 pesos fuertes. Reduced to United
States currency, the peso fuerte, as slightly alloyed bullion,
is in weight nearly enough equivalent to one dollar. Therefore
a mark of silver is equal to 8 dollars; a piece of eight,
equal to one peso, which equals one dollar; a real de vellon,
5 cents; a Spanish-American real], 12½ cents; a maravedi,
100/276 of a cent; a castellano, or peso de oro $2.56; a
doubloon $5.14; a ducat, $1.92; a mark of gold $128, assuming
the United States alloy. The fact that a castellano was
equivalent to only 490 maravedis shows the exceedingly high
value of silver as compared with gold at the period in
question."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, pages 192-193, foot-note. _
SPANISH CONSPIRACY, The.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
SPANISH ERA, The.
See ERA, SPANISH.
SPANISH FURY, The.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.
SPANISH INQUISITION, The.
See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.
SPANISH MAIN, The.
"The Spanish main was simply the mainland, terra firma, of
Spanish America, as opposed to the islands: but the term
'terra firma' was specially applied to the northern part of
South America, extending 'all along the North Sea from the
Pacific Ocean to the mouth of the river of Amazons upon the
Atlantic' (Burke, European Settlements in America, Part III.,
chapter xvi.), and comprising the towns of Panama, Carthagena,
and Porto Bello.
See TIERRA FIRME.
Longfellow blunders in the 'Wreck of the Hesperus' when he
speaks of the old sailor who 'had sailed the Spanish main.'"
_C. P. Lucas,
Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
volume 2, page 35, foot-note._
SPANISH MARCH, The.
See SPAIN: A. D. 778.
SPANISH MARRIAGES, The question of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
SPANISH SUCCESSION, The War of the.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and after;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, and after;
GERMANY: A. D. 1702, and after;
ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
----------SPARTA: Start--------
SPARTA: The City.
Its situation, origin and growth.
Laconia.
"Hollow Lacedæmon."
"Laconia is formed by two mountain-chains running immediately
from Arcadia [from the center to the southeastern extremity of
Peloponnesus], and enclosing the river Eurotas, whose source
is separated from that of an Arcadian stream by a very
trifling elevation. The Eurotas is, for some way below the
city of Sparta, a rapid mountain-stream; then, after forming a
cascade, it stagnates into a morass; but lower down it passes
over a firm soil in a gentle and direct course. Near the town
of Sparta rocks and hills approach the banks on both sides,
and almost entirely shut in the river both above and below the
town: this enclosed plain is without doubt the 'hollow
Lacedæmon' of Homer."
_C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
book 1, chapter 4._
Upon the Dorian invasion and occupation of Peloponnesus (see
DORIANS AND IONIANS) the city and neighborhood of Sparta in
Laconia,—i. e. Sparta and 'hollow Lacedæmon,' —became the seat
of the dominant state which they founded in the peninsula. The
conquerors, themselves, and their descendants, were the only
full citizens of this Spartan state and were called Spartiatæ
or Spartans. The prior inhabitants of the country were reduced
to political dependence, in a class called the Periœci, or
else to actual serfdom in the more degraded class known as
Helots. "Sparta was not, like other towns of the Greeks,
composed of a solid body of houses, but, originally in a rural
and open situation on the river and its canals, it gradually
stretched out into the open country, and Dorians lived far
beyond Sparta along the entire valley, without the inhabitants
of remoter points being on that account in any less degree
citizens of Sparta than those dwelling by the ford of the
Eurotas. They were all Spartans, as by a stricter term they
were called, as distinguished from the Lacedæmonians. …
Strictly apart from this exclusive community of Spartiatæ
there remained, with its ancient conditions of life intact,
the older population of the land, which dwelt scattered on the
mountains surrounding the land of the Spartiatæ on all sides
(hence called the dwellers-around, or Periœci). More than
trebling the Spartiatæ in number, they cultivated the
incomparably less remunerative arable land of the mountains,
the precipitous declivities of which they made available by
means of terraced walls for cornfields and vineyards. … Free
proprietors on their own holdings, they, according to
primitive custom, offered their tribute to the kings. The
country people, on the other hand, residing on the fields of
the Spartiatæ, met with a harder fate. Part of them probably
consisted of peasants on the domains; others had been
conquered in the course of internal feuds. They were left on
the fields which had been once their own, on the condition of
handing over to the Spartiatæ quartered upon them an important
portion of their produce. This oppression provoked several
risings; and we must assume that the ancient sea-town of Helos
was for a time the centre of one of these outbreaks. For this
is the only admissible explanation of the opinion universally
prevailing among the ancients, that from that town is derived
the name of the Helots."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
volume 1, book. 2, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1._
{3019}
SPARTA:
The Constitution ascribed to Lycurgus.
"Sparta was the city from which the Dorians slowly extended
their dominion over a considerable portion of Peloponnesus. Of
the progress of her power we have only the most meagre
information. … The internal condition of Sparta at this early
period is uniformly described as one of strife and bad
government, a condition of affairs which was certainly
unfavourable to external development and conquest. Herodotus
attributes these dissensions, at least in part, to the mutual
animosity of the two royal families; the twin sons of
Aristodemus quarrelled all their lives, and their descendants
after them did the same. Plutarch, on the other hand, speaks
of quarrels between the kings and the people. … Whatever the
cause, it is more certain than any other fact in early Spartan
history that the condition of the country was for a long time
one of internal strife and dissension. It was the great merit
of Lycurgus to have put an end to this disastrous state of
affairs. Lycurgus is the foremost name in Spartan history.
Tradition is nearly unanimous in describing this lawgiver as
the author of the prosperity of Sparta, and the founder of her
peculiar institutions, but about the date and the events of
his life the greatest uncertainty prevailed. … Thucydides,
though he does not mention Lycurgus, asserts that the form of
the government had continued the same in Sparta for more than
four hundred years before the end of the Peloponnesian war. In
his opinion, therefore, the reforms of Lycurgus were
introduced shortly before 804 B. C. This date is considerably
later than that usually given to Lycurgus, on the authority of
the ancient chronologers. … Herodotus tells us that Lycurgus,
when visiting the Delphic shrine, was hailed by the priestess
as a being more than human, and some authorities asserted that
the Spartan institutions were revealed to him there. The
Lacedaemonians, however, regarded Crete as the source of their
peculiar arrangements [see CRETE]. They were thus enabled to
connect them with the great name of Minos, and derive their
authority from Zeus himself. … Plutarch has fortunately
transcribed the text of the Rhetrae, or ordinances, which were
given to Lycurgus at Delphi. There does not seem to be any
reason to doubt that these were the oldest ordinances known at
Sparta, or that they formed the basis of their 'good
government.' They were therefore the oldest political
ordinances known in Hellas, and, indeed, in the world. 'Found
a temple to Zeus Hellanius, and Athena Hellania, arrange the
tribes, and the Obes, thirty in number, establish the Gerousia
with the Archagetae. Summon the people for meeting from time
to time between Babyca and the Cnacion, there bring forward
and decide (reject). The people are to have the supreme
power.' Thus the first duty of the lawgiver was to found a
public sanctuary which should be as it were the centre of the
community. Then the people were to be arranged in tribes and
Obes. The division into tribes was not a new one; from the
first the Dorians at Sparta, as elsewhere, when free from the
admixture of external elements, were divided into three
tribes, Hylleis, Dymanes, Pamphyli, but it is possible that
some changes were now introduced, regulating the internal
arrangement of the tribe. In each tribe were ten Obes, of
which we know nothing beyond the name. They appear to have
been local divisions. As the Gerousia [see GERUSIA], including
the kings, contained thirty members, we may conjecture that
each Obe was represented in the Senate, and therefore that the
two kings were the representatives of two distinct Obes. The
Archagetae are the kings, or leaders of the people. From time
to time the community were to be summoned to a meeting. …
Before the assembled people measures were to be introduced
that they might decide upon them, for no measure was valid
which had not received the sanction of the whole people. The
elements with which these ordinances deal—the Kings, the
Council and the Assembly—appear in the Homeric poems, and grew
naturally out of the patriarchal government of the tribe. The
work of Lycurgus did not consist in creating new elements, but
in consolidating those which already existed into a harmonious
whole. … Three other ordinances which are ascribed to Lycurgus
forbade (1) the use of written laws; (2) the use of any tools
but the axe and saw in building a house; (3) frequent wars
upon the same enemies. He is also said to have forbidden the
use of coined money in Sparta. Neither gold nor silver was to
be used for purposes of exchange, but bars of iron, which by
their small value and great bulk rendered money dealings on
any large scale impossible. The iron of these bars was also
made unusually brittle in order that it might be useless for
ordinary purposes. Such precepts were doubtless observed at
Sparta, though they may not have been derived from Lycurgus.
The training which every Spartan underwent was intended to
diminish the sphere of positive law as much as possible, and
to encourage the utmost simplicity and even rudeness of life.
… About a century after Lycurgus, in the reign of Theopompus,
two changes of great importance were made in the Spartan
constitution. The veto which the earlier rhetra had allowed to
the assembled people was cancelled, and a new law was
introduced, which gave the ultimate control to the Gerontes
and Kings. 'If the people decide crookedly, the elders and
chiefs shall put it back,' i. e. shall reverse the popular
decision. Under what circumstances this ordinance, which is
said to have been obtained from Delphi, was passed, we do not
know, nor is it quite clear how it consists with what we find
recorded of the constitutional history of Sparta in later
times. … The second innovation was even more important. Though
Herodotus ascribes the institution of the Ephoralty [see
EPHORS] to Lycurgus, it seems more correct to follow Aristotle
and others in ascribing it to Theopompus. The Ephors, who were
five in number, appear in the first instance to have been of
no great importance. But as they were intimately connected
with the commons, elected from and by them as their
representatives, we must assume that the ephoralty was a
concession to the people, and it may have been a compensation
for the loss of the right of voting in the assembly. In time
the ephors grew to be the most important officers in the
state, both in war and in peace. They were associated with the
council, they presided in the assembly, and even the kings
were not exempt from their power. To this result the growing
dread of 'a tyrannis,' like that at Corinth or Sicyon, and the
increasing importance of the Spartan training, which the
ephors superintended, in a great measure contributed. … The
kings were the leaders of the army. For a time they always
took the field together, but owing to the dissensions of
Cleomenes and Demaratus, a law was passed that one king only
should go out with the army, and it was henceforth the custom
for one king only to be absent from Sparta, at a time.
{3020}
The kings had the right of making war on whom they would, and
no one could prevent them, on pain of being under a curse, but
as they were liable to be brought to trial on their return for
failure in an expedition, they usually obtained the consent of
the ephors or the assembly before going. … The origin of the
dual monarchy, which from the first was so distinctive a
feature of the Spartan government, is very obscure, and many
attempts have been made to explain it. It may have arisen by a
fusion of the native and immigrant races, each of which was
allowed to retain its own prince in the new community. … It is
perhaps more reasonable to assume that the two kings represent
two leading families, each of which had a claim to give a
chief to the community. That two families holding equal rights
should be regarded as descended from the twin sons of the
Dorian founder of Sparta is merely one of the fictions which
of necessity arose in the period when all political unions and
arrangements were expressed in the terms of genealogical
connection. … The Apella was an assembly of all the Spartan
citizens who had reached the age of thirty years. … In
historical times it was presided over by the ephors. No
speaking was allowed except by officers of State and persons
duly invited, and perhaps the Senators. The votes were given
by acclamation. The assembly decided on war and peace,
treaties. and foreign politics generally; it elected the
ephors and gerontes. … More important for the development of
Sparta than her political constitution was the education and
training which her citizens received. … The Spartan did not
exist for himself but for his city; for her service he was
trained from birth, and the most intimate relations of his
life were brought under her control. In the secluded valley of
the Eurotas, where till the time of Epaminondas no invader
ever set foot, amid profound peace, he nevertheless led the
life of a warrior in the field. His strength and endurance
were tested to the utmost; he was not permitted to surrender
himself to the charm of family life and domestic affections.
Even when allowed to marry, he spent but little time at home;
his children, if thought worthy of life, were taken from him
at an early age to go through the same training in which he
himself had been brought up. Only when he reached the age of
sixty years, at which he could no longer serve his country in
the field, was he permitted to enjoy the feeling of personal
freedom."
_E. Abbott,
History of Greece,
part 1, chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 6._
_G. W. Cox,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 5._
_C. O. Müller,
History and Antiquities of the Doric Race,
book 3 (volume 2)._
SPARTA: B. C. 743-510.
The First and Second Messenian Wars.
Military supremacy in Peloponnesus established.
"The effect of the Lycurgean institutions was to weld the
people of Sparta into what Grote well denominates a 'military
brotherhood'—the most potent military machine which at that
time, and for long after, existed in Greece or in the world.
Had their political ambition and ability been proportionate,
it is difficult to doubt that the Lacedæmonians might have
anticipated the career of the Romans; but their inability to
produce really great statesmen, and the iron rigidity of their
political system, placed in their path effectual barriers to
the attainment of such grandeur. … The first object of their
attacks was the neighbouring Dorian kingdom of Messenia. The
kinship between the two peoples and their rulers had
previously kept them on friendly terms. It was symbolized and
expressed by joint sacrifices, annually celebrated at a temple
in honour of Artemis which stood on the borders between the
two countries, near the source of the river Neda. It was a
quarrel that broke out at these annual rites which led to the
outbreak of the first Messenian war, about 743 B. C. The
circumstances of the quarrel were differently related by the
two parties; but it resulted in the death of' Teleclus, one of
the Spartan kings. His subjects invaded Messenia to obtain
redress. At first the struggle was of an indecisive character,
but ultimately the Messenians were obliged to take refuge on
the fortified mountain of Ithome, and all the rest of their
country was overrun and conquered by their persistent enemies.
After the war had lasted twenty years, the Messenian garrison
was compelled to abandon Ithome, the fortifications of which
were razed by the Spartans, and Messenia became part of the
Lacedæmonian territory, —all its inhabitants who refused to
submit being driven into exile. Pausanius and other ancient
writers give long details of the events of this twenty years'
struggle, the great hero of which was the Messenian king
Aristomenes; but these details are as legendary as the
exploits of the Homeric heroes, and all that is certainly
known about the war is that it ended in the subjugation of
Messenia. The severity and oppression with which the conquered
people were ruled led them, about forty years later, to rise
up in revolt, and another struggle of seventeen years'
duration followed. In this, again, Aristomenes is represented
as the Messenian leader, although he had put an end to his own
life at the unsuccessful close of the former contest; and the
later Hellenic writers tried to get over this impossibility by
declaring that the Aristomenes of the second war must have
been a descendant of the earlier hero bearing the same name.
In the course of the war the Spartans suffered severely, as
the Messenians had the support of other Peloponnesian
communities—especially the Arcadians—who had begun to dread
the strength and arrogance of the Lacedæmonians. Ultimately,
however, the revolt was crushed, and from that time till the
days of Epaminondas, Messenia remained a part of the Laconian
territory.
See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.
To Sparta it was an important acquisition, for the plain of
the Pamisus was the most fertile district in Peloponnesus. The
Spartans next became aggressive on the eastern and northern
frontiers of their territory. Among the numerous independent
communities of Arcadia, the two most important were Tegea and
Mantinea, in the extreme east of the Arcadian territory. With
these cities, especially the former, the Spartans had some
severe struggles, but were not able to conquer them, though
they established a dominant influence, and reduced them to the
position of dependent allies. From Argos … the Lacedæmonians
wrested, in the course of two centuries, the strip of
territory between the Parnon range and the sea from Thyrea
down to the Malean promontory. By the beginning of the 6th
century B. C. they were masters of two-fifths of the whole
area of Peloponnesus—a territory of something more than 3,000
square miles.
{3021}
To modern notions, such a territory, which is smaller in
extent than more than one Scottish county, seems utterly
insignificant; but it sufficed to make Sparta the largest and
strongest state in Hellas, and even at the pinnacle of her
power she never made any further addition to her possessions
in Peloponnesus. Protected from invasion by impregnable
natural defences, and possessing a military discipline, a
social and political unity, such as no other Grecian community
could boast, the Lacedæmonians possessed peculiar advantages
in the competition for the Hellenic leadership. … It was about
the close of the 6th century B. C. that Sparta, having
asserted her supremacy in Peloponnesus, began to take an
active part in the affairs of the Hellenic communities outside
the peninsula. … In 510 B. C. her king, Cleomenes, went to
Athens at the head of a large force to obey the mandate of the
Delphic oracle and 'liberate the city' by the expulsion of the
Pisistratids."
_C. H. Hanson,
The Land of Greece,
chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 9._
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 7-8._
SPARTA: B. C. 509-506.
Persistent undertakings of Cleomenes to restore tyranny at
Athens, opposed by the Corinthians and other allies.
See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
SPARTA: B. C. 508.
Interference of King Cleomenes at Athens, and its failure.
See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
SPARTA: B. C. 501.
Refusal of aid to the Ionian revolt.
See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.
SPARTA: B. C. 496.
War with Argos.
Prostration of the Argive state.
See ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.
SPARTA: B. C. 492-491.
Headship in Greece recognized.
Defiance of the Persian king.
Enforced unity of Greece for war.
See GREECE: B. C. 492-491.
SPARTA: B. C. 481-479.
Congress at Corinth.
Organized Hellenic Union against Persia.
The Spartan headship.
See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.
SPARTA: B. C. 480.
The Persian War.
Leonidas and his Three Hundred at Thermopylæ.
See GREECE: B. C. 480 THERMOPYLÆ.
SPARTA: B. C. 478.
Interference to forbid the rebuilding of the walls of Athens,
foiled by Themistocles.
See ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.
SPARTA: B. C. 478-477.
Mad conduct of Pausanias at Byzantium.
Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks.
Loss of the leadership of the Greek world.
Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, with Athens at
its head.
See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.
SPARTA: B. C. 464-455.
The great Earthquake.
The Third Messenian War.
Offensive rebuff to Athenian friendliness.
See MESSENIAN WARS: THE THIRD.
SPARTA: B. C. 462-458.
Embittered enmity at Athens.
Rise of Pericles and the democratic Anti-Spartan party.
Athenian alliance with Argos, Thessaly, and Megara.
See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
SPARTA: B. C. 457.
Interference in Phocis.
Collision with the Athenians and victory at Tanagra.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
SPARTA: B. C.453.
Five years truce with Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
SPARTA: B. C. 449-445.
Aid to revolts in Bœotia, Eubœa and Megara
against Athenian rule or influence.
The Thirty Years Truce.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
SPARTA: B. C. 440.
Interference with Athens in Samos opposed by Corinth.
See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
SPARTA: B. C. 432-431.
Hearing of charges against Athens.
Congress of Allies.
Decision for war.
Theban attack on Platæa.
Opening of the Peloponnesian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.
SPARTA: B. C. 431-429.
First and second years of the Peloponnesian War:
Invasions of Attica.
Plague at Athens.
Death of Pericles.
See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.
SPARTA: B. C. 429-427.
The Peloponnesian War: Siege of Platæa.
See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 SIEGE OF PLATÆA.
SPARTA: B. C. 428-427.
The Peloponnesian War:
Aid to the insurgent Mityleneans.
Its failure.
See GREECE: B. C. 429-427 PHORMIO'S SEA-FIGHTS.
SPARTA: B. C. 425.
The Peloponnesian War: Catastrophe at Sphacteria.
Peace pleaded for and refused by Athens.
See GREECE: B. C. 425.
SPARTA: B. C. 424-421.
Peloponnesian War: Successes of Brasidas in Chalcidice.
Athenian defeat at Delium.
Death of Brasidas.
Peace of Nikias.
See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.
SPARTA: B. C. 421-418.
The Peloponnesian War: New hostile combinations.
The Argive confederacy.
War in Argos and Arcadia.
Victory at Mantinea.
See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.
SPARTA: B. C. 415-413.
The Peloponnesian War:
Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.
Comfort to the fugitive Alcibiades.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
SPARTA: B. C. 413-412.
The Peloponnesian War:
Aid to the revolting cities in Asia and the Ægean.
Intrigues of Alcibiades.
See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.
SPARTA: B. C. 413.
Negotiations with Persian satraps.
Subsidies for war against Athens.
Invasion of Attica.
The Decelian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 413.
SPARTA: B. C. 411-407.
Athenian victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
Exploits of Alcibiades.
His return to Athens.
His second deposition and exile.
See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.
SPARTA: B. C. 406.
The Peloponnesian War: Defeat at Arginusæ.
See GREECE: B. C. 406.
SPARTA: B. C. 405.
The Peloponnesian War: Decisive victory at Ægospotami.
See GREECE: B. C. 405.
SPARTA: B. C. 404.
End of the Peloponnesian War: Surrender of Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 404.
SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
The organizing of Spartan supremacy.
The Harmosts in power.
The overthrow of Athenian power in the Greek world, made final
by the battle of Ægospotami, B. C. 405, rendered Sparta
supreme, and established her in a sovereignty of affairs which
is often alluded to as the Spartan, or Lacedæmonian Empire.
The cities which had been either allied or subject to Athens
were now submissive to the Spartan conqueror, Lysander. "He
availed himself of his strength to dissolve the popular system
of government in all the towns which had belonged to the Attic
confederation, and to commit the government to a fixed body of
men enjoying his confidence. As at Athens the Thirty, so
elsewhere Commissions of Ten [called Dekarchies] were
established.
See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.
{3022}
In order to give security and strength to those governing
bodies, detachments of Spartan troops were placed by their
side, under the command of a Harmost. This measure, again,
was, by no means a novel invention. From an early period the
Lacedæmonians had been in the habit of despatching Harmostæ
(i. e. military governors) into the rural districts, to hold
sway over the Periœci, and to keep the latter in strict
subjection to the capital. Such Harmosts were subsequently
also sent abroad; and this, of itself, showed how the Spartans
had no intention of recognizing various kinds of subjection,
and how they at bottom designed to make no essential
difference between subject rural communities in Laconia and
the foreign towns which had of their own accord, or otherwise,
submitted to the power of Sparta. The duration of the
Harmosts' tenure of office was not defined."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 5, chapter 1 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 72._
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1._
_C. Sankey,
The Spartan and Theban Supremacies,
chapter 1._
SPARTA: B. C. 399-387.
War with Persia and with a hostile league in Greece.
Struggle for the Corinthian isthmus.
Restored independence of Athens.
The Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
SPARTA: B. C. 385.
Destruction of Mantinea.
See GREECE: B. C. 385.
SPARTA: B. C. 383.
Treacherous seizure of the Kadmeia of Thebes.
See GREECE: B. C. 383.
SPARTA: B. C. 383-379.
Overthrow of the Olynthian Confederacy.
See GREECE: B. C. 383-379.
SPARTA: B. C. 379-371.
Liberation and triumph of Thebes.
Spartan supremacy broken at Leuctra.
See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.
SPARTA: B. C. 371-362.
The conflict with Thebes.
Two attempts of Epaminondas against the city.
The battle of Mantinea.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
SPARTA: B. C. 353-331.
Independent attitude towards Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
SPARTA: B. C. 317.
Building of Walls.
It was not until about the year 317 B. C., during the
distractions which followed the death of Alexander the Great,
that walls were built around the city of Sparta. "The
maintenance of Sparta as an unwalled city was one of the
deepest and most cherished of the Lykurgean traditions; a
standing proof of the fearless bearing and self-confidence of
the Spartans against dangers from without. The erection of the
walls showed their own conviction, but too well borne out by
the real circumstances around them, that the pressure of the
foreigner had become so overwhelming as not to leave them even
safety at home."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 96._
SPARTA: B. C. 272.
Siege by Pyrrhus.
Not many years after the walls of Sparta were first built the
city was subjected to a siege by Pyrrhus, the ambitious
Epirotic king. There were two claimants to the Spartan crown,
and Pyrrhus, espousing the cause of the unsuccessful one,
marched into Peloponnesus with a powerful army, (B. C. 272)
and assailed the Lacedæmonian capital. He was repulsed and
repulsed again, and gave up the attempt at last, marching away
to Argos, where his interference in local quarrels had been
solicited. He perished there, ignominiously, in another
abortive enterprise, being killed by a tile flung down by a
woman's hand, from a housetop overlooking the street in which
he was attempting to manage the retreat of his discomfited
forces.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 60._
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244.
SPARTA: B. C. 227-221.
Downfall in the Cleomenic War.
See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.
SPARTA: A. D. 267.
Ravaged by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
SPARTA: A. D. 395.
Plundered by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 395.
----------SPARTA: End--------
SPARTACUS, The Rising of.
Schools for the training of gladiators, to supply the
barbarous amusement which the Romans delighted in, were
numerous at Rome and throughout Italy. The men placed in these
schools were slaves, criminal prisoners, or unfortunates whose
parents abandoned them in infancy. As a rule, they were forced
into the brutal profession and the schools which trained them
for it were places of confinement and restraint. From one of
these schools, at Capua, some seventy or more gladiators
escaped, in the year 73 B. C., and fled to the mountains. They
had for their leader a Thracian, named Spartacus, who proved
to be a soldier of remarkable ability and energy. Stationing
himself at first on Mount Vesuvius, Spartacus was joined by
other slaves and fugitives, until he had a large force under
his command. Again and again the Roman armies sent against him
were defeated and the insurgents equipped themselves with
captured arms. Nola, Nuceria, and other towns in Southern
Italy fell into their hands. In the year 72 B. C. they moved
toward North Italy, routing two consular armies on their way,
and were thought to be intending to escape beyond the Alps;
but, after another great victory at Mutina (Modena) over the
proconsul of Gallia Cisalpina, Spartacus turned southward
again, for some unexplained reason, and allowed himself to be
blockaded in the extremity of Lucania, by M. Licinius Crassus.
In this situation he sought to make terms, but his proposals
were rejected. He then succeeded in breaking through the Roman
lines, but was pursued by Crassus and overwhelmingly defeated
at Mount Calamatius, where 35,000 of the insurgents are said
to have been slain. The flying remnant was again brought to
bay near Petilia, in Bruttium, and there Spartacus ended his
life. A few thousand of the insurgents who escaped from the
field were intercepted by Pompey and cut to pieces, while
6,000 captives were crucified, with Roman brutality, along the
road between Capua and Rome.
_G. Long,
Decline cf the Roman Republic,
volume 3, chapter 2._
See, also, ROME: B. C. 78-68.
SPARTAN EMPIRE.
See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.
SPARTAN TRAINING.
See EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREECE;
also, SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION, &c.
{3023}
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The splendor of the position of Speaker of the British House
of Commons is perhaps not generally realized. The appointment,
nominally for the duration of but one Parliament, generally
extends over several. … Chosen from among the members, subject
to the approval of the Crown, the Speaker can be removed only
upon an address to the Crown. Besides a palatial residence
occupying one wing of the Houses of Parliament, and a large
patronage, he receives a salary of £5,000 a year. At the end
of his labors he is rewarded with a peerage and a pension of
£4,000 per annum for two lives. He is a member of the Privy
Council, and the first gentleman in the United Kingdom, taking
rank after barons. … The wig and gown which he wears, the
state and ceremony with which he is surrounded, doubtless
contribute to the isolation and impressiveness of his
position. … When, at the opening of proceedings, he makes his
way in state from his residence to the Chamber, through the
corridors used by members for passing to the committee,
library, and refreshment rooms, it is against etiquette for
anyone to be found therein. When on summer evenings he and his
family take the air upon the portion of the terrace which is
outside his residence, there is no more thought of approaching
them than there would be if he were a Grand Lama. When in the
chair, he can be approached only upon strictly business
matters. His levees, held twice a year and open to all
members, can be attended only in court costume, sword by the
side."
_The Nation, August 17, 1893 (page 117). _
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
SPECIE CIRCULAR, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
SPENCEAN PHILANTHROPISTS.
SPENCEANS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
SPEUSINII.
See SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, OF ATHENS.
SPHACTERIA, Capture of.
See GREECE: B. C. 425.
SPHINX, The.
"About six hundred yards to the Southeast of the Great Pyramid
is the Sphinx. The Sphinx is a natural rock, to which has been
given, more or less accurately, the external appearance of
that mystic animal. The head alone has been sculptured. The
body is formed of the rock itself, supplemented, where
defective, by a somewhat clumsy masonry of limestone. The
total height of the monument is 19 metres 80 centimetres,
equal to 65 English feet. The ear measures 6 feet 5 inches;
the nose 5 feet 10 inches; and the mouth 7 feet 8 inches. The
face, in its widest part, across the cheek, is 4 metres 15
centimetres, that is, 13 feet 7 inches. Its origin is still a
matter of doubt. At one time it was supposed to be a monument
of the reign of Thothmes IV. (XVIIIth dynasty). But we know
now, thanks to a stone in the Boulak Museum, that the Sphinx
was already in existence when Cheops (who preceded Chephren)
gave orders for the repairs which this stone commemorates. It
must also be remembered that the Sphinx is the colossal image
of an Egyptian god called Armachis."
_A. Mariette,
Monuments of Upper Egypt,
page 70._
SPICHERN, OR FORBACH, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).
SPINNING-JENNY, Invention of the.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
----------SPIRES: Start--------
SPIRES: A. D. 1526-1529.
The imperial Diets.
Legal recognition of the Reformed religion,
and its withdrawal.
Protest of Lutheran princes.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
SPIRES: A. D. 1689.
Destruction by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
SPIRES: A. D. 1713.
Taken by the French.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
----------SPIRES: End--------
SPOILS SYSTEM, The.
See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.
SPOLETO: A. D. 1155.
Burned by Frederick Barbarossa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
SPOLIA OPIMA.
"The proudest of all military trophies were Spolia Opima,
which could be gained only when the commander-in-chief of a
Roman army engaged and overthrew in single combat the
commander-in-chief of the enemy. … Roman history afforded but
three examples of legitimate Spolia Opima. The first were won
by Romulus from Acro, King of the Ceninenses; the second by
Aulus Cornelius Cossus from Lar Tolumnius, King of the
Veientes; the third by M. Claudius Marcellus from Virodomarus,
a Gaulish chief (B. C. 222). In all cases they were dedicated
to Jupiter Feretrius and preserved in his temple."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 12._
SPOLIATION CLAIMS, French.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1800.
SPORADES, The.
See CYCLADES.
SPOTTSYLVANIA, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)
GRANT'S MOVEMENT, &C.: SPOTTSYLVANIA.
SPRING HILL, Engagement at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
SPRINGFIELD, Massachusetts: A. D. 1637.
The first settlement.
See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.
SPURS, The Battle of the (1513).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
SPURS, The Day of the.
See COURTRAI, THE BATTLE OF.
SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
SQUIRE.
See CHIVALRY.
STAATEN-BUND.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.
STADACONA.
See QUEBEC: A. D. 1535.
STADION, OR STADIUM, The.
See HIPPODROME.
STADIUM, OR STADE, The Greek.
"Throughout the present work I shall uniformly assume that the
Greeks employed but one measure under that designation [the
stadium] which was … a hundred fathoms, or 600 Greek feet.
This has been proved, in my opinion, beyond a doubt, by
Colonel Leake in his paper 'On the Stade as a Linear Measure'
… republished in his treatise 'On some disputed Questions of
Ancient Geography.' … At the present day the controversy may
be considered as settled. … A stade of 600 Greek feet was in
reality very nearly the 600th part of a degree [of the
circumference of the earth]; ten stades are consequently just
about equal to a nautical or geographical mile of 60 to a
degree."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 6, note c._
STADTHOLDER.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
STADTLOHN, Battle of (1623).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.
STAFFARDA, Battle of (1690).
See FRANCE: A. D, 1689-1691.
{3024}
STAHL, George E.: Influence upon Medical Science.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE:
17TH CENTURY. CLOSING PERIOD, &c.
STALLER AND HORDERE, The.
"In the time of Ælfred [Alfred the Great] the great officers
of the court were the four heads of the royal household, the
Hordere, the Staller, the Dish-thegn, and the Cup-thegn. … The
Hordere was the officer of the court in its stationery aspect,
as the Staller or Constable was of the court on progress. … Of
the four officers one only retained under the later West-Saxon
monarchy any real power. The dish-thegn and cup-thegn lost
importance as the court became stationary and no longer
maintained a vast body of royal followers. The staller
retained only the functions of leading in war as the feudal
constable, which in turn passed away with later changes in the
military system. The hordere alone held a position of growing
importance. … No doubt the 'Hoard' contained not only money
and coin, but the costly ornaments and robes of the crown."
_J. R. Green,
Conquest of England,
chapter 10, note._
"The names by which the Chamberlain was designated are Hrægel
thegn, literally thane or servant of the wardrobe,
Cubicularius, Camerarius, Búrthegn, perhaps sometimes
Dispensator, and Thesaurarius or Hordere. … We may presume
that he had the general management of the royal property, as
well as the immediate regulation of the household. … The
Marshal (among the Franks Marescalcus and Comes stabuli) was
properly speaking the Master of the Horse. … The Anglosaxon
titles are Steallere [Staller] and Horsthegn, Stabulator and
Strator regis."
_J. M. Kemble,
The Saxons in England,
book 2, chapter 3._
See, also, CONSTABLE.
STALWARTS AND HALF-BREEDS.
During the administration of President Grant, certain lenders
of the Republican party in the United States—conspicuous among
them Senator Conkling of New York—acquired a control of the
distribution of appointed offices under the Federal Government
which gave them a more despotic control of the organization of
their party than had been known before in the history of the
country. It was the culminating development of the "spoils
system" in American politics. It produced a state of things in
which the organization of the party—its elaborated structure
of committees and conventions—state, county, city, town and
district,—became what was accurately described as a "political
machine." The managers and workers of the machine were brought
under a discipline which allowed no room for personal opinions
of any kind; the passive adherents of the party were expected
to accept what was offered to them, whether in the way of
candidates or declarations of principle. The faction which
controlled and supported this powerful machine in politics
acquired the name of Stalwarts and contemptuously gave the
name of Half-breeds to their dissatisfied Republican
opponents. During the term of President Hayes, who favored
Civil Service Reform, the Stalwarts were considerably checked.
They had desired to nominate General Grant in 1876 for a third
term, but found it unwise to press the proposition. In 1880,
however, they rallied all their strength to accomplish the
nomination of Grant at Chicago and were bitterly enraged when
their opponents in the convention carried the nomination of
Garfield. They joined in electing him, but Conkling, the
Stalwart leader, speedily quarreled with the new President
when denied the control of the Federal "patronage" (that is,
official appointments) in New York State, resigned from the
Senate, appealed to the New York Legislature for re-election,
and was beaten. Then followed the tragedy of the assassination
of President Garfield, which had a very sobering effect on the
angry politics of the time. Conkling disappeared from public
life, and Stalwartism subsided with him.
_J. C. Ridpath,
Life and Work of James A. Garfield,
chapters 10-12._
ALSO IN:
_E. Stanwood,
History of Presidential Elections,
chapters 24-25._
_J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
chapters 60-65 (volume 2)._
STAMBOUL.
"It must be remembered that the Constantinople of 1200 was
only that portion which is now called Stamboul or Istamboul, a
word which is probably the Turkish abbreviation of
Constantinople, just as Skenderoun is the abbreviation of
Alexandretta, Skender bey for Alexander bey, Isnik for Nicæa,
Ismidt for Nicomedia, &c. … The 'Itinerario' of Clavigo states
that before the Moslem occupation the inhabitants themselves
called the city Escomboli. The Turks allow a few foreigners to
have their warehouses in Stamboul, but will not permit them to
reside there. All the embassies and legations are in Pera,
that is, across the water; … or at Galata, which is a part of
what was originally called Pera."
_E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapter 7, foot-note._
STAMFORD, Battle of.
See LOSE-COAT FIELD.
STAMFORD BRIDGE, Battle of.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (SEPTEMBER).
STAMP ACT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1765; and 1766.
STANDARD, The Battle of the (1138).
In the civil war which arose in England, on the death of Henry
I., over the disputed succession to the throne, Matilda's
claims, as the daughter of Henry, were supported against
Stephen of Blois by her mother's brother David, king of
Scotland. David, as the nephew of Edgar Ætheling, heir of the
dethroned Saxon royal house, had some claims of his own to the
English crown; but these he declared that he waived in favor
of his niece. "Though he himself declared that he had no
desire for the English throne, there is mentioned by one
chronicler a general conspiracy of the native English with
their exiled country-men, of whom the south of Scotland was
full, for the purpose of taking advantage of the condition of
the country to put to death the Normans, and to place the
crown upon David's head. The plot was discovered, … and many
of the conspirators were hanged, but many others found a
refuge in Scotland. At length, in 1118, David entered England
with a large army, and pushed forward as far as Northallerton
in Yorkshire. He was there met by the forces of the Northern
bishops and barons. … They gathered round a tall mast borne
upon a carriage, on which, above the standards of the three
Northern Saints, St. Peter of York, St. John of Beverley, and
St. Wilfred of Ripon, was displayed a silver pyx bearing the
consecrated wafer.
{3025}
The motley army of the Scots, some armed as the English, some
in the wild dress of the Picts of Galloway, after a
well-fought battle [August 22, 1138] broke against the
full-clad Norman soldiers, and were killed by the arrows,
which had now become the national weapon of the English;
11,000 are said to have fallen on the field.' From the great
standard above described, which probably resembled the
"Carroccio" of the mediæval Italian cities, the fight at
Northallerton was called the Battle of the Standard.
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 1, page 79._
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1135-1154.
STÄNDERATH, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
STANDING ARMY: The first in modern Europe.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.
STANDISH, Miles, and the Plymouth Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629.
STANISLAUS AUGUSTUS PONIATOWSKI,
King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.
STANISLAUS LESZCZYNSKI,
King of Poland, A. D. 1704-1709.
STANWIX, Fort.
The early name of the fort afterwards called Fort Schuyler,
near the head of the Mohawk River, in New York.
STANWIX, Fort: A. D. 1768.
Boundary Treaty with the Six Nations.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
STANZ, Battle of (1798).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
STANZ, Convention of.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1481-1501.
STAOUELI, Battles of.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.
STAPLE.
STAPLERS, The.
"A term which makes a great figure in the commercial
regulations of this period [13th and 14th centuries] is that
of the Staple. The word, in its primary acceptation, appears
to have meant a particular port or other place to which
certain commodities were obliged to be brought to be weighed
or measured for the payment of the customs, before they could
be sold, or in some cases exported or imported. Here the
king's staple was said to be established. The articles of
English produce upon which customs were anciently paid were
wool, sheep-skins (or woolfels), and leather; and these were
accordingly denominated the staples or staple goods of the
kingdom. The persons who exported these goods were called the
Merchants of the Staple: they were incorporated, or at least
recognized as forming a society with certain privileges." By a
charter granted by Edward II., in 1313, to the merchants of
the staple, Antwerp was made the staple for wool and woolfels,
and they could be carried for sale to no other port in
Brauant, Flanders or Artois. In 1326 the staple was removed
altogether from the continent and fixed at certain places
within the English kingdom. In 1341 it was established at
Bruges; in 1348 at Calais (which the English had captured); in
1353 it was again removed entirely from the continent; —and
thus the changes were frequent. During some intervals all
staples were abolished and trade was set free from their
restriction; but these were of brief duration.
_G. L. Craik,
History of British Commerce,
chapter 4 (volume 1)._
"The staplers were merchants who had the monopoly of exporting
the principle raw commodities of the realm, especially wool,
woolfels, leather, tin, and lead; wool figuring most
prominently among these 'staple' wares. The merchants of the
staple used to claim that their privileges dated from the time
of Henry III, but existing records do not refer to the staple
before the time of Edward I. … The staples were the towns to
which the above-mentioned wares had to be brought for sale or
exportation. Sometimes there was only one such mart, and this
was situated abroad, generally at Bruges or Calais,
occasionally at Antwerp, St. Omer, or Middleburg. From the
reign of Richard II until 1558 the foreign staple was at
Calais. The list of home staples was also frequently changed."
_C. Gross,
The Gild Merchant,
pages 140-141._
ALSO IN:
_A. Anderson,
History of Commerce,
volume 1, page 216. and after._
STAR, Knights of the.
"On the 8th September, 1351, king John [of France] revived the
almost obsolete order of the Star, in imitation of the Garter,
and the first chapter of it was held at his palace of St.
Ouen. At first there were but eighteen knights; the rest were
added at different chapters. They wore a bright star on the
crest of their helmets, and one pendant at their necks, and
the same was embroidered on their mantles."
_T. Johnes,
Note to Froissart's Chronicles,
book 1, chapter 152._
STAR CHAMBER, The Court of.
"In the reign of Edward III, the king's Continual Council was
in the habit of sitting in what was called the Starred Chamber
(la Chambre des Etoiles). After the establishment of the Court
of Chancery as a separate and independent jurisdiction taking
cognizance of the greater portion of the civil business of the
Council, the latter body appears to have usually sat in the
Star Chamber while exercising jurisdiction over such cases as
were not sent to the Chancery. … Henry VII. … created, in the
3rd year of his reign, a new court, sometimes inaccurately
called the Court of Star Chamber. … It continued to exist as a
distinct tribunal from the Privy Council till towards the
close of the reign of Henry VIII.; but in the meantime,
probably during the chancellorship of Wolsey, the jurisdiction
of the ancient Star Chamber (i. e. the Council sitting for
judicial business) was revived, and in it the limited court
erected by Henry VII. became gradually merged. … Under the
Stewart Kings the court was practically identical with the
Privy Council, thus combining in the same body of men the
administrative and judicial functions. … Under the Stewart
Kings the pillory, whipping, and cruel mutilations were
inflicted upon political offenders by the sentence of this
court; and at length the tyrannical exercise and illegal
extension of its powers became so odious to the people that it
was abolished by the Long Parliament in 1641."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
pages 181-183._
"The Star Chamber was no temporary court. During 150 years its
power penetrated into every branch of English life. No rank
was exalted enough to defy its attacks, no insignificance
sufficiently obscure to escape its notice. It terrified the
men who had worsted the Armada; it overshadowed the dignity of
the judicial bench; it summoned before its tribunal the
Prynnes and the Cromwells, who at last proved its destroyers.
{3026}
It fell at length, but great was the fall thereof, and in its
ruin was involved the downfall of the monarchy. It is with
something of astonishment that the inquirer discovers that
this august tribunal was merely the Council under another
name; and that the court, whose overgrown power the patriots
of 1640 cast to the ground, was the same body whose early
encroachments had alarmed the parliamentary leaders under
Edward III and Richard II. The process by which the judicial
authority of the Council passed into the form of the Court of
Star Chamber admits of some dispute, and is involved in no
little obscurity. … The Council's manner of proceeding was
unlike that of other courts. Its punishments were as arbitrary
as they were severe; it also exercised a power peculiar to
itself of extorting confession by torture. Some, however, may
imagine that powers so great were only occasionally exercised,
that exceptional exertions of authority were employed to meet
exceptional crimes, and that gigantic force was put forth to
crush gigantic evils. Some circumstances have given currency
to such a notion. … Yet no conception of the Star Chamber is
more false than that which makes it a 'deus ex machina' which
intervened only when the lower courts of justice stood
confronted by some criminal attempt with which they were too
weak to deal. The sphere of the Council's jurisdiction was
unlimited. It is now no question of what it had a right to do,
but of what it did. And anyone who examines the most certain
facts of history will be convinced that from the accession of
Henry VII till the meeting of the Long Parliament the Council
interfered in all matters, small as well as great. It is,
indeed, perhaps not generally known, that crimes of a very
ordinary nature, such as would now come before a police
magistrate, occupied the attention of the Star Chamber."
_A. V. Dicey,
The Privy Council,
part 3, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 1._
_R. Gneist,
History of the English Constitution,
chapters 35 and 38 (volume 2)._
STAR OF INDIA, The Order of the.
An Order of Knighthood instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1861,
to commemorate the assumption of the Government of India by
the British Crown.
_Annual Register, 1861._
STAR SPANGLED BANNER:
The circumstances of the writing of the song.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
STARK, General John: Victory at Bennington.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
STARO-OBRIADTSI, The.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.
STAROSTS.
"Elders," in Poland, who administered justice in the towns.
_Count Moltke,
Poland,
page 8._
See, also, MIR, THE RUSSIAN.
STARRY CROSS, Order of the.
An Austrian order, founded in 1668, for ladies of noble birth,
by the dowager Empress Eleanora.
STATE SOVEREIGNTY, The doctrine of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787.
----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: Start--------
STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
In the 14th Century.
"I lately attempted to explain the manner in which the
identity or union of the Royal Council and of the Parliament
of Paris was virtually, though not formally dissolved [see
PARLIAMENT OF PARIS], so that each of them thenceforward
existed as a substantive and distinct body in the state. This
tacit revolution had been nearly completed when Philip Ie Bel
for the first time convened the States-General of France" (A.
D. 1301), The circumstances under which this occurred were as
follows: Philip had imposed a tax from which the clergy were
not excepted. Pope Boniface issued a bull forbidding them to
make the required payment. "Philip retaliated by an order
forbidding them to pay the customary papal dues to Boniface
himself. The Pope then summoned a synod, to advise him how he
might most effectually resist this invasion of his pontifical
rights; and Philip, in his turn, summoned the barons, clergy,
and commons of his realm to elect deputies who should meet him
at Paris, there to deliberate on the methods to be pursued for
the successful conduct of his controversy with Rome. To Philip
himself, the importance of this great innovation was probably
not perceptible. He, as we may well believe, regarded it only
as a temporary device to meet a passing exigency." Once more,
before the end of his reign, in 1314, Philip assembled the
States-General and procured their apparent assent to a tax,
which proved to be exceedingly unpopular and which provoked a
very turbulent resistance. The next meeting of the
States-General,—called by King John—was in 1355, on the
outbreak of the war with Edward III. of England. Under the
lead of the celebrated Etienne (Stephen) Marcel, the States
took matters on that occasion quite into their own hands. They
created a commission to superintend the collecting of funds
raised for the· war, and they provided for an adjourned
session in the following year to receive an accounting of the
Expenditure. When the adjourned session took place, in 1356,
King John was a prisoner in the hands of the English and his
son Charles reigned as regent in his stead. This Charles, who
became king in 1364, and who acquired the name of Charles the
Wise, contrived to make the meeting of 1356 an abortive one
and then endeavored to raise moneys and to rule without the
help of the three estates. The result was an insurrection at
Paris, led by Marcel, which forced the regent to convene the
States-General once more. They met in 1357 under circumstances
which gave them full power to check and control the royal
authority, even to the extent of instituting a permanent
commission, from their own membership, charged with a general
superintendence of the administration of the government during
the intervals between sessions of the States-General
themselves. At that moment there would have seemed to be more
promise of free government in France than across the channel.
But the advantage which the national representatives acquired
was brief. The taxes they imposed produced disappointment and
discontent. They lost public favor; they fell into quarrels
among themselves; the nobles and the clergy deserted the
deputies of the people. The young regent gained influence, as
the States-General lost it, and he was strengthened in the end
by the violence of Marcel, who caused two offending ministers
of the crown to be slain in the presence of the king. Then
ensued a short period of civil war; Paris was besieged by the
Dauphin-regent; Marcel perished by assassination; royalty
recovered its ascendancy in France, with more firmness of
footing than before. "It was the commencement of a long series
of similar conflicts and of similar successes—conflicts and
successes which terminated at length in the transfer of the
power of the purse from the representatives of the people to
the ministers of the crown."
_Sir J. Stephen,
Lectures on the History of France,
lecture 10._
{3027}
"The year 1357 was the period when the States-General had
greatest power during the Middle Ages; from that time they
rapidly declined; they lost, as did also the Third Estate, all
political influence, and for some centuries were only empty
shadows of national assemblies."
_E. de Bonnechose,
History of France,
period 4, book 2, chapter 3._
"One single result of importance was won for France by the
states-general of the 14th century, namely, the principle of
the nation's right to intervene in their own affairs, and to
set the government straight when it had gone wrong or was
incapable of performing that duty itself. … Starting from King
John, the states-general became one of the principles of
national right; a principle which did not disappear even when
it remained without application, and the prestige of which
survived even its reverses."
_F. P. Guizot,
Popular History of France,
chapter 21._
ALSO IN:
_A. Thierry,
Formation and Progress of the Tiers État in France,
volume 1, chapters 2-3._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1356-1358.
STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
The last States General before the Revolution.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.
STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE:
The States-General of 1789.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY) and (JUNE).
----------STATES-GENERAL OF FRANCE: End--------
STATES-GENERAL, OR ESTATES, OF THE NETHERLANDS.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519,
and 1584-1585 LIMITS OF THE UNITED PROVINCES.
----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: Start--------
STATES OF THE CHURCH:
Origin.
See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774; and 1077-1102.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1198-1216.
The establishing of Papal Sovereignty.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1275.
The Papal Sovereignty confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1352-1378.
Subjugation by Cardinal Albornoz.
Revolt, supported by Florence, and war with the Pope.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378;
and FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1380.
Proposed formation of the kingdom of Adria.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1409.
Sale to Ladislas, king of Naples, by Pope Gregory XII.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1386-1414.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1503-1513.
Conquests and consolidation of Papal Sovereignty
under Julius II.
See PAPACY. A. D. 1471-1513,
and ITALY A. D. 1510-1513.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1545-1556.
Alienation of Parma and Placentia.
See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1597.
Annexation of Ferrara.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1631.
Annexation of Urbino.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1796-1797.
Territories taken by Bonaparte to add to the
Cispadine and Cisalpine Republics.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);
1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1808-1809.
Seizure by Napoleon.
Partial annexation to the kingdom of Italy.
Final incorporation with the French Empire.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1815.
Papal Sovereignty restored.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1831-1832.
Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.
See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.
STATES OF THE CHURCH: A. D. 1860-1861.
Absorption in the new kingdom of Italy.
See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.
----------STATES OF THE CHURCH: End--------
STATUTES.
See LAW.
STAURACIUS,
Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 811.
STAVOUTCHANI, Battle of (1739).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
----------STEAM ENGINE: Start--------
STEAM ENGINE:
The beginning of its invention, before Watt.
"It is probable that the first contriver of a working
steam-engine was Edward, second Marquis of Worcester [A. D.
1601-1667]. … He was born at London in 1601. His early years
[when his title was Lord Herbert] were principally spent at
Raglan Castle, his father's country seat, where his education
was carefully attended to. … From an early period of his life
Lord Herbert took especial pleasure in mechanical studies, and
in the course of his foreign tours he visited and examined the
famous works of construction abroad. On settling down at
Raglan he proceeded to set up a laboratory, or workshop,
wherein to indulge his mechanical tastes. … Among the works
executed by Lord Herbert and his assistant at Raglan, was the
hydraulic apparatus by means of which the castle was supplied
with water. … It is probable that the planning and
construction of these works induced Lord Herbert to prosecute
the study of hydraulics, and to enter upon that series of
experiments as to the power of steam which eventually led to
the contrivance of his 'Water-commanding Engine.'" No
description of the Marquis's engine remains which enables
modern engineers to understand with certainty its principle
and mode of working, and various writers. "have represented it
in widely different forms … But though the Marquis did not
leave the steam-engine in such a state as to be taken up and
adopted as a practicable working power, he at least advanced
it several important steps. … Even during the Marquis's
lifetime other minds besides his were diligently pursuing the
same subject. … One of the most distinguished of these was Sir
Samuel Morland, appointed Master of Mechanics to Charles II.
immediately after the Restoration. … Morland's inventions
proved of no greater advantage to him than those of the
Marquis of Worcester had done. … The next prominent
experimenter on the powers of steam was Dr. Dionysius Papin."
Being a Protestant, he was driven to England in 1681, four
years before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and
received, through the friendship of Dr. Boyle, the appointment
of Curator of the Royal Society. It was during this connection
that he constructed his well-known "Digester," which was an
apparatus for the cooking of meats under a high pressure and
consequent high temperature of steam. For the safe employment
of so high a pressure he invented the safety-valve. His
success with the Digester led him to experiments with steam as
a motive force. Having been invited to Germany, he made the
attempt there to pump water by atmospheric pressure, on a
large scale, producing the vacuum by a condensation of steam;
but his undertakings were not successful.
{3028}
He next tried steam navigation, converting the alternate
motion of a piston in a steam cylinder into rotary motion,
turning paddle-wheels on the sides of a boat, by arming the
piston-rods with teeth, geared into wheels on the paddle axis.
"His first experiments were doubtless failures;" but he
finally succeeded to his satisfaction, and was conveying his
model to London for exhibition, in 1707, when some barbarous
boatmen in Germany destroyed it. Papin could raise no means
for the construction of another, and three years later he
died. "The attempts hitherto made to invent a working
steam-engine, it will be observed, had not been attended with
much success." But, "although the progress made seemed but
slow, the amount of net result was by no means inconsiderable.
Men were becoming better acquainted with the elastic force of
steam. … Many separate and minor inventions, which afterwards
proved of great value, had been made, such as the four-way
cock, the safety-valve, and the piston moving in a cylinder.
The principle of a true steam-engine had not only been
demonstrated, but most of the separate parts of such an engine
had been contrived by various inventors. It seemed as if all
that was now wanting was a genius of more than ordinary power
to combine them in a complete and effective whole. To Thomas
Savery is usually accorded the merit of having constructed the
first actual working steam-engine. … Thomas Savery was born at
Shilston, … in Devon, about the year 1650. Nothing is known of
his early life, beyond that he was educated to the profession
of a military engineer. … He occupied much of his spare time
in mechanical experiments, and in projecting and executing
contrivances of various sorts." One of the earliest of these
was a boat propelled by paddle-wheels, worked by man-power,
turning a capstan, and this he exhibited on the Thames. "It is
curious that it should not have occurred to Savery, who
invented both a paddle-wheel boat and a steam-engine, to
combine the two in one machine; but he was probably sick of
the former invention … and gave it up in disgust, leaving it
to Papin, who saw both his inventions at work, to hit upon the
grand idea of combining the two in a steam-vessel. … It is
probable that Savery was led to enter upon his next and most
important invention by the circumstance of his having been
brought up in the neighbourhood of the mining districts," and
being well aware of the great difficulty experienced by the
miners in keeping their pits clear of water." He devised what
he called a "Fire Engine" for the raising of water. In this he
made a double use of steam, in tight cylinders, first to
create a vacuum, by condensing it, and then to force the
water, so lifted, to a greater height, by pressure of fresh
steam. "The great pressure of steam required to force up a
high column of water was such as to strain to the utmost the
imperfect boilers and receivers of those early days; and the
frequent explosions which attended its use eventually led to
its discontinuance in favour of the superior engine of
Newcomen, which was shortly after invented. … This engine [of
which the first working model was completed in 1705] … worked
entirely by the pressure of the atmosphere, steam being only
used as the most expeditious method of producing a vacuum," in
a steam cylinder, under the piston which worked the rod of a
pump. "The engine was, however, found to be very imperfect,"
until it was improved by a device for throwing a jet of cold
water into the cylinder, to produce a more rapid condensation
of steam. "Step by step, Newcomen's engine grew in power and
efficiency, and became more and more complete as a self-acting
machine."
_S. Smiles,
Lives of Boulton and Watt,
chapters 1-4._
"We have … certain evidence that the Marquis of Worcester's
Engine was in full operation for at least seven years, and
that one of the conditions of the Act of Parliament obliged
him to deposit a model in the Exchequer. His own estimate of
its value may be judged by his gladly giving up for the
promised tithe of it to the King, his claim on Charles I equal
to £40,000, in lieu thereof. His Lordship's invention was
never offered by him as a merely amusing trifle."
_H. Dircks,
Life and Times of the Second Marquis of Worcester,
page 337._
STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.
The improvements of James Watt.
After Newcomen, "no improvement of essential consequence … was
effected in the steam engine until it came into the hands of
Watt." James Watt, born at Greenock, Scotland, in 1736,
educated to the profession of a mathematical instrument maker,
and settled as such at Glasgow in 1757, began a few years
later to give his thoughts to this subject. "Directing his
attention first, with all his profound physical and
mathematical knowledge, to the various theoretical points
involved in the working of the machine, 'he determined,' says
M. Arago, 'the extent to which the water dilated in passing
from its liquid state into that of steam. He calculated the
quantity of water which a given weight of coal could
vaporise—the quantity of steam, in weight, which each stroke
of one of Newcomen's machines of known dimensions expended—the
quantity of cold water which required to be injected into the
cylinder, to give the descending stroke of the piston a
certain force—and finally, the elasticity of steam at
different temperatures. All these investigations would have
occupied the lifetime of a laborious philosopher; whilst Watt
brought all his numerous and difficult researches to a
conclusion, with·out allowing them to interfere with the
labours of his workshop.' … Newcomen's machine laboured under
very great defects. In the first place, the jet of cold water
into the cylinder was a very imperfect means of condensing the
steam. The cylinder, heated before, not being thoroughly
cooled by it, a quantity of steam remained uncondensed, and,
by its elasticity, impeded the descent of the piston,
lessening the power of the stroke. Again, when the steam
rushed into the cylinder from the boiler, it found the
cylinder cold, in consequence of the water which had recently
been thrown in; and thus a considerable quantity of steam was
immediately condensed and wasted while the rest did not attain
its full elasticity till the cylinder became again heated up
to 212 degrees. These two defects … were sources of great
expense. … Watt remedied the evil by a simple but beautiful
contrivance—his separate condenser. The whole efficacy of this
contrivance consisted in his making the condensation of the
steam take place, not in the cylinder, but in a separate
vessel communicating with the cylinder by a tube provided with
a stop-cock. … So far the invention was all that could be
desired; an additional contrivance was necessary, however, to
render it complete.
{3029}
The steam in the act of being condensed in the separate vessel
would give out its latent heat; this would raise the
temperature of the condensing water, from the heated water
vapour would rise; and this vapour, in addition to the
atmospheric air which would be disengaged from the injected
water by the heat, would accumulate in the condenser, and
spoil its efficiency. In order to overcome this defect, Watt
attached to the bottom of the condenser a common air-pump,
called the condenser pump, worked by a piston attached to the
beam, and which, at every stroke of the engine, withdrew the
accumulated water, air, and vapour. This was a slight tax upon
the power of the machine, but the total gain was
enormous—equivalent to making one pound of coal do as much
work as had been done by five pounds in Newcomen's engine.
This, certainly, was a triumph; but Watt's improvements did
not stop here. In the old engine, the cylinder was open at the
top, and the descent of the piston was caused solely by the
pressure of the atmosphere on its upper surface. Hence the
name of Atmospheric Engine, which was always applied to
Newcomen's machine." Watt constructed his engine with the
cylinder, closed at both ends, sliding the rod of the piston
through a tightly packed hole in the metallic cover,
introducing steam both above and below the piston,—but still
using its expansive power only in the upper chamber, while in
the lower it was employed as before to create a vacuum. "The
engine with this improvement Watt named the Modified Engine;
it was, however, properly, the first real steam engine; for in
it, for the first time, steam, besides serving to produce the
vacuum, acted as the moving force. … Another improvement less
striking in appearance, but of value in economising the
consumption of fuel, was the enclosing of the cylinder in a
jacket or external drum of wood, leaving a space between which
could be filled with steam. By this means the air was
prevented from acting on the outside of the cylinder so as to
cool it. A slight modification was also necessary in the mode
of keeping the piston air-tight. … The purpose was … effected
by the use of a preparation of wax, tallow, and oil, smeared
on the piston-rod and round the piston-rim. The improvements
which we have described had all been thoroughly matured by Mr.
Watt before the end of 1765, two years after his attention had
been called to the subject." Another two years had passed
before he found the means to introduce his invention into
practice. He formed a partnership at length with Dr. Roebuck,
who had lately founded the Carron iron-works, near Glasgow. "A
patent was taken out by the partners in 1769, and an engine of
the new construction, with an eighteen-inch cylinder, was
erected at the Kinneil coal-works [leased by Dr. Roebuck],
with every prospect of complete success; when, unfortunately,
Dr. Roebuck was obliged by pecuniary embarrassments to
dissolve the partnership, leaving Watt with the whole patent,
but without the means of rendering it available." For five
years after this failure the steam-engine was practically put
aside, while Watt devoted himself to civil engineering, which
he had worked into as a profession. "At length, in 1774, Mr.
Watt entered into a partnership most fortunate for himself and
for the world. This was with Mr. Matthew Boulton, of the Soho
Foundry, near Birmingham—a gentleman of remarkable scientific
abilities, of liberal disposition and of unbounded
enterprise." A prolongation of Watt's patent, which had nearly
expired, was procured with great difficulty from Parliament,
where a powerful opposition to the extension was led by Edmund
Burke. The new engine, now fairly introduced, speedily
supplanted Newcomen's, and Watt and his partner were made
wealthy by stipulating with mine owners for one third part of
the value of the coal which each engine saved. "The first
consequence of the introduction of Watt's improved
steam-engine into practice was to give an impulse to mining
speculations. New mines were opened; and old mines … now
yielded a return. This was the only obvious consequence at
first. Only in mines, and generally for the purpose of pumping
water was the steam-engine yet used; and before it could be
rendered applicable to other purposes in the arts … the genius
of Watt required once again to stoop over it, and bestow on it
new creative touches." He produced the beautiful device known
as the "parallel motion," for connecting the piston-rod of the
engine with the beam through which its motion is transmitted
to other pieces of machinery. "Another improvement, which, in
point of the additional power gained, was more important than
the parallel motion, and which indeed preceded it in point of
time, was the 'Double-acting Engine,'" in which steam was
introduced to act expansively on each side of the piston in
the engine. He also invented the governor, to regulate the
quantity of steam admitted from the boiler into the cylinder,
and thus regulate the motion of the engine. "To describe all
the other inventions of a minor kind connected with the
steam-engine which came from the prolific genius of Watt,
would occupy too much space."
_Life of James Watt
(Chambers's Miscellany, volume 17)._
"The Watt engine had, by the construction of the improvements
described in the patents of 1782-'85, been given its
distinctive form, and the great inventor subsequently did
little more than improve it by altering the forms and
proportions of its details. As thus practically completed, it
embodied nearly all the essential features of the modern
engine. … The growth of the steam-engine has here ceased to be
rapid, and the changes which followed the completion of the
work of James Watt have been minor improvements, and rarely,
if ever, real developments."
_R. H. Thurston,
History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
chapter 3._
ALSO IN:
_S. Smiles,
Lives of Boulton and Watt,
chapters 5-17._
_J. P. Muirhead,
Life of James Watt. _
_J. P. Muirhead,
Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inventions
of James Watt._
----------STEAM ENGINE: End--------
STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
The beginning of Railroads.
"The application of the steam engine to locomotion on land
was, according to Watt, suggested by Robison, in 1759. In
1784, Watt patented a locomotive engine, which, however, he
never executed. About the same time Murdoch, assistant to
Watt, made a very efficient working model of a locomotive
engine. In 1802, Trevithick and Vivian patented a locomotive
engine, which was constructed and set to work in 1804 or 1805.
It travelled at about five miles an hour, with a net load of
ten tons. The use of fixed steam engines to drag trains on
railways by ropes, was introduced by Cook in 1808.
{3030}
After various inventors had long exerted their ingenuity in
vain to give the locomotive engine a firm hold of the track by
means of rackwork-rails and toothed driving wheels, legs, and
feet, and other contrivances. Blackett and Hedley, in 1813,
made the important discovery that no such aids are required,
the adhesion between smooth wheels and smooth rails being
sufficient. To adapt the locomotive engine to the great and
widely varied speeds at which it now has to travel, and the
varied loads which it now has to draw, two things are
essential—that the rate of combustion of the fuel, the
original source of the power of the engine, shall adjust
itself to the work which the engine has to perform, and shall,
when required, be capable of being increased to many times the
rate at which fuel is burned in the furnace of a stationary
engine of the same size; and that the surface through which
heat is communicated from the burning fuel to the water shall
be very large compared with the bulk of the boiler. The first
of these objects is attained by the 'blast-pipe,' invented and
used by George Stephenson before 1825; the second, by the
tubular boiler, invented about 1829, simultaneously by Seguin
in France and Booth in England, and by the latter suggested to
Stephenson. On the 6th October, 1829, occurred that famous
trial of locomotive engines, when the prize offered by the
directors of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was gained
by Stephenson's engine, the 'Rocket,' the parent of the swift
and powerful locomotives of the present day, in which the
blast-pipe and tubular boiler are combined."
_W. J. M. Rankine,
Manual of the Steam Engine,
pages xxv-xxvii._
George Stephenson, the son of a common workingman, and
self-educated as a mechanic and engineer, was appointed
engine-wright of Killingworth Colliery in 1812. In the
following year he urged the lessees of the colliery to
undertake the construction of a "travelling engine," as he
called it. "Lord Ravensworth, the principal partner, had
already formed a very favourable opinion of Stephenson, from
the important improvements which he had effected in the
colliery engines, both above and below ground; and, after
considering the matter, and hearing Stephenson's statements,
he authorized him to proceed with the construction of a
locomotive. … The engine was built in the workshops at the
West Moor, the leading mechanic being John Thirlwall, the
colliery blacksmith, an excellent workman in his way, though
quite new to the work now entrusted to him. … The wheels of
the new locomotive were all smooth,—and it was the first
engine that had been so constructed. From the first, Mr.
Stephenson was convinced that the adhesion between a smooth
wheel and an edgerail would be as efficient as Mr. Blackett
had proved it to be between the wheel and the tramroad. … The
engine was, after much labour and anxiety, and frequent
alterations of parts, at length brought to completion, having
been about ten months in hand. It was first placed upon the
Killingworth Railway on the 25th of July, 1814; and its powers
were tried on the same day. On an ascending gradient of 1 in
450, the engine succeeded in drawing after it eight loaded
carriages of 30 tons' weight at about four miles an hour; and
for some time after, it continued regularly at work. It was
indeed the most successful working engine that had yet been
constructed. … The working of the engine was at first barely
economical; and at the end of the year the steam power and the
horse power were ascertained to be as nearly as possible upon
a par in point of cost. The fate of the locomotive in a great
measure depended on this very engine. Its speed was not beyond
that of a horse's walk, and the heating surface presented to
the fire being comparatively small, sufficient steam could not
be raised to enable it to accomplish more on an average than
about three miles an hour. The result was anything but
decisive; and the locomotive might have been condemned as
useless had not Mr. Stephenson at this juncture applied the
steam blast [carrying the escape of steam from the cylinders
of the engine into the chimney or smoke-stack of the furnace],
and at once more than doubled the power of the engine." A
second engine, embodying this and other improvements, was
constructed in 1815, with funds provided by Mr. Ralph Dodds.
"It is perhaps not too much to say that this engine, as a
mechanical contrivance, contained the germ of all that has
since been effected. … It is somewhat remarkable that,
although George Stephenson's locomotive engines were in daily
use for many years on the Killingworth railway, they excited
comparatively little interest." But in 1821, Mr. Stephenson
was employed to construct a line of railway from Witton
Colliery, near Darlington, to Stockton, and to build three
locomotives for use upon it. The Stockton and Darlington line
was opened for traffic on the 27th of September, 1825, with
great success. In 1826 the building of the Liverpool and
Manchester Railway was begun, with George Stephenson as the
chief engineer of the work, and the public opening of the line
took place on the 15th of September, 1830. The directors had
offered, in the previous year, a prize of £500 for the best
locomotive engine to be designed for use on their road, and
the prize was won by Stephenson's famous "Rocket," which
attained a speed of 35 miles an hour. It was at the ceremonial
of the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway that
Mr. Huskisson, then Prime Minister of England, was struck down
by the "Rocket" and fatally injured, expiring the same night.
_S. Smiles,
Life of George Stephenson,
chapters 9-24._
"Whatever credit is due to the construction of the first
railroad ever built in America is usually claimed for the
State of Massachusetts. Every one who has ever looked into a
school history of the United States knows something of the
Quincy railway of 1826. Properly speaking, however, this was
never—or at least, never until the year 1871,—a railroad at
all. It was nothing but a specimen of what had been almost
from time immemorial in common use in England, under the name
of 'tram-ways.' … This road, known as the Granite railway,
built by those interested in erecting the Bunker Hill
Monument, for the purpose of getting the stone down from the
Quincy quarries to a wharf on Neponset River, from which it
was shipped to its destination. The whole distance was three
miles, and the cost of the road was about $34,000. … Apart,
however, from the construction of the Granite railway,
Massachusetts was neither particularly early nor particularly
energetic in its railroad development. At a later day many of
her sister States were in advance of her, and especially was
this true of South Carolina.
{3031}
There is, indeed, some reason for believing that the South
Carolina Railroad was the first ever constructed in any
country with a definite plan of operating it exclusively by
locomotive steam power. … On the 15th of January 1831,—exactly
four months after the formal opening of the Manchester &
Liverpool road,—the first anniversary of the South Carolina
Railroad was celebrated with due honor. A queer looking
machine, the outline of which was sufficient in itself to
prove that the inventor owed nothing to Stephenson, had been
constructed at the West Point Foundry Works in New York during
the summer of 1830—a first attempt to supply that locomotive
which the Board had, with a sublime confidence in
possibilities, unanimously voted on the 14th of the preceding
January should alone be used on the road. The name of Best
Friend was given to this very simple product of native genius.
… In June, 1831, a second locomotive, called the West Point,
had arrived in Charleston; and this at last was constructed on
the principle of Stephenson's Rocket. In its general aspect,
indeed, it greatly resembled that already famous prototype.
There is a very characteristic and suggestive cut representing
a trial trip made with this locomotive on March 5th, 1831. …
About six months before …there had actually been a trial of
speed between a horse and one of the pioneer locomotives,
which had not resulted in favor of the locomotive. It took
place on the present Baltimore & Ohio road upon the 28th of
August, 1830. The engine in this case was contrived by no
other than Mr. Peter Cooper. … The Cooper engine, however, was
scarcely more than a working model. Its active-minded inventor
hardly seems to have aimed at anything more than a
demonstration of possibilities. The whole thing weighed only a
ton, and was of one horse power. … Poor and crude as the
country was, however, America showed itself far more ready to
take in the far reaching consequences of the initiative which
Great Britain gave in 1830 than any other country in the
world. … It might almost be said that there was a railroad
mania. Massachusetts led off in 1826; Pennsylvania followed in
1827, and in 1828 Maryland and South Carolina. Of the great
trunk lines of the country, a portion of the New York Central
was chartered in 1825; the construction of the Baltimore &
Ohio was begun on July 4th, 1828. The country, therefore, was
not only ripe to accept the results of the Rainhill contest,
but it was anticipating them with eager hope. … Accordingly,
after 1830 trial trips with new locomotives followed hard upon
each other. To-day it was the sensation in Charleston;
to-morrow in Baltimore; the next day at Albany. Reference has
already been made to a cut representing the excursion train of
March 5th, 1831, on the South Carolina Railroad. There is,
however, a much more familiar picture of a similar trip made
on the 9th of August of the same year from Albany to
Schenectady, over the Mohawk Valley road. This sketch,
moreover, was made at the time and on the spot by Mr. W. H.
Brown."
_C. F. Adams, Jr.,
Railroads: Their Origin and Problems,
chapter 1._
----------STEAM NAVIGATION: Start--------
STEAM NAVIGATION, The beginnings.
"The earliest attempt to propel a vessel by steam is claimed
by Spanish authorities … to have been made by Blasco de Garay,
in the harbor of Barcelona, Spain, in 1543. … The account
seems somewhat apochryphal, and it certainly led to no useful
results. … In 1690, Papin proposed to use his piston-engine to
drive paddle-wheels to propel vessels; and in 1707 he applied
the steam-engine, which he had proposed as a pumping-engine,
to driving a model boat on the Fulda at Cassel. …
See STEAM ENGINE: THE BEGINNINGS, &c.
In the year 1736, Jonathan Hulls took out an English patent
for, the use of a steam-engine for ship-propulsion, proposing
to employ his steamboat in towing. … There is no positive
evidence that Hull! ever put his scheme to the test of
experiment, although tradition does say that he made a model,
which he tried with such ill-success as to prevent his
prosecution of the experiment further. … A prize was awarded
by the French Academy of Science, in 1752, for the best essay
on the manner of impelling vessels without wind. It was given
to Bernouilli, who, in his paper, proposed a set of vanes like
those of a windmill —a screw in fact—one to be placed on each
side the vessel and two more behind. … But a more remarkable
essay is quoted by Figuier—the paper of l' Abbé Gauthier,
published in the 'Memoires de la Société Royale des Sciences
et Lettres de Nancy.' … A little later (1760), a Swiss
clergyman, J. A. Genevois, published in London a paper
relating to the improvement of navigation, in which his plan
was proposed of compressing springs by steam or other power,
and applying their effort while recovering their form to ship
propulsion. It was at this time that the first attempts were
made in the United States to solve this problem. … William
Henry was a prominent citizen of the then little village of
Lancaster, Pa., and was noted as an ingenious and successful
mechanic. … In the year 1760 he went to England on business,
where his attention was attracted to the invention—then new,
and the subject of discussion in every circle—of James Watt.
He saw the possibility of its application to navigation and to
driving carriages, and, on his return home, commenced the
construction of a steam-engine, and finished it in 1763.
Placing it in a boat fitted with paddle-wheels, he made a
trial of the new machine on the Conestoga River, near
Lancaster, where the craft, by some accident, sank, and was
lost. He was not discouraged by this failure, but made a
second model, adding some improvements. Among the records of
the Pennsylvania Philosophical Society is, or was, a design,
presented by Henry in 1782, of one of his steamboats. … John
Fitch, whose experiments will presently be referred to, was an
acquaintance and frequent visitor to the house of Mr. Henry,
and may probably have there received the earliest suggestions
of the importance of this application of steam. About 1777 …
Robert Fulton, then twelve years old, visited him, to study
the paintings of Benjamin West, who had long been a friend and
protege of Henry. He, too, not improbably, received there the
first suggestion which afterward … made the young
portrait-painter a successful inventor and engineer. … In
France, the Marquis de Jouffroy was one of the earliest to
perceive that the improvements of Watt, rendering the engine
more compact, more powerful, and, at the same time, more
regular and positive in its action, had made it, at last,
readily applicable to the propulsion of vessels. …
{3032}
Comte d' Auxiron and Chevalier Charles Mounin, of Follenai,
friends and companions of Jouffroy, were similarly interested,
and the three are said to have … united in devising methods of
applying the new motor. In the year 1770, D'Auxiron determined
to attempt the realization of the plans which he had
conceived. He resigned his position in the army," obtained
from the King a patent of monopoly for fifteen years, and
formed a company for the undertaking. "The first vessel was
commenced in December, 1772. When nearly completed, in
September, 1774, the boat sprung a leak, and, one night,
foundered at the wharf." Quarrels and litigation ensued,
D'Auxiron died, and the company dissolved. "The heirs of
D'Auxiron turned the papers of the deceased inventor over to
Jouffroy, and the King transferred to him the monopoly held by
the former. … M. Jacques Périer, the then distinguished
mechanic, was consulted, and prepared plans, which were
adopted in place of those of Jouffroy. The boat was built by
Périer, and a trial took place in 1774 [1775] on the Seine.
The result was unsatisfactory." Jouffroy was still
undiscouraged, and pursued experiments for several years, at
his country home and at Lyons, until he had impoverished
himself and was forced to abandon the field. "About 1785, John
Fitch and James Rumsey were engaged in experiments having in
view the application of steam to navigation. Rumsey's
experiments began in 1774, and in 1786 he succeeded in driving
a boat at the rate of four miles an hour against the current
of the Potomac at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in presence of
General Washington. His method of propulsion has often been
reinvented since. … Rumsey employed his engine to drive a
great pump which forced a stream of water aft, thus propelling
the boat forward, as proposed earlier by Bernouilli. … Rumsey
died of apoplexy, while explaining some of his schemes before
a London society a short time later, December 23, 1793, at the
age of 50 years. A boat, then in process of construction from
his plans, was afterward tried on the Thames, in 1793, and
steamed at the rate of four miles an hour. … John Fitch was an
unfortunate and eccentric, but very ingenious, Connecticut
mechanic. After roaming about until 40 years of age, he
finally settled on the banks of the Delaware, where he built
his first steamboat. … The machinery [of Fitch's first model]
was made of brass, and the boat was impelled by paddle-wheels.
… In September, 1785, Fitch presented to the American
Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia, a model in which he
had substituted an endless chain and floats for the
paddle-wheels." His first actual steamboat, however, which he
tried at Philadelphia in August, 1787, before the members of
the Federal Constitutional Convention, was fitted with neither
paddle-wheels nor floats, but with a set of oars or paddles on
each side, worked by the engine. His second boat, finished in
1788, was similarly worked, but the oars were placed at the
stern. This boat made a trip to Burlington, 20 miles from
Philadelphia. "Subsequently the boat made a number of
excursions on the Delaware River, making three or four miles
an hour. Another of Fitch's boats, in April, 1790, made seven
miles an hour. … In June of that year it was placed as a
passenger-boat on a line from Philadelphia to Burlington,
Bristol, Bordentown, and Trenton. … During this period, the
boat probably ran between 2,000 and 3,000 miles, and with no
serious accident. During the winter of 1790-'91, Fitch
commenced another steamboat, the 'Perseverance,'" which was
never finished. Although he obtained a patent from the United
States, he despaired of success in this country, and went, in
1793, to France, where he fared no better. "In the year 1796,
Fitch was again in New York City, experimenting with a little
screw steamboat on the 'Collect' Pond, which then covered that
part of the city now occupied by the 'Tombs,' the city prison.
This little boat was a ship's yawl fitted with a screw, like
that adopted later by Woodcroft, and driven by a rudely made
engine. Fitch, while in the city of Philadelphia at about this
time, met Oliver Evans, and discussed with him the probable
future of steam-navigation, and proposed to form a company in
the West." Soon afterwards, he settled on a land-grant in
Kentucky, where he died in 1798: "During this period, an
interest which had never diminished in Great Britain had led
to the introduction of experimental steamboats in that
country. Patrick Miller, of Dalswinton, had commenced
experimenting, in 1786-'87, with boats having double or triple
hulls, and propelled by paddle-wheels placed between the parts
of the compound vessel." On the suggestion of James Taylor, he
placed a steam-engine in a boat constructed upon this plan, in
1788, and attained a speed of five miles an hour. The next
year, with a larger vessel, he made seven miles an hour. But
for some reason, he pursued his undertaking no further. "In
the United States, several mechanics were now at work besides
Fitch. Samuel Morey and Nathan Read were among these. Nicholas
Roosevelt was another. … In Great Britain, Lord Dundas and
William Symington, the former as the purveyor of funds and the
latter as engineer, followed by Henry Bell, were the first to
make the introduction of the steam-engine for the propulsion
of ships so completely successful that no interruption
subsequently took place in the growth of the new system of
water-transportation. … Symington commenced work in 1801. The
first boat built for Lord Dundas, which has been claimed to
have been the 'first practical steamboat,' was finished ready
for trial early in 1802. The vessel was called the 'Charlotte
Dundas,' in honor of a daughter of Lord Dundas. … Among those
who saw the Charlotte Dundas, and who appreciated the
importance of the success achieved by Symington, was Henry
Bell, who, 10 years afterward, constructed the Comet, the
first passenger-vessel built in Europe. This vessel was built
in 1811, and completed January 18, 1812. … Bell constructed
several other boats in 1815, and with his success
steam-navigation in Great Britain was fairly inaugurated."
Meantime this practical success had been anticipated by a few
years in the United States, through the labors and exertions
of Stevens, Livingston, Fulton, and Roosevelt. Fulton's and
Livingston's first experiments were made in France (1803),
where the latter was Ambassador from the United States. Three
years later they renewed them in America, using an engine
ordered for the purpose from Boulton & Watt. "In the spring of
1807 the 'Clermont,' as the new boat was christened, was
launched from the ship-yard of Charles Brown, on the East
River, New York. In August the machinery was on board and in
successful operation.
{3033}
The hull of this boat was 133 feet long, 18 feet wide, and 9
deep. The boat soon made a trip to Albany, running the
distance of 150 miles in 32 hours running time, and returning
in 30 hours. … This was the first voyage of considerable
length ever made by a steam vessel; and Fulton, though not to
be classed with James Watt as an inventor, is entitled to the
great honor of having been the first to make steam-navigation
an everyday commercial success. … The success of the Clermont
on the trial-trip was such that Fulton soon after advertised
the vessel as a regular passenger-boat between New York and
Albany. During the next winter the Clermont was repaired and
enlarged, and in the summer of 1808 was again on the route to
Albany; and, meantime, two new steamboats—the Raritan and the
Car of Neptune—had been built by Fulton. In the year 1811 he
built the Paragon. … A steam ferry-boat was built to ply
between New York and Jersey City in 1812, and the next year
two others, to connect the metropolis with Brooklyn. … Fulton
had some active and enterprising rivals." The prize gained by
him "was most closely contested by Colonel John Stevens, of
Hoboken," who built his first steamboat in 1804, propelling it
by a screw with four blades, and his second in 1807, with two
screws. He was shut out from New York waters by a monopoly
which Fulton and Livingston had procured, and sent his little
ship by sea to Philadelphia. "After Fulton and Stevens had
thus led the way, steam-navigation was introduced very rapidly
on both sides of the ocean." Nicholas J. Roosevelt, at
Pittsburgh, in 1811, built, from Fulton's plans, the first
steamer on the western rivers, and took her to New Orleans.
"The first steamer on the Great Lakes was the Ontario, built
in 1816, at Sackett's Harbor."
_R. H. Thurston,
History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_R. H. Thurston,
Robert Fulton._
_C. D. Colden,
Life of Robert Fulton._
_T. Westcott,
Life of John Fitch._
STEAM NAVIGATION:
On the Ocean.
"In 1819 the Atlantic was first crossed by a ship using steam.
This was the Savannah, of 380 tons, launched at Corlear's
Hook, New York, August 22, 1818. She was built to ply between
New York and Savannah as a sailing packet. She was however,
purchased by Savannah merchants [by a Mr. Scarborough] and
fitted with steam machinery, the paddle-wheels being
constructed to fold up and be laid upon the deck when not in
use, her shaft also having a joint for that purpose. She left
Savannah on the 26th of May, and reached Liverpool in 25 days,
using steam 18 days. The log book, still preserved, notes
several times taking the wheels in on deck in thirty minutes.
In August she left Liverpool for Cronstadt. An effort was made
to sell her to Russia, which failed. She sailed for Savannah,
touching at Copenhagen and Arendal, and arrived in 53 days.
Her machinery later was taken out, and she resumed her
original character as a sailing packet, and ended her days by
being wrecked on the south coast of Long Island. But
steam-power had by 1830 grown large enough to strike out more
boldly. The Savannah's effort was an attempt in which steam
was only an auxiliary, and one, too, of a not very powerful
kind. Our coastwise steamers, as well as those employed in
Great Britain, as also the voyage of the Enterprise to
Calcutta in 1825 (though she took 113 days in doing it), had
settled the possibility of the use of steam at sea, and the
question had now become whether a ship could be built to cross
the Atlantic depending entirely on her steam power. It had
become wholly a question of fuel consumption. The Savannah, it
may be said, used pitch-pine on her outward voyage, and wood
was for a very long time the chief fuel for steaming purposes
in America. … In 1836, under the influence of Brunel's bold
genius, the Great Western Steamship Company was founded as an
off-shoot of the Great Western Railway, whose terminus was
then Bristol." The Company's first ship was the Great Western.
She was of unprecedented size—236 feet length and 35 feet 4
inches breadth—"determined on by Brunei as being necessary for
the requisite power and coal carrying capacity. … The Great
Western was launched on July 19, 1837, and was towed from
Bristol to the Thames to receive her machinery, where she was
the wonder of London. She left for Bristol on March 31, 1838;
and arrived, after having had a serious fire on board, on
April 2d. In the meantime others had been struck with the
possibility of steaming to New York; and a company, of which
the moving spirit was Mr. J. Laird, of Birkenhead, purchased
the Sirius, of 700 tons, employed between London and Cork, and
prepared her for a voyage to New York. The completion of the
Great Western was consequently hastened; and she left Bristol
on Sunday, April 8, 1838, at 10 A. M. with 7 passengers on
board, and reached New York on Monday, the 23d, the afternoon
of the same day with the Sirius, which had left Cork Harbor
(where she had touched en route from London) four days before
the Great Western had left Bristol. The latter still had
nearly 200 tons of coal, of the total of 800, on board on
arrival; the Sirius had consumed her whole supply, and was
barely able to make harbor. It is needless to speak of the
reception of these two ships at New York. It was an event
which stirred the whole country, and with reason; it had
practically, at one stroke, reduced the breadth of the
Atlantic by half. … The Great Western started on her return
voyage, May 7th, with 66 passengers. This was made in 14 days,
though one was lost by a stoppage at sea." Within a few years
following several steamers were placed in the transatlantic
trade, among them the Royal William, the British Queen, the
President, the Liverpool, and the Great Britain, the latter a
screw steamer, built of iron and put afloat by the Great
Western Company. In 1840 the long famous Cunard line was
founded by Mr. Samuel Cunard, of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in
company with Mr. George Burns of Glasgow and Mr. David McIver
of Liverpool. The screw propeller (taking the place of the
paddle-wheel), which made its first appearance in ocean
navigation with the Great Britain, obtained its practical
introduction through the labors of the great Swedish engineer,
John Ericsson, though an idea of it had been in the minds of
many inventors for a century and a half. Ericsson, induced by
Francis B. Ogden and Captain Robert F. Stockton, United States
Navy, came to the United States in 1839, and the introduction
of the screw-propeller occurred rapidly after that date, the
paddle-wheel disappearing from ocean steamships first, and
more slowly from the steamers engaged in lake and river
navigation.
_F. E. Chadwick,
The Development of the Steamship
("Ocean Steamships," chapter 1)._
ALSO IN:
_A. J. Maginnis,
The Atlantic Ferry,
chapters 1-2._
_R. H. Thurston,
History of the Growth of the Steam Engine,
chapter 5._
_W. C. Church,
Life of Ericsson,
chapters 6-10 (volume 1)._
{3034}
STEDMAN, FORT, The capture of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).
STEEL BOYS.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.
STEEL YARD, The Association of the.
See HANSA TOWNS.
STEENWYK: Siege and relief (1581).
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.
STEIN, Prussian reform measures of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);
1807-1808; and 1808.
STEINKIRK, OR STEENKERKE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1692.
STELA, OR STELE.
"This is one of the words most frequently used in Egyptian
archæology, because it designates a monument which is found in
hundreds. The stela is a rectangular fiat stone generally
rounded at the summit, and it was made use of by the Egyptians
for all sorts of inscriptions. These stelæ were, generally
speaking, used for epitaphs; they also served, however, to
transcribe texts which were to be preserved or exhibited to
the public, and in this latter case the stela became a sort of
monumental placard."
_A. Mariette,
Monuments of Upper Egypt,
page 29, foot-note._
STENAY: A. D. 1654.
Siege and capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.
STENAY: A. D. 1659.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
STEPHANUS, OR ESTIENNE,
Robert and Henry, The Press of.
See PRINTING &c.: A. D. 1496-1598.
STEPHEN
(of Blois), King of England, A. D. 1135-1154.
Stephen I., Pope, A. D. 752, March.
Stephen I. (called Saint), King of Hungary, 997-1038.
Stephen II., Pope, 752-757.
Stephen II., King of Hungary, 1114-1131.
Stephen III., Pope, 768-772.
Stephen III. and IV. (in rivalry),
Kings of Hungary, 1161-1173.
Stephen IV., Pope, 816-817.
Stephen V., Pope, 885-891.
Stephen V., King of Hungary, 1270-1272.
Stephen VI., Pope, 896-897.
Stephen VII., Pope, 929-931.
Stephen VIII., Pope, 939-942.
Stephen IX., Pope, 1057-1058.
Stephen Batory, King of Poland, 1575-1586.
Stephen Dushan, The Empire of.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356.
STEPHENS, Alexander H.
Opposition to Secession.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
Election to the Vice-Presidency of the rebellious
"Confederate States."
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).
The Hampton Roads Peace Conference.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY).
STEPHENSON, George, and the beginning of railroads.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION.
STETTIN: A. D. 1630.
Occupied by Gustavus Adolphus and his Swedes.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631.
STETTIN: A. D. 1648.
Cession to Sweden in the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
STETTIN: A. D. 1677.
Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
STETTIN: A. D. 1720.
Cession by Sweden to Prussia.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
STEUBEN, Baron,
in the Virginia campaign of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY).
STEVENS, Thaddeus, and the Reconstruction Committee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865-1866 (DECEMBER-APRIL), to 1868-1870.
STEWART, Captain Charles, and the frigate Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814.
STEWART DYNASTY, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603, to 1688.
STILICHO, Ministry of.
See ROME: A. D. 394-395, to 404-408.
STILLWATER, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
STIRLING, Earl of, The American grant to.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
STIRLING, General Lord, and the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).
STIRLING, Wallace's victory at (1297).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.
STIRLING CASTLE, Sieges of.
Stirling Castle was taken in 1303 by Edward I. of England,
after a three months' siege, which he conducted in person and
which he looked upon as his proudest military achievement.
Eleven years later, in 1314, it was besieged and recaptured by
the Scots, under Edward Bruce, and it was in a desperate
attempt of the English to relieve the castle at that time that
the battle of Bannockburn was fought.
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapters 22-23 (volume 2)._
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314.
STOA, The.
"We have repeatedly mentioned the stoa or colonnade in
connection with other buildings; we now have to consider it as
a separate artistic erection [in ancient Greek cities]. … The
stoa, as an independent building, occurs both as an ornament
of streets and squares, and as a convenient locality for walks
and public meetings. Its simplest form is that of a colonnade
bounded by a wall. This back wall offers a splendid surface
for decorations, and is frequently adorned with pictures. A
stoa in the market-place of Athens contained illustrations of
the battle of Œnoë, of the fight of the Athenians against the
Amazons, of the destruction of Troy and of the battle of
Marathon. … The progress from this simple form to a further
extension is on a principle somewhat analogous to what we have
observed in the temple; that is, a row of columns was added on
the other side of the wall. The result was a double colonnade,
… as a specimen of which, Pausanias mentions the Korkyraic
stoa near the market place of Elis. As important we notice
Pausanias's remark that this stoa 'contained in the middle,
not columns, but a wall'; which shows that most of the double
colonnades contained columns in the centre as props of the
roof."
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
part 1, section 27._
{3035}
STOCKACH, Battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS.
STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1471.
Battle of the Brunkeberg.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1521-1523.
Siege by Gustavus Vasa.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.
STOCKHOLM: A. D. 1612.
Attacked by the Danes.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.
STOCKHOLM, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.
STOCKTON AND DARLINGTON RAIL WAY.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
STOLA, The.
"The Roman ladies wore, by way of under garment, a long tunic
descending to the feet, and more particularly denominated
'stola.' This vestment assumed all the variety of modification
displayed in the corresponding attire of the Grecian females.
Over the stola, they also adopted the Grecian peplum, under
the name of palla."
_T. Hope,
Costume of the Ancients,
volume 1, page 38._
STOLHOFEN, The breaking of the lines of (1707).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1706-1711.
STONE AGE.
BRONZE AGE.
IRON AGE.
"Human relics of great antiquity occur, more or less
abundantly, in many parts of Europe. … The antiquities
referred to are of many kinds—dwelling-places, sepulchral and
other monuments, forts and camps, and a great harvest of
implements and ornaments of stone and metal. In seeking to
classify these relics and remains according to their relative
antiquity, archæologists have selected the implements and
ornaments as affording the most satisfactory basis for such an
arrangement, and they divide prehistoric time into three
periods, which are termed respectively the Stone Age, the
Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. Of these periods the earliest
was the Stone Age, when implements and ornaments were formed
exclusively of stone, wood, horn, and bone. The use of metal
for such purposes was then quite unknown. To the Stone Age
succeeded the Age of Bronze, at which time cutting
instruments, such as swords and knives and axes, began to be
made of copper, and an alloy of that metal and tin. When in
the course of time iron replaced bronze for
cutting-instruments, the Bronze Age came to an end and the
Iron Age supervened. … The archæological periods are simply so
many phases of civilisation, and it is conceivable that Stone,
Bronze, and Iron Ages might have been contemporaneous in
different parts of one and the same continent. … It has been
found necessary within recent years to subdivide the Stone Age
into two periods, called respectively the Old Stone and New
Stone Ages; or, to employ the terms suggested by Sir John
Lubbock, and now generally adopted, the Palæolithic and
Neolithic Periods. The stone implements belonging to the older
of these periods show but little variety of form, and are very
rudely fashioned, being merely roughly chipped into shape, and
never ground or polished."
_J. Geikie,
Prehistoric Europe,
pages 5-11._
STONE OF DESTINY, The.
See LIA-FAIL.
STONE RIVER, OR MURFREESBOROUGH, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).
STONE STREET.
An old Roman road which runs from London to Chichester.
STONEHENGE.
See ABURY.
STONEMAN'S RAID.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).
STONEY CREEK, The Surprise at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813 (APRIL-JULY).
STONINGTON, Bombardment of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814.
STONY POINT, The storming of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.
STORTHING, The.
See THING;
also SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815;
and CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.
STORY, Judge, and his judicial services.
See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1812.
STRAFFORD (Wentworth, Earl of) and Charles I.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1634-1637, 1640, and 1640-1641;
also, IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.
STRALSUND: The founding of the city.
See HANSA TOWNS.
STRALSUND: A. D. 1628.
Unsuccessful siege by Wallenstein.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.
STRALSUND: A. D. 1678.
Siege and capture by the Elector of Brandenburg.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.
STRALSUND: A. D. 1715.
Siege and capture by the Danes and Prussians.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
STRALSUND: A. D. 1720.
Restoration by Denmark to Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
STRALSUND: A. D. 1809.
Occupied by the Patriot Schill.
Stormed and captured by the French.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).
----------STRASBURG: Start--------
STRASBURG: A. D. 357.
Julian's victory.
The most serious battle in Julian's campaigns against the
Alemanni was fought in August, A. D. 357, at Strasburg (then a
Roman post called Argentoratum) where Chnodomar had crossed
the Rhine with 35,000 warriors. The result was a great victory
for the Romans.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 19._
See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
STRASBURG: A. D. 842.
The Oaths.
During the civil wars which occurred between the grandsons of
Charlemagne, in 842, the year following the great battle at
Fontainelles, the two younger of the rivals, Karl and Ludwig,
formed an alliance against Lothaire. Karl found his support in
Aquitaine and Neustria; Ludwig depended on the East Franks and
their German kindred. The armies of the two were assembled in
February at Strasburg (Argentaria) and a solemn oath of
friendship and fidelity was taken by the kings in the presence
of their people and repeated by the latter. The oath was
repeated in the German language, and in the Romance
language—then just acquiring form in southern Gaul,—and it has
been preserved in both. "In the Romance form of this oath, we
have the earliest monument of the tongue out of which the
modern French was formed."
_P. Godwin,
History of France: Ancient Gaul,
chapter 18._
ALSO IN:
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
The French Under the Carlovingians,
translated by Bellingham,
chapter 8._
{3036}
STRASBURG: A. D. 1525.
Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.
STRASBURG: A. D. 1529.
Joined in the Protest which gave rise to the name Protestants.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
STRASBURG: A. D. 1674-1675.
The passage of the Rhine given to the Germans.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
STRASBURG: A. D. 1681.
Seizure and annexation to France.
Overthrow of the independence of the town
as an Imperial city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.
STRASBURG: A. D. 1697.
Ceded to France by the Treaty of Ryswick.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
STRASBURG: A. D. 1870.
Siege and capture by the Germans.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
STRASBURG: A. D. 1871.
Acquisition (with Alsace) by Germany.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).
----------STRASBURG: End--------
STRATEGI.
In ancient Sparta, the Strategi were military commanders
appointed for those armies which were not led by one of the
kings. At Athens, the whole direction of the military system
belonged to a board of ten Strategi.
G. Schumann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapters 1 and 3.
STRATHCLYDE.
See CUMBRIA;
also, SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.
STRELITZ,
STRELTZE.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1698-1704.
STRONGBOW'S CONQUEST OF IRELAND.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.
STUART, General J. E. B., The Raid of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).
STUARTS, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.
STUM, Battle of (1629).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.
STUNDISTS, The.
In the neighborhood of Kherson, in southern Russia, the
Stundist religious movement arose, about 1858. As its name
implies, it "had a German origin. As far back as 1778 the
great Empress Catherine had colonized Kherson with peasants
from the Suabian land, who brought with them their religion,
their pastors, and their industrious, sober ways. For many
years national prejudices and the barriers of language kept
Russians and Germans apart from each other. But sooner or
later true life begins to tell. … Some of the Russian peasants
who had been helped in their poverty or ministered to in their
sickness by their German neighbours began to attend their
services —to keep the 'stunden,' or 'hours,' of praise and
prayer; they learned to read, were furnished with the New
Testament in their own language, and eventually some of them
found the deeper blessing of eternal life. In this simple
scriptural fashion this memorable movement began. Men told
their neighbours what God had done for their souls, and so the
heavenly contagion spread from cottage to cottage, from
village to village, and from province to province, till at
length the Russian Stundists were found in all the provinces
from the boundaries of the Austrian Empire in the West to the
land of the Don Cossack in the East, and were supposed to
number something like a quarter of a million souls. … M.
Dalton, a Lutheran clergyman, long resident in St. Petersburg,
and whose knowledge of religious movements in Russia is very
considerable, goes so far as to say that they are two millions
strong. But it is not alone to the actual number of professing
Stundists that we are to look in estimating the force and
extent of the movement which they have inaugurated in Russia.
… Compared with the enormous population of the Russian Empire,
the number of Stundists, whether two millions or only a
quarter of a million, is insignificant; but the spirit of
Stundism has spread, and is still spreading into regions as
ultra-Orthodox as the heart of the most bigoted Greek
Churchman could desire, and is slowly but surely leavening the
whole mass."
_J. Brown, editor,
The Stundists,
preface and chapter. 14._
STUYVESANT, Peter, The administration of.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1647-1664, to 1664.
STYRIA:
Origin, and annexation to Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
STYRIA:A. D. 1576.
Annexation of Croatia.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.
STYRIA:17th Century.
Suppression of the Reformation.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.
SUABIA, The Imperial House of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268;
and ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1183-1250.
SUABIA AND SUABIANS, Ancient.
See SUEVI; and ALEMANNI.
SUABIAN BUND, OR LEAGUE, The.
See LANDFRIEDE, &c.;
also CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY;
and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
SUABIAN CIRCLE, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519;
also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
SUABIAN WAR (1496-1499).
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
SUARDONES, The.
See AVIONES.
SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.
The Pons Sublicius was the single bridge in ancient Rome with
which the Tiber was originally spanned. It was built of wood,
and constructed for easy removal when an enemy threatened. No
trace of it exists.
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,
volume 2. page 103._
SUBLIME PORTE, The.
"The figurative language of the institutes of Mahomet II.
[Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481], still employed by his Successors,
describes the state under the martial metaphor of a tent. The
Lofty Gate of the Royal Tent (where Oriental rulers of old
sate to administer justice) denotes the chief seat of
government. The Italian translation of the phrase, 'La Porta
Sublima,' has been adopted by Western nations, with slight
modifications to suit their respective languages; and by 'The
Sublime Porte' we commonly mean the Imperial Otto·man
Government. The Turkish legists and historians depict the
details of their government by imagery drawn from the same
metaphor of a royal tent. The dome of the state is supported
by four pillars. These are formed by, 1st, the Viziers; 2nd,
the Kudiaskers (judges); 3rd, the Defterdars (treasurers); and
4th, the Nischandyis (the secretaries of state). Besides
these, there are the Outer Agas, that is to say, the military
rulers; and the Inner Agas, that is to say, the rulers
employed in the court.
{3037}
There is also the order of the Ulema, or men learned in the
law. The Viziers were regarded as constituting the most
important pillar that upheld the fabric of the state. In
Mahomet II.'s time the Viziers were four in number. Their
chief, the Grand Vizier, is the highest of all officers. … The
… high legal dignitaries (who were at that time next in rank
to the Kadiaskers) were, 1st, the Kho-dya, who was the tutor
of the Sultan and the Princes Royal; 2nd, the Mufti, the
authoritative expounder of the law; and, 3rdly, the Judge of
Constantinople. … The great council of state was named the
Divan; and, in the absence of the Sultan, the Grand Vizier was
its president. … The Divan was also attended by the
Reis-Effendi, a general secretary, whose power afterwards
became more important than that of the Nis-chandyis; by the
Grand Chamberlain, and the Grand Marshal, and a train of other
officers of the court."
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
pages 96-97._
See, also, PHARAOHS.
SUB-TREASURY, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1837.
SUBURA, at Rome, The.
"Between the converging points of the Quirinal and Esquiline
hills lay the Subura, a district of ill-fame, much abused by
the poets and historians of imperial times. It was one of the
most ancient district communities ('pagi') of Rome, and gave
name to one of the four most ancient regions. Nor was it
entirely occupied by the lowest class of people, as might be
inferred from the notices of it in Martial and Horace. Julius
Cæsar is said to have lived in a small house here. … The
Subura was a noisy, bustling part of Rome, full of small
shops, and disreputable places of various kinds."
_H. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 6, part 1._
SUCCESSION, The Austrian: The Question and War of.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740, and to 1744-1745;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745, and 1746-1747;
ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743, to 1746-1747;
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.
SUCCESSION, The Spanish:
The question and war of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, to 1713-1725;
and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.
SUCCOTH.
See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.
----------SUDAN: Start--------
SUDAN, OR SOUDAN, The.
"Forming a natural frontier to the Great Desert is that
section of Africa known by the somewhat vague name of Sudan.
By this term is understood the region south of the Sahara,
limited on the west and south by the Atlantic Ocean as far as
it reaches. From the Gulf of Guinea inland, there is no
definite southern border line. It may, however, be assumed at
the fifth degree of north latitude. … [The] Nile region is
generally taken as the eastern frontier of Sudan, although it
properly reaches to the foot of the Abyssinian highlands.
Hence modern maps have introduced the appropriate expression
'Egyptian Sudan' for those eastern districts comprising
Senaar, Kordofan, Darfur, and some others. Sudan is therefore,
strictly speaking, a broad tract of country reaching right
across the whole continent from the Atlantic seaboard almost
to the shores of the Red Sea, and is the true home of the
Negro races. When our knowledge of the interior has become
sufficiently extended to enable us accurately to fix the
geographical limits of the Negroes, it may become desirable to
make the term Sudan convertible with the whole region
inhabited by them."
_Hellwald-Johnston,
Africa (Stanford's Compendium),
chapter 9._
SUDAN: A. D. 1870-1885.
Egyptian conquest.
General Gordon's government.
The Mahdi's rebellion.
The British campaign.
Death of Gordon.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883; and 1884-1885.
----------SUDAN: End--------
SUDOR ANGLICUS.
See SWEATING SICKNESS;
and PLAGUE: A. D. 1486-1593.
SUDRAS.
See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.
SUESSIONES, The.
See BELGÆ.
SUETONIUS PAULINUS: Campaigns in Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.
----------SUEVI: Start--------
SUEVI,
SUEBI, The.
"I must now speak of the Suevi, who are not one nation as are
the Chatti and Tencteri, for they occupy the greater part of
Germany, and have hitherto been divided into separate tribes
with names of their own, though they are called by the general
designation of 'Suevi.' A national peculiarity with them is to
twist their hair back and fasten it in a knot. This
distinguishes the Suevi from the other Germans, as it also
does their own freeborn from their slaves."—"Suevia would seem
to have been a comprehensive name for the country between the
Elbe and the Vistula as far north as the Baltic. Tacitus and
Cæsar differ about the Suevi. Suabia is the same word as
Suevia."
_Tacitus,
Germany,
translated by Church and Brodribb,
chapter. 38, with geographical note._
"The Suebi, that is the wandering people or nomads. … Cæsar's
Suebi were probably the Chatti; but that designation certainly
belonged in Cæsar's time, and even much later, to every other
German stock which could be described as a regularly wandering
one."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 5, chapter 7, with note._
"The name of the country called Suabia is a true ethnological
term, even as Franconia is one. The one means the country
occupied by the Suevi, the other the country occupied by the
Franks. … At what time the name first became an unequivocal
geographical designation of what now, in the way of politics,
coincides with the Grand Duchy of Baden and part of
Wurtemburg, and, in respect to its physical geography, is part
of the Black Forest, is uncertain. It was not, however, later
than the reign of Alexander Severus (ending A. D. 235). …
Therein, Alamannia and Suevia appear together —as terms for
that part of Germany which had previously gone under the name
of 'Decumates agri,' and the parts about the 'Limes Romanus.'
With this, then, begins the history of the Suevi of Suabia,
or, rather, of the Suabians. Their alliances were chiefly with
the Alamanni and Burgundians; their theatre the German side of
France, Switzerland, Italy, and (in conjunction with the
Visigoths) Spain. Their epoch is from the reign of Alexander
to that of Augustulus, in round numbers, from about A. D. 225
to A. D. 475."
_R. G. Latham,
The Germania of Tacitus, epilegomena,
section 20._
See, also, ALEMANNI,
and BAVARIA: THE ETHNOLOGY.
{3038}
SUEVI: B. C. 58.
Expulsion from Gaul by Cæsar.
A large body of the Suevi, a formidable German tribe, the name
of which has survived in modern Suabia, crossed the Rhine and
entered Gaul about B. C. 61. They came at the invitation of
the Arverni and Sequani of Gaul, who were forming a league
against the Ædui, their rivals, and who sought the aid of the
German warriors. The latter responded eagerly to the call,
and, having lodged themselves in the country of the Sequani,
summoned fresh hordes of their countrymen to join them. The
Gauls soon found that they had brought troublesome neighbors
into their midst, and they all joined in praying Cæsar and his
Roman legions to expel the insolent intruders. Cæsar had then
just entered on the government of the Roman Gallic provinces
and had signalized his first appearance in the field by
stopping the attempted migration of the Helvetii, destroying
two thirds of them, and forcing the remnant back to their
mountains. He welcomed an opportunity to interfere further in
Gallic affairs and promptly addressed certain proposals to the
Suevic chieftain, Ariovistus, which the latter rejected with
disdain. Some negotiations followed, but both parties meant
war, and the question, which should make a conquest of Gaul,
was decided speedily at a great battle fought at some place
about 80 miles from Vesontio (modern Besançon) in the year 58
B. C. The Germans were routed, driven into the Rhine and
almost totally destroyed. Ariovistus, with a very few
followers, escaped across the river, and died soon afterwards.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_Cæsar, Gallic Wars,
book 1, chapters 31-53._
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 4._
SUEVI: A. D. 406-409.
Final invasion of Gaul.
See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.
SUEVI: A. D. 409-414.
Settlement in Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.
SUEVI: A. D. 409-573.
Their history in Spain.
"The Suevi kept their ground for more than half a century in
Spain, before they embraced the Christian religion and became
Arians. Being surrounded on all sides by the Visigoths, their
history contains merely an account of the wars which they had
to maintain against their neighbours: they were long and
bloody; 164 years were passed in fighting before they could be
brought to yield. In 573, Leovigild, king of the Visigoths,
united them to the monarchy of Spain."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 7 (volume l)._
See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 428,
and GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-712.
SUEVI: A. D. 460-500.
In Germany.
Those tribes of the Suevic confederacy which remained on the
German side of the Rhine, while their brethren pressed
southwards, along with the Vandals and Burgundians, in the
great invasive movement of 406, "dwelt in the south-west
corner of Germany, in the region which is now known as the
Black Forest, and away eastwards along the Upper Danube,
perhaps as far as the river Lech. They were already mingled
with the Alamanni of the mountains, a process which was no
doubt carried yet further when, some thirty years after the
time now reached by us [about 460] Clovis overthrew the
monarchy of the Alamanni [A. D. 496], whom he drove
remorselessly forth from all the lands north of the Neckar.
The result of these migrations and alliances was the formation
of the two great Duchies with which we are so familiar in the
mediaeval history of Germany—Suabia and Franconia. Suabia,
which is a convertible term with Alamannia, represents the
land left to the mingled Suevi and Alamanni; Franconia that
occupied east of the Rhine by the intrusive Franks."
_T. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders,
book 4, chapter 1 (volume 3)._
See, also, ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
----------SUEVI: End--------
SUEVIC SEA.
The ancient name of the Baltic.
SUEZ CANAL, Opening of the (1869).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.
SUFFERERS' LANDS, The.
See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.
SUFFETES.
"The original monarchical constitution [of Carthage]—doubtless
inherited from Tyre—was represented (practically in
Aristotle's time, and theoretically to the latest period) by
two supreme magistrates called by the Romans Suffetes. Their
name is the same as the Hebrew Shofetim, mistranslated in our
Bible, Judges. The Hamilcars and Hannos of Carthage were, like
their prototypes, the Gideons and the Samsons of the Book of
Judges, not so much the judges as the protectors and rulers of
their respective states."
_R. B. Smith,
Carthage and the Carthaginians,
chapter 1._
See, also, JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.
SUFFOLK RESOLVES, The.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1774.
SUFFRAGE, Woman.
See WOMAN SUFFRAGE.
SUFFRAGE QUALIFICATION IN ENGLAND.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
SUFIS.
A sect of Mahometan mystics. "The final object of the Sufi
devotee is to attain to the light of Heaven, towards which he
must press forward till perfect knowledge is reached in his
union with God, to be consummated, after death, in absorption
into the Divine Being."
_J. W. H. Stobart,
Islam and its Founder,
chapter 10._
SUGAMBRI,
SICAMBRI.
See USIPETES;
also FRANKS: ORIGIN, and A. D. 253.
SUGAR ACT, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
SUGAR-HOUSE PRISONS, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.
SUIONES, The.
"Next [on the Baltic] occur the communities of the Suiones,
seated in the very Ocean, who, besides their strength in men
and arms, also possess a naval force. … These people honour
wealth." "The Suiones inhabited Sweden and the Danish isles of
Funen, Langland, Zeeland, Laland, etc. From them and the
Cimbri were derived the Normans."
_Tacitus,
Germany,
Oxford Translation,
chapter 44 and note._
SULIOTES, The.
"The heroic struggle of the little commonwealth over a number
of years, [1787-1804] against all the resources and ingenuity
of Ali Pacha [vizir of Jannina] is very stirring and full of
episode. … The origin of the Suliotes is lost in obscurity. …
The chief families traced their origin to different villages
and districts; and, though their language was Greek, they
appear to have consisted, for the most part, of Christian
Albanians, with a small admixture of Greeks, who, flying from
the oppression of the invaders, had taken refuge in the
well-nigh inaccessible mountains of Chamouri (Chimari) [in
Epirus], and had there established a curious patriarchal
community. … At the time when they became conspicuous in
history the Suliotes were possessed of four villages in the
great ravine of Suli, namely, Kiapha, Avariko, Samoniva, and
Kako-Suli, composing a group known as the Tetrachorion; and
seven villages in the plains, whose inhabitants, being
considered genuine Suliotes, were allowed to retire into the
mountain in time of war. …
{3039}
They also controlled between 50 and 60 tributary villages,
with a mixed population of Greeks and Albanians; but these
were abandoned to their fate in war. In the early part of the
last century the Suliotes are said not to have had more than
200 fighting-men, although they were almost always engaged in
petty warfare and marauding expeditions; and at the period of
their extraordinary successes the numbers of the Suliotes
proper never exceeded 5,000 souls, with a fighting strength d
1,500 men, who were, however, reinforced at need by the women.
Their government was purely patriarchal; they had neither
written laws nor law courts, and the family formed the
political unit of the State. The families were grouped
together in tribal alliances called Pharas, of which there
were 29 in the Tetrachorion and 18 in the Heptachorion. All
disputes were settled by arbitration by the heads of the
Pharas; and these 47 elders formed a sort of general Council,
the matter for discussion being almost exclusively war. As
they were gradually driven from the plains which had supported
them to the mountains, which produced nothing but pasture for
their flocks, they were of necessity compelled to support
themselves by marauding expeditions, which involved them in
perpetual difficulties with the surrounding Ottoman governors.
The historian of Suli enumerates no less than eight wars in
which the community was involved before their great struggle
with Ali."
_R. Rodd,
The Customs and Lore of Modern Greece,
chapter 10._
SULLA, Proscriptions by and Dictatorship of.
See ROME: B. C. 88-78.
SULLIVAN, General John,
and the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
1776 (AUGUST); 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).
SULTAN, The Title.
Gibbon (chapter 57) represents that the title of Sultan was
first invented for Mahmud the Gaznevide, by the ambassador of
the Caliph of Bagdad, "who employed an Arabian or Chaldaic
word that signifies 'lord' and 'master.'" But Dr. William
Smith in a note to this passage in Gibbon, citing Weil, says:
"It is uncertain when the title of Sultan was first used, but
it seems at all events to have been older than the time of
Mahmud. It is mentioned by Halebi, under the reign of
Motawaccel; but according to Ibn Chaldun it was first assumed
by the Bowides."
See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.
SUMIR,
SHUMIR.
See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.
SUMTER, The Confederate cruiser.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1861-1862.
----------SUMTER, Fort: Start--------
SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1860.
Occupied and held by Major Anderson, for the United
States Government.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).
SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1861 (April).
Bombardment and reduction by the Rebel batteries.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 MARCH-APRIL).
SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.
Attack and repulse of the Monitors.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1863.
Bombardment and unsuccessful assault.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SUMTER, Fort: A. D. 1865 (February-April).
Recovery by the nation.
The restoring of the flag.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).
----------SUMTER, Fort: End--------
SUNNAH, The.
See ISLAM.
SUNNI SECT, The.
See ISLAM.
SUOVETAURILIA.
Expiatory sacrifices of pigs, sheep and oxen, offered by the
ancient Romans at the end of a lustrum and after a triumph.
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 103._
SUPERIOR, Lake, The discovery of.
See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.
SUPREMACY, The Acts of.
The first Act of Supremacy, which established the independence
of the Church of England and broke its relations with Rome,
was passed by the English Parliament during the reign of Henry
VIII., in 1534. It enacted "that the King should be taken and
reputed 'the only Supreme Head on earth of the Church of
England called Ecclesia Anglicana, and shall have and enjoy,
annexed and united to the imperial Crown of this realm, as
well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities,
pre-eminencies, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities,
immunities, profits, and commodities, to the said dignity of
Supreme Head of the same church belonging and appertaining';
with full power to visit, reform, and correct all heresies,
errors, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities which, by
any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction, ought to be
reformed or corrected."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 11._
The Act of Supremacy was repealed in the reign of Mary and
re-enacted with changes in that of Elizabeth, 1559.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, The.
"On the 24th day of September, 1789, the act organizing the
Supreme Court; was passed. The Court was constituted with a
Chief Justice and five associates. John Jay was appointed the
first Chief Justice by Washington. Webster said of him that
when the ermine fell upon his shoulders, it touched a being as
spotless as itself. The Court first convened in February,
1790, in New York. It does not appear from the reports that
any case then came before it. Jay remained Chief Justice until
1795, when he resigned to become governor of the State of New
York. A Chief Justice in our day would hardly do this. His
judicial duties were so few that he found time, in 1794, to
accept the mission to England to negotiate the treaty so
famous in history as 'Jay's Treaty.' John Rutledge of South
Carolina was appointed to succeed Jay, but he was so
pronounced in his opposition to the treaty, and so bitter in
his denunciation of Jay himself, that the federal Senate
refused to confirm him. William Cushing of Massachusetts, one
of the associate justices, was then nominated by Washington,
and was promptly confirmed; but he preferred to remain
associate justice, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut was
made Chief Justice. He held the office until 1801, when John
Marshall of Virginia was appointed by President Adams.
Marshall held the office thirty-four years. He was known at
the time of his appointment as an ardent Federalist.
{3040}
In our time he is known as 'the great Chief Justice.' Roger B.
Taney was the next incumbent. He was appointed by President
Jackson. His political enemies styled him a renegade
Federalist, and said that his appointment was his reward for
his obsequious obedience, while Secretary of the Treasury, to
President Jackson. But Taney, despite the Dred Scott decision,
was an honest man and a great judge. His opinions are models
of lucid and orderly discussion, and are of admirable literary
form. He held the office for twenty-eight years, and upon his
death in 1864, President Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase, of
Ohio. Chief Justice Chase died in 1874. President Grant then
appointed Morrison R. Waite of Ohio. He died in 1888. Melville
W. Fuller, of Illinois, is the present [1889] incumbent, his
appointment having been made by President Cleveland. … In 1807
an associate judge was added by Congress; two more were added
in 1837, and one in 1863. They were added to enable the Court
to perform the work of the circuits, which increased with the
growth of the country."
_J. S. Landon,
The Constitutional History and Government
of the United States,
lecture 10._
"The Supreme court is directly created by Article iii.,
section 1 of the Constitution, but with no provision as to the
number of its judges. Originally there were six; at present
there are nine, a chief justice, with a salary of $10,500
(£2,100), and eight associate judges (salary $10,000). The
justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. They hold office during good behaviour, i. e. they are
removable only by impeachment. They have thus a tenure even
more secure than that of English judges, for the latter may be
removed by the Crown on an address from both Houses of
Parliament. … The Fathers of the Constitution were extremely
anxious to secure the independence of their judiciary,
regarding it as a bulwark both for the people and for the
States against aggressions of either Congress or the
President. They affirmed the life tenure by an unanimous vote
in the Convention of 1787, because they deemed the risk of the
continuance in office of an incompetent judge a less evil than
the subserviency of all judges to the legislature, which might
flow from a tenure dependent on legislative will. The result
has justified their expectations. The judges have shown
themselves independent of Congress and of party, yet the
security of their position has rarely tempted them to breaches
of judicial duty. Impeachment has been four times resorted to,
once only against a justice of the Supreme court, and then
unsuccessfully. Attempts have been made, beginning from
Jefferson, who argued that judges should hold office for terms
of four or six years only, to alter the tenure of the Federal
judges, as that of the State judges has been altered in most
States; but Congress has always rejected the proposed
constitutional amendment. The Supreme court sits at Washington
from October till July in every year."
_J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
part 1, chapter 22 (volume 1)._
"It is, I believe, the only national tribunal in the world
which can sit in judgment on a national law, and can declare
an act of all the three powers of the Union to be null and
void. No such power does or can exist in England. Anyone of
the three powers of the state, King, Lords, or Commons, acting
alone, may act illegally; the three acting together cannot act
illegally. An act of parliament is final; it may be repealed
by the power which enacted it; it cannot be questioned by any
other power. For in England there is no written constitution;
the powers of Parliament, of King, Lords, and Commons, acting
together, are literally boundless. But in your Union, it is
not only possible that President, Senate, or House of
Representatives, acting alone, may act illegally; the three
acting together may act illegally. For their powers are not
boundless, they have no powers but such as the terms of the
constitution, that is, the original treaty between the States,
have given them. Congress may pass, the President may assent
to, a measure which contradicts the terms of the constitution.
If they so act, they act illegally, and the Supreme Court can
declare such an act to be null and void. This difference flows
directly from the difference between a written and an
unwritten constitution. It does not follow that every state
which has a written constitution need vest in its highest
court such powers as are vested in yours, though it certainly
seems to me that, in a federal constitution, such a power is
highly expedient. My point is simply that such a power can
exist where there is a written constitution; where there is no
written constitution, it cannot."
_E. A. Freeman,
The English People in its Three Homes:
Lectures to American Audiences,
pages 191-192._
SURA, Battle of (A. D. 530).
See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.
SURENA.
The title of the commander-in-chief or field-marshal of the
Parthian armies, whose rank was second only to that of the
king. This title was sometimes mistaken by Greek writers for
an individual name, as in the case of the Parthian general who
defeated Crassus.
_G. Rawlinson,
Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,
page 23._
SURGERY.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE.
SURINAM.
See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.
SURPLUS, The distribution of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.
SURRATT, Mrs.:
The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).
SUSA.
SUSIANA.
SHUSHAN.
Originally the capital of the ancient kingdom of Elam,
Shushan, or Susiana, or Susa, as it has been variously called,
was in later times made the principal capital of the Persian
empire, and became the scene of the Biblical story of Esther.
A French expedition, directed by M. Dieulafoy and wife,
undertook an exploration of the ruins of Susa in 1885 and has
brought to light some remarkably interesting and important
remains of ancient art. The name Susiana was applied by the
Greeks to the country of Elam, as well as to the capital city,
and it is sometimes still used in that sense.
_Z. A. Ragozin,
Story of Media, Babylon and Persia,
appendix to chapter 10._
See, also, ELAM; and BABYLONIA: PRIMITIVE.
SUSIAN GATES.
A pass in the mountains which surrounded the plain of
Persepolis, the center of ancient Persia proper. Alexander had
difficulty in forcing the Gates.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 93._
SUSIANA.
See SUSA.
SUSMARSHAUSEN, Battle of(1648).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.
SUSQUEHANNA COMPANY, The.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799.
SUSQUEHANNAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.
{3041}
SUSSEX.
Originally the kingdom formed by that body of the Saxon
conquerors of Britain in the 5th and 6th centuries which
acquired the name of the South Saxons. It is nearly
represented in territory by the present counties of Sussex and
Surrey.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.
SUTRIUM, Battle of.
A victory of the Romans over the Etruscans, among the exploits
ascribed to the veteran Q. Fabius Maximus.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 10._
SUTTEE, Suppression of, in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
SUVARROF,
SUWARROW,
Campaigns of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1762-1796;
also FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);
1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
SVASTIKA, The.
See TRI-SKELION.
SWAANENDAEL.
See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.
SWABIA.
See SUABIA.
SWAMP ANGEL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).
SWAN, The Order of the.
A Prussian order of knighthood, instituted in the 15th
century, which disappeared in the century following, and was
revived in 1843.
SWANS, The Road of the.
See NORMANS.
SWEATING SICKNESS, The.
The "Sudor Anglicus," or Sweating Sickness was a strange and
fearful epidemic which appeared in England in 1485 or 1486,
and again in 1507, 1518, 1529, and 1551. In the last three
instances it passed to the continent. Its first appearance was
always in England, from which fact it took one of its names.
Its peculiar characteristic was the profuse sweating which
accompanied the disease. The mortality from it was very great.
_J. H. Baas,
Outlines of the History of Medicine,
pages 318-319._
See, also, PLAGUE, ETC.: A. D. 1485-1593.
SWEDEN: Early inhabitants.
See SUIONES.
SWEDEN: History.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.
SWEDEN: Constitution.
See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.
SWEENEY, Peter B., and the Tweed Ring.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
SWERKER I., King of Sweden, A. D. 1155.
SWERKER II., King of Sweden, 1199-1210.
SWERKERSON.
See CHARLES SWERKERSON;
and JOHN SWERKERSON.
SWERRO, King of Norway, A. D. 1186-1202.
SWEYN I., King of Denmark, A. D. 991-1014.
Sweyn II., King of Denmark, 1047-1076.
Sweyn III., King of Denmark, 1156-1157.
Sweyn Canutson, King of Norway, 1030-1035.
SWISS CONFEDERATION AND CONSTITUTION.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890;
and CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.
----------SWITZERLAND: Start--------
SWITZERLAND:
Early inhabitants.
See HELVETII; ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451;
also, below: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
SWITZERLAND:
The Three Forest Cantons, their original Confederation
(Eidgenossenschaft), and their relations with the House of
Austria.
History divested of Legend.
"It is pretty clear that among those Helvetii with whom Cæsar
had his cruel struggle [see HELVETII, TUE ARRESTED MIGRATION
OF THE], and who subsequently became an integral portion of
the empire, there were no people from the Forest Cantons of
Schwytz, Uri, and Unterwalden. The men who defied the Roman
eagles were inhabitants of the mountain slopes between the
lakes of Geneva and Constance. On the North, the authority of
the Romans penetrated no farther in the direction of the
mountainous Oberland than to Zurich or Turicum. They, no
doubt, ascended far up the valley of the Rhone, where they
have left their mark in the speech of the people to this day;
but they did not climb the mountain passes leading across the
great chain of the Alps. It may be questioned if the higher
valleys of Switzerland were then, or for centuries after the
fall of the Western Empire, inhabited. … In the district of
these Forest Cantons no remains of lake inhabitancy have yet
been found. … Yet none of the places where they are met with
could have been more naturally suited for lake-dwellings than
these. The three Forest Cantons began the political history of
Switzerland, having established among themselves that
political centre round which the other Cantons clustered. In
ethnological history, they were the latest members of the
Swiss family, since their territory remained without occupants
after the more accessible portions of the country had been
peopled. In the same sense, the canton from which the
confederation derived its name—that of Schwytz—is the youngest
of all. When the Irish monk, afterwards canonised as St. Gall,
settled near the Lake of Constance in the 7th century, he had
gone as completely to the one extreme of the inhabited world,
as his brother Columba had gone to the other when he sailed to
Iona. If the districts of Thurgau, Appenzell, and St. Gall
were at that period becoming gradually inhabited, it is
supposed that Schwytz was not occupied by a permanent
population until the latter half of the 9th century. … M.
Rilliet [in 'Les Origines de la Confederation Suisse,' par
Albert Rilliet) is one of the first writers who has applied
himself to the study of … original documents [title-deeds of
property, the chartularies of religious houses, records of
litigation, etc.] as they are still preserved in Switzerland,
for the purpose of tracing the character and progress of the
Swiss people and of their free institutions. It was among the
accidents propitious to the efforts of the Forest Cantons,
that, among the high feudal or manorial rights existing within
their territory, a large proportion was in the hands of
monastic bodies. Throughout Europe the estates of the
ecclesiastics were the best husbanded, and inhabited by the
most prosperous vassals. These bodies ruled their vassals
through the aid of a secular officer, a Vogt or advocate, who
sometimes was the master, sometimes the servant, of the
community.
{3042}
In either case there was to some extent a division of rule,
and it was not the less so that in these Cantons the larger
estates were held by nuns. The various struggles for supremacy
in which emperors and competitors for empire, the successive
popes, and the potentates struggling for dominion, severally
figured, gave many opportunities to a brave and sagacious
people, ever on the watch for the protection of their
liberties; but the predominant feature in their policy—that,
indeed, which secured their final triumph—was their steady
adherence in such contests to the Empire, and their
acknowledgment of its supremacy. This is the more worthy of
notice since popular notions of Swiss history take the
opposite direction, and introduce us to the Emperor and his
ministers as the oppressors who drove an exasperated people to
arms. In fact, there still lurk in popular history many
fallacies and mistakes about the nature of the 'Holy Roman
Empire' as an institution of the middle ages [see ROMAN
EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. … It is not natural or easy indeed to
associate that mighty central organisation with popular
liberty and power; and yet in the feudal ages it was a strong
and effective protector of freedom. … Small republics and free
cities were scattered over central Europe and protected in the
heart of feudalism. … M. Rilliet aptly remarks, that in the
Swiss valleys, with their isolating mountains, and their
narrow strips of valuable pasture, political and local
conditions existed in some degree resembling those of a walled
city." The election, in 1273, of Rudolph of Hapsburg, as King
of the Romans, was an event of great importance in the history
of the Swiss Cantons, owing to their previous connexion with
the House of Hapsburg (see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282), "a
connexion geographically so close that the paternal domains,
whence that great family takes its ancient name, are part of
the Swiss territory at the present day." Such agencies as
belonged naturally to the most powerful family in the district
fell to the House of Hapsburg. Its chiefs were the chosen
advocates or champions of the religious communities neighbor
to them; and "under such imperial offices as are known by the
title Bailiff, Procurator, or Reichsvogt, they occasionally
exercised what power the Empire retained over its free
communities. Such offices conferred authority which easily
ripened into feudal superiorities, or other forms of
sovereignty. M. Rilliet attributes considerable, but not, it
seems to us, too much importance to a rescript bearing date
the 26th May, 1231. It is granted by Henry VII., King of the
Romans, or more properly of the aggregated German communities,
as acting for his father, the Emperor Frederic II. This
instrument revokes certain powers over the people of the
community of Uri, which had been granted at a previous time by
Frederic himself to the Count of Hapsburg. It addresses the
people of Uri by the term Universitas—high in class among the
enfranchised communities of the Empire—and promises to them
that they shall no more under any pretext be withdrawn from
the direct jurisdiction of the Empire. … The great point
reached through this piece of evidence, and corroborated by
others, is, that at this remote period the district which is
now the Canton of Uri was dealt with as a Roman Universitas—as
one of the communities of the Empire, exempt from the
immediate authority of any feudal chief. … M. Rilliet's
researches show that Uri is the Canton in which the character
of a free imperial community was first established, perhaps we
should rather say it was the Canton in which the privilege was
most completely preserved from the dangers that assailed it.
The Hapsburgs and their rivals had a stronger hold on Schwytz.
… In many of the documents relating to the rights of Rudolph
over this district, bearing date after he became Cæsar, it is
uncertain whether he acts as emperor or as immediate feudal
lord. … Rudolph, however, found it, from whatever cause, his
policy to attach the people of Schwytz to his interests as
emperor rather than as feudal lord; and he gave them charters
of franchise which seem ultimately to have made them, like
their neighbours of Uri, a free community of the Empire, or to
have certified their right to that character. In the
fragmentary records of the three Cantons, Unterwalden does not
hold rank as a free community of the Empire at so early a time
even as Schwytz. It is only known that in 1291 Unterwalden
acted with the other two as an independent community. In the
disputes for supremacy between the Empire and the Church all
three had been loyal to the Empire. There are some indications
that Rudolph had discovered the signal capacity of these
mountaineers for war, and that already there were bands of
Swiss among the imperial troops. The reign of Rudolph lasted
for 18 years. … During his 18 years of possession he changed
the character of the Cæsarship, and the change was felt by the
Swiss. In the early part of his reign he wooed them to the
Empire—before its end he was strengthening the territorial
power of his dynasty. … When Rudolph died in 1201, the
imperial crown was no longer a disputable prize for a chance
candidate. There was a conflict on the question whether his
descendants should take it as a hereditary right, or the
electors should show that they retained their power by another
choice. The three Cantons felt that there was danger to their
interests in the coming contest, and took a great step for
their own protection. They formed a league or confederacy
[Eidgenossenschaft] for mutual co-operation and protection.
Not only has it been handed down to us in literature, but the
very parchment has been preserved as a testimony to the early
independence of the Forest Cantons, the Magna Charter of
Switzerland. This document reveals the existence of
unexplained antecedents by calling itself a renewal of the old
league—the Antique Confederatio. … Thus we have a
Confederation of the Three Cantons, dated in 1201, and
referring to earlier alliances; while popular history sets
down the subsequent Confederation of 1314 as the earliest, for
the purpose of making the whole history of Swiss independence
arise out of the tragic events attributed to that period. If
this leads the way to the extinction of the story on which the
Confederation is based, there is compensation in finding the
Confederation in active existence a quarter of a century
earlier. But the reader will observe that the mere fact of the
existence of this anterior league overturns the whole received
history of Switzerland, and changes the character of the
alleged struggle with the House of Austria, prior to the
battle of Morgarten. There is nothing in this document or in
contemporary events breathing of disloyalty to the Empire.
{3043}
The two parties whom the Swiss held in fear were the Church,
endeavouring to usurp the old prerogatives of the Empire in
their fullness; and the feudal barons, who were encroaching on
the imperial authority. Among the three the Swiss chose the
chief who would be least of a master. … Two years before the
end of the 13th century [by the election of Albert, son of
Rudolph, the Hapsburg family] … again got possession of the
Empire, and retained it for ten years. It passed from them by
the well-known murder of the Emperor Albert. The Swiss and
that prince were ill-disposed to each other at the time of the
occurrence, and indeed the murder itself was perpetrated on
Swiss ground; yet it had no connexion with the cause of the
quarrel which was deepening between the House of Hapsburg and
the Cantons. … There exist in contemporary records no
instances of wanton outrage and insolence on the Hapsburg
side. It was the object of that power to obtain political
ascendancy, not to indulge its representatives in lust or
wanton insult. … There are plentiful records of disputes in
which the interests of the two powers were mixed up with those
of particular persons. Some of these were trifling and local,
relating to the patronage of benefices, the boundaries of
parishes, the use of meadows, the amount of toll duties, and
the like; others related to larger questions, as to the
commerce of the lake of the Four Cantons, or the transit of
goods across the Alps. But in these discussions the symptoms
of violence, as is natural enough, appear rather on the side
of the Swiss communities than on that of the aggrandising
imperial house. The Canton of Schwytz, indeed, appears to have
obtained by acts of violence and rapacity the notoriety which
made its name supreme among the Cantons. … We are now at a
critical point, the outbreak of the long War of Swiss
Independence, and it would be pleasant if we had more distinct
light than either history or record preserves of the immediate
motives which brought Austria to the point of invading the
Cantons. … The war was no doubt connected with the struggle
for the Empire [between Frederic of Austria and Louis of
Bavaria—see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347]; yet it is not clear how
Frederic, even had he been victorious over the three Cantons,
could have gained enough to repay him for so costly an
expedition. … We are simply told by one party among historical
writers that his army was sent against his rebellious subjects
to reduce them to obedience, and by the other that it was sent
to conquer for the House of Hapsburg the free Cantons. That a
magnificent army did march against them, and that it was
scattered and ruined by a small body of the Swiss at
Morgarten, on the 15th November, 1315, is an historical event
too clearly attested in all its grandeur to stand open to
dispute. After the battle, the victorious Cantons renewed
their Confederation of 1291, with some alterations appropriate
to the change of conditions. The first bond or confederation
comes to us in Latin, the second is in German. … Such was the
base around which the Cantons of the later Swiss Confederation
were gradually grouped. … To this conclusion we have followed
M. Rilliet without encountering William Tell, or the
triumvirate of the meadow of Rütli, and yet with no
consciousness that the part of Hamlet has been left out of the
play." According to the popular tradition, the people of the
Three Cantons were maddened by wanton outrages and insolences
on the part of the Austrian Dukes, until three bold leaders,
Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of the Melkthal, and Walter Fürst,
assembled them in nightly meetings on the little meadow of
Grütli or Rütli, in 1307, and bound them by oaths in a league
against Austria, which was the beginning of the Swiss
Confederation. This story, and the famous legend of William
Tell, connected with it, are fading out of authentic history
under the light which modern investigation has brought to bear
on it.
_The Legend of Tell and Rütli
(Edinburg Review, January, 1869)._
ALSO IN:
_O. Delepierre,
Historical Difficulties._
_J. Heywood,
The Establishment of Swiss Freedom, and the Scandinavian
Origin of the Legend of William Tell
(Royal Historical Society Transactions, volume 5)._
SWITZERLAND: 4-11th Centuries.
See BURGUNDY.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1207-1401.
Extension of the dominions of the House of Savoy
beyond Lake Geneva.
The city of Geneva surrounded.
See SAVOY: 11-15TH CENTURIES.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.
The extension of the old Confederation,
or "Old League of High Germany."
The Three Cantons increased to Eight.
"All the original cantons were German in speech and feeling,
and the formal style of their union was 'the Old League of
High Germany.' But in strict geographical accuracy there was …
a small Burgundian element in the Confederation, if not from
the beginning, at least from its aggrandizement in the 13th
and 14th centuries. That is to say, part of the territory of
the states which formed the old Confederation lay
geographically within the kingdom of Burgundy, and a further
part lay within the Lesser Burgundy of the Dukes of Zähringen.
But, by the time when the history of the Confederation begins,
the kingdom of Burgundy was pretty well forgotten, and the
small German-speaking territory which it took in at its
extreme northeast corner may be looked on as practically
German ground. … It is specially needful to bear in mind,
first, that, till the last years of the 13th century, not even
the germ of modern Switzerland had appeared on the map of
Europe; secondly, that the Confederation did not formally
become an independent power till the 17th century; lastly,
that, though the Swiss name had been in common use for ages,
it did not become the formal style of the Confederation till
the 19th century. Nothing in the whole study of historical
geography is more necessary than to root out the notion that
there has always been a country of Switzerland, as there has
always been a country of Germany, Gaul, or Italy. And it is no
less needful to root out the notion that the Swiss of the
original cantons in any way represent the Helvetii of Cæsar.
The points to be borne in mind are that the Swiss
Confederation is simply one of many German Leagues, which was
more lasting and became more closely united than other German
Leagues—that it gradually split off from the German
Kingdom—that in the course of this process, the League and its
members obtained a large body of Italian and Burgundian allies
and subjects —lastly, that these allies and subjects have in
modern times been joined into one Federal body with the
original German Confederates.
{3044}
The three Swabian lands [the Three Forest Cantons] which
formed the kernel of the Old League lay at the point of union
of the three Imperial kingdoms, parts of all of which were to
become members of the Confederation in its later form. … The
Confederation grew for a while by the admission of
neighbouring lands and cities as members of a free German
Confederation, owning no superior but the Emperor. First of
all [1332], the city of Luzern joined the League. Then came
the Imperial city of Zurich [1351], which had already begun to
form a little dominion in the adjoining lands. Then [1352]
came the land of Glarus and the town of Zug with its small
territory. And lastly came the great city of Bern [1353],
which had already won a dominion over a considerable body of
detached and outlying allies and subjects. These confederate
lands and towns formed the Eight Ancient Cantons. Their close
alliance with each other helped the growth of each canton
separately, as well as that of the League as a whole. Those
cantons whose geographical position allowed them to do so,
were thus able to extend their power, in the form of various
shades of dominion and alliance, over the smaller lands and
towns in their neighbourhood. … Zurich, and yet more Bern,
each formed, after the manner of an ancient Greek city, what
in ancient Greece would have passed for an empire. In the 15th
century [1415-1460], large conquests were made at the expense
of the House of Austria, of which the earlier ones were made
by direct Imperial sanction. The Confederation, or some or
other of its members, had now extended its territory to the
Rhine and the Lake of Constanz. The lands thus won, Aargau,
Thurgau, and some other districts, were held as subject
territories in the hands of some or other of the Confederate
States. … No new states were admitted to the rank of
confederate cantons. Before the next group of cantons was
admitted, the general state of the Confederation and its
European position had greatly changed. It had ceased to be a
purely German power. The first extension beyond the original
German lands and those Burgundian lands which were practically
German began in the direction of Italy. Uri had, by the
annexation of Urseren, become the neighbour of the Duchy of
Milan, and in the middle of the 15th century, this canton
acquired some rights in the Val Levantina on the Italian side
of the Alps. This was the beginning of the extension of the
Confederation on Italian ground. But far more important than
this was the advance of the Confederates over the Burgundian
lands to the west."
_E. A. Freeman,
Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 8, section 6._
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.
Austrian defeats at Sempach and Naefels.
"Seldom, if ever, has Switzerland seen a more eventful month
than that of July, 1386, for in that month she fought and won
the ever-memorable battle of Sempach. To set down all the
petty details as to the causes which led to this engagement
would be tedious indeed. It is sufficient to point out … that
there is seldom much love lost between oppressor and
oppressed, and Austria and the Swiss Confederation had for
some time held that relation to each other. A ten years' peace
had indeed been concluded between the two powers, but it was a
sham peace, and the interval had been used by both to prepare
for new conflicts. … Zurich laid siege to Rapperswyl with the
intent to destroy the odious Austrian toll-house; Lucerne
levelled with the ground the Austrian fort Rothenburg, and
entered into alliances with Entlebuch and Sempach to overthrow
the Austrian supremacy. This was equal to a declaration of
war, and war was indeed imminent. Duke Leopold III., of
Austria, was most anxious to bring the quarrel to an issue,
and to chastise the insolent Swiss citizens and peasantry. …
The nobles of Southern Germany rallied round the gallant
swordsman, and made him their leader in the expeditions
against the bourgeoisie and peasantry. And no sooner had the
truce expired (June, 1386), than they directed their first
attack on the bold Confederation. … Leopold's plan was to make
Lucerne the centre of his military operations, but in order to
draw away attention from his real object, he sent a division
of 5,000 men to Zurich to simulate an attack on that town.
Whilst the unsuspecting Confederates lay idle within the walls
of Zurich, he gathered reinforcements from Burgundy, Swabia,
and the Austro-Helvetian Cantons, the total force being
variously estimated at from 12,000 to 24,000 men. He marched
his army in the direction of Lucerne, but by a round-about
way, and seized upon Willisan, which he set on fire, intending
to punish Sempach 'en passant' for her desertion. But the
Confederates getting knowledge of his stratagem left Zurich to
defend herself, and struck straight across the country in
pursuit of the enemy. Climbing the heights of Sempach, … they
encamped at Meyersholz, a wood fringing the hilltop. The
Austrians leaving Sursee, for want of some more practicable
road towards Sempach, made their way slowly and painfully
along the path which leads from Sursee to the heights, and
then turns suddenly down upon Sempach. Great was their
surprise and consternation when at the junction of the Sursee
and Hiltisrieden roads they came suddenly upon the Swiss
force. … The Swiss … drew up in battle order, their force
taking a kind of wedge-shaped mass, the shorter edge foremost,
and the bravest men occupying the front positions. … The onset
was furious, and the Austrian Hotspurs, each eager to outstrip
his fellows in the race for honour, rushed on the Swiss, drove
them back a little, and then tried to encompass them and crush
them in their midst. … All the fortune of the battle seemed
against the Swiss, for their short weapons could not reach a
foe guarded by long lances. But suddenly the scene changed. 'A
good and pious man,' says the old chronicler, deeply mortified
by the misfortune of his country, stepped forward from the
ranks of the Swiss—Arnold von Winkelried. Shouting to his
comrades in arms, 'I will cut a road for you; take care of my
wife and children!' he dashed on the enemy, and, catching hold
of as many spears as his arms could encompass, he bore them to
the ground with the whole weight of his body. His comrades
rushed over his corpse, burst through the gap made in the
Austrian ranks, and began a fierce hand-to-hand encounter. … A
fearful carnage followed, in which no mercy was shown, and
there fell of the common soldiers 2,000 men, and no fewer than
700 of the nobility. The Swiss lost but 120 men. … This great
victory … gave to the Confederation independence, and far
greater military and political eminence. … The story of
Winkelried's heroic action has given rise to much fruitless
but interesting discussion.
{3045}
The truth of the tale, in fact, can neither be confirmed nor
denied, in the absence of any sufficient proof. But Winkelried
is no myth, whatever may be the case with the other great
Swiss hero, Tell. There is proof that a family of the name of
Winkelried lived at Unterwalden at the time of the battle. …
The victory of Naefels [April, 1388] forms a worthy pendant to
that of Sempach. … The Austrians, having recovered their
spirits after the terrible disaster," invaded the Glarus
valley in strong force, and met with another overthrow, losing
1,700 men. "In 1389 a seven years' peace was arranged. … This
peace was first prolonged for 20 years, and afterwards, in
1412, for 50 years."
_Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
The Story of Switzerland,
chapter 15._
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.
The Grey Leagues.
Democratic Independence of Graubünden (Grisons) achieved.
Their Alliance with the Swiss Cantons.
The Swabian War.
Practical separation of the Confederacy from the Empire.
"It was precisely at this epoch [the later years of the 14th
century] that the common people of Graubünden [or the Grisons]
felt the necessity of standing for themselves alone against
the world. Threatened by the Habsburgs, suspicious of the See
of Chur [see TYROL], ill-governed by their decadent dynastic
nobles, encouraged by the example of the Forest Cantons, they
began to form leagues and alliances for mutual protection and
the preservation of peace within the province. Nearly a
century was occupied in the origination and consolidation of
those three Leagues which turned what we now call Graubünden
into an independent democratic state. … The town of Chur,
which had been steadily rising in power, together with the
immediate vassals of the See, took the lead. They combined
into an association, which assumed the name of the
Gotteshausbund; and of which the Engadine [the upper valley of
the Inn] formed an important factor. Next followed a league
between the Abbot of Dissentis, the nobles of the Oberland,
the Communes of that district, and its outlying dependencies.
This was called the Grey League—according to popular tradition
because the folk who swore it wore grey serge coats, but more
probably because it was a League of Counts, Gräfen, Grawen.
The third league was formed after the final dispersion of the
great inheritance of Vaz, which passed through the Counts of
Toggenburg into the hands of females and their
representatives. This took the name of Zehn Gerichte, or Ten
Jurisdictions, and embraced Davos, Belfort, Schanfigg, the
Prättigau, and Maienfeld. The date of the formation of the
Gotteshausbund is uncertain; but its origin may be assigned to
the last years of the 14th century [some writers date it
1396]. That of the Grey League, or Graue Bund, or Obere Theil,
as it is variously called, is traditionally 1424. (It is worth
mentioning that this League took precedence of the other two,
and that the three were known as the Grey Leagues.) That of
the Zehn Gerichte is 1438. In 1471 these three Leagues formed
a triple alliance, defensive and offensive, protective and
aggressive, without prejudice to the Holy Roman Empire of
which they still considered themselves to form a part, and
without due reservation of the rights acquired by inheritance
or purchase by the House of Austria within their borders. This
important revolution, which defeudalized a considerable Alpine
territory, and which made the individual members of its
numerous Communes sovereigns by the right of equal voting, was
peaceably effected. … The constitution of Graubünden after the
formation of the Leagues, in theory and practise, … was a pure
democracy, based on manhood suffrage. … The first difficulties
with which this new Republic of peasants had to contend, arose
from the neighbourhood of feudal and imperial Austria. The
Princes of the House of Habsburg had acquired extensive
properties and privileges in Graubünden. … These points of
contact became the source of frequent rubs, and gave the
Austrians opportunities for interfering in the affairs of the
Grey Leagues. A little war which broke out in the Lower
Engadine in 1475, a war of raids and reprisals, made bad blood
between the people of Tirol and their Grisons neighbours. But
the real struggle of Graubünden with Austria began in earnest,
when the Leagues were drawn into the so-called Swabian War
(1496-1499). The Emperor Maximilian promoted an association of
south German towns and nobles, in order to restore his
Imperial authority over the Swiss Cantons. They resisted his
encroachments, and formed a close alliance with the Grey
Leagues. That was the commencement of a tie which bound
Graubünden, as a separate political entity, to the
Confederation, and which subsisted for several centuries.
Graubünden acted as an independent Republic, but was always
ready to cooperate with the Swiss. … Fighting side by side [in
the Swabian War] with the men of Uri, Glarus, Zürich, the
Bündners learned the arts of warfare in the lower Rheinthal.
Afterwards, in 1499, they gained the decisive battle of this
prolonged struggle on their own ground and unassisted. In a
narrow gorge called Calven, just where the Münsterthal opens
out into the Vintschgau above Glurns, 5,000 men of the Grey
Leagues defeated the whole chivalry and levies of Tirol. Many
thousands of the foe (from 4,000 to 5,000 is the mean
estimate) were left dead upon the field." Maximilian hastened
to the scene with a fresh army, but found only deserted
villages, and was forced by famine to retreat. "The victory of
Calven raised the Grisons to the same rank as the Swiss, and
secured their reputation in Europe as fighting men of the best
quality. It also led to a formal treaty with Austria, in which
the points at issue between the two parties were carefully
defined."
_J. A. Symonds,
History of Graubünden
(in Strickland's "The Engadine," pages 29-33)._
During the Swabian War, in 1499, the Swiss concluded a treaty
with France. "Willibald Pirkheimer, who was present with 400
red-habited citizens of Nuremberg, has graphically described
every incident of this war. The imperial reinforcements
arrived slowly and in separate bodies; the princes and nobles
fighting in real earnest, the cities with little inclination.
The Swiss were, consequently, able to defeat each single
detachment before they could unite, and were in this manner
victorious in ten engagements." The Emperor, "dividing his
forces, despatched the majority of his troops against Basle,
under the Count von Fürstenburg, whilst he advanced towards
Geneva, and was occupied in crossing the lake when the news of
Fürstenburg's defeat and death, near Dornach, arrived. The
princes, little desirous of staking their honour against their
low-born opponents, instantly returned home in great numbers,
and the emperor was therefore compelled to make peace [1499].
{3046}
The Swiss retained possession of the Thurgau and of Basle, and
Schaffhausen joined the confederation, which was not subject
to the imperial chamber, and for the future belonged merely in
name to the empire, and gradually fell under the influence of
France."
_W. Menzel,
History of Germany,
chapter 191 (volume 2)._
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1476-1477.
Defeat of Charles the Bold.
See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1476-1477.
SWITZERLAND:A. D. 1481-1501.
Disagreements over the spoils of the war with Charles the Bold.
Threatened rupture.
The Convention of Stanz.
Enlargement of the Confederacy.
Its loose and precarious constitution.
"In the war with Charles the Bold, Bern had gained greatly in
extent on the west, while the immense booty taken in battle
and the tributes laid on conquered cities seemed to the
country cantons to be unfairly divided, for all were supposed
to receive an equal share. The cities protested that it was no
fair division of booty to give each one of the country states,
who had altogether furnished 14,000 men for the war, an even
share with Bern which had sent out 40,000. Another bone of
contention was the enlargement of the union. The cities had
for a long time desired to bring the cantons of Freiburg and
Solothurn into the League. … But these were municipal
governments, and the Forest States, unwilling to add more to
the voting strength of the cities and thereby place themselves
in the minority, refused again and again to admit these
cantons. The situation daily grew more critical. Schwyz, Uri,
and Unterwalden made an agreement with Glarus to stand by each
other in case of attack. Luzern, Bern, and Zurich made a
compact of mutual citizenship, a form of agreement by which
they sought to circumvent the oath they had taken in the
League of Eight to enter into no new alliances. Just at this
point there was alleged to have been discovered a plot to
destroy the city of Luzern by countrymen of Obwalden and
Entlibuch. The cities were thrown into a frenzy and peace was
strained to the utmost. Threats and recriminations passed from
side to side, but finally, as an almost hopeless effort toward
reconciliation, a Diet was called to meet at Stanz on the 8th
of December, 1481. The details of this conference read like
romance, so great was the transformation which took place in
the feelings of the confederates. … Just as the Diet was about
to break up in confusion a compromise was effected, and an
agreement was drawn up which is known as the Convention of
Stanz (Stanzerverkomniss). … As to the matter latest in
contention, it was agreed that movable booty should be divided
according to the number of men sent into war, but new
acquisitions of territory should be shared equally among the
states participating. Thus the principle of state-rights was
preserved and the idea of popular representation received its
first, and for 300 years almost its only recognition. In
another agreement, made the same day, Freiburg and Solothurn
were admitted to the League on equal terms with the others. In
1501 the confederation was enlarged by the admission of Basel,
which, on account of its situation and importance, was a most
desirable acquisition, and in the same year the addition of
Schaffhausen, like Basel, a free imperial city with outlying
territories, still further strengthened the Union. The next,
and for 285 years the last, addition to the inner membership
of the alliance was Appenzell. … Connected with the
confederacy there were, for varying periods and in different
relationships, other territories and cities more or less under
its control. One class consisted of the so-called Allied
Districts ('Zugewandte find Verbündete Orte'), who were
attached to the central body not as equal members, but as
friends for mutual assistance. This form of alliance began
almost with the formation of the league, and gradually
extended till it included St. Gallen, Biel, Neuchatel, the
Bishopric of Basel (which territory lay outside the city), the
separate confederacies of Graubünden and Valais, Geneva and
several free imperial cities of Germany, at one time so
distant as Strassburg. More closely attached to the
confederation were the 'Gemeine Vogteien.' or subject
territories [Aargau, Thurgau, etc.], whose government was
administered by various members of the league in partnership.
These lands had been obtained partly by purchase or forfeiture
of loans and partly by conquest. … Before the middle of the
16th century nearly all the territory now included in
Switzerland was in some way connected with the confederation.
Upon this territorial basis of states, subject lands and
allies, the fabric of government stood till the close of the
18th century. It was a loose confederation, whose sole organ
of common action was a Diet in which each state was entitled
to one vote. … Almost the only thread that held the Swiss
Confederation together was the possession of subject lands. In
these they were interested as partners in a business
corporation. … These common properties were all that prevented
complete rupture on several critical occasions."
_J. M. Vincent,
State and Federal Government in Switzerland,
chapter 1._
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1515.
Defeat by the French at Marignano.
Treaties of perpetual alliance with Francis I.
See FRANCE: A. D.1515; and 1515-1518.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519.
Geneva in civic relations with Berne and Freiburg.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1519-1524.
Beginning of the Reformation at Zurich, under Zwingli.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1519-1524.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.
The spreading of the Reformation.
Adhesion of the Forest Cantons to Romanism.
Differences between the Swiss Reformers
and the German Protestants.
The Conference at Marburg.
Civil war among the Cantons.
Death of Zwingli.
From Zurich, "the reformed faith penetrated, but only
gradually, into the northern and eastern cantons. Bern was
reached in 1528, after a brilliant disputation held in that
city. Basel and Schaffhausen followed in 1529, and then St.
Gall, Appenzell, Graubünden, and Solothurn, though some of
them had serious struggles within themselves and fell in only
partly with the reforms. But in the Central or Forest Cantons
it was that the fiercest opposition was encountered. … From
the very simplicity of their lives the people ignored the
degeneracy of the priesthood, and amongst these pastoral
peoples the priests were of simpler manners and more moral
life than those in the cities; they disliked learning and
enlightenment.
{3047}
Then there was the old feeling of antipathy to the cities,
coupled with a strong dislike for the reforms which had
abolished 'Reislaufen' [military service under foreign pay],
that standing source of income to the cantons. Lucerne, bought
with French gold, struggled with Zurich for the lead. So far
was the opposition carried that the Catholic districts by a
majority of votes insisted (at the Diet) on a measure for
suppressing heresy in Zurich, whilst some were for expelling
that canton from the league. The Forest Cantons issued orders
that Zwingli should be seized should he be found within their
territories; consequently he kept away from the great
convocation at Baden, 1526. … Wider and wider grew the chasm
between the two religious parties, and Zwingli at length
formed a 'Christian League' between the Swiss Protestants and
some of the German cities and the Elector of Hesse. On the
other hand, the Catholics entered into an alliance with
Ferdinand of Austria, a determined enemy to the reformed
religion. At last the Protestant party was exasperated beyond
bearing, and Zurich declared war on the Forest Cantons,
Zwingli himself joining in the vicissitudes of the campaign.
His camp presented the 'picture of a well-organized,
God-fearing army of a truly Puritan stamp.' The encounter at
Kappel, in June, 1529, however, took a peaceful turn, thanks
to the mediation of Landammann Aebli, of Glarus, greatly to
the disgust of Zwingli, who prophetically exclaimed that some
day the Catholics would be the stronger party, and then they
would not show so much moderation. All ill-feeling, indeed,
subsided when the two armies came within sight of each other.
The curious and touching episode known as the 'Kappeler
Milchsuppe' took place here. A band of jolly Catholics had got
hold of a large bowl of milk, but lacking bread they placed it
on the boundary line between Zug and Zurich. At once a group
of Zurich men turned up with some loaves, and presently the
whole party fell to eating the 'Milchsuppe' right merrily. A
peace was concluded on the 29th of June, 1529, by which the
Austrian League was dissolved, and freedom of worship granted
to all. … By his treatise, 'De verâ et falsâ religione'
(1525), Zwingli had, though unwillingly, thrown the gauntlet
into the Wittenberg camp. The work was intended to be a
scientific refutation of the Catholic doctrine of
transubstantiation, and a war of words arose. The contest was
by each disputant carried on 'suo more;' by Luther with his
usual authoritative and tempestuous vehemence, by Zwingli in
his own cool reasoning, dignified, and courteous style and
republican frankness. Presently there came a strong desire for
a union between the German Protestants, and the Swiss
Reformers [called Sacramentarians by the Lutherans], … the
impulse to it being given by Charles V.'s 'Protest' against
the Protestants. Landgrave Philip of Hesse, the political
leader of the German reformers, invited Luther and Zwingli to
meet at his castle of Marburg [1529], with the view of
reconciling the two sections. The religious colloquium was
attended by many savants, princes, nobles, and all the chief
leaders of the Reformation, and might have done great things,
but came to grief through the obstinacy of Luther, as is well
known, or rather through his determination to approve of no
man's views except they should agree exactly with his own.
Luther insisted on a literal interpretation of the words 'This
is my body,' whilst Zwingli saw in them only a metaphorical or
symbolical signification. … To return for a moment to home
politics. The peace of 1529 was a short-lived one. Zwingli,
anxious only to spread the reformed faith over the whole
republic, did not realize clearly the hatred of the Forest
district against the new creed. … War was imminent, and was
indeed eagerly desired on both sides. Bern, finding that war
was likely to be injurious to her private ends, insisted on a
stoppage of mercantile traffic between the opposing districts,
but Zwingli scorned to use such a means to hunger the enemy
and so bring them to submit. However Zurich was outvoted in
the Christian League (May 16th), and the Forest was excluded
from the markets of that city and Bern. The rest may be easily
guessed. On Zurich was turned all the fury of the famished
Forest men, and they sent a challenge in October, 1531. A
second time the hostile armies met at Kappel, but the
positions were reversed. Zurich was unprepared to meet a foe
four times as numerous as her own, and Bern hesitated to come
to her aid. However Göldlin, the captain of the little force,
recklessly engaged with the opposing army, whether from
treachery or incapacity is not known, but he was certainly
opposed to the reformed faith. Zwingli had taken leave of his
friend Bullinger, as though foreseeing his own death in the
coming struggle, and had joined the Zurich force. He was with
the chief banner, and, with some 500 of his overmatched
comrades, fell in the thickest of the battle. … But the
reformation was far too deeply rooted to be thus destroyed.
Bullinger, the friend of Zwingli, and, later on, of Calvin,
worthily succeeded to the headship of the Zurich reformers."
_Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
Switzerland, chapter 22._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Merle d' Aubigne,
History of the Reformation in the 16th century,
books 11 and 15-16 (volume 3-4)._
_L. von Ranke,
History of the Reformation in Germany,
book 6, chapters 2-4 (volume 3)._
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.
Religious divisions and conflicts.
Annexations of territory.
Peace with the Duke of Savoy.
The coming of Protestant refugees.
Industrial progress.
Peace.
"A peace at Dennikon in 1531 marks the acknowledgement of the
principle of each Canton's independence. … The Confederacy was
now fatally divided. There is, perhaps, no other instance of a
State so deeply and so permanently sundered by the
Reformation. Other governments adopted or rejected the
reformed religion for their dominions as a whole; the
Confederacy, by its constitution, was constrained to allow
each Canton to determine its religion for itself; and the
presence of Catholic and Reformed States side by side, each
clinging with obstinacy to the religion of their choice,
became the origin of jealousies and wars which have threatened
more than once to rend asunder the ties of union. Next to the
endless but uninteresting theme of religious differences comes
the history of the annexations" by which the Confederacy
extended its limits. "In the direction of the Jura was a
country divided between many governments, which the princes of
Savoy, the Hapsburgs of the West, had once effectually ruled,
but which had become morselled among many claimants during a
century and a half of weakness, and which Duke Charles III. of
Savoy was now seeking to reconcile to his authority.
{3048}
Geneva was the chief city of these parts. … Factions in favour
of or against [the rule of the Duke of Savoy] … divided the
city [see GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535]. The alliance of Bern and
Freyburg was at length sought for; and the conclusion of a
treaty of co-citizenship in 1526 opened at once the prospect
of a collision between the House of Savoy and the Confederacy.
That collision was not long delayed. In 1536, after repeated
acts of provocation by Charles III., 7,000 men of Bern
appeared within Geneva. To reach the city they had traversed
the Pays de Vaud; after entering it they passed onwards to the
provinces of Gex and Chablais. All that they traversed they
annexed. Even the city which they had entered they would have
ruled, had not some sparks of honour and the entreaties of its
inhabitants restrained them from the annihilation of the
liberties which they had been called on to defend. The men of
Freyburg and of the Valais at the same time made humbler
conquests from Savoy. Later, the strong fortress of Chillon,
and the rich bishopric of Lausanne, were seized upon by Bern.
A wide extent of territory was thus added to the Confederacy;
and again a considerable population speaking the French tongue
was brought under the dominion of the Teutonic Cantons. These
acquisitions were extended, in 1555, by the cession of the
county of Gruyère, through the embarrassments of its last
impoverished Count. They were diminished, however, by the loss
of Gex and Chablais in 1564. The jealousy of many of the
cantons at the good fortune of their confederates, and the
reviving power of the House of Savoy, had made the conquests
insecure. Emmanuel Philibert, the hero of St. Quentin, the
ally of the great sovereigns of France and Spain, asked back
his provinces; and prudence counselled the surrender of the
two, in order to obtain a confirmation of the possession of
the rest.
See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580.
The southern side of the Lake Leman, which had thus been
momentarily held, and which nature seemed to have intended to
belong to the Confederacy, was thus abandoned. The frontiers,
however, which were now secured became permanent ones. The
Dukes of Savoy had transferred much of their ambition, with
their capital, beyond the Alps; and the Confederates remained
secure in their remaining possessions. The Confederacy might
now have added further to its power by admitting new members
to its League. … Constance … had urged its own incorporation.
The religious tendencies of its inhabitants, however, had made
it suspected: and it was allowed to fall, in 1548, without
hope of recovery, under the dominion of Austria. Geneva … was
pleading loudly for admission. The jealousy of Bern, and later
the hostility of the Catholic Cantons to the faith of which
the city had become the centre, refused the request. She
remained a mere ally, with even her independence not always
ungrudgingly defended against the assaults of her enemies.
Religious zeal indeed was fatal during this century to
political sagacity. Under its influence the alliance with the
rich city of Mulhausen, which had endured for more than a
hundred years, was thrown off in 1587; the overtures of
Strasburg for alliance were rejected; the proposals of the
Grisons Leagues were repulsed. The opportunities of the
Confederates were thus neglected, while those of their
neighbours became proportionately increased. … The progress
that is to be traced during the 16th century is such as was
due to the times rather than to the people. The cessation of
foreign wars and the fewer inducements for mercenary service
gave leisure for the arts of peace; and agriculture and trade
resumed their progress. Already Switzerland began to be sought
by refugees from England, France, and Italy. The arts of
weaving and of dyeing were introduced, and the manufacture of
watches began at Geneva. … War, which had been almost
abandoned except in the service of others, comes little into
the annals of the Confederation as a State. … As another
century advances, there is strife at the very gates of the
Confederation. … But the Confederacy itself was never driven
into war."
C. F. Johnstone,
Historical Abstracts,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
_H. Zschokke,
History of Switzerland,
chapters 33-41._
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1536-1564.
Calvin's Ecclesiastical State at Geneva.
See GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.
The Catholic revival and rally.
The Borromean or Golden League.
"Pre-eminent amongst those who worked for the Catholic revival
was the famous Carlo Borromeo, Archbishop of Milan and nephew
of Pius IV. He lived the life of a saint, and in due time was
canonized. To his see belonged the Swiss bailliages in the
Ticino and Valtellina. Indefatigable in his labours,
constantly visiting every part of his diocese, toiling up to
the Alpine huts, he gathered the scattered flocks into the
Papal fold, whether by mildness or by force. … For the spread
of Catholic doctrines he hit upon three different means. He
called into being the Collegium Helveticum in 1579 at Milan,
where the Swiss priests were educated free. He sent the
Jesuits into the country, and placed a nuncio at Lucerne, in
1580. In 1586 was signed, between the seven Catholic cantons,
the Borromean or Golden League, directed against the
reformers, and in the following year a coalition was, by the
same cantons, excepting Solothurn, entered into with Philip of
Spain and with Savoy. The Jesuits settled themselves in
Lucerne and Freiburg, and soon gained influence amongst the
rich and the educated, whilst the Capuchins, who fixed
themselves at Altorf, Stanz, Appenzell, and elsewhere, won the
hearts of the masses by their lowliness and devotion. In this
way did Rome seek to regain her influence over the Swiss
peoples, and the effect of her policy was soon felt in the
semi-Protestant and subject lands. … In the Valais, the
Protestant party, though strong, was quite swept out by the
Jesuits, before 1630."
_Mrs. L. Hug and R. Stead,
Switzerland, chapter 25._
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1620-1626.
The Valtelline revolt and war with the Grisons.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1648.
The Peace of Westphalia.
Acknowledged independence and
separation from the German Empire.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
{3049}
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
The Peasant Revolt and the Toggenburg War.
Religious conflicts.
Battles of Villmergen.
The Peace of Aarau.
"About the middle of the 17th century there was growing up, in
all the cantons except the Waldstätten, a feeling of strong
discontent among the peasants, who still suffered from many of
the tyrannies which had descended to them from the old days of
serfdom. They felt the painful contrast between their lot and
that of the three old cantons, where every peasant voted for
his own magistrates and his own laws, and helped to decide the
taxes and contributions which he should pay. … Now that their
liberty had been proclaimed at Westphalia, they were inspired
with the idea of trying to make it a reality. … They rose on
the occasion of the reduction of the value of their copper
coinage. … Opposition began among the Entlibuchers of Lucerne,
a tall and sturdy race, that lived in the long, fertile valley
on the banks of the Emmen. … Their spirit was soon quenched,
however, by the threats of Zurich and Berne; but though they
yielded for the moment, their example had spread, and there
were popular risings, excited in the large canton of Berne by
the same causes, which were not so easily checked. There was a
second revolt in Lucerne, which was intended to be nothing
less than a league of all the lower classes throughout the ten
cantons. The peasants of Lucerne, Berne, Basel, Solothurn, and
the territory of Aargau, all joined in this and held an
assembly at Sumiswald, in April 1653, where they chose
Nicholas Leuenberger as their chief, and proclaimed their
purpose of making themselves free as the Small Cantons. To
this union, unfortunately, they brought neither strength of
purpose nor wisdom. … Meanwhile the cities were not idle.
Zurich, the capital, gave the order for the whole confederacy
to arm, in May 1653. The struggle was short and decisive. For
a few weeks Leuenberger's soldiers robbed and murdered where
they could, and made feeble and futile attempts upon the small
cities of Aargau. Towards the end of May he met, near
Herzogenbuchsee, the Bernese troops. … A desperate fight
ensued, but the insurgents were soon overpowered. … This
battle ended the insurrection." Leuenberger was beheaded. "No
sooner was this revolt of the peasants over than the
smouldering fires of religious hatred, zealously fanned by the
clergy on both sides, broke out again. … Several families of
Arth, in Schwyz had been obliged by the Catholics to abjure
their faith, or fly from their homes." Zurich took up their
cause, and "a general war broke out. … Berne first despatched
troops to protect her own frontier, and then sent 40 banners
to the help of Zurich." The Bernese troops were so careless
that they allowed themselves to be surprised (January 14,
1656) by 4,000 Lucerners, in the territory of Villmergen, and
were ruinously defeated, losing 800 men and eleven guns. "Soon
afterwards a peace was concluded, where everything stood much
as it had stood at the beginning of this war, which had lasted
only nine weeks. … A second insurrection, on a smaller scale
than the peasants' revolt, took place in St. Gall in the first
years of the 18th century. The Swiss, free in the eyes of the
outside world, were, as we have already seen, mere serfs in
nearly all the cantons, and such was their condition in the
country of Toggenburg. … The greater part of the rights over
these estates had been sold to the abbot of St. Gall in 1468.
In the year 1700, the abbey of St. Gall was presided over by
Leodegar Burgisser as sovereign lord. … He began by
questioning all the commune rights of the Toggenburgers, and
called the people his serfs, in order that they might become
so used to the name as not to rebel against the hardness of
the condition. Even at the time when he became abbot, there
was very little, either of right or privilege, remaining to
these poor people. … When, in 1701, Abbot Leodegar ordered
them to build and keep open, at their own expense, a new road
through the Hummelwald, crushed as they had been, they
turned." After much fruitless remonstrance and appeal they
took up arms, supported by the Protestant cantons and attacked
by the Catholics, with aid contributed by the nuncio of the
pope, himself. "The contest was practically ended on the 25th
of July, 1712, by a decisive victory by the Protestants on the
battle-field of Villmergen, where they had been beaten by the
Lucerne men 56 years before. The battle lasted four hours, and
2,000 Catholics were slain. … In the month of August, a
general peace was concluded at Aarau, to the great advantage
of the conquerors. The five Catholic cantons were obliged to
yield their rights over Baden and Rapperswyl, and to associate
Berne with themselves in the sovereignty over Thurgau and the
Rheinfeld. By this provision the two religions became
equalized in those provinces. … The Toggenburgers came once
more under the jurisdiction of an abbot of St. Gall, but with
improved rights and privileges, and under the powerful
protection of Zurich and Berne. The Catholic cantons were long
in recovering from the expenses of this war. … During 86 years
from the peace of Aarau, the Swiss were engaged in neither
foreign nor civil war, and the disturbances which agitated the
different cantons from time to time were confined to a limited
stage. But real peace and union were as far off as ever.
Religious differences, plots, intrigues, and revolts, kept
people of the same canton and village apart, until the
building which their forefathers had raised in the early days
of the republic was gradually weakened and ready to fall, like
a house of cards, at the first blow from France."
_H. D. S. Mackenzie,
Switzerland,
chapters 15-16._
ALSO IN:
_H. Zschokke,
History of Switzerland,
chapters 42-56._
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.
The ferment of the French Revolution.
Invasion and subjugation by the French.
Robbing of the treasure of Berne.
Formation of the Helvetic Republic.
"The world rang with arms and cries of war, with revolutions,
battles and defeats. The French promised fraternity and
assistance to every people who wished to make themselves free.
… Their arms advanced victorious through Savoy and the
Netherlands and over the Rhine. Nearer and nearer drew the
danger around the country of the Alpine people. But the
government of the Confederate states showed no foresight in
view of the danger. They thought themselves safe behind the
shield of their innocence and their neutrality between the
contending parties. They had no arms and prepared none; they
had no strength and did not draw closer the bands of their
everlasting compact. Each canton, timidly and in silence,
cared for its own safety, but little for that of the others. …
All kinds of pamphlets stirred up the people. At Lausanne,
Vevey, Rolle and other places, fiery young men, in noisy
assemblages, drank success to the arms of emancipated France.
{3050}
Although public order was nowhere disturbed by such
proceedings, the government of Berne thought it necessary to
put a stop to them by severe measures and to compel silence by
wholesome fear. They sent plenipotentiaries supported by an
armed force. The guilty and even the innocent were punished.
More fled. This silenced Vaud, but did not quell her
indignation. The fugitives breathed vengeance. … In foreign
countries dwelt sadly many of those who, at various times, had
been banished from the Confederacy because they had, by word
or deed, too boldly or importunately defended the rights and
freedom of their fellow-citizens. Several of these addressed
the chiefs of the French republic. … Such addresses pleased
the chiefs of France. They thought in their hearts that
Switzerland would be an excellent bulwark for France, and a
desirable gate, through which the way would be always open to
Italy and Germany. They also knew of and longed for the
treasures of the Swiss cities. And they endeavored to find
cause of quarrel with the magistrates of the Confederates. …
Shortly afterwards, came the great general Napoleon
Buonaparte, and marched through Savoy into Italy against the
forces of the emperor. … In a very few months, though in many
battles, Buonaparte vanquished the whole power of Austria,
conquered and terrified Italy from one end to the other, took
the whole of Lombardy and compelled the emperor to make peace.
He made Lombardy a republic, called the Cisalpine. When the
subjects of Grisons in Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio saw
this, they preferred to be citizens of the neighboring
Cisalpine republic, rather than poor subjects of Grisons. For
their many grievances and complaints were rarely listened to.
But Buonaparte said to Grisons: 'If you will give freedom and
equal rights to these people, they may be your
fellow-citizens, and still remain with you. I give you time;
decide and send word to me at Milan.' … When the last period
for decision had passed, Buonaparte became indignant and
impatient, and united Valtelina, Chiavenna and Bormio to the
Cisalpine republic (22d October, 1797). … So the old limits of
Switzerland were unjustly contracted; four weeks afterwards
also, that part of the bishopric of Bale which had hitherto
been respected on account of its alliance with the Swiss, was
added to France. Thereat great fear fell on the Confederates.
… Then the rumor spread that a French army was approaching the
frontiers of Switzerland to protect the people of Vaud. They
had called for the intervention of France in virtue of ancient
treaties. But report said that the French intended to
overthrow the Confederate authorities and to make themselves
masters of the country. … Almost the whole Confederacy was in
a state of confusion and dissolution. The governments of the
cantons, powerless, distrustful and divided, acted each for
itself, without concert. … In the mean while a large army of
French advanced. Under their generals Brune and Schauenberg
they entered the territory of the Confederates, and Vaud,
accepting foreign protection, declared herself independent of
Berne. Then the governments of Switzerland felt that they
could no longer maintain their former dominion. Lucerne and
Schauffhausen declared their subjects free and united to
themselves. Zurich released the prisoners of Stafa, and
promised to ameliorate her constitution to the advantage of
the people. … Even Freiburg now felt that the change must come
for which Chenaur had bled. And the council of Berne received
into their number 52 representatives of the country and said:
'Let us hold together in the common danger.' All these reforms
and revolutions were the work of four weeks; all too late.
Berne, indeed, with Freiburg and Solothurn, opposed her troops
to the advancing French army. Courage was not wanting; but
discipline, skill in arms and experienced officers. … On the
very first day of the war (2d March, 1798), the enemy's light
troops took Freiburg and Solothurn, and on the fourth (5th
March), Berne itself. … France now authoritatively decided the
future fate of Switzerland and said: 'The Confederacy is no
more. Henceforward the whole of Switzerland shall form a free
state, one and indivisible, under the name of the Helvetian
republic. All the inhabitants, in country as well as city,
shall have equal rights of citizenship. The citizens in
general assembly shall choose their magistrates, officers,
judges and legislative council; the legislative council shall
elect the general government; the government shall appoint the
cantonal prefects and officers.' The whole Swiss territory was
divided into 18 cantons of about equal size. For this purpose
the district of Berne was parcelled into the cantons of Vaud,
Oberland, Berne and Aragau; several small cantons were united
in one; as Uri, Schwyz. Unterwalden and Zug in the canton of
Waldstatten; St. Gallen district, Rheinthal and Appenzell in
the canton of Santis; several countries subject to the
Confederacy, as Baden, Thurgau, Lugano and Bellinzona, formed
new cantons. Valais was also added as one; Grisons was invited
to join; but Geneva, Muhlhausen and other districts formerly
parts of Switzerland, were separated from her and incorporated
with France. So decreed the foreign conquerors. They levied
heavy war-taxes and contributions. They carried off the tons
of gold which Berne, Zurich and other cities had accumulated
in their treasure-chambers during their dominion. … But the
mountaineers of Uri, Nidwalden, Schwyz and Glarus, original
confederates in liberty, said: 'In battle and in blood, our
fathers won the glorious jewel of our independence; we will
not lose it but in battle and in blood.' … Then they fought
valiantly near Wollrau and on the Schindellegi, but
unsuccessfully. … But Aloys Reding reassembled his troops on
the Rothenthurm, near the Morgarten field of victory. There a
long and bloody battle took place. … Thrice did the French
troops renew the combat: thrice were they defeated and driven
back to Aegeri in Zug. It was the second of May. Nearly 2,000
of the enemy lay slain upon that glorious field. Gloriously
also fought the Waldstatten on the next day near Arth. But the
strength of the heroes bled away in their very victories. They
made a treaty, and, with sorrow in their hearts, entered the
Helvetian republic. Thus ended the old Bond of the
Confederates. Four hundred and ninety years had it lasted; in
seventy-four days it was dissolved."
_H. Zschokke,
The History of Switzerland,
chapters 57 and 60._
{3051}
"A system of robbery and extortion, more shameless even than
that practised in Italy, was put in force against the cantonal
governments, against the monasteries, and against private
individuals. In compensation for the material losses inflicted
upon the country, the new Helvetic Republic, one and indivisible,
was proclaimed at Aarau. It conferred an equality of political
rights upon all natives of Switzerland, and substituted for
the ancient varieties of cantonal sovereignty a single
national government, composed, like that of France, of a
Directory and two Councils of Legislature. The towns and
districts which had been hitherto excluded from a share in
government welcomed a change which seemed to place them on a
level with their former superiors: the mountain-cantons fought
with traditional heroism in defence of the liberties which
they had inherited from their fathers; but they were
compelled, one after another, to submit to the overwhelming
force of France, and to accept the new constitution. Yet, even
now, when peace seemed to have been restored, and the whole
purpose of France attained, the tyranny and violence of the
invaders exhausted the endurance of a spirited people. The
magistrates of the Republic were expelled from office at the
word of a French Commission; hostages were seized; at length
an oath of allegiance to the new order was required as a
condition for the evacuation of Switzerland by the French
army. It was refused by the mountaineers of Unterwalden, and a
handful of peasants met the French army at the village of
Stanz, on the eastern shore of the Lake of Lucerne (September
8). There for three days they fought with unyielding courage.
Their resistance inflamed the French to a cruel vengeance:
slaughtered families and burning villages renewed, in this
so-called crusade of liberty, the savagery of ancient war."
_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, chapter 4._
"Geneva at the same time [1798] fell a prey to the ambition of
the all-engrossing Republic. This celebrated city had long
been an object of their desire; and the divisions by which it
was now distracted afforded a favourable opportunity for
accomplishing the object. The democratic party loudly demanded
a union with that power, and a commission was appointed by the
Senate to report upon the subject. Their report, however, was
unfavourable; upon which General Gerard, who commanded a small
corps in the neighbourhood, took possession of the town; and
the Senate, with the bayonet at their throats, formally agreed
to a union with the conquering Republic."
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1789-1815,
chapter 25 (volume 6)._
ALSO IN:
_A. Thiers,
History of the French Revolution (American Edition),
volume 4, pages 248-252._
_Mallet du Pan,
Memoirs and Correspondence,
volume 2, chapters 13-14._
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1797.
Bonaparte's dismemberment of the Graubünden.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1798-1799.
Battlefield of the second Coalition against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1799 (August-December).
Campaign of the French against the Russians.
Battle of Zurich.
Carnage in the city.
Suwarrow's retreat.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1800.
Bonaparte's passage of the Great St. Bernard.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1802.
Revolution instigated and enforced by Bonaparte.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.
Napoleon's Act of Mediation.
Independence regained and Neutrality guaranteed by
the Congress of Vienna.
Geneva, the Valais, and Neuchâtel.
The Federal Pact of 1815.
The Sonderbund and Civil War.
The Federal Constitution of 1848.
"Bonaparte summoned deputies of both parties to Paris, and
after long consultation with them he gave to Switzerland, on
the 2d February 1803, a new Constitution termed the Act of
Mediation. Old names were restored, and in some cases what had
been subject lands were incorporated in the League, which now
consisted of 19 Cantons, each having a separate Constitution.
The additional six were: St. Gallen, the Grisons, Aargau,
Thurgau, Ticino, and Vaud. This was the fifth phase of the
Confederation. A Diet was created, there being one deputy to
each Canton, but still with limited powers, for he could only
vote according to his instructions. The 19 deputies had,
however, between them 25 votes, because every deputy who
represented a Canton with more than 100,000 inhabitants
possessed two votes, and there were six of these Cantons. The
Diet met once a year in June, by turns at Zürich, Bern,
Luzern, Freiburg, Solothurn, and Basel, the Cantons of which
these were the capitals becoming successively directing
Cantons. Three were Catholic and three Protestant. The head of
the directing Canton for the time being was Landammann of
Switzerland and President of the Diet. The Act of Mediation
was not acceptable to all parties, and before Switzerland
could become entirely independent there was to be one more
foreign intervention. The fall of the Emperor Napoleon brought
with it the destruction of his work in that country, the
neutrality and independence of which were recognized by the
Congress of Vienna [see VIENNA: CONGRESS OF), though upon
condition of the maintenance in the Confederation of the new
Cantons; and in 1814 the Valais (a Republic allied to the
Confederation from the Middle Ages till 1798), Neuchâtel
(which, from being subject to the King of Prussia, had been
bestowed by Napoleon upon Marshal Berthier), and Geneva (which
had been annexed to France under the Directory in 1798, but
was now independent and rendered more compact by the addition
of some territory belonging to France and Savoy) were added to
the existing Cantons. Finally, the perpetual neutrality of
Switzerland and the inviolability of her territory were
guaranteed by Austria, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, and
Russia, in an Act signed at Paris on the 20th November 1815.
Neuchâtel, however, only really gained its independence in
1857, when it ceased to be a Prussian Principality. The
Confederation now consisted of 22 Cantons, and a Federal Pact,
drawn up at Zürich by the Diet in 1815, and accepted by the
Congress of Vienna, took the place of the Act of Mediation,
and remained in force till 1848. It was in some respects a
return to the state of things previous to the French
Revolution, and restored to the Cantons a large portion of
their former sovereignty. … Then came an epoch of agitation
and discord. The Confederation suffered from a fundamental
vice, i. e. the powerlessness of the central authority. The
Cantons had become too independent, and gave to their deputies
instructions differing widely from each other. The fall of the
Bourbons in 1830 had its echo in Switzerland, the patricians
of Bern and the aristocratic class in other Cantons lost the
ascendency which they had gradually recovered since the
beginning of the century, and the power of the people was
greatly increased.
{3052}
In several months 12 Cantons, among which were Luzern and
Freiburg, modified their Constitutions in a democratic sense,
some peaceably, others by revolution. … Between 1830 and 1847
there were in all 27 revisions of cantonal Constitutions. To
political disputes religious troubles were added. In Aargau
the Constitution of 1831, whereby the Grand Council was made
to consist of 200 members, half being Protestants and half
Catholics, was revised in 1840, and by the new Constitution
the members were no longer to be chosen with any reference to
creed, but upon the basis of wide popular representation, thus
giving a numerical advantage to the Protestants. Discontent
arose among the Catholics, and eventually some 2,000 peasants
of that faith took up arms, but were beaten by Protestants of
Aargau at Villmergen in January 1841, and the consequence was
the suppression of the eight convents in that Canton, and the
confiscation of their most valuable property. … A first result
of the suppression of these convents was the fall of the
Liberal government of Luzern, and the advent to power of the
chiefs of the Ultramontane party in that Canton. Two years
later the new government convoked delegates of the Catholic
Cantons at Rothen, near Luzern, and there in secret
conferences, and under the pretext that religion was in
danger, the bases of a separate League or Sonderbund were
laid, embracing the four Forest Cantons, Zug, and Freiburg.
Subsequently the Valais joined the League, which was clearly a
violation not only of the letter but also of the spirit of the
Federal Pact. In 1844 the Grand Council of Luzern voted in
favour of the Jesuits' appeal to be entrusted with the
direction of superior public education, and this led to
hostilities between the Liberal and Ultramontane parties.
Bands of volunteers attacked Luzern and were defeated, the
expulsion of the Jesuits became a burning question, and
finally, when the ordinary Diet assembled at Bern in July
1847, the Sonderbund Cantons declared their intention of
persevering in their separate alliance until the other Cantons
had decreed the re-establishment of the Aargau convents,
abandoned the question of the Jesuits, and renounced all
modifications of the Pact. These conditions could evidently
not be accepted. … On the 4th November 1847, after the
deputies of the Sonderbund had left the Diet, this League was
declared to be dissolved, and hostilities broke out between
the two contending parties. A short and decisive campaign of
25 days ensued, Freiburg was taken by the Federal troops,
under General Dufour, later Luzern opened its gates, the small
Cantons and the Valais capitulated and the strife came to an
end. … As soon as the Sonderbund was dissolved, it became
necessary to proceed to the revision of the Federal Pact."
_Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
The Swiss Confederation,
chapter 1._
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1810.
Annexation of the Valais to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1817.
Accession to the Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1832.
Educational reforms.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
SWITZERLAND.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.
The existing Federal Constitution.
On the conclusion of the Sonderbund Secession and War, the
task of drawing up a Constitution for the Confederacy was
confided to a committee of fourteen members, and the work was
finished on the 8th of April, 1848. "The project was submitted
to the Cantons, and accepted at once by thirteen and a half;
others joined during the summer, and the new Constitution was
finally promulgated with the assent of all on the 12th
September. Hence arose the seventh and last phase of the
Confederation, by the adoption of a Federal Constitution for
the whole of Switzerland, being the first which was entirely
the work of Swiss, without any foreign influence, although its
authors had studied that of the United States. … It was
natural that, as in process of time commerce and industry were
developed, and as the differences between the legislation of
the various Cantons became more apparent, a revision of the
first really Swiss Constitution should be found necessary.
This was proposed both in 1871 and 1872, but the partisans of
a further centralization, though successful in the Chambers,
were defeated upon an appeal to the popular vote on the 12th
May 1872, by a majority of between five and six thousand, and
by thirteen Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no
means settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision, more
acceptable to the partisans of cantonal independence, was
adopted by the people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013.
The Cantons were about two to one in favour of the revision,
14½ declaring for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears
date the 29th May 1874, and has since been added to and
altered in certain particulars."
_Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
The Swiss Confederation,
chapter 1._
"Since 1848 … Switzerland has been a federal state, consisting
of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and 6 half
states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents an united
front, while her internal policy allows to each Canton a large
amount of independence. … The basis of all legislative
division is the Commune or 'Gemeinde,' corresponding in some
slight degree to the English 'Parish.' The Commune in its
legislative and administrative aspect or 'Einwohnergemeinde'
is composed of all the inhabitants of a Commune. It is
self-governing and has the control of the local police; it
also administers all matters connected with pauperism,
education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the fire brigade,
the maintenance of public peace and trusteeships. … At the
head of the Commune is the 'Gemeinderath,' or 'Communal
Council,' whose members are elected from the inhabitants for a
fixed period. It is presided over by an 'Ammann,' or 'Mayor,'
or 'President.' … Above the Commune on the ascending scale
comes the Canton. … Each of the 19 Cantons and 6 half Cantons
is a sovereign state, whose privileges are nevertheless
limited by the Federal Constitution, particularly as regards
legal and military matters; the Constitution also defines the
extent of each Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed
to secede and join itself to another Canton. … Legislative
power is in the hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of
the word the 'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the
Canton, who have passed their 20th year and are not under
disability from crime or bankruptcy.
{3053}
The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with
alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,
decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.
100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council
considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also
determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of
new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when
such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000
voters. … The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest
political and administrative power of the Canton. It
corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300
inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. … The
Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the
'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of
three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First
Council for a period of two years. It superintends all
cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.
… The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute
together the Swiss Confederation. … The highest power of the
Bund is exercised by the 'Bundesversammlung,' or Parliament,
which consists of two chambers, the 'Nationalrath,' and the
'Ständerath.' The Nationalrath corresponds to the English
House of Commons, and the Ständerath partially to the House of
Lords; the former represents the Swiss people, the latter the
Cantons. The Nationalrath consists of 145 members. … Every
Canton or half Canton must choose at least one member; and for
the purpose of election Switzerland is divided into 49
electoral districts. The Nationalrath is triennial. … The
Ständerath consists of 44 members, each Canton having two
representatives and each half Canton one. … A bill is regarded
as passed when it has an absolute majority in both chambers,
but it does not come into force until either a plebiscite is
not demanded for a space of three months, or, if it is
demanded (for which the request of 30,000 voters is necessary)
the result of the appeal to the people is in favor of the
bill. This privilege of the people to control the decision of
their representatives is called Das Referendum. …
See REFERENDUM.
The highest administrative authority in Switzerland is the
Bundesrath, composed of seven members, which [like the
Bundesversammlung] … meets in Bern. Its members are chosen by
the Bundesversammlung and the term of office is ten years. …
The president of the Confederation (Bundespresident) is chosen
by the Bundesversammlung from the members of the Bundesrath
for one year. … The administration of justice, so far as it is
exercised by the Bund, is entrusted to a Court, the
Bundesgericht, consisting of nine members."
_P. Hauri,
Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland
(in Strickland's "The Engadine")._
ALSO IN:
_Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,
The Swiss Confederation._
_J. M. Vincent,
State and Federal Government in Switzerland._
_Old South Leaflets,
general series, number 18._
_University of Pennsylvania,
Publications, number 8._
For the text of the Swiss Constitution,
See CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1871.
Exclusion of Jesuits.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.
SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1894.
The President of the Swiss Federal Council for 1894 is Emile
Frey, the Vice President, Joseph Zemp. According to the latest
census, taken in 1888, the population of Switzerland was
2,917,740.
----------SWITZERLAND: End--------
SWORD, German Order of the.
See LIVONIA: 12-13TH CENTURIES.
SWORD, Swedish Order of the.
An Order, ascribed to Gustavus Vasa. It was revived, after
long neglect, by King Frederick I. in 1748.
SYAGRIUS, Kingdom of.
See GAUL: A. D. 457-486.
SYBARIS.
SYBARITES.
Sybaris and Kroton were two ancient Greek cities, founded by
Achæan colonists, on the coast of the gulf of Tarentum, in
southern Italy. "The town of Sybaris was planted between two
rivers, the Sybaris and the Krathis (the name of the latter
borrowed from a river of Achaia); the town of Kroton about
twenty-live miles distant, on the river Æsarus. … The fatal
contest between these two cities, which ended in the ruin of
Sybaris, took place in 510 B. C., after the latter had
subsisted in growing prosperity for 210 years. … We are told
that the Sybarites, in that final contest, marched against
Kroton with an army of 300,000 men. … The few statements which
have reached us respecting them touch, unfortunately, upon
little more than their luxury, fantastic self-indulgence and
extravagant indolence, for which qualities they have become
proverbial in modern times as well as in ancient. Anecdotes
illustrating these qualities were current, and served more
than one purpose in antiquity."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22._
SYBOTA, Naval Battle of.
Fought, B. C. 432, between the fleets of Corinth and Corcyra,
in the quarrel which led up to the Peloponnesian War. The
Athenians had ten ships present, as allies of the Corcyreans,
intending only to watch affairs, but at the end they were
drawn into the fight. The Corcyreans were beaten.
_Thucydides,
History,
book 1, section 46._
SYCOPHANTS.
"Not until now [about B. C. 428, when the demagogue Cleon rose
to power at Athens] did the activity of the Sycophants attain
to its full height; a class of men arose who made a regular
trade of collecting materials for indictments, and of bringing
their fellow citizens before a legal tribunal. These
denunciations were particularly directed against those who
were distinguished by wealth, birth and services, and who
therefore gave cause for suspicion; for the informers wished
to prove themselves zealous friends of the people and active
guardians of the constitution. … Intrigues and conspiracies
were suspected in all quarters, and the popular orators
persuaded the citizens to put no confidence in any magistrate,
envoy or commission, but rather to settle everything in full
assembly and themselves assume the entire executive. The
Sycophants made their living out of this universal suspicion.
… They threatened prosecutions in order thus to extort money
from guilty and innocent alike; for even among those who felt
free from guilt were many who shunned a political prosecution
beyond all other things, having no confidence in a jury."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3)._
SYDENHAM, and Rational Medicine.
See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY.
{3054}
SYDNEY: First settlement (1788).
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
SYLLA.
See SULLA.
SYLLABARIES.
"A good deal of the [Assyrian] literature was of a lexical and
grammatical kind, and was intended to assist the Semitic
student in interpreting the old Accadian texts. Lists of
characters were drawn up with their pronunciation in Accadian
and the translation into Assyrian of the words represented by
them. Since the Accadian pronunciation of a character was
frequently the phonetic value attached to it by the Assyrians,
these syllabaries, as they have been termed—in consequence of
the fact that the cuneiform characters denoted syllables and
not letters—have been of the greatest possible assistance in
the decipherment of the inscriptions."
_A. H. Sayce,
Assyria, its Princes, Priests and People,
chapter 4._
SYLLABUS OF 1864, The.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1864.
SYLVANIA, The proposed State of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.
SYLVESTER II., Pope, A. D. 999-1003.
SYLVESTER III., Antipope, 1044.
SYMMACHIA.
An offensive and defensive alliance between two states was so
called by the Greeks.
SYMMORIÆ, The.
"In the archonship of Nausinicus in Olymp. 100,3 (B. C. 378)
the institution of what were called the symmoriæ (collegia, or
companies), was introduced [at Athens] in relation to the
property taxes. The object of this institution, as the details
of the arrangement themselves show, was through the joint
liability of larger associations to confirm the sense of
individual obligation to pay the taxes, and to secure their
collection, and also, in case of necessity, to cause those
taxes which were not received at the proper time to be
advanced by the most wealthy citizens."
_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of the Athenians
(translated by Lamb),
book 4, chapter 9._
SYMPOSIUM.
The Symposium of the ancient Greeks was that part of a feast
which ensued when the substantial eating was done, and which
was enlivened with wine, music, conversation, exhibitions of
dancing, etc.
_C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern,
Course 2, lecture 5._
SYNHEDRION, OR SYNEDRION, The.
See SANHEDRIM.
SYNOECIA.
See ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.
SYNOD OF THE OAK, The.
See ROME: A. D. 400-518.
----------SYRACUSE: Start--------
SYRACUSE: B. C. 734.
The Founding of the city.
"Syracuse was founded the year after Naxos, by Corinthians,
under a leader named Archias, a Heracleid, and probably of the
ruling caste, who appears to have been compelled to quit his
country to avoid the effects of the indignation which he had
excited by a horrible outrage committed in a family of lower
rank. … Syracuse became, in course of time, the parent of
other Sicilian cities, among which Camarina was the most
considerable. … Forty-five years after Syracuse, Gela was
founded by a band collected from Crete and Rhodes, chiefly
from Lindus, and about a century later (B. C. 582) sent forth
settlers to the banks of the Acragas, where they built
Agrigentum."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 12_.
The first settlement at Syracuse was on the islet of Ortygia.
"Ortygia, two English miles in circumference, was separated
from the main island only by a narrow channel, which was
bridged over when the city was occupied and enlarged by Gelôn
in the 72nd Olympiad, if not earlier. It formed only a small
part, though the most secure and best-fortified part, of the
vast space which the city afterwards occupied. But it sufficed
alone for the inhabitants during a considerable time, and the
present city in its modern decline has again reverted to the
same modest limits. Moreover, Ortygia offered another
advantage of not less value. It lay across the entrance of a
spacious harbour, approached by a narrow mouth, and its
fountain of Arethusa was memorable in antiquity both for the
abundance and goodness of its water."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 22._
SYRACUSE: B. C. 480.
Defeat of the Carthaginians at Himera.
See SICILY: B. C. 480.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.
Siege by the Athenians.
The Greek city of Syracuse, in Sicily, having been founded and
built up by colonization from Corinth, naturally shared the
deep hatred of Athens which was common among the Dorian
Greeks, and which the Corinthians particularly found many
reasons to cherish. The feeling at Athens was reciprocal, and,
as the two cities grew supreme in their respective spheres and
arrogant with the consciousness of superior power, mutual
jealousies fed their passion of hostility, although nothing in
their affairs, either politically or commercially, brought
them really into contact with one another. But Syracuse,
enforcing her supremacy in Sicily, dealt roughly with the
Ionian settlements there, and Athens was appealed to for aid.
The first call upon her was made (B. C. 428) in the midst of
the earlier period of the Peloponnesian War, and came from the
people of Leontini, then engaged in a struggle with Syracuse,
into which other Sicilian cities had been drawn. The Athenians
were easily induced to respond to the call, and they sent a
naval force which took part in the Leontine War, but without
any marked success. The result was to produce among the
Sicilians a common dread of Athenian interference, which led
them to patch up a general peace. But fresh quarrels were not
long in arising, in the course of which Leontini was entirely
destroyed, and another Sicilian city, Egesta, which Athens had
before received into her alliance, claimed help against
Syracuse. This appeal reached the Athenians at a time (B. C.
416) when their populace was blindly following Alcibiades,
whose ambition craved war, and who chafed under the restraints
of the treaty of peace with Sparta which Nicias had brought
about. They were carried by his influence into the undertaking
of a great expedition of conquest, directed against the
Sicilian capital—the most costly and formidable which any
Greek state had ever fitted out. In the summer of B. C. 415
the whole force assembled at Corcyra and sailed across the
Ionian sea to the Italian coast and thence to Sicily. It
consisted of 134 triremes, with many merchant, ships and
transports, bearing 5,100 hoplites, 480 bowmen and 700 Rhodian
slingers. The commanders were Nicias, Lamachus and Alcibiades.
On the arrival of the expedition in Sicily a disagreement
among the generals made efficient action impossible and gave
the Syracusans time to prepare a stubborn resistance.
{3055}
Meantime the enemies of Alcibiades at Athens had brought about
a decree for his arrest, on account of an alleged profanation
of the sacred Eleusinian mysteries, and, fearing to face the
accusation, he fled, taking refuge at Sparta, where he became
the implacable enemy of his country. Three months passed
before Nicias, who held the chief command, made any attempt
against Syracuse. He then struck a single blow, which was
successful, but which led to nothing; for the Athenian army
was withdrawn immediately afterwards and put into winter
quarters. In the following spring the regular operations of a
siege and blockade were undertaken, at sea with the fleet and
on land by a wall of circumvallation. The undertaking promised
well at first and the Syracusans were profoundly discouraged.
But Sparta, where Alcibiades worked passionately in their
favor, sent them a general, Gylippus, who proved to be equal
to an army, and promised reinforcements to follow. The more
vigorous Athenian general, Lamachus, had been killed, and
Nicias, with incredible apathy, suffered Gylippus to gather up
a small army in the island and to enter Syracuse with it, in
defiance of the Athenian blockade. From that day the situation
was reversed. The besieged became the assailants and the
besiegers defended themselves. Nicias sent to Athens for help
and maintained his ground with difficulty through another long
winter, until a second great fleet and army arrived, under the
capable general Demosthenes, to reinforce him. But it was too
late. Syracuse had received powerful aid, in ships and men,
from Corinth, from Sparta and from other enemies of Athens,
had built a navy and trained sailors of her own, and was full
of confident courage. The Athenians were continually defeated,
on land and sea, and hoped for nothing at last but to be able
to retreat. Even the opportunity to do that was lost for them
in the end by the weakness of Nicias, who delayed moving on
account of an eclipse, until his fleet was destroyed in a
final sea-fight and the island roads were blocked by an
implacable enemy. The flight when it was undertaken proved a
hopeless attempt, and there is nothing in history more
tragical than the account of it which is given in the pages of
Thucydides. On the sixth day of the struggling retreat the
division under Demosthenes gave up and surrendered to the
pursuers who swarmed around it. On the next day Nicias yielded
with the rest, after a terrible massacre at the river
Assinarus. Nicias and Demosthenes were put to the sword,
although Gylippus interceded for them. Their followers were
imprisoned in the Syracusan quarries. "There were great
numbers of them and they were crowded in a deep and narrow
place. At first the sun by day was still scorching and
suffocating, for they had no roof over their heads, while the
autumn nights were cold, and the extremes of temperature
engendered violent disorders. Being cramped for room they had
to do everything on the same spot. The corpses of those who
died from their wounds, exposure to the weather, and the like,
lay heaped one upon another. The smells were intolerable; and
they were at the same time afflicted by hunger and thirst.
During eight months they were allowed only about half a pint
of water and a pint of food a day. Every kind of misery which
could befall man in such a place befell them. This was the
condition of all the captives for about ten weeks. At length
the Syracusans sold them, with the exception of the Athenians
and of any Sicilian or Italian Greeks who had sided with them
in the war. The whole number of the public prisoners is not
accurately known, but they were not less than 7,000. Of all
the Hellenic actions which took place in this war, or indeed
of all Hellenic actions which are on record, this was the
greatest—the most glorious to the victors, the most ruinous to
the vanquished; for they were utterly and at all points
defeated, and their sufferings were prodigious. Fleet and army
perished from the face of the earth; nothing was saved, and of
the many who went forth few returned home. Thus ended the
Sicilian expedition."
_Thucydides,
History
(translated by Jowett),
books 6-7._
ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman,
History of Sicily,
volume 3._
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 58-60._
_Sir E. Creasy,
Fifteen Decisive Battles,
chapter 2._
See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.
Dionysius and the Carthaginians.
Eighteen years after the tragic deliverance of Syracuse from
the besieging host and fleet of the Athenians, the Sicilian
capital experienced a second great peril and extraordinary
escape of like kind. The democratic government of Syracuse had
meantime fallen and a new tyrant had risen to power.
Dionysius, who began life in a low station, made his way
upward by ruthless energy and cunning, practising skilfully
the arts of a demagogue until he had won the confidence of the
people, and making himself their master in the end. When the
sovereignty of Dionysius had acquired firmness and the
fortifications and armament of his city had been powerfully
increased, it suited his purposes to make war upon the
Carthaginians, which he did, B. C. 397. He attacked Motye,
which was the most important of their cities in Sicily, and
took it after a siege of some months' duration, slaughtering
and enslaving the wretched inhabitants. But his triumph in
this exploit was brief. Imilkon, or Himilco, the Carthaginian
commander, arrived in Sicily with a great fleet and army and
recaptured Motye with ease. That done he made a rapid march to
Messene, in the northeastern extremity of the island, and
gained that city almost without a blow. The inhabitants
escaped, for the most part, but the town is said to have been
reduced to an utter heap of ruins—from which it was
subsequently rebuilt. From Messene he advanced to Syracuse,
Dionysius not daring to meet him in the field. The Syracusan
fleet, encountering that of the Carthaginians, near Katana,
was almost annihilated, and when the vast African armament,
numbering more than seventeen hundred ships of every
description, sailed into the Great Harbor of Syracuse, there
was nothing to oppose it. The city was formidably invested, by
land and sea, and its fate would have appeared to be sealed.
But the gods interposed, as the ancients thought, and avenged
themselves for insults which the Carthaginians had put upon
them. Once more the fatal pestilence which had smitten the
latter twice before in their Sicilian Wars appeared and their
huge army was palsied by it. "Care and attendance upon the
sick, or even interment of the dead, became impracticable; so
that the whole camp presented a scene of deplorable agony,
aggravated by the horrors and stench of 150,000 unburied
bodies.
{3056}
The military strength of the Carthaginians was completely
prostrated by such a visitation. Far from being able to make
progress in the siege, they were not even able to defend
themselves against moderate energy on the part of the
Syracusans; who … were themselves untouched by the distemper."
In this situation the Carthaginian commander basely deserted
his army. Having secretly bribed Dionysius to permit the
escape of himself and the small number of native Carthaginians
in his force, he abandoned the remainder to their fate (B. C.
394). Dionysius took the Iberians into his service; but the
Libyans and other mercenaries were either killed or enslaved.
As for Imilkon, soon after his return to Carthage he shut
himself in his house and died, refusing food. The blow to the
prestige of Carthage was nearly fatal, producing a rebellion
among her subjects which assumed a most formidable character;
but it lacked capable command and was suppressed.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 82._
SYRACUSE: B. C. 394-384.
Conquests and dominion of Dionysius.
"The successful result of Dionysios' first Punic War seems to
have largely spread his fame in Old Greece," while it
increased his prestige and power at home. But "he had many
difficulties. He too, like the Carthaginians, had to deal with
a revolt among his mercenaries, and he had to give up to them
the town of Leontinoi. And the people of Naxos and Katanê,
driven out by himself, and the people of Messana, driven out
by Himilkôn, were wandering about, seeking for
dwelling-places. He restored Messana, but he did not give it
back to its old inhabitants. He peopled it with colonists from
Italy and from Old Greece. … He also planted a body of
settlers from the old Messenian land in Peloponnêsos," at
Tyndaris. "Thus the north-eastern corner of Sicily was held by
men who were really attached to Dionysios. And he went on
further to extend his power along the north coast. … The Sikel
towns were now fast taking to Greek ways, and we hear of
commonwealths and tyrants among them, just as among the
Greeks. Agyris, lord of Agyrium, was said to be the most
powerful prince in Sicily after Dionysios himself. … With him
Dionysios made a treaty, and also with other Sikel lords and
cities." But he attacked the new Sikel town of Tauromenion,
and was disastrously repulsed. "This discomfiture at
Tauromenion checked the plans of Dionysios for a while.
Several towns threw off his dominion. … And the Carthaginians
also began to stir again. In B. C. 393 their general Magôn,
seemingly without any fresh troops from Africa, set out from
Western Sicily to attack Messana." But Dionysios defeated him,
and the next year he made peace with the Carthaginians, as one
of the consequences of which he captured Tauromenion in 391.
"Dionysios was now at the height of his power in Sicily. … He
commanded the whole east coast, and the greater part of the
north and south coasts. … Dionysios and Carthage might be said
to divide Sicily between them, and Dionysios had the larger
share." Being at peace with the Carthaginians, he now turned
his arms against the Greek cities in Southern Italy, and took
Kaulônia, Hippônion, and Rhêgion (B. C. 387), making himself,
"beyond all doubt, the chief power, not only in Sicily, but in
Greek Italy also." Three years later (B. C. 384) Dionysios
sent a splendid embassy to the Olympic festival in Greece.
"Lysias called on the assembled Greeks to show their hatred of
the tyrant, to hinder his envoys from sacrificing or his
chariots from running. His chariots did run; but they were all
defeated. Some of the multitude made an attack on the splendid
tents of his envoys. He had also sent poems of his own to be
recited; but the crowd would not hear them."
_E. A. Freeman,
The Story of Sicily,
chapter 10._
SYRACUSE: B. C. 383.
War with Carthage.
See SICILY: B. C. 383.
SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.
Fall of the Dionysian tyranny.
The elder Dionysius,—he who climbed by cunning demagoguery
from an obscure beginning in life to the height of power in
Syracuse, making himself the typical tyrant of antiquity,—died
in 367 B. C. after a reign of thirty-eight years. He was
succeeded by his son, Dionysius the younger, who inherited
nothing in character from his father but his vices and his
shameless meannesses. For a time the younger Dionysius was
largely controlled by the admirable influence of Dion,
brother-in-law and son-in-law of the elder tyrant (who had
several wives and left several families). Dion had Plato for
his teacher and friend, and strove with the help of the great
Athenian—who visited Sicily thrice—to win the young tyrant to
a life of virtue and to philosophical aims. The only result
was to finally destroy the whole influence with which they
began, and Dion, ere long, was driven from Syracuse, while
Dionysius abandoned himself to debaucheries and cruelties.
After a time Dion was persuaded to lead a small force from
Athens to Syracuse and undertake the overthrow of Dionysius.
The gates of Syracuse were joyfully opened to him and his
friends, and they were speedily in possession of the whole
city except the island-stronghold of Ortygia, which was the
entrenchment of the Dionysian tyranny. Then ensued a
protracted and desperate civil war in Syracuse, which half
ruined the magnificent city. In the end Ortygia was
surrendered, Dionysius having previously escaped with much
treasure to his dependent city of Lokri, in southern Italy.
Dion took up the reins of government, intending to make
himself what modern times would call a constitutional monarch.
He wished the people to have liberty, but such liberty as a
philosopher would find best for them. He was distrusted,—
misunderstood,—denounced by demagogues, and hated, at last, as
bitterly as the tyrants who preceded him. His high-minded
ambitions were all disappointed and his own character suffered
from the disappointment. At the end of a year of sovereignty
he was assassinated by one of his own Athenian intimates,
Kallippus, who secured the goodwill of the army and made
himself des·pot. The reign of Kallippus was maintained for
something more than a year, and he was then driven out by
Hipparinus, one of the sons of Dionysius the elder, and
half-brother to the younger of that name. Hipparinus was
presently murdered and another brother, Nysæus, took his
place. Then Nysæus, in turn, was driven out by Dionysius, who
returned from Lokri and re-established his power. The
condition of Syracuse under the restored despotism of
Dionysius was worse than it ever had been in the past, and the
great city seemed likely to perish.
{3057}
At the last extremity of suffering, in 344 B. C., its people
sent a despairing appeal to Corinth (the mother-city of
Syracuse) for help. The Corinthians responded by despatching
to Sicily a small fleet of ten triremes and a meagre army of
1,200 men, under Timoleon. It is the first appearance in
history of a name which soon shone with immortality; for
Timoleon proved himself to be one of the greatest and the
noblest of Greeks. He found affairs in Sicily complicated by
an invasion of Carthaginians, co-operating with one Hiketas,
who had made himself despot of Leontini and who hoped to
become master of Syracuse. By skilfully using the good fortune
which the gods were believed to have lavished upon his
enterprise, Timoleon, within a few months, had defeated
Hiketas in the field; had accepted the surrender of Dionysius
in Ortygia and sent the fallen tyrant to Corinth; had caused
such discouragement to the Carthaginians that they withdrew
fleet and army and sailed away to Africa. The whole city now
fell quickly into his hands. His first act was to demolish the
stronghold of tyranny in Ortygia and to erect courts of
justice upon its site. A free constitution of government was
then re-established, all exiled citizens recalled, a great
immigration of Greek inhabitants invited, and the city
revivified with new currents of life. The tyranny in other
cities was overthrown and all Sicily regenerated. The
Carthaginians returning were defeated with fearful losses in a
great battle on the Krimesus, and a peace made with them which
narrowed their dominion in Sicily to the region west of the
Halykus. All these great achievements completed, Timoleon
resigned his generalship, declined every office, and became a
simple citizen of Syracuse, living only a few years, however,
to enjoy the grateful love and respect of its people.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapters 84-85._
ALSO IN:
_Plutarch,
Timoleon._
SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.
Under Agathokles.
A little more than twenty years after Timoleon expelled the
brood of the tyrant Dionysius from Syracuse, and liberated
Sicily, his work was entirely undone and a new and worse
despot pushed himself into power. This was Agathokles, who
rose, like his prototype, from a humble grade of life,
acquired wealth by a lucky marriage, was trusted with the
command of the Syracusan army—of mercenaries, chiefly—obtained
a complete ascendancy over these soulless men, and then turned
them loose upon the city, one morning at daybreak (B. C. 317),
for a carnival of unrestrained riot and massacre. "They broke
open the doors of the rich, or climbed over the roofs,
massacred the proprietors within, and ravished the females.
They chased the unsuspecting fugitives through the streets,
not sparing even those who took refuge in the temples. … For
two days Syracuse was thus a prey to the sanguinary,
rapacious, and lustful impulses of the soldiery; 4,000
citizens had been already slain, and many more were seized as
prisoners. The political purposes of Agathokles, as well as
the passions of the soldiers, being then sated, he arrested
the massacre. He concluded this bloody feat by killing such of
his prisoners as were most obnoxious to him, and banishing the
rest. The total number of expelled or fugitive Syracusans is
stated at 6,000." In a city so purged and terrorized,
Agathokles had no difficulty in getting himself proclaimed by
acclamation sole ruler or autocrat, and he soon succeeded in
extending his authority over a large part of Sicily. After
some years he became involved in war with the Carthaginians,
and suffered a disastrous defeat on the Himera (B. C. 310).
Besieged in Syracuse, as a consequence, he resorted to bolder
tactics than had been known before his time and "carried the
war into Africa." His invasion of Carthage was the first that
the Punic capital ever knew, and it created great alarm and
confusion in the city. The Carthaginians were repeatedly
beaten, Tunes, and other dependent towns, as well as Utica,
were captured, the surrounding territory was ravaged, and
Agathokles became master of the eastern coast. But all his
successes gained him no permanent advantage, and, after four
years of wonderful campaigning in Africa, he saw no escape
from the difficulties of his situation except by basely
stealing away from his army, leaving his two sons to be killed
by the furious soldiers when they discovered his flight.
Returning to Sicily, the wonderfully crafty and unscrupulous
abilities which he possessed enabled him to regain his power
and to commit outrage after outrage upon the people of
Syracuse, Egesta, and other towns, until his death in
289 B. C.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 97._
SYRACUSE: B. C. 212.
Siege by the Romans.
See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.
SYRACUSE: A. D. 279.
Sacked by Franks.
The Emperor Probus, who expelled from Gaul, A. D. 277, the
invaders then beginning to swarm upon the hapless province,
removed a large body of captive Franks to the coast of Pontus,
on the Euxine, and settled them there. The restive barbarians
soon afterwards succeeded (A. D. 279) in capturing a fleet of
vessels, in which they made their way to the Mediterranean,
plundering the shores and islands as they passed towards the
west. "The opulent city of Syracuse, in whose port the navies
of Athens and Carthage had formerly been sunk, was sacked by a
handful of barbarians, who massacred the greatest part of the
trembling inhabitants." This was the crowning exploit of the
escaping Franks, after which they continued their voyage and
reached in due time their own shores, among the islands of the
delta of the Rhine.
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 12._
SYRACUSE: A. D. 878.
Siege and capture by the Saracens.
See SICILY: A. D. 827-878.
----------SYRACUSE: End--------
SYRIA.
"Between the Arabian Desert and the eastern coast of the
Levant there stretches—along almost the full extent of the
latter, or for nearly 400 miles—a tract of fertile land
varying from 70 to 100 miles in breadth. This is so broken up
by mountain range and valley, that it has never all been
brought under one native government; yet its well-defined
boundaries—the sea on the west, Mount Taurus on the north,
and the desert to east and south—give it a certain unity, and
separate it from the rest of the world. It has rightly,
therefore, been covered by one name, Syria. Like that of
Palestine, the name is due to the Greeks, but by a reverse
process. As 'Palestina,' which is really Philistina, was first
the name of only a part of the coast, and thence spread inland
to the desert, so Syria, which is a shorter form of Assyria,
was originally applied by the Greeks to the whole of the
Assyrian Empire from the Caucasus to the Levant, then shrank
to this side of the Euphrates, and finally within the limits
drawn above. … Syria is the north end of the Arabian world. …
The population of Syria has always been essentially Semitic. …
See SEMITES.
{3058}
Syria's position between two of the oldest homes of the human
race made her the passage for the earliest intercourse and
exchanges of civilisation. It is doubtful whether history has
to record any great campaigns … earlier than those which Egypt
and Assyria waged against each other across the whole extent
of Syria. …
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400, to B. C. 670-525].
The Hittites came south from Asia Minor over Mount Taurus, and
the Ethiopians came north from their conquest of the Nile.
Towards the end of the great duel between Assyria and Egypt,
the Scythians from north of the Caucasus devastated Syria.
When the Babylonian Empire fell, the Persians made her a
province of their empire, and marched across her to Egypt.
See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.
At the beginning of our era, she was overrun by the Parthians.
The Persians invaded her a second time, just before the Moslem
invasion of the seventh century.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639
She fell, of course, under the Seljuk Turks in the eleventh
[century].
See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073, and after;
And in the thirteenth and fourteenth the Mongols thrice swept
through her. Into this almost constant stream of empires and
races, which swept through Syria from the earliest ages,
Europe was drawn under Alexander the Great. …
See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after.
She was scoured during the following centuries by the wars of
the Seleucids and Ptolemies, and her plains were planted all
over by their essentially Greek civilisation.
See SELEUCIDÆ;
and JEWS: B. C. 332-167.
Pompey brought her under the Roman Empire, B. C. 65, and in
this she remained till the Arabs took her, 634 A. D.
See ROME: B. C. 69-63;
and JEWS: B. C. 166-40,
and MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.
The Crusaders held her for a century, 1098-1187, and parts of
her for a century more. …
See CRUSADES: A. D.1096-1099].
Napoleon the Great made her the pathway of his ambition
towards that empire on the Euphrates and Indus whose fate was
decided on her plains, 1799.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).
Since then, Syria's history has mainly consisted in a number
of sporadic at·tempts on the part of the Western world to
plant upon her both their civilisation and her former
religion."
_George Adam Smith,
Historical Geography of the Holy Land,
book 1, chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_C. R. Conder,
Syrian Stone Lore._
_É. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
volume 4, chapter 9._
See, also, DAMASCUS.
SYRIA, CŒLE.
See CŒLE-SYRIA.
SYRO-CHALDEAN LANGUAGE, The.
See SEMITIC LANGUAGES.
SYRTIS MAJOR AND SYRTIS MINOR.
These were the names given by the Greeks to the two gulfs (or
rather the two corners of the one great gulf) which deeply
indent the coast of North Africa. Syrtis Major, or the Greater
Syrtis, is now known as the Gulf of Sidra; Syrtis Minor as the
Gulf of Khabs, or Cabes.
SYSSITIA, The.
"The most important feature in the Cretan mode of life is the
usage of the Syssitia, or public meals, of which all the
citizens partook, without distinction of rank or age. The
origin of this institution cannot be traced: we learn however
from Aristotle that it was not peculiar to the Greeks, but
existed still earlier in the south of Italy among the
Œnotrians. … At Sparta [which retained this institution, in
common with Crete, to the latest times], the entertainment was
provided at the expense, not of the state, but of those who
shared it. The head of each family, as far as his means
reached, contributed for all its members; but the citizen who
was reduced to indigence lost his place at the public board.
The guests were divided into companies, generally of fifteen
persons, who filled up vacancies by ballot, in which unanimous
consent was required for every election. No member, not even
the king, was permitted to stay away, except on some
extraordinary occasion, as of a sacrifice, or a lengthened
chase, when he was expected to send a present to the table:
such contributions frequently varied the frugal repast."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapters 7-8._
SZATHMAR, Treaty of (1711).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
SZECHENYI, and the Hungarian wakening.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.
SZEGEDIN, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
SZEGEDIN, The broken Treaty of.
See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.
SZIGETH, Siege of (1566).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
T
TABELLARIÆ, Leges.
"For a long period [at Rome] the votes in the Comitia were
given vivâ voce …; but voting by ballot ('per tabellas') was
introduced at the beginning of the 7th century [2d century B.
C.] by a succession of laws which, from their subject, were
named Leges Tabellariae. Cicero tells us that there were in
all four, namely:
1. Lex Gabinia, passed B. C. 139.
2. Lex Cassia, carried in B. C. 137.
3. Lex Papiria, passed B. C. 131.
4. Lex Caelia, passed B. C. 107."
_W. Ramsay,
Manual of Roman Antiquity,
chapter 4._
TABLES, The.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.
TABORITES, The.
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
TABREEZ, Battle of.
See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.
TACHIES, The.
See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.
TACITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 275-276.
TACNA, Battle of (1880).
See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.
TACULLIES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
TADCASTER FIGHT (1642).
Lord Fairfax, commanding in Yorkshire for the Parliament, and
having his headquarters at Tadcaster, where he had assembled a
small force, was attacked by 8,000 royalists, under the Earl
of Newcastle, December 7, 1642, and forced to retire, after
obstinate resistance. This was one of the earliest encounters
of the great English Civil War.
_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 8._
{3059}
TADMOR.
See PALMYRA.
TAENSAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: NATCHESAN FAMILY.
TAEXALI, The.
A tribe which held the northeastern coast of ancient
Caledonia.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
TAGLIACOZZO, Capture of Conradin at.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.
TAGLIAMENTO, Battle of the (1797).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
TAGOS, OR TAGUS, The Greek title.
See DEMIURGI.
TAIFALÆ, The.
In the fourth century, "the Taifalæ inhabited that part of the
province of Dacia which is now called Wallachia. They are
first mentioned as allies of the Thervingi in A. D. 291
(Mamertin, Panegyr. ii. c. 17). Their ethnological relations
are uncertain. Zosimus vaguely calls them Scythians (ii. c.
31); St. Martin conjectures that they were the last remains of
the great and powerful nation of the Dacians, and Latham that
they were Slavonians. But we only know for certain that they
were constantly allies of the Visigoths, and that Farnobius,
one of their chiefs, is expressly called a Goth by Ammianus
(xxxi. c. 9). They subsequently accompanied the Visigoths in
their migrations westward, and settled on the south side of
the Liger, in the country of the Pictavi, where they were in
the time of Gregory of Tours, who calls them Theiphali, and
their district Theiphalia."
_W. Smith,
Note to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 26._
TAILLE AND GABELLE, The.
Under the old regime, before the Revolution, "the chief item
in the French budget was the taille [analogous to the English
word 'tally']. This was a direct tax imposed upon the property
of those assessed, and in theory it was in proportion to the
amount they possessed. But in the most of France it fell
chiefly upon personal property. It was impossible that with
the most exact and honest system it should be accurately
apportioned, and the system that was in force was both loose
and dishonest. The local assessors exempted some and overtaxed
others; they released their friends or their villages, and
imposed an increased burden upon others, and, to a very large
extent, exemptions or reductions were obtained by those who
had money with which to bribe or to litigate. The bulk of this
tax fell upon the peasants. From it, indeed, a large part of
the population, and the part possessing the most of the wealth
of the country, was entirely exempt. The nobility were free
from any personal tax, and under this head were probably
included 400,000 people. The clergy were free, almost all of
the officials of every kind, and the members of many
professions and trades. Many of the cities had obtained
exemption from the taille by the payment of a sum of money,
which was either nominal or very moderate. Only laborers and
peasants, it was said, still remained subject to it. Out of
11,000,000 people [in the 17th century] in those portions of
France where the taille was a personal tax, probably 2,500,000
were exempt. … Next to the taille, the most important tax was
the gabelle, and, though less onerous, it also produced a vast
amount of misery. The gabelle was a duty on salt, and it was
farmed by the government. The burden of an excessive tax was
increased by the cupidity of those who bought the right to
collect its proceeds. The French government retained a
monopoly of salt, much like that which it now possesses of
tobacco, but the price which it charged for this article of
necessity was such, that the States of Normandy declared that
salt cost the people more than all the rest of their food. In
some provinces the price fixed imposed a duty of about 3,000
per cent., and salt sold for nearly ten sous a pound, thirty
times its present price in France, though it is still subject
to a considerable duty. From this tax there were no personal
exemptions, but large portions of the country were not subject
to the gabelle. Brittany was free, Guienne, Poitou, and
several other provinces were wholly exempt or paid a trifling
subsidy. About one third of the population were free from this
duty, and the exemption was so valued that a rumor that the
gabelle was to be imposed was sufficient to excite a local
insurrection. Such a duty, on an article like salt, was also
necessarily much more oppressive for the poor than the rich.
As the exorbitant price would compel many to go without the
commodity, the tax was often rendered a direct one. The amount
of salt was fixed which a family should consume, and this they
were forced to take at the price established by the
government. … The gabelle was farmed for about 20,000,000
livres, and to cover the expenses and profits of the farmers
probably 27,000,000 in all was collected from the people. A
family of six would, on an average, pay the equivalent of
ninety francs, or about eighteen dollars a year, for this
duty."
_J. B. Perkins,
France under Mazarin,
chapter 18 (volume 2)._
"Not only was the price of salt rendered exorbitant by the
tax, but its consumption at this exorbitant price was
compulsory. Every human being above seven years of age was
bound to consume seven pounds of salt per annum, which salt,
moreover, was to be exclusively used with food or in cooking.
To use it for salting meat, butter, cheese, &c., was
prohibited under severe penalties. The average price of salt
[in the reign of Louis XIV.] over two-thirds of the country,
was a shilling a pound. To buy salt of anyone but the
authorised agents of the Government was punished by fines of
200, 300, and 500 livres (about £80 of our money), and
smugglers were punished by imprisonment, the galleys, and
death. … The use of salt in agriculture was rendered
impossible, and it was forbidden, under a penalty of 300
livres (about £50), to take a beast to a salt-marsh, and allow
it to drink sea-water. Salted hams and bacon were not allowed
to enter the country. The salt used in the fisheries was
supervised and guarded by such a number of vexatious
regulations that one might suppose the object of the
Government was to render that branch of commerce impossible. …
But even the Gabelle was less onerous than the Taille. The
amount of the Taille was fixed in the secret councils of the
Government, according to the exigencies of the financial
situation every year. The thirty-two Intendants of the
provinces were informed of the amount which their districts
were expected to forward to the Treasury. Each Intendant then
made known to the Elections (sub-districts) of his Généralité
the sum which they had to find, and the officers called Elus
apportioned to each parish its quota of contribution. Then, in
the parishes, was set in motion a system of blind, stupid, and
remorseless extortion, of which one cannot read even now
without a flash of indignation.
{3060}
First of all, the most flagitious partiality and injustice
presided over the distribution of the tax. Parishes which had
a friend at Court or in authority got exempt, and with them
the tax was a mere form. But these exemptions caused it to
fall with more crushing weight on their less fortunate
neighbours, as the appointed sum must be made up, whoever paid
it. The inequalities of taxation almost surpass belief. … But
this was far from being the worst feature. The chief
inhabitants of the country villages were compelled to fill, in
rotation, the odious office of collectors. They were
responsible for the gross amount to be levied, which they
might get as they could out of their parishioners. … Friends,
or persons who had powerful patrons, were exempted; while
enemies, or the unprotected, were drained of their last
farthing. … The collectors went about, we are told, always
keeping well together for fear of violence, making their
visits and perquisitions, and met everywhere with a chorus of
imprecations. As the Taille was always in arrear, on one side
of the street might be seen the collectors of the current year
pursuing their exactions, while on the other side were those
of the year previous engaged on the same business, and further
on were the agents of the Gabelle and other taxes employed in
a similar manner. From morning to evening, from year's
beginning to year's ending, they tramped, escorted by volleys
of oaths and curses, getting a penny here and a penny there;
for prompt payment under this marvellous system was not to
be thought of."
_J. C. Morison,
The Reign of Louis XIV.
(Fortnightly Review, April, 1874, volume 21)._
Under Colbert (1661-1683), in the reign of Louis XIV., both
the taille (or villein tax, as it was often called) and the
gabelle were greatly reduced, and the iniquities of their
distribution and collection were much lessened.
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 1._
For an intimation of the origin of the taille,
See FRANCE: A. D. 1453-1461.
TAIPING REBELLION, The.
See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.
TAJ MAHAL, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1605-1658.
TAKBIR, The.
The Mahometan war-cry—"God is Great."
TAKILMAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAKILMAN FAMILY.
TALAJOTS.
See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.
TALAVERA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
TALCA, Battle of (1818).
See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.
TALENT, Attic, Babylonian, &c.
"Not only in Attica, but in almost all the Hellenic States,
even in those which were not in Greece but were of Hellenic
origin, money was reckoned by talents of sixty minas, the mina
at a hundred drachmas, the drachma at six oboli. At Athens the
obolus was divided into eight chalci … the chalcûs into seven
lepta. Down to the half obolus, the Athenian money was, in
general, coined only in silver; the dichalchon, or quarter
obolus, in silver or copper; the chalcûs and the smaller
pieces only in copper. … The value of the more ancient Attic
silver talent, silver value reckoned for silver value, will be
1,500 thaler Prussian currency; of the mina, 25 thaler; of the
drachma, 6 gute groschen; of the obolus 1 g. gr.,—equivalent
to $1.026, $17.10, 71.1 cents, 2.85 cents respectively. …
Before the time of Solon, the Attic money was heavier; also
the commercial weight was heavier than that by which money was
weighed. One hundred new drachmas were equivalent to 72-73
ancient drachmas; but the ancient weight remained with very
little alteration as commercial weight, to which, in later
times, an increase was also added. Through the alterations of
Solon, the Attic money, which before stood to the Æginetan in
the relation of 5:6, had to the same the relation of 3:5. The
new was related to the ancient Attic money as 18:25. Compared
with the heavy Æginetan drachma …, the Attic was called the
light drachma. … The former was equivalent to ten Attic oboli;
so that the Æginetan talent weighed more than 10,000 Attic
drachmas. It was equal to the Babylonian talent. Nevertheless
the Æginetan money was soon coined so light that it was
related to the Attic nearly as 3:2. … The Corinthian talent is
to be estimated as originally equivalent to the Æginetan, but
it was also in later times diminished. … The Egyptian talent …
contained, according to Varro in Pliny, eighty Roman pounds,
and cannot, therefore, have been essentially different from
the Attic talent, since the Attic mina is related to the Roman
pound as 4:3. … The Euboic talent is related … to the Æginetan
as five to six, and is no other than the money-talent of the
Athenians in use before the time of Solon, and which continued
in use as commercial weight. According to the most accurate
valuation, therefore, one hundred Euboic drachmas are
equivalent to 138 8/9 drachmas of Solon. … Appian has given
the relation of the Alexandrian to the Euboic talent in round
numbers as 6 to 7 = 120 to 140; but it was rather more
accurately as 120 to 138 8/9. … So much gold … as was
estimated to be equivalent to a talent of silver, was
undoubtedly also called a talent of gold. And, finally, a
weight of gold of 6,000 drachmas, the value of which, compared
with silver, always depended upon the existing relation
between them, was sometimes thus called."
_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens
(translated by Lamb),
book 1, chapters 4-5._
See, also, SHEKEL.
TALLAGE, The.
"Under the general head of donum, auxilium, and the like, came
a long series of imposts [in the period of the Norman kings],
which were theoretically gifts of the nation to the king, and
the amount of which was determined by the itinerant justices
after separate negotiation with the payers. The most important
of these, that which fell upon the towns and demesne lands of
the Crown, is known as the tallage. This must have affected
other property besides land, but the particular method in
which it was to be collected was determined by the community
on which it fell, or by special arrangement with the
justices."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 13, section 161 (volume 1)._
TALLEYRAND, Prince de:
Alienation from Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1807-1808.
TALLIGEWI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.
{3061}
TALMUD, The.
"The Talmud [from a Hebrew verb signifying 'to learn'] is a
vast irregular repertory of Rabbinical reflections,
discussions, and animadversions on a myriad of topics treated
of or touched on in Holy Writ; a treasury, in chaotic
arrangement, of Jewish lore, scientific, legal, and legendary;
a great storehouse of extra-biblical, yet biblically
referable, Jewish speculation, fancy, and faith. … The Talmud
proper is throughout of a twofold character, and consists of
two divisions, severally called the Mishna and the Gemara. …
The Mishna, in this connection, may be regarded as the text of
the Talmud itself, and the Gemara as a sort of commentary. …
The Gemara regularly follows the Mishna, and annotates upon it
sentence by sentence. … There are two Talmuds, the Yerushalmi
[Jerusalem], or, more correctly, the Palestinian, and the
Babli, that is, the Babylonian. The Mishna is pretty nearly
the same in both these, but the Gemaras are different. The
Talmud Yerushalmi gives the traditional sayings of the
Palestinian Rabbis, … the 'Gemara of the Children of the
West,' as it is styled; whereas the Talmud Babli gives the
traditional sayings of the Rabbis of Babylon. This Talmud is
about four times the size of the Jerusalem one; it is by far
the more popular, and to it almost exclusively our remarks
relate."
_P. I. Hershon,
Talmudic Miscellany,
introduction._
The date of the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud is fixed
at about A. D. 500; that of Jerusalem was a century or more
earlier.
See, also, MISCHNA.
TALUKDARS.
"A Taluka [in India] is a large estate, consisting of many
villages, or, as they would be called in English, parishes.
These villages had originally separate proprietors, who paid
their revenue direct to the Government treasury. The Native
Government in former times made over by patent, to a person
called Talukdar, its right over these villages, holding him
responsible for the whole revenue. … The wealth and influence
thus acquired by the Talukdar often made him, in fact,
independent. … When the country came under British rule,
engagements for payment of the Government Revenue were taken
from these Talukdars, and they were called Zamindars."
_Sir R. Temple,
James Thomason,
page 158._
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
TAMANES, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
TAMASP I., Shah of Persia, A. D. 1523-1576.
TAMASP II., Shah of Persia, 1730-1732.
TAMERLANE, OR TIMOUR.
See TIMOUR.
TAMMANY RING, The.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
TAMMANY SOCIETY.
TAMMANY HALL.
"Shortly after the peace of 1783, a society was formed in the
city of New York, known by the name of the Tammany Society. It
was probably originally instituted with a view of organizing
an association antagonist to the Cincinnati Society. That
society was said to be monarchical or rather aristocratical in
its tendency, and, when first formed, and before its
constitution was amended, on the suggestion of General
Washington and other original members, it certainly did tend
to the establishment of an hereditary order, something like an
order of nobility. The Tammany Society originally seems to
have had in view the preservation of our democratic
institutions. … Tammany Society, or Columbian Order, was
founded by William Mooney, an upholsterer residing in the city
of New York, some time in the administration of President
Washington. … William Mooney was one of those who, at that
early day, regarded the powers of the general government as
dangerous to the independence of the state governments, and to
the common liberties of the people. His object was to fill the
country with institutions designed, and men determined, to
preserve the just balance of power. His purpose was patriotic
and purely republican. … Tammany was, at first, so popular,
that most persons of merit became members; and so numerous
were they that its anniversary [May 12] was regarded as a
holiday. At that time there was no party politics mixed up in
its proceedings. But when President Washington, in the latter
part of his administration, rebuked "self created societies,"
from an apprehension that their ultimate tendency would be
hostile to the public tranquility, the members of Tammany
supposed their institution to be included in the reproof; and
they almost forsook it. The founder, William Mooney, and a few
others, continued steadfast. At one anniversary they were
reduced so low that but three persons attended its festival.
From this time it became a political institution, and took
ground with Thomas Jefferson.'"
_J. D. Hammond,
History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
volume 1, chapter 18._
"The ideal patrons of the society were Columbus and Tammany,
the last a legendary Indian chief, once lord, it was said, of
the island of Manhattan, and now adopted as the patron saint
of America. The association was divided into thirteen tribes,
each tribe typifying a state, presided over by a sachem. There
were also the honorary posts of warrior and hunter, and the
council of sachems had at their head a grand sachem, a type
evidently of the President of the United States."
_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
volume 4, chapter 3._
"Shortly after Washington's inauguration, May 12, 1789, the
'Tammany Society or Columbian Order' was founded. It was
composed at first of the moderate men of both political
parties, and seems not to have been recognized as a party
institution until the time of Jefferson as President. William
Mooney was the first Grand Sachem; his successor in 1790 was
William Pitt Smith, and in 1791 Josiah Ogden Hoffman received
the honor. John Pintard was the first Sagamore. De Witt
Clinton was scribe of the council in 1791. It was strictly a
national society, based on the principles of patriotism, and
had for its object the perpetuation of a true love for our own
country. Aboriginal forms and ceremonies were adopted in its
incorporation."
_Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 2, page 362, foot-note._
"One must distinguish between the 'Tammany Society or
Columbian Order' and the political organization called for
shortness 'Tammany Hall.' … The Tammany Society owns a large
building on Fourteenth Street, near Third Avenue, and it
leases rooms in this building to the 'Democratic Republican
General Committee of the City of New York,' otherwise and more
commonly known as 'Tammany Hall' or 'Tammany.' Tammany Hall
means, therefore, first, the building on Fourteenth Street
where the 'Democracy' have their headquarters; and secondly,
the political body officially known as the Democratic
Republican General Committee of the City of New York. …
{3062}
The city of New York is divided by law into thirty 'assembly
districts;' that is, thirty districts, each of which elects an
assemblyman to the state legislature. In each of these
assembly districts there is held annually an election of
members of the aforesaid Democratic Republican General
Committee. This committee is a very large one, consisting of
no less than five thousand men; and each assembly district is
allotted a certain number of members, based on the number of
Democratic votes which it cast in the last preceding
presidential election. Thus the number of the General
Committeemen elected in each assembly district varies from
sixty to two hundred and seventy. There is intended to be one
General Committeeman for every fifty Democratic electors in
the district. In each assembly district there is also elected
a district leader, the head of Tammany Hall for that district.
He is always a member of the General Committee, and these
thirty men, one leader from each assembly district, form the
executive committee of Tammany Hall. 'By this committee,' says
a Tammany official, 'all the internal affairs of the
organization are directed, its candidates for offices are
selected, and the plans for every campaign are matured.' The
General Committee meets every month, five hundred members
constituting a quorum; and in October of each year it sits as
a county convention, to nominate candidates for the ensuing
election. There is also a sub-committee on organization,
containing one thousand members, which meets once a month.
This committee takes charge of the conduct of elections. There
is, besides, a finance committee, appointed by the chairman of
the General Committee, and there are several minor committees,
unnecessary to mention. The chairman of the finance committee
is at present Mr. Richard Croker. Such are the general
committees of Tammany Hall. … Each assembly district is
divided by law into numerous election districts, or, as they
are called in some cities, voting precincts,—each election
district containing about four hundred voters. The election
districts are looked after as follows: Every assembly district
has a district committee, composed of the members of the
General Committee elected from that district, and of certain
additional members chosen for the purpose. The district
committee appoints in each of the election districts included
in that particular assembly district a captain. This man is
the local boss. He has from ten to twenty-five aids, and he is
responsible for the vote of his election district. There are
about eleven hundred election districts in New York, and
consequently there are about eleven hundred captains, or local
bosses, each one being responsible to the (assembly) district
committee by which he was appointed. Every captain is held to
a strict account. If the Tammany vote in his election district
falls off without due cause, he is forthwith removed, and
another appointed in his place. Usually, the captain is an
actual resident in his district; but occasionally, being
selected from a distant part of the city, he acquires a
fictitious residence in the district. Very frequently the
captain is a liquor dealer, who has a clientele of customers,
dependents, and hangers-on, whom he 'swings,' or controls. He
is paid, of course, for his services; he has some money to
distribute, and a little patronage, such as places in the
street-cleaning department, or perhaps a minor clerkship. The
captain of a district has a personal acquaintance with all its
voters; and on the eve of an election he is able to tell how
every man in his district is going to vote. He makes his
report; and from the eleven hundred reports of the election
district captains the Tammany leaders can predict with
accuracy what will be the vote of the city."
_H. C. Merwin,
Tammany Hall
(Atlantic, February, 1894)._
ALSO IN:
_R. Home,
The Story of Tammany
(Harper's Monthly, volume 44, pages 685,835)._
TAMULS, The.
See TURANIAN RACES.
TAMWORTH MANIFESTO, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1887.
TANAGRA, Battle of (B. C. 457).
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
TANAIM, The.
A name assumed by the Jewish Rabbins who especially devoted
themselves to the interpretation of the Mischna.
_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 19._
TANAIS, The.
The name anciently given to the Russian river now called the
Don,—which latter name signifies simply 'water.'
TANCRED, King of Naples and Sicily, A. D. 1189-1194.
TANCRED'S CRUSADE.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;
and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099, and 1099-1144.
TANEY, Roger B.,
and President Jackson's removal of the Deposits.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.
The Dred Scott Decision.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
TANFANA, Feast and massacre of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 14-16.
TANIS.
See ZOAN.
TANISTRY, Law of.
"These chieftainships [in ancient Ireland], and perhaps even
the kingdoms themselves, though not partible, followed a very
different rule of succession than that of primogeniture. They
were subject to the law of tanistry, of which the principle is
defined to be that the demesne lands and dignity of
chieftainship, descended to the eldest and most worthy of the
same blood; these epithets not being used, we may suppose,
synonymously, but in order to indicate that the preference
given to seniority was to be controlled by a due regard to
desert. No better mode, it is evident, of providing for a
perpetual supply of those civil quarrels, in which the Irish
are supposed to place so much of their enjoyment, could have
been devised."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 18 (volume 3)._
See, also, TUATH.
TANNENBURG, Battle of (1410).
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
TANOAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TAÑOAN FAMILY.
TANTALIDÆ, The.
See ARGOS.
TAOUISM.
See CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.
TAPÆ, Battles at.
See DACIA: A. D. 102-106.
TAPIO BISCKE, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
TAPPANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
TAPROBANE.
The name by which the island of Ceylon was known to the
ancients. Hipparchus advanced the opinion that it was not
merely a large island, but the beginning of another world.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 23, section 2 (volume 2)._
{3063}
TAPURIANS, The.
"To the west of the Hyrcanians, between Elburz and the
Caspian, lay the Tapurians, whose name has survived in the
modern Taberistan, and further yet, on the sea-coast, and at
the mouth of the Mardus (now Safidrud), were the Mardians."
_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 1 (volume 5)._
TARA, The Hill, the Feis, and the Psalter of.
The Feis Teavrach, or Feis of Tara, in Irish history, was a
triennial assembly on the royal hill of Tara, in Meath, which
is claimed to have been instituted by a certain King Ollamh
Fodhla, at so remote a period as 1,300 years before Christ.
"All the chieftains or heads of septs, bards, historians, and
military leaders throughout the country were regularly
summoned, and were required to attend under the penalty of
being treated as the king's enemies. The meeting was held in a
large oblong hall, and the first three days were spent in
enjoying the hospitality of the king, who entertained the
entire assembly during its sittings. The bards give long and
glowing accounts of the magnificence displayed on these
occasions, of the formalities employed, and of the business
transacted. Tables were arranged along the centre of the hall,
and on the walls at either side were suspended the banners or
arms of the chiefs, so that each chief on entering might take
his seat under his own escutcheon. Orders were issued by sound
of trumpet, and all the forms were characterized by great
solemnity. What may have been the authority of this assembly,
or whether it had any power to enact laws, is not clear; but
it would appear that one of its principal functions was the
inspection of the national records, the writers of which were
obliged to the strictest accuracy under the weightiest
penalties."
_M. Haverty,
History of Ireland,
page 24._
The result of the examination and correction of the historical
records of the kingdom were "entered in the great national
register called the Psalter of Tara, which is supposed to have
been destroyed at the period of the Norman invasion. … It is
supposed that part of the contents of the Psalter of Cashel,
which contains much of the fabulous history of the Irish, was
copied from it."
_T. Wright,
History of Ireland,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
TARANTEENS,
TARENTINES,
TARRATINES.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ABNAKIS, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
TARAS.
See TARENTUM.
TARASCANS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TARASCANS.
TARBELLI, The.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
TARENTINE WAR, The.
See Rome: B. C. 282-275.
TARENTUM.
Tarentum (or Taras), the most important of the ancient Greek
cities in Italy, "lay at the northern corner of the great gulf
which still bears its name. It had an excellent harbour,
almost land-locked. On its eastern horn stood the city. Its
form was triangular; one side being washed by the open sea,
the other by the waters of the harbour, while the base or land
side was protected by a line of strong fortifications. Thus
advantageously posted for commerce the city grew apace. She
possessed an opulent middle class; and the poorer citizens
found an easy subsistence in the abundant supply of fish which
the gulf afforded. These native fishermen were always ready to
man the navy of the state. But they made indifferent soldiers.
Therefore when any peril of war threatened the state, it was
the practice of the government to hire foreign captains,
soldiers of fortune, who were often kings or princes, to bring
an army for their defence. … The origin of Lacedæmonian
Tarentum is veiled in fable. The warriors of Sparta (so runs
the well-known legend) went forth to the second Messenian war
under a vow not to see their homes till they had conquered the
enemy. They were long absent, and their wives sought paramours
among the slaves and others who had not gone out to war. When
the warriors returned, they found a large body of youth grown
up from this adulterous intercourse. These youths (the
Parthenii as they were called), disdaining subjection, quitted
their native land under the command of Phalantus, one of their
own body, and founded the colony of Tarentum."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 25 (volume 1)._
See, also, SIRIS.
TARENTUM: B. C. 282-275.
Alliance with Pyrrhus and war with Rome.
See ROME: B. C. 282-275.
TARENTUM: B. C. 212.
Betrayed to Hannibal.
See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.
TARENTUM, Treaty of.
The treaty in which Octavius and Antony extended their
triumvirate to a second term of five years; negotiated at
Tarentum, B. C. 37.
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 27._
TARGOWITZ, Confederates of.
See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
TARIFA: A. D. 1291.
Taken by the Christians from the Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1273-1460.
----------TARIFF LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS: Start--------
TARIFF: (The Netherlands): 15th Century.
Early Free Trade and Reciprocity.
In the Netherlands, at the close of a short war with the
English, in 1437, "the import of raw wool was entirely
relieved from the payment of even the ordinary customs. … And
this was then their notion of protection,—to be allowed to buy
what they liked where they liked, to live at peace with their
neighbours, and to be let alone. Four hundred years have
passed and gone since the Netherlands persuaded their rulers
to take off all duty on raw wool, and to permit half-finished
clothes to be brought into their country in order that they
might be dyed and taken out again duty free; yet we live in
the midst of tariffs whose aim it is to hinder the importation
of the raw material by prohibitory duties and to prevent
competition in every kind of fabric by so-called protecting
ones! And in England, also, at the period in question, the
suicidal spirit of commercial envy had seized hold of the
government, and in every parliament some fresh evidence was
afforded of the jealousy with which foreign skill and
competition were viewed.
{3064}
But the Dutch held on the tenour of their discerning and
sagacious way without waiting for reciprocity or resenting its
reverse. If the English would not admit their cloths, that was
no reason why they should cheat themselves of the advantage of
English and Irish wool. If not cloths, there was doubtless
something else that they would buy from them. Among other
articles, there was salt, which they had acquired a peculiar
skill in refining; and there was an extensive carrying trade
in the produce of the Northern countries, and in various
costly luxuries, which the English obtained from remoter
regions generally through them. In 1496, when Philip (father
of the Emperor Charles V.) assumed the government of the
Netherlands, as Duke of Brabant, he "presented to the senates
of the leading cities the draught of a commercial treaty with
England, conceived in a wise and liberal spirit, and eminently
fitted to advance the real welfare of both countries. Their
assent was gladly given. … Nor did they over-estimate the
value of the new compact, which long went by the name of 'The
Grand Treaty of Commerce.' Its provisions were, in all
respects, reciprocal, and enabled every kind of merchandise to
be freely imported from either country by the citizens of the
other. The entire liberty of fishing on each other's coast was
confirmed; measures were prescribed for the suppression of
piracy; and property saved from wrecks, when none of the crew
survived, 'was vested in the local authorities in trust for
the proper owners, should they appear to claim it within a
year and a day. … The industrial policy of the Dutch was
founded on ideas wholly and essentially different from that of
the kingdoms around them. 'The freedom of traffic had ever
been greater with them than amongst any of their neighbours;'
and its different results began to appear. Not only were
strangers of every race and creed sure of an asylum in
Holland, but of a welcome; and singular pains were taken to
induce those whose skill enabled them to contribute to the
wealth of the state to settle permanently in the great towns."
_W. T. McCullagh,
Industrial History of Free Nations,
volume 2, pages 110-111, 150-151, 266-267._
TARIFF: (Venice): 15-17th Centuries.
Beginning of systematic exclusion and monopoly.
See VENICE: 15-17TH CENTURIES.
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1651-1672.
The Navigation Laws and their effect on the American colonies.
See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.
TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1664-1667.
The System of Colbert.
Colbert, the great minister of Louis XIV., was the first among
statesmen who had an economic system, "settled, complete and
consistent in all its parts; and it is to the eternal honor of
his name that he made it triumph in spite of obstacles of
every kind. Although this system was far from being
irreproachable in all its parts, it was an immense progress at
the time of its appearance; and we have had nothing since then
which can be compared with it, for breadth and penetration. …
It was … the need of restoring order in the finances which
gave rise to the attempts at amelioration made by Colbert.
This illustrious minister soon comprehended that the surest
way to increase public fortune was to favor private fortune,
and to open to production the broadest and freest ways. … One
of the first acts of his ministry, the reestablishment of the
taxes on a uniform basis, is an homage rendered to true
principles; and one cannot doubt that all the others would
have been in conformity with this glorious precedent, if the
science of wealth had been, at that time, as advanced as it is
to-day. Colbert would certainly have carried out in France
what Mr. Huskisson had begun in England at the time of his
sudden death. … The edict of September, 1664, reduced the
import and export duties on merchandise to suitable limits,
and suppressed the most onerous. 'It is our intention,' said
the king, 'to make known to all our governors and intendants
in what consideration we hold at present everything that may
concern commerce. … As the most solid and most essential means
for the reestablishment of commerce are the diminution and the
regulation of the duties which are levied on all commodities,
we have arranged to reduce all these duties to one single
import and one export duty, and also to diminish these
considerably, in order to encourage navigation, reestablish
the ancient manufactures, banish idleness.' … At the same time
Colbert prohibited the seizure for the tailles (villein-tax)
[see TAILLE AND GABELLE] of beds, clothes, bread, horses and
cattle serving for labor; or the tools by which artisans and
manual laborers gained their livelihood. The register of the
survey of lands was revised, so that property should be taxed
only in proportion to its value and the actual extent of the
land. The great highways of the kingdom and all the rivers
were then guarded by armies of receivers of tolls, who stopped
merchandise on its passage and burdened its transportation
with a multitude of abusive charges, to say nothing of the
delays and exactions of every kind. An edict was issued
ordering the investigation of these degrading charges; and
most of them were abolished or reduced to just limits. … The
lease of Customs duties being about to expire, Colbert
improved this occasion to revise the tariff; and although this
fatal measure has since been considered as the finest monument
of his administration, we think we should present it in its
true aspect, which seems to us to have been invariably
misapprehended. Colbert's aim in revising the customs was to
make them a means of protection for national manufactures, in
the place of a simple financial resource, as they formerly
were. Most articles of foreign manufacture had duties imposed
upon them, so as to secure to similar French merchandise the
home market. At the same time, Colbert spared neither
sacrifices nor encouragement to give activity to the
manufacturing spirit in our country. He caused the most
skilful workmen of every kind to come from abroad; and he
subjected manufactures to a severe discipline, that they
should not lose their vigilance, relying on the tariffs. Heavy
fines were inflicted on the manufacturers of an article
recognized as inferior in quality to what it should be. For
the first offence, the products of the delinquents were
attached to a stake, with a carcan and the name of the
manufacturer; in case of a second offence, the manufacturer
himself was fastened to it. These draconian rigors would have
led to results entirely contrary to those Colbert expected, if
his enlightened solicitude had not tempered by other measures
what was cruel in them.
{3065}
Thus, he appointed inspectors of the manufactures, who often
directed the workmen into the best way, and brought them
information of the newest processes, purchased from foreign
manufacturers, or secretly obtained at great expense. Colbert
was far from attaching to the customs the idea of exclusive
and blind protection that has ever been attributed to them
since his ministry. He knew very well that these tariffs would
engender reprisals, and that, while encouraging manufactures,
they would seriously hinder commerce. Moreover, all his
efforts tended to weaken their evil effects. His instructions
to consuls and ambassadors testify strongly to his
prepossessions in this regard. … The more one studies the
administrative acts of this great minister, the more one is
convinced of his lofty sense of justice; and of the liberal
tendencies of his system, which has hitherto been generally
extolled as hostile to the principle of commercial liberty. In
vain the Italians have hailed it by the name of 'Colbertism,'
to designate the exclusive system invented by themselves and
honored by the Spanish: Colbert never approved the sacrifice
of the greater part of his fellow citizens to a few privileged
ones, nor the creation of endless monopolies for the profit of
certain branches of industry. We may reproach him with having
been excessively inclined to make regulations, but not with
having enfeoffed France to a few spinners of wool and cotton.
He had himself summed up in a few words his system in the
memorial he presented to the king: 'To reduce export duties on
provisions and manufactures of the kingdom; to diminish import
duties on everything which is of use in manufactures; and to
repel the products of foreign manufactures, by raising the
duties.' Such was the spirit of his first tariff, published in
September, 1664. He had especially aimed at facilitating the
supply of raw materials in France, and promoting the interests
of her home trade by the abolition of provincial barriers, and
by the establishment of lines of customs-houses at the extreme
frontiers. … The only reproach that can be justly made against
him is the abuse of the protective instrument he had just
created, by increasing in the tariff of 1667 the exclusive
measures directed against foreign manufactures in that of
1664. It was no longer then a question of manufactures, but of
war, namely, with Holland; and this war broke out in 1672. …
From the same epoch date the first wars of commercial
reprisals between France and England, hostilities which were
to cost both nations so much blood and so many tears.
Manufactures were then seen to prosper and agriculture to
languish in France under the influence of this system."
_J. A. Blanqui,
History of Political Economy in Europe,
chapter 26._
ALSO IN,
_H. Martin,
History of France: The Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 2._
_J. B. Perkins,
France under the Regency,
chapter 4._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.
TARIFF: (Pennsylvania): A. D. 1785.
Beginning of "Protection" in Pennsylvania.
"Before the Revolution Pennsylvania had always been slow to
impose burdens on trade. While Massachusetts, New York and
South Carolina were raising considerable sums from imposts,
Pennsylvania commerce was free from restrictions. In 1780,
however, the need of revenue overcame the predilection of the
Quakers for free trade and they decided 'that considerable
sums can be raised by a small impost on goods and merchandise
imported into this state without burdening commerce.'
Accordingly, low duties were laid on wines, liquors, molasses,
sugar, cocoa and tea, with 1 per cent. on all other imports.
In 1782 the duties were doubled and the revenue was
appropriated to the defence of commerce on the Delaware river
and bay. This was done at the request of the merchants who
wished to have their interests protected and 'signified their
willingness to submit to a further impost on the importation
of goods for that purpose.' When peace came, however, the
merchants at once represented it as detrimental to the
interests of the state to continue the duties, and they were
repealed. In 1784 low duties were again imposed, and later in
the same year increased. Early in 1785 more careful provisions
were made for their collection. September 20, came the
important act 'to encourage and protect the manufactures of
this state by laying additional duties on certain manufactures
which interfere with them.' … More than forty of the articles
which Pennsylvania had begun to make were taxed at high
specific rates. Coaches and carriages, paid £10 to £20;
clocks, 30s.; scythes, 15s. per dozen; beer, ale and porter,
6d. per gallon; soap or candles, 1d. per pound; shoes and
boots, 1s. to 6s. per pair; cordage and ropes, 8s. 4d. per
hundred weight; and so on. The ten per cent. schedule included
manufactures of iron and steel, hats, clothing, books and
papers, whips, canes, musical instruments and jewelry. … The
Pennsylvania act is of importance because it shows the nature
of commodities which the country was then producing, as well
as because it formed the basis of the tariff of 1789."
_W. Hill,
First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States,
pages 53-54._
The preamble of the Pennsylvania act of 1785 set forth its
reasons as follows: "Whereas, divers useful and beneficial
arts and manufactures have been gradually introduced into
Pennsylvania, and the same have at length risen to a very
considerable extent and perfection, insomuch that in the late
war between the United States of America and Great Britain,
when the importation of European goods was much interrupted,
and often very difficult and uncertain, the artizans and
mechanics of this state were able to supply in the hours of
need, not only large quantities of weapons and other
implements, but also ammunition and clothing, without which
the war could not have been carried on, whereby their
oppressed country was greatly assisted and relieved. And
whereas, although the fabrics and manufactures of Europe, and
other foreign parts, imported into this country in times of
peace, may be afforded at cheaper rates than they can be made
here, yet good policy and a regard to the wellbeing of divers
useful and industrious citizens, who are employed in the
making of like goods, in this state, demand of us that
moderate duties be laid on certain fabrics and manufactures
imported, which do most interfere with, and which (if no
relief be given) will undermine and destroy the useful
manufactures of the like kind in this country, for this
purpose. Be it enacted" &c.
_Pennsylvania Laws, 1785._
The duties enacted, which were additional to the then existing
impost of 2½ per cent., were generally specific, but ad valorem
on some commodities as on British steel, 10 per cent.; earthen
ware, the same; glass and glass-ware, 2½ per cent.; linens the
same. Looked at in the light of recent American tariffs, they
would hardly be recognized as "protective" in their character;
but the protective purpose was plainly enough declared.
{3066}
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1789-1791.
The first tariff enactment.
Hamilton's Report on Manufactures.
The "American System" proposed.
"The immediate necessity of raising some ready money led to
the passage of a tariff bill at the first session of Congress.
It was prepared and carried through the House chiefly by
Madison; and its contents, no less than the general tone of
the debate in which it was discussed, showed a decided leaning
towards the protective system. But this legislation was
temporary, and was at the time known to be so. The permanent
system of the country was left for subsequent and more
leisurely development. When at last Congress felt able to give
the subject due attention, it applied as usual to Hamilton to
furnish information and opinions. A topic so important and so
congenial to his tastes called forth his best exertions. A
series of extensive investigations conducted by every feasible
kind of inquiry and research, both in foreign parts and in the
United States, furnished the material for his reflections. He
took abundant time to digest as well as to collect the great
mass of information thus acquired, and it was not until nearly
two years had elapsed since the order for the report was
passed that he sent in the document to the House of
Representatives. … The inferences and arguments constituted as
able a presentation of the protectionist theory as has ever
been made. … It is, however, an incorrect construction of that
report to regard it as a vindication of the general or
abstract doctrine of protection. Hamilton was very far from
assuming any such position; protection always and everywhere
was not his theory; protection was not his ideal principle of
commercial regulation. … So far from entertaining any
predilection for protection in the abstract, it would seem
that in a perfect commercial world he would have expected to
find free trade the prevalent custom. … If free trade were the
rule of the whole commercial world, Hamilton was not prepared
to say that the United States would find it for her interest
to be singular. But such were not the premises from which he
had to draw a conclusion. … The report of Hamilton determined
the policy of the country. For good or for evil protection was
resorted to, with the avowed purpose of encouraging domestic
manufacturing as well as of raising a revenue. … The
principles upon which Hamilton based his tariff were not quite
those of pure protection, but constituted what was known as
the 'American System'; a system which has been believed in by
former generations with a warmth of conviction not easy to
withstand."
_J. T. Morse, Jr.,
Life of Alexander Hamilton,
chapter 11._
Hamilton's celebrated report opens with an elaborate argument
to prove the desirability of manufacturing industries in the
country, and then proceeds: "A full view having now been taken
of the inducements to the promotion of manufactures in the
United States, accompanied with an examination of the
principal objections which are commonly urged in opposition,
it is proper, in the next place, to consider the means by
which it may be effected, as introductory to a specification
of the objects which in the present state of things appear the
most fit to be encouraged, and of the particular measures
which it may be advisable to adopt in respect to each. In
order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted
to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those
which have been employed with success in other countries. The
principle of these are:
I. Protecting duties, or duties on those foreign articles
which are the rivals of the domestic ones intended to be
encouraged. Duties of this nature evidently amount to a
virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics, since by enhancing the
charges on foreign articles they enable the national
manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The
propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt
upon, as it is not only a clear result from the numerous
topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the
laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has
the additional recommendation of being a resource of revenue.
Indeed, all the duties imposed on imported articles, though
with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in
contemplation; and, except where they fall on raw materials,
wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufacturers of the
country.
II. Prohibitions of rival articles, or duties equivalent to
prohibitions. This is another and an efficacious mean of
encouraging manufactures; but in general it is only fit to be
employed when a manufacture has made such a progress, and is
in so many hands, as to insure a due competition and an
adequate supply on reasonable terms. Of duties equivalent to
prohibitions there are examples in the laws of the United
States; and there are other cases to which the principle may
be advantageously extended, but they are not numerous.
Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own
manufacturers as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations,
a similar policy on the part of the United States, in every
proper instance, is dictated, it might almost be said, by the
principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of
endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of
advantages.
III. Prohibitions of the exportation of materials of
manufactures. The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful
supply for the national workmen; and, where the article is
either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there,
the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the
nation with its own materials, are the leading motives to this
species of regulation. It ought not to be affirmed that it is
in no instance proper, but it is certainly one which ought to
be adopted with great circumspection and only in very plain
cases.
IV. Pecuniary bounties. This has been found one of the most
efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is, in
some views, the best, though it has not yet been practiced
upon the government of the United States,—unless the allowance
on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted meat
could be considered as a bounty—and though it is less favored
by public opinion than some other modes. Its advantages are
these:
1. It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct
than any other, and for that very reason has a more immediate
tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing
the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss in
the first attempts.
{3067}
2. It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of
price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces
it to a less degree, either by making no addition to the
charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of
protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first
happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a
different object (which may or may not increase the price of
some other article according to the nature of that object);
the second when the fund is derived from the same or a similar
object of foreign manufacture. One per cent. duty on the
foreign article, converted into a bounty on the domestic, will
have an equal effect with a duty of 2% exclusive of such
bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be
raised in the one case in the proportion of 1%, in the other
in that of 2%. Indeed, the bounty when drawn from another
source, is calculated to promote a reduction of price,
because, without laying any new charge on the foreign article,
it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase
the total quantity of the article in the market.
3. Bounties have not, like high protecting duties, a tendency
to produce scarcity. An increase of price is not always the
immediate, though where the progress of a domestic manufacture
does not counteract a rise, it is commonly the ultimate effect
of an additional duty. In the interval between the laying of
the duty and a proportional increase of price, it may
discourage importation by interfering with the profits to be
expected from the sale of the article.
4. Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only
proper expedient for uniting the encouragement of a new object
of agriculture with that of a new object of manufacture. It is
the interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw
material promoted by counteracting the interference of the
foreign material of the same kind. It is the interest of the
manufacturer to have the material abundant and cheap. If prior
to the domestic production of the material in sufficient
quantity to supply the manufacturer on good terms, a duty be
laid upon the importation of it from abroad, with a view to
promote the raising of it at home, the interest both of the
farmer and manufacturer will be disserved. By either
destroying the requisite supply, or raising the price of the
article beyond what can be afforded to be given for it by the
conductor of an infant manufacture, it is abandoned or fails;
and there being no domestic manufactories to create a demand
for the raw material which is raised by the farmer, it is in
vain that the competition of the like foreign article may have
been destroyed. It cannot escape notice that a duty upon the
importation of an article can no otherwise aid the domestic
production of it than by giving the latter greater advantages
in the home market. It can have no influence upon the
advantageous sale of the article produced in foreign markets,
no tendency, therefore, to promote its exportation. The true
way to conciliate these two interests is to lay a duty on
foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is
desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that
duty by way of bounty either upon the production of the
material itself, or upon its manufacture at home, or upon
both. In this disposition of the thing the manufacturer
commences his enterprise under every advantage which is
attainable as to quantity or price of the raw material. And
the farmer, if the bounty be immediately to him, is enabled by
it to enter into a successful competition with the foreign
material. … There is a degree of prejudice against bounties,
from an appearance of giving away the public money without an
immediate consideration, and from a supposition that they
serve to enrich particular classes at the expense of the
community. But neither of these sources of dislike will bear a
serious examination. There is no purpose to which public money
can be more beneficially applied than to the acquisition of a
new and useful branch of industry, no consideration more
valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of
productive labor. As to the second source of objection, it
equally lies against other modes of encouragement, which are
admitted to be eligible. As often as a duty upon a foreign
article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra
expense to the community for the benefit of the domestic
manufacturer. A bounty does no more. But it is the interest of
the society in each case to submit to a temporary expense,
which is more than compensated by an increase of industry and
wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence, and
by the circumstance of eventual cheapness, which has been
noticed in another place. It would deserve attention, however,
in the employment of this species of encouragement in the
United States, as a reason for moderating the degree of it in
the instances in which it might be deemed eligible, that the
great distance of this country from Europe imposes very heavy
charges on all the fabrics which are brought from thence,
amounting from 15% to 30% on their value according to their
bulk. …
V. Premiums. These are of a nature allied to bounties, though
distinguishable from them in some important features. Bounties
are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced or
manufactured or exported, and involve a correspondent expense.
Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or
superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are
dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is
to stimulate general effort. …
VI. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty.
The policy of that exemption, as a general rule, particularly
in reference to new establishments, is obvious. …
VII. Drawbacks of the duties which are imposed on the
materials of manufactures. It has already been observed as a
general rule, that duties on those materials ought, with
certain exceptions, to be forborne. Of these exceptions, three
cases occur which may serve as examples. One where the
material is itself an object of general or extensive
consumption, and a fit and productive source of revenue.
Another where a manufacture of a simpler kind, the competition
of which with a like domestic article is desired to be
restrained, partakes of the nature of a raw material from
being capable by a further process to be converted into a
manufacture of a different kind, the introduction or growth of
which is desired to be encouraged. A third where the material
itself is the production of the country, and in sufficient
abundance to furnish a cheap and plentiful supply to the
national manufacturers. … Where duties on the materials of
manufactures are not laid for the purpose of preventing a
competition with some domestic production, the same reasons
which recommend, as a general rule, the exemption of those
materials from duties, would recommend, as a like general
rule, the allowance of drawbacks in favor of the manufacturer.
…
{3068}
VIII. The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at
home, and of the introduction into the United States of such
as may have been made in other countries; particularly those
which relate to machinery. This is among the most useful and
unexceptionable of the aids which can be given to
manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are
pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. …
IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured
commodities. This is not among the least important of the
means by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted.
It is indeed in many cases one of the most essential.
Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home and
exporters to foreign countries, to improve the quality and
preserve the character of the national manufactures; it cannot
fail to aid the expeditious and advantageous sale of them, and
to serve as a guard against successful competition from other
quarters. …
X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to
place—is a point of considerable moment to trade in general
and to manufactures in particular, by rendering more easy the
purchase of raw materials and provisions, and the payment for
manufactured supplies. A general circulation of bank paper,
which is to be expected from the institution lately
established, will be a most valuable means to this end. …
XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities.
Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all the
domestic interests of a community; but they may, without
impropriety, be mentioned as having an important relation to
manufactures. …
The foregoing are the principal of the means by which the
growth of manufactures is ordinarily promoted. It is, however,
not merely necessary that the measures of government which
have a direct view to manufactures should be calculated to
assist and protect them; but that those which only
collaterally affect them, in the general course of the
administration, should be guarded from any peculiar tendency
to injure them. There are certain species of taxes which are
apt to be oppressive to different parts of the community, and,
among other ill effects, have a very unfriendly aspect towards
manufactures. All poll or capitation taxes are of this nature.
They either proceed according to a fixed rate, which operates
unequally and injuriously to the industrious poor; or they
vest a discretion in certain officers to make estimates and
assessments, which are necessarily vague, conjectural, and
liable to abuse. … All such taxes (including all taxes on
occupations) which proceed according to the amount of capital
supposed to be employed in a business, or of profits supposed
to be made in it, are unavoidably hurtful to industry."
_A. Hamilton,
Report on Manufactures
(Works, volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff._
_R. W. Thompson,
History of Protective Tariff Laws,
chapters 6-7._
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1815-1828.
The Corn Laws and Provision Laws.
The sliding-scale.
During the Napoleonic wars in Europe there was a prolonged
period of scarcity, approaching to famine, in Great Britain.
There were scant harvests at home and supplies from abroad
were cut off by the "Continental system" of Napoleon. "In 1801
wheat was 115 shillings and 11 pence per quarter; from 1801 to
1818 the price averaged 84s.; whilst in the 20 years ending
1874, it averaged only 52s. per quarter. … The cry of
starvation was everywhere heard amongst the working classes,
and tradesmen of all kinds suffered severely; whilst the only
well-to-do people were the Farmers and the Landlords. As soon
as the war was over, and our ports were opened for the
reception of foreign grain, prices came down rapidly. Then the
Landlords took alarm, and appealed to Parliament to resist the
importation of foreign grain, which they asserted, would be
the ruin of the English Farmers. They insisted that in this
country, the costs of cultivation were extremely heavy, as
compared with those of foreign producers of grain, and that
therefore the British Farmer must receive protection in order
to prevent his ruin. Hence a Parliament, composed mostly of
Landlords, proceeded, in 1815, to enact the Corn Law, which
excluded foreign wheat, except at high rates of duty, until
the market price should reach 80s. per quarter; and other
kinds of grain, until there was a proportionate elevation in
prices. The discussions in Parliament on this question made a
great impression, and led to a wide-spread sympathy, and to
the belief that there was need of a measure, which, according
to its advocates, would preserve our Agriculture from ruin,
and be at the same time a provision against famine. But by
many thoughtful and patriotic people this law was viewed with
intense dislike, and was characterised as an atrocious fraud.
The fact was, that … when rents ought either to have been
lowered, or the methods of cultivation improved, the Corn Law
was passed by the Landlords in order to keep out foreign corn
and to maintain high rents; and many of the common people saw,
or thought they saw, what would be the effect; for whilst the
legislature was engaged in the discussion of the question, the
people of London became riotous, and the walls were chalked
with invectives such as 'Bread or Blood,' 'Guy Fawkes for
ever,' etc. A loaf, steeped in blood, was placed on Carlton
House, (now the Tory Club House.) The houses of some of the
most unpopular of the promoters of the measure were attacked
by the mob. At Lord Eldon's house the iron railings were torn
up, whilst every pane of glass and many articles of furniture
were broken and destroyed, and it was facetiously remarked
that at last his lordship kept open house. The military were
called out, and two persons were killed; the Houses of
Parliament were guarded by soldiers, and, indeed, the whole of
London appeared to be in possession of the Army. In various
parts of the country similar disturbances prevailed. … Large
popular meetings were held at Spa Fields, in London, public
meetings were also held at Birmingham, and in many other parts
of the kingdom. … In some of the towns and populous
localities, the operatives having in view a large aggregate
meeting to be held on St. Peter's field in Manchester,
submitted themselves to marching discipline. … Regardless,
however, of the public demonstrations of dislike to the Corn
and Provision Laws, the Legislature persisted in upholding the
most stringent provisions thereof until the year 1828, when
the duties on the importation of grain were adjusted by a
sliding scale, in accordance with the average prices in the
English market.
{3069}
The following abstract may serve to denote the provisions of
the amended Law;—When the average price of wheat was 36
shillings the duty was 50 shillings 8 pence per qr.; when 46s.
the duty was 40s. 8d. per. qr.; when 56s. it was 30s. 8d. per
qr.; when 62s. it was 24s. 8d. per qr.; when 72s. it was 2s.
8d. per qr.; and when 73s. it was 1s. per qr. It was soon
found that as a means of protection to the British Farmer, the
operation of the sliding scale of duties was scarcely less
effective, by deterring imports of grain, than the previous
law, which absolutely excluded wheat until it reached 80s. per
quarter. The Act certainly provided that foreign grain might
at any time be imported, and be held in bond till the duty was
paid; a provision under which it was expected to be stored
until the price should be high, and the duty low; but the
expenses attendant upon warehousing and preserving it from
injury by keeping, were usually looked upon as an undesirable
or even dangerous investment of a merchant's capital. …
Agricultural protection, as exhibited by the Corn Law, would,
however, have been very incomplete without the addition of the
Provision Laws. By these Laws the importation of Foreign
Cattle and foreign meat were strictly prohibited. Butter and
Lard were indeed allowed to be imported, but they were not to
be used as food, and in order to provide against any
infraction of the law, the officers at the Custom Houses were
employed to 'spoil' these articles on their arrival, by
smearing them with a tarred stick. They could then be used
only as grease for wheels, or for the smearing of sheep. With
bread purposely made dear, with the import of cattle and of
flesh meat prohibited, and with lard and butter wilfully
reduced from articles of food to grease for wheels, there is
no difficulty in accounting for the frequent murmurs of
discontent, and for the starvation among the poorer classes in
every part of the Kingdom. Soup kitchens were opened almost
every winter, and coals and clothing gratuitously distributed
in many places; but such palliatives were regarded with
derision by all who understood the true causes of the evil.
Such help was scorned, and a cry for justice was raised;
scarcity was said to be created by Act of Parliament, in order
to be mitigated by philanthropy."
_H. Ashworth,
Recollections of Richard Cobden,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN
_D. Ricardo,
On Protection to Agriculture
(Works, pages 459-498)._
_J. E. T. Rogers,
The Economic Interpretation of History,
chapters 17-18._
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1816-1824.
The beginning of the protective policy (the "American System").
"The return of peace at the beginning of 1815 brought the
manufacturers face to face with a serious danger. War had been
their harvest time. Favored by double duties and abnormal
conditions their industry had attained a marvelous though not
always safe development. … By limitation, the double duties
were to expire one year after the conclusion of peace, and
unless Congress intervened promptly and effectually their
individual ruin was certain. … As new industries sprang up,
petitions were promptly laid before Congress praying for new
duties, for the permanence of the war duties, and for certain
prohibitions. … In laying before Congress the treaty of peace,
February, 1815, Madison called attention to the 'unparalleled
maturity' attained by manufactures, and 'anxiously recommended
this source of national independence and wealth to the prompt
and constant guardianship of Congress.' … To Dallas, Secretary
of the Treasury, the manufacturers had already turned. Six
days after the treaty of peace was ratified, the House,
February 23, 1815, called upon Dallas to report a general
tariff bill at the next session of Congress. … In his annual
report in December, 1815, Dallas had proposed the extension of
the double duties until June 30, 1816, in order to give time
for the elaboration of a new tariff bill; and after some
discussion Congress agreed to this plan. February 13 he
transmitted his reply to the resolutions of the previous
February, closing with a carefully prepared schedule of new
tariff rates. This, after being worked over in the Ways and
Means Committee, was embodied in a bill and introduced into
the House March 12, by Lowndes of South Carolina. Debate began
March 20, and continued till April 8, when the bill was
finally passed by a vote of 88 to 54. April 20 it passed the
Senate with some amendments, and April 27 received the
approval of Madison. … The features of Dallas' proposed tariff
were the enlarging of the ad valorem list from three groups at
12½, 15, and 20 per cent to eight groups at 7½, 15, 20, 22,
28, 30, and 33 1/3 per cent; the increase of specific duties
by about 42 per cent; and, most important of all, in the
article of coarse cottons, the insertion of a minimum, by
which, as far as the custom-house was concerned, no quality
was to be regarded as costing less than 25 cents per square
yard. Except in the case of coarse cottons the new rates on
articles which it was desired to protect fell slightly below
the double rates of the war. Three positions were brought out
in debate—two extremes, seeking the formulation of economic
reasons for and against the policy of protection, and a middle
party, composed mainly of men indifferent to manufacturing as
such, but accepting the establishment of manufactures as one
of the chief results of the war. … The two extremes, however,
were far from taking the positions assumed later by extreme
protectionism and extreme laissez-faire. … Only a few articles
occasioned any discussion, and these were items like sugar,
cottons, and woolens, which had been reduced in the Ways and
Means Committee from the rates proposed by Dallas. Dallas had
fixed the duty on cottons at 33 1/3 per cent, which was
reduced to 30 per cent in Lowndes' bill. Clay moved to restore
the original rate. … Later Webster proposed a sliding scale on
cottons, the rate to be 30 per cent for two years, then 25 per
cent for two more, and then 20 per cent. Clay moved to amend
by making the first period three years and the second one
year. … Lowndes assented to the motion. … Dallas proposed 28
per cent on woolens. The committee reduced this to 25 per
cent, and following the example set in the case of cottons,
Lowndes moved that after two years the rate be fixed at 20 per
cent. … After some debate the first period was made three
years, and Lowndes' amendment agreed to. The tariff of 1816
was a substantial victory for the manufacturers. … But … in
its working out the tariff of 1816 proved a bitter
disappointment to the manufacturing interest. The causes,
however, were widely varied. …
{3070}
Yet it would be easy to exaggerate the distresses of the
country. The years from 1816 to 1820 especially, were years of
depression and hard times, but the steady growth of the
country was hardly interrupted. In the main the tariff did not
fail of its legitimate object. For the most part the new
manufactures were conserved. … More and more there was a
growing impatience with the tariff of 1816, and a tendency to
lay the bad times upon its shoulders. … March 22, 1820,
Baldwin of Pennsylvania, chairman of the newly created
Committee on Manufactures, introduced a tariff bill embodying
the general demand of the protected interests. … The bill
passed the House by a vote of 90 to 69; it was defeated in the
Senate by one vote."
_O. L. Elliott,
The Tariff Controversy, 1789-1833
(Leland Stanford Junior University Monographs No.1),
pages 163-211._
"The revision of the Tariff, with a view to the protection of
home industry, and to the establishment of what was then
called, 'The American System,' was one of the large subjects
before Congress at the session of 1823-24, and was the regular
commencement of the heated debates on that question which
afterwards ripened into a serious difficulty between the
federal government and some of the southern States. … Revenue
the object, protection the incident, had been the rule in the
earlier tariffs: now that rule was sought to be reversed, and
to make protection the object of the law, and revenue the
incident. … Mr. Clay, the leader in the proposed revision, and
the champion of the American System, expressly placed the
proposed augmentation of duties on this ground. … Mr. Webster
was the leading speaker on the other side, and disputed the
universality of the distress which had been described;
claiming exemption from it in New England; denied the assumed
cause for it where it did exist, and attributed it to over
expansion and collapse of the paper system, as in Great
Britain, after the long suspension of the Bank of England;
denied the necessity for increased protection to manufactures,
and its inadequacy, if granted, to the relief of the country
where distress prevailed. … The bill was carried in the House,
after a protracted contest of ten weeks, by the lean majority
of five—107 to 102-only two members absent, and the voting so
zealous that several members were brought in upon their sick
couches. In the Senate the bill encountered a strenuous
resistance. … The bill … was carried by the small majority of
four votes—25 to 21. … An increased protection to the products
of several States, as lead in Missouri and Illinois, hemp in
Kentucky, iron in Pennsylvania, wool in Ohio and New York,
commanded many votes for the bill; and the impending
presidential election had its influence in its favor. Two of
the candidates, Messrs. Adams and Clay, were avowedly for it;
General Jackson, who voted for the bill, was for it, as
tending to give a home supply of the articles necessary in
time of war, and as raising revenue to pay the public debt."
_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapter 13._
ALSO IN
_A. B. Hart,
Formation of the Union,
sections 122 and 132 (chapters 11-12)._
_A. Walker,
Science of Wealth,
page 116._
_F. W. Taussig,
Tariff History of the United States,
pages 68-76._
_A. S. Bolles,
Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
book 3, chapter 3._
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1828.
The "Bill of Abominations."
New England changes front.
"In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in
many respects that it was called the 'bill of abominations.'
It originated in the agitation of the woollen manufacturers
which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr.
Webster spoke and voted. He changed his ground on this
important question absolutely and entirely, and made no
pretence of doing anything else. The speech which he made on
this occasion is a celebrated one, but it is so solely on
account of the startling change of position which it
announced. … A few lines from the speech give the marrow of
the whole matter. Mr. Webster said: 'New England, sir, has not
been a leader in this policy. … The opinion of New England up
to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it
was wisest and best, both for herself and others, that
manufactures should make haste slowly. … When, at the
commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, we were
told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of
taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus
afforded to our own manufacturing labor. Like arguments were
urged, and prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes,
when the tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the
war in 1816. Finally, after a winter's deliberation, the act
of 1824 received the sanction of both Houses of Congress and
settled the policy of the country. … What, then, was New
England to do? Was she to hold out forever against the course
of the government, and see herself losing on one side and yet
make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir.
Nothing was left to New England but to conform herself to the
will of others. Nothing was left to her but to consider that
the government had fixed and determined its own policy, and
that policy was protection.' … Opinion in New England changed
for good and sufficient business reasons, and Mr. Webster
changed with it. Free trade had commended itself to him as an
abstract principle, and he had sustained and defended it as in
the interest of commercial New England. But when the weight of
interest in New England shifted from free trade to protection
Mr. Webster followed, it."
_H. C. Lodge,
Daniel Webster,
chapter 6._
"There was force in Webster's assertion, in reply to Hayne,
that New England, after protesting against the tariff as long
as she could, had conformed to a policy forced upon the
country by others, and had embarked her capital in
manufacturing. October 23, 1826, the Boston woollen
manufacturers petitioned Congress for more protection. … This
appeal of the woollen manufacturers brought out new demands
from other quarters. Especially the wool-growers came forward.
… May 14, 1827, the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of
Manufactures and the Mechanic Arts called a convention of wool
growers and manufacturers. The convention met at Harrisburg,
July 30, 1827. It was found necessary to enlarge the scope of
the convention in order to make allies of interests which
would otherwise become hostile. The convention went on the
plan of favoring protection on everything which asked for it.
The result was that iron, steel, glass, wool, woollens, hemp,
and flax were recommended for protection. Louisiana was not
represented, and so sugar was left out.
{3071}
It was voted to discourage the importation of foreign spirits
and the distillation of spirits from foreign products, by way
of protection to Western whiskey. … When the 20th Congress
met, the tariff was the absorbing question. Popular interest
had become engaged in it, and parties were to form on it, but
it perplexed the politicians greatly. … The act which resulted
from the scramble of selfish special interests was an economic
monstrosity. … May 19, 1828, the bill became a law. The duty
on wool costing less than 10 cents per pound was 15 per cent.,
on other wool 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. That on woollens
was 40 per cent. for a year, then 45 per cent., there being
four minima, 50 cents, $1.00, $2.50, $4.00. All which cost
over $4.00 were to be taxed 45 per cent. for a year, then 50
per cent. … The process of rolling iron had not yet been
introduced into this country. It was argued that rolled iron
was not as good as forged, and this was made the ground for
raising the tax on rolled iron from $30.00 to $37.00 per ton,
while the tax on forged iron was raised from $18.00 to $22.40.
Rolled iron was cheaper and was available for a great number
of uses. The tax, in this case, 'countervailed' an improvement
in the arts, and robbed the American people of their share in
the advantage of a new industrial achievement. The tax on
steel was raised from $20.00 to $30.00 per ton; that on hemp
from $35.00 to $45.00 per ton; that on molasses from 5 cents
to 10 cents per gallon; that on flax from nothing to $35.00
per ton. The tax on sugar, salt, and glass remained unchanged,
and that on tea also, save by a differential tonnage duty.
Coffee was classified and the tax reduced. The tax on wine, by
a separate act, was reduced one half or more. This was the
'tariff of abominations,' so called on account of the number
of especially monstrous provisions which it contained."
_W. G. Sumner,
Andrew Jackson as a Public Man,
chapter 9._
"The tariff of 1828 … was the work of politicians and
manufacturers; and was commenced for the benefit of the
woollen interest, and upon a bill chiefly designed to favor
that branch of manufacturing industry. But, like all other
bills of the kind, it required help from other interests to
get itself along."
_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 1, chapters 34._
_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
chapter 12, section 2 (volume 3)._
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1832.
Clay's delusive act to diminish revenue.
President Jackson, in his message of December, 1831, "invited
attention to the fact that the public debt would be
extinguished before the expiration of his term, and that,
therefore, 'a modification of the tariff, which shall produce
a reduction of the revenue to the wants of the government,'
was very advisable. He added that, in justice to the interests
of the merchant as well as the manufacturer, the reduction
should be prospective, and that the duties should be adjusted
with a view 'to the counteraction of foreign policy, so far as
it may be injurious to our national interests.' This meant a
revenue tariff with incidental retaliation. He had thus
arrived at a sensible plan to avoid the accumulation of a
surplus. Clay took the matter in hand in the Senate, or rather
in Congress. … He recognized the necessity of reducing the
revenue, but he would reduce the revenue without reducing
protective duties. The 'American System' should not suffer. It
must, therefore, not be done in the manner proposed by
Jackson. He insisted upon confining the reduction to duties on
articles not coming into competition with American products. …
Instead of abolishing protective duties he would rather reduce
the revenue by making some of them prohibitory. … When
objection was made that this would be a defiance of the South,
of the President, and of the whole administration party, he
replied, as Adams reports, that 'to preserve, maintain and
strengthen the American System, he would defy the South, the
President and the devil.' He introduced a resolution in the
Senate, 'that the existing duties upon articles imported from
foreign countries, and not coming into competition with
similar articles made or produced within the United States,
ought to be forthwith abolished, except the duties upon wines
and silks, and that those ought to be reduced; and that the
Committee on Finance be instructed to report a bill
accordingly.'" After long debate Clay's" tariff resolution was
adopted, and in June, 1832, a bill substantially in accord
with it passed both houses, known as the tariff act of 1832.
It reduced or abolished the duties on many of the unprotected
articles, but left the protective system without material
change. As a reduction of the revenue it effected very little.
… The reduction proposed by Clay, according to his own
estimate, was not over seven millions; the reduction really
effected by the new tariff law scarcely exceeded three
millions. Clay had saved the American System at the expense of
the very object contemplated by the measure. It was extremely
short-sighted statesmanship. The surplus was as threatening as
ever, and the dissatisfaction in the South grew from day to
day."
_C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 13 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN
_H. Clay,
Life, Correspondence and Speeches
(Colton edition), volume 5, pages 416-428._
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1833.
The Southern opposition to protection.
Nullification in South Carolina.
The compromise tariff.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.
TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1833.
The Zollverein.
"The German Customs Union (Deutsche Zollverein) is an
association of states, having for its declared object to
secure freedom of trade and commerce between the contracting
states, and a common interest in the customs revenue. The
terms of the union are expressed in the treaty between Prussia
and the other states, dated 22d March, 1833, which may be
regarded as the basis of the association. The states now
[1844] forming the union are Prussia, Bavaria, Wurtemberg,
Saxony, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Baden, Nassau, the
Thuringian states, Frankfort, Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and
Luxemburg. The population of these, with the exception of the
three last mentioned states, was, in 1839, 26,858,886.
Including these three states, which have since joined the
union, the present population cannot be less than twenty-seven
millions and a half. The German powers which have not joined
the union are Austria, with twelve millions of German
subjects, and Hanover, Oldenburg, Holstein, the two
Mecklenburgs, and the Hanse Towns, whose united population is
about three millions more.
{3072}
The inhabitants of Germany are, therefore, divided in the
proportions of twenty-seven and a half within, to fifteen
without, the sphere of the Zollverein. The treaty provides in
the thirty-eighth article, for the admission of other German
states, and the thirty-ninth article for the making of
treaties with foreign states, but these latter are not
admissible into the union. … The declared principle of the
league—namely, the commercial and financial union of the
German states—is not only one to which no foreign power has
any right to object, but is excellent in itself; and is, in
fact, the establishment of free trade among the associated
states. … But it is not merely to its avowed principle that
the league owes its successful accomplishment. There are other
motives which have entered largely into the causes of its
existence. In the first place, it has given practical effect
to that vehement desire for national unity which so generally
pervades the German mind. … Then, it so happened that this
general desire for union fell in exactly with the policy of
Prussia—a power which has not failed to seize so favourable an
opportunity of extending her political influence, and
occupying a position which, though of nominal equality, has in
reality secured her predominance among the German states. To
these inducements we regret to be obliged to add
another—namely, the prevalent opinion in Germany that their
manufacturing industry ought to be protected against foreign
competition, and that the tariff of the Zollverein ought to be
used as an instrument for the exclusion of foreign
manufactures from the German market. … Although the Congress
of Vienna had established a new Germanic confederation,
(Deutsche Bund) and a federative diet charged with the
maintenance of peace at home and abroad, yet it was soon
perceived and felt that the kind of union obtained by means of
this confederation was more formal than real. … The late King
of Prussia was one of the first to perceive, that, in order to
unite Germany in reality, something more cogent than the
federative diet was indispensable. He found his own power
rather weakened than strengthened by the addition of the
Rhenish provinces, so long as they remained separated, not
only by distance, but by the customs-barriers of intervening
states, from his ancient territories. He accordingly effected,
in 1829, a convention with those states, by which he became
the farmer of their customs-revenues, and so removed the
barriers between Eastern and Western Prussia. Some years,
however, previous to this, the Prussian Government had deemed
it expedient to comply with the demands of the manufacturers
(especially those in the Rhenish provinces) for protection
against foreign goods, which, since the peace, had begun to
make their appearance; and on the 26th May, 1818, a new
Prussian Tariff had been issued, which was designed to afford
a moderate protection to the home industry, and which may be
regarded as the groundwork of the present Tariff of the
Zollverein. … But the proceedings of Prussia were considered
in a hostile light by the manufacturers of the South. They
formed a counteracting association in 1819 which numbered from
five to six thousand members, had its headquarters in
Nuremberg, and agents in all the principal towns, and
published a weekly newspaper devoted to the cause. They
addressed the Diet, the German courts, and the Congress at
Vienna in 1820, in favor of a general customs-union. They so
far succeeded that, in 1826, the small Thuringian States,
occupying the central portion of Germany, with one or two
others, formed themselves into a customs-union, under the name
of the Mittel-Verein; and within the two succeeding years a
more important union was accomplished, consisting of Bavaria
and Wurtemberg, with their small enclosed states; the Tariff
of which union is stated to have been as high, or very nearly
so, as that of Prussia. Thus Germany contained three separate
customs-associations, with separate Tariffs, and it became
obviously desirable to unite these conflicting interests.
Prussia made overtures to the other unions, but was for a long
time unsuccessful; they objecting principally to the high
scale of Prussian duties on colonial produce. At last,
however, all obstacles were removed, (principally, as Dr. List
states, through the exertions of Baron von Cotta, the eminent
publisher, and proprietor of the Allgemeine Zeitung,) and on
the 22d of March, 1833, the treaty was signed by which, for
the first time, Germany was knit together in anything like a
binding national confederation. Between that date and the
present, the league has been enlarged by the accession of
other states; but, as we have already mentioned, Hanover and
some other northern states have hitherto refused to join it.
Hanover formed a distinct union with three neighbouring
states, viz.: Brunswick, Lippe-Schaumburg, and Oldenburg,
which assumed the title of the North-western League; but the
two former having subsequently seceded from it and joined the
Zollverein, the North-western League has been reduced to
Hanover and Oldenburg only. The Hanse towns, Mecklenburg, and
Holstein, are not yet members of any customs-union. The
revenues of the Zollverein are divided among the contracting
states according to the population of each state
respectively."
_Edinburgh Review,
January, 1844
(volume 79, page 108)._
ALSO IN
_G. Krause,
The Growth of German Unity,
chapter 10._
_F. List.
National System of Political Economy,
book 4, chapter 4._
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1836-1839.
Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation.
"Cobden was in no sense the original projector of an organized
body for throwing off the burden of the corn duties. In 1836
an Anti-Corn-Law Association had been formed in London; its
principal members were the parliamentary radicals, Grote,
Molesworth, Joseph Hume, and Mr. Roebuck. But this group,
notwithstanding their acuteness, their logical penetration,
and the soundness of their ideas, were in that, as in so many
other matters, stricken with impotence. Their gifts of
reasoning were admirable, but they had no gifts for popular
organization. … It was not until a body of men in Manchester
were moved to take the matter in hand, that any serious
attempt was made to inform and arouse the country. The price
of wheat had risen to seventy-seven shillings in the August of
1838; there was every prospect of a wet harvesting; the
revenue was declining; deficit was becoming a familiar word;
pauperism was increasing; and the manufacturing population of
Lancashire were finding it impossible to support themselves,
because the landlords, and the legislation of a generation of
landlords before them, insisted on keeping the first necessity
of life at an artificially high rate. …
{3073}
In October, 1838, a band of seven men met at a hotel in
Manchester, and formed a new Anti-Corn Law Association. They
were speedily joined by others, including Cobden, who from
this moment began to take a prominent part in all counsel and
action. That critical moment had arrived, which comes in the
history of every successful movement, when a section arises
within the party, which refuses from that day forward either
to postpone or to compromise. The feeling among the older men
was to stop short in their demands at some modification of the
existing duty. … The more energetic members protested against
these faltering voices. … The meeting was adjourned, to the
great chagrin of the President, and when the members assembled
a week later, Cobden drew from his pocket a draft petition
which he and his allies had prepared in the interval, and
which after a discussion of many hours was adopted by an
almost unanimous vote. The preamble laid all the stress on the
alleged facts of foreign competition, in words which never
fail to be heard in times of bad trade. It recited how the
existing laws prevented the British manufacturer from
exchanging the produce of his labour for the corn of other
countries, and so enabled his foreign rivals to purchase their
food at one half of the price at which it was sold in the
English market; and finally the prayer of the petition called
for the repeal of all laws relating to the importation of
foreign corn and other foreign articles of subsistence, and
implored the House to carry out to the fullest extent, both as
affects manufactures and agriculture, the true and peaceful
principles of free-trade. In the following month, January,
1839, the Anti-Com-Law Association showed that it was in
earnest in the intention to agitate, by proceeding to raise a
subscription of an effective sum of money. Cobden threw out
one of those expressions which catch men's minds in moments
when they are already ripe for action. 'Let us,' he said,
'invest part of our property, in order to save the rest from
confiscation.' Within a month £6,000 had been raised, the
first instalment of many scores of thousands still to come. A
great banquet was given to some of the parliamentary
supporters of Free Trade; more money was subscribed,
convictions became clearer and purpose waxed more resolute. On
the day after the banquet, at a meeting of delegates from
other towns, Cobden brought forward a scheme for united action
among the various associations throughout the country. This
was the germ of what ultimately became the League."
_J. Morley,
Life of Richard Cobden,
chapter 6 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN
_W. Robertson,
Life and Times of John Bright,
chapters 8 and 11-14._
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1842.
Peel's modification of the Corn Laws.
His sliding-scale.
His Tariff reductions.
The first great step towards Free-Trade.
The Whig administration under Lord Melbourne gave way in
August, in 1841, to one formed by Sir Robert Peel. On the
opening of the session in February, 1842, "The Queen's Speech
recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws
affecting the importation of corn and other commodities. It
announced the beginning of a revolution which few persons in
England thought possible, although it was to be completed in
little more than ten years. On the 9th of February Peel moved
that the House should resolve itself into a Committee to
consider the Corn Laws. His speech, which lasted nearly three
hours, was necessarily dull, and his proposal was equally
offensive to the country gentlemen and to the Anti-Corn Law
League. It amounted merely to an improvement of the
sliding-scale which had been devised by the Duke of
Wellington's Cabinet [See above: A. D. 1815-1828], and was
based on the axiom that the British farmer, taking one year
with another, could not make a profit by growing corn if
foreign corn were admitted at a price of less than 70s. a
quarter. By a calculation of prices extending over a long term
of years, Peel had satisfied himself that a price of 56s. a
quarter would remunerate the British farmer. He proposed to
modify the sliding-scale accordingly. … Peel retained the
minimum duty of 1s. when corn was selling at 73s. the quarter;
he fixed a maximum duty of 20s. when corn was selling at from
50s. to 51s. the quarter, and he so altered the graduation in
the increase of duty as to diminish the inducement to hold
grain back when it became dear. … So general was the
dissatisfaction with Peel's Corn Law that Russell ventured
once more to place before the House his alternative of a fixed
8s. duty. He was defeated by a majority of upwards of 120
votes. Two days later Mr. Villiers made his annual motion for
the total repeal of the Corn Laws, and was beaten by more than
four votes to one. The murmurs of Peel's own supporters were
easily overborne, and the Bill was carried through the House
of Commons after a month spent in debates. As soon as it had
passed, and the estimates for the army and navy had been
voted, Peel produced what was really his Budget, nominally Mr.
Goulburn's. … In every one of the last five years there had
been a deficit. … Peel therefore resolved to impose an income
tax." He also raised the duty on Irish spirits and on exports
of coal, besides making some changes in the stamp duties.
"With these and with the income tax he calculated that he
would have a surplus of £1,900,000. Peel was thus able to
propose a reduction of the tariff upon uniform and
comprehensive principles. He proposed to limit import duties
to a maximum of 5 per cent. upon the value of raw materials,
of 12 per cent. upon the value of goods partly manufactured,
and of 20 per cent. upon the value of goods wholly
manufactured. Out of the 1,200 articles then comprised in the
tariff, 750 were more or less affected by the application of
these rules, yet so trivial was the revenue raised from most
of them that the total loss was computed at only £270,000 a
year. Peel reduced the duty on coffee; he reduced the duty on
foreign and almost entirely abolished the duty on Canadian
timber. Cattle and pigs, meat of all descriptions, cheese and
butter, which had hitherto been subject to a prohibitory duty,
he proposed to admit at a comparatively low rate. He also
diminished the duty upon stage coaches. So extensive a change
in our system of national finance had never before been
effected at one stroke. … Immense was the excitement caused by
the statement of the Budget. … Every part of Peel's scheme was
debated with the utmost energy. … He procured the ratification
of all his measures subject to some slight amendments, and at
the cost of a whole session spent in discussing them. Little
or nothing else was accomplished by Parliament in this year.
Peel had returned to power as the Champion of protection. His
first great achievement was the extension of the freedom of
trade."
_F. G. Montague,
Life of Sir Robert Peel,
chapter 8._
{3074}
"Notwithstanding the objections which free traders might
raise, the Budget of 1842 proved the first great advance in
the direction of free trade. It did not remove the shackles
under which trade was struggling, but it relaxed the
fastenings and lightened the load."
_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 18 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_S. Walpole,
Life of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 3, chapter 5._
_J. Morley,
Life of Richard Cobden,
volume 1, chapter 11._
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1842.
An Act to provide a necessary increase of revenue,
with incidental protection.
"There had been a lull in tariff legislation for ten years.
The free-trade party had been ascendant; and amendment of the
law, save in the slight ways mentioned, had been impossible.
During the decade, a financial tornado had swept over the
country; the United States bank had ceased to be; the
experiment of keeping the government deposits with the State
banks had been tried, and had failed; the government had kept
them several years without authority, but finally a bill had
been passed which authorized keeping them in that manner. The
time had now nearly come for reducing the duties [by the
gradual scaling down provided for in the Compromise tariff act
of 1833] to their lowest point. Manufactures were drying up at
the root. A material augmentation of the national revenue from
some source had become necessary. … Whatever difference of
opinion existed respecting the necessity of additional
protection to manufacturers, some expedient, it was
universally conceded, must be adopted to increase the public
revenue. As no one favored direct taxation, a revision of the
tariff was the only mode of enriching the treasury. … The
committee on manufactures did not report to the House until
the last of March, 1842. … The leading provisions of the bill
reported by the committee were the following:
1. A general ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, with few
exceptions, where the duty was on that principle.
2. A discrimination was made for the security of certain
interests requiring it by specific duties, in some instances
below, in others above, the rate of the general ad valorem
duty.
3. As a general principle, the duty on the articles subject to
discrimination was made at the rate at which it was in 1840,
after the deduction of four-tenths of the excess on 20 per
cent by the Act of 1833. …
The subject was discussed at great length by the House,
although the time was drawing near for making the last
reduction under the compromise law of [1833]. Something must
be done. Accordingly, Fillmore, chairman of the committee of
ways and means, reported a bill to extend the existing tariff
laws until the 1st day of August, 1842, which was immediately
passed by the House; but the Senate amended the bill by adding
a proviso that nothing therein contained should suspend the
operation of the Distribution law,—a law passed at the extra
session of the preceding year, distributing the proceeds of
the sales of the public lands among the States. … In the
debate on this bill the proviso became a prominent topic of
discussion. The distribution Act contained a proviso, that, if
at any time the duties under the compromise tariff should be
raised, the distribution should cease, and be suspended until
the cause of the suspension were removed. … Those who were in
favor of high protective duties desired the removal of the
proviso of the distribution Act in order that the tariff might
be raised without interfering with distribution. The House
having rejected an amendment proposing to strike out the
proviso which prohibited the suspension of the distribution
law, the bill was passed by the House, and afterward by the
Senate, but vetoed by the President. Another tariff bill was
introduced by Mr. Fillmore, drawn by the Secretary of the
Treasury,—to which, however, the committee added a proviso
that the … proceeds of the public lands should be distributed,
notwithstanding the increase of duties,—which passed both
Houses after a short debate. This contained a revision of a
considerable number of duties, and was also vetoed by the
President. Impelled by the necessity of providing additional
revenue, a bill was rapidly pushed through Congress, similar
to that previously passed, with the omission of the proviso
requiring distribution, and further modified by admitting free
of duty tea and coffee growing east of the Cape of Good Hope,
imported in American vessels. This bill was approved by the
President. A separate bill was then passed, repealing the
proviso of the distribution Act, and allowing the distribution
to take place, notwithstanding the increase of duties; but the
bill was retained by the President and defeated. Thus ended a
long and bitter controversy, in which public sentiment
expanded, and hardened against the chief Executive of the
nation. … That tariff remained without change during the next
four years."
_A. S. Bolles,
Financial History of the United States, 1789-1860,
book 3, chapter 6._
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1845-1846.
The Repeal of the Corn Laws.
Dissolution of the League.
"The Anti-Corn-Law agitation was one of those movements which,
being founded on right principles, and in harmony with the
interest of the masses, was sure to gather fresh strength by
any event affecting the supply of food. It was popular to
attempt to reverse a policy which aimed almost exclusively to
benefit one class of society. … The economic theorists had the
mass of the people with them. Their gatherings were becoming
more and more enthusiastic. And even amidst Conservative
landowners there were not a few enlightened and liberal minds
who had already, silently at least, espoused the new ideas. No
change certainly could be expected to be made so long as bread
was cheap and labour abundant. But when a deficient harvest
and a blight in the potato crop crippled the resources of the
people and raised grain to famine prices, the voice of the
League acquired greater power and influence. Hitherto they had
received hundreds of pounds. Now, thousands were sent in to
support the agitation. A quarter of a million was readily
contributed. Nor were the contributors Lancashire mill-owners
exclusively. Among them were merchants and bankers, men of
heart and men of mind, the poor labourer and the peer of the
realm. The fervid oratory of Bright, the demonstrative and
argumentative reasoning of Cobden, the more popular appeals of
Fox, Rawlins, and other platform speakers, filled the
newspaper press, and were eagerly read.
{3075}
And when Parliament dissolved in August 1845, even Sir Robert
Peel showed some slight symptoms of a conviction that the days
of the corn laws were numbered. Every day, in truth, brought
home to his mind a stronger need for action, and as the
ravages of the potato disease progressed, he saw that all
further resistance would be absolutely dangerous. A cabinet
council was held on October 31 of that year to consult as to
what was to be done, and at an adjourned meeting on November 5
Sir Robert Peel intimated his intention to issue an order in
council remitting the duty on grain in bond to one shilling,
and opening the ports for the admission of all species of
grain at a smaller rate of duty until a day to be named in the
order; to call Parliament together on the 27th inst., in order
to ask for an indemnity, and a sanction of the order by law;
and to submit to Parliament immediately after the recess a
modification of the existing law, including the admission at a
nominal duty of Indian corn and of British colonial corn. A
serious difference of opinion, however, was found to exist in
the cabinet on the question brought before them, the only
ministers supporting such measures being the Earl of Aberdeen,
Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert. Nor was it easy to
induce the other members to listen to reason. And though at a
subsequent meeting, held on November 28, Sir Robert Peel so
far secured a majority in his favour, it was evident that the
cabinet was too divided to justify him in bringing forward his
measures, and he decided upon resigning office. His resolution
to that effect having been communicated to the Queen, her
Majesty summoned Lord John Russell to form a cabinet, and, to
smooth his path, Sir Robert Peel, with characteristic
frankness, sent a memorandum to her Majesty embodying a
promise to give him his support. But Lord John Russell failed
in his efforts, and the Queen had no alternative but to recall
Sir Robert Peel, and give him full power to carry out his
measures. It was under such circumstances that Parliament was
called for January 22, 1846, and on January 27 the Government
plan was propounded before a crowded House. It was not an
immediate repeal of the corn laws that Sir Robert Peel
recommended. He proposed a temporary protection for three
years, till February 1, 1849, imposing a scale during that
time ranging from 4s. when the price of wheat should be 50s.
per quarter and upward, and 10s. when the price should be
under 48s. per quarter, providing, however, that after that
period all grain should be admitted at the uniform duty of 1s.
per quarter. The measure, as might have been expected, was
received in a very different manner by the political parties
in both Houses of Parliament. There was treason in the
Conservative camp, it was said, and keen and bitter was the
opposition offered to the chief of the party. For twelve
nights speaker after speaker indulged in personal
recriminations. They recalled to Sir Robert Peel's memory the
speeches he had made in defence of the corn laws. And as to
his assertion that he had changed his mind, they denied his
right to do so. … The passing of the measure was, however,
more than certain, and after a debate of twelve nights'
duration on Mr. Miles's amendment, the Government obtained a
majority of 97, 337 having voted for the motion and 240
against it. And from that evening the corn law may be said to
have expired. Not a day too soon, certainly, when we consider
the straitened resources of the country as regards the first
article of food, caused not only by the bad crop of grain, but
by the serious loss of the potato crop, especially in
Ireland."
_L. Levi,
History of British Commerce,
part 4, chapter 4._
"On the 2nd of July the League was 'conditionally dissolved,'
by the unanimous vote of a great meeting of the leaders at
Manchester. … Mr. Cobden here joyfully closed his seven years'
task, which he had prosecuted at the expense of health,
fortune, domestic comfort, and the sacrifice of his own tastes
in every way. … Mr. Cobden had sacrificed at least £20,000 in
the cause. The country now, at the call of the other chief
Leaguers, presented him with above £80,000—not only for the
purpose of acknowledging his sacrifices, but also to set him
free for life for the political service of his country."
_H. Martineau,
History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
book 6, chapter 15 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_W. C. Taylor,
Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 3, chapters 8-10._
_J. Morley,
Life of Richard Cobden,
volume 1, chapters 15-16._
_M. M. Trumbull,
The Free Trade Struggle in England._
_A. Bisset,
Notes on the Anti-Corn Law Struggle._
_Debate upon the Corn Laws in Session 1846._
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1846-1861.
Lowered duties and the disputed effects.
"In 1846 was passed what we will call the 'Walker tariff,'
from Robert J. Walker, then Secretary of the Treasury. It
reduced the duties on imports down to about the standard of
the 'Compromise' of 1833. It discriminated, however, as the
Compromise did not, between goods that could be produced at
home and those that could not. It approached, in short, more
nearly than any other, in its principles and details, to the
Hamilton tariff, although the general rate of duties was
higher. From that time up to 1857 there was a regular and
large increase in the amount of dutiable goods imported,
bringing in a larger revenue to the government. The surplus in
the treasury accumulated, and large sums were expended by the
government in buying up its own bonds at a high premium, for
the sake of emptying the treasury. Under these circumstances
the 'tariff of 1857' was passed, decidedly lowering the rates
of duties and largely increasing the free list. The financial
crisis of that year diminished the imports, and the revenue
fell off $22,000,000. It rallied, however, the next two years,
but owing to the large increase of the free list, not quite up
to the old point."
_A. L. Perry,
Elements of Political Economy,
page 464._
"The free-traders consider the tariff of 1846 to be a
conclusive proof of the beneficial effect of low duties. They
challenge a comparison of the years of its operation, between
1846 and 1857, with any other equal period in the history of
the country. Manufacturing, they say, was not forced by a
hot-house process to produce high-priced goods for popular
consumption, but was gradually encouraged and developed on a
healthful and self-sustaining basis, not to be shaken as a
reed in the wind by every change in the financial world.
Commerce, as they point out, made great advances, and our
carrying trade grew so rapidly that in ten years from the day
the tariff of 1846 was passed our tonnage exceeded the tonnage
of England. The free-traders refer with especial emphasis to
what they term the symmetrical development of all the great
interests of the country under this liberal tariff.
{3076}
Manufactures were not stimulated at the expense of the
commercial interest. Both were developed in harmony, while
agriculture, the indispensable basis of all, was never more
flourishing. The farmers and planters at no other period of
our history were in receipt of such good prices, steadily paid
to them in gold coin, for their surplus product, which they
could send to the domestic market over our own railways and to
the foreign market in our own ships. Assertions as to the
progress of manufactures in the period under discussion are
denied by the protectionists. While admitting the general
correctness of the free-trader's statements as to the
prosperous condition of the country, they call attention to
the fact that directly after the enactment of the tariff of
1846 the great famine occurred in Ireland, followed in the
ensuing years by short crops in Europe. The prosperity which
came to the American agriculturist was therefore from causes
beyond the sea and not at home,—causes which were transient,
indeed almost accidental. Moreover an exceptional condition of
affairs existed in the United States in consequence of our
large acquisition of territory from Mexico at the close of the
war and the subsequent and almost immediate discovery of gold
in California. A new and extended field of trade was thus
opened in which we had the monopoly, and an enormous surplus
of money was speedily created from the products of the rich
mines on the Pacific coast. At the same time Europe was in
convulsion from the revolutions of 1848, and production was
materially hindered over a large part of the Continent. This
disturbance had scarcely subsided when three leading nations
of Europe, England, France, and Russia, engaged in the
wasteful and expensive war of the Crimea. The struggle began
in 1853 and ended in 1856, and during those years it increased
consumption and decreased production abroad, and totally
closed the grain-fields of Russia from any competition with
the United States. The protectionists therefore hold that the
boasted prosperity of the country under the tariff of 1846 was
abnormal in origin and in character. … The protectionists
maintain that from 1846 to 1857 the United States would have
enjoyed prosperity under any form of tariff, but that the
moment the exceptional conditions in Europe and in America
came to an end, the country was plunged headlong into a
disaster [the financial crisis of 1857] from which the
conservative force of a protective tariff would in large part
have saved it. … The free-traders, as an answer to this
arraignment of their tariff policy, seek to charge
responsibility for the financial disasters to the hasty and
inconsiderate changes made in the tariff in 1857, for which
both parties were in large degree if not indeed equally
answerable."
_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 1, chapter 9._
TARIFF: (England): A. D. 1846-1879.
Total abandonment of Protection and Navigation Laws.
The perfected tariff of Free Trade.
"With the fall of the principle of the protection in corn may
be said to have practically fallen the principle of protection
in this country altogether. That principle was a little
complicated in regard to the sugar duties and to the
navigation laws. The sugar produced in the West Indian
colonies was allowed to enter this country at rates of duty
much lower than those imposed upon the sugar grown in foreign
lands. The abolition of slavery in our colonies had made
labour there somewhat costly and difficult to obtain
continuously, and the impression was that if the duties on
foreign sugar were reduced, it would tend to enable those
countries which still maintained the slave trade to compete at
great advantage with the sugar grown in our colonies by that
free labour to establish which England had but just paid so
large a pecuniary fine. Therefore, the question of Free Trade
became involved with that of free labour; at least, so it
seemed to the eyes of many a man who was not inclined to
support the protective principle in itself. When it was put to
him, whether he was willing to push the Free Trade principle
so far as to allow countries growing sugar by slave labour to
drive our free grown sugar out of the market, he was often
inclined to give way before this mode of putting the question,
and to imagine that there really was a collision between Free
Trade and free labour. Therefore a certain sentimental plea
came in to aid the Protectionists in regard to the sugar
duties. Many of the old anti-slavery party found themselves
deceived by this fallacy, and inclined to join the agitation
against the reduction of the duty on foreign sugar. On the
other hand, it was made tolerably clear that the labour was
not so scarce or so dear in the colonies as had been
represented, and that colonial sugar grown by free labour
really suffered from no inconvenience except the fact that it
was still manufactured on the most crude, old fashioned, and
uneconomical methods. Besides, the time had gone by when the
majority of the English people could be convinced that a
lesson on the beauty of freedom was to be conveyed to foreign
sugar-growers and slave-owners by the means of a tax upon the
products of their plantations. Therefore, after a long and
somewhat eager struggle, the principle of Free Trade was
allowed to prevail in regard to sugar. The duties on sugar
were made equal. The growth of the sugar plantations was
admitted on the same terms into this country, without any
reference either to the soil from which it had sprung or to
the conditions under which it was grown."
_J. McCarthy,
The Epoch of Reform,
chapter 12._
"The contest on the Navigation Laws [finally repealed in
1849-see NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849] was the last pitched
battle fought by the Protectionist party. Their resistance
grew fainter and fainter, and a few occasional skirmishes just
reminded the world that such a party still existed. Three
years afterwards their leaders came into power. In February,
1852, the Earl of Derby became Prime Minister, and Mr.
Disraeli Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House
of Commons. The Free-traders, alarmed at the possibility of
some at·tempt to reverse the policy of commercial freedom
which had been adopted, took the earliest opportunity of
questioning those Ministers in Parliament on the subject. The
discreet reply was that the Government did not intend to
propose any return to the policy of protection during the
present Session, nor at any future time, unless a great
majority of members favourable to that policy should be
returned to Parliament. But far from this proving to be the
case, the general election which immediately ensued reinstated
a Liberal Government, and the work of stripping off the few
rags of protection that still hung on went rapidly forward.
{3077}
On the 18th of April, 1853, Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of
the Exchequer, made his financial statement in an able and
luminous speech. Such was the admirable order in which he
marshalled his topics, and the transparent lucidity with which
he treated them, that although his address occupied five hours
in the delivery, and although it bristled with figures and
statistics, he never for a moment lost the attention or
fatigued the minds of his hearers. Mr. Gladstone's financial
scheme included, among other reforms, the reduction or total
remission of imposts on 133 articles. In this way, our tariff
underwent rapid simplification. Each subsequent year was
marked by a similar elimination of protective impediments to
free commercial intercourse with other countries. In 1860,
butter, cheese, &c., were admitted duty free; in 1869, the
small nominal duty that had been left on corn was abolished;
in 1874, sugar was relieved from the remnant of duty that had
survived from previous reductions. It would be superfluous, as
well as tedious, to enter upon a detailed reference to the
various minor reforms through which we advanced towards, and
finally reached, our present free-trade tariff. In fact, all
the great battles had been fought and won by the close of the
year 1849, and the struggle was then virtually over. … Is our
present tariff one from which every shred and vestige of
protection have been discarded? Is it truly and thoroughly a
free-trade tariff? That these questions must be answered in
the affirmative it is easy to prove in the most conclusive
manner. We raise about £20,000,000 of our annual revenue by
means of customs' duties on the foreign commodities which we
import, and this fact is sometimes adduced by the advocates
for protection, without any explanation, leaving their readers
to infer that ours is not, as it really is, a free-trade
tariff. That such an inference is totally erroneous will
presently be made manifest beyond all question. We now levy
import duties on only fifteen articles. Subjoined is a list of
them, and to each is appended the amount of duty levied on it
during the financial year ending 1st of April, 1879.
Not produced in England:
Tobacco, £8,589,681;
Tea, 4,169,233;
Wine, 1,469,710;
Dried Fruit, 509,234;
Coffee, 212,002;
Chicory, 66,739;
Chocolate and Cocoa, 44,671;
Total, £15,061,270.
Produced also in England:
Spirits, £5,336,058;
Plate (Silver and Gold). 5,853;
Beer, 3,814;
Vinegar, 671;
Playing Cards, 522;
Pickles. 17;
Malt. 6;
Spruce, 3;
Total, £5,346,944.
Total of both £20,408,214. It will be seen by the above
figures that £15,000,000, or three-fourths of the total sum
levied, is levied on articles which we do not and cannot
produce in England. It is clear, therefore, that this portion
of the import duties cannot by any possibility be said to
afford the slightest protection to native industry.' Every
shilling's worth which we consume of those articles comes from
abroad, and every shilling extra that the consumer pays for
them in consequence of the duty goes to the revenue. So much
for that portion of the £20,400,000 import duties. As to the
£5,336,000 levied on foreign spirits, it consists of import
duties which are only the exact counterpart of the excise
duties, levied internally on the produce of the British
distillers. The foreign article is placed on precisely the
same footing as the native article. Both have to pay the same
duty of about 10s. per gallon on spirits of the same strength.
It would of course be an absurd stultification to admit
foreign spirits duty-free while the English producer was
burdened with a tax of 10s. per gallon; but by making the
excise duty and the customs' duty precisely the same, equality
is established, and no protection or preference whatever is
enjoyed by the native distiller. The excise duty levied in the
aforesaid year ending April, 1879, on spirits the produce of
British distilleries, was no less than £14,855,000. The
trifling amounts raised on plate, beer, vinegar, &c., are
explained in the same way. They also act as a mere
counterpoise to the excise duties levied on the British
producers of the same articles, and thus afford to the latter
no protection whatever against foreign competition. It is
evident, therefore, that our tariff does not retain within it
one solitary shred of protection."
_A. Mongredien,
History of the Free Trade Movement in England,
chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_H. Hall,
History of the Customs Revenue of England._
_S. Dowell,
History of Taxation and Taxes in England._
TARIFF: (France): A. D. 1853-1860.
Moderation of Protective duties.
The Cobden-Chevalier Commercial Treaty.
After the fall of Napoleon and the restoration of the Bourbons
in France, the protective system was pushed to so great an
extreme that it became in some instances avowedly prohibitive.
"The first serious attempt to alter this very severe
restrictive system was reserved for the Second Empire. The
English reforms of Peel proved the possibility of removing
most of the barriers to commerce that legislation had set up,
and consequently Napoleon III. entered with moderation on the
work of revision. Between 1853 and 1855 the duties on coal,
iron, steel, and wool were lowered, as also those on cattle,
corn, and various raw materials, the requirements for
ship-building being allowed in free. The legislative body was,
however, with difficulty brought to consent to these measures.
A more extensive proposal—made in 1856—to remove all
prohibitions on imports, while retaining protective duties of
30% on woollen and 35% on cotton goods, had to be withdrawn,
in consequence of the strong opposition that it excited. The
interest of the consumers was in the popular opinion entirely
subordinate to that of the iron-masters, cotton-spinners, and
agriculturists—one of the many instances which shows that the
long continuance of high duties does not facilitate the
introduction of free competition. It was under such
discouraging circumstances that the famous Commercial Treaty
of 1860 with England was negotiated. This important measure
(the work of Chevalier and Cobden, but owing a good deal of
its success to the efforts of the Emperor and M. Rouher),
though only a finishing step in English tariff reform,
inaugurated a new era in France."
_C. F. Bastable,
The Commerce of Nations,
chapter 8._
"By the treaty of commerce of 1860, France engaged to abolish
all prohibitions, and to admit certain articles of British
produce and manufacture at duties not exceeding 30 per cent.
ad valorem, to be further reduced to duties not exceeding 25
per cent. from the 1st October, 1864. Britain, on the other
hand, bound herself to abolish the duties on French silks and
other manufactured goods, and to reduce the duties on French
wines and brandies.
{3078}
As regards coals, France engaged to reduce the import duty,
and both contracting parties engaged not to prohibit
exportation of coal, and to levy no duty upon such exports.
Whilst both contracting parties engaged to confer on the other
any favour, privilege, or reduction in the tariff of duties on
imports on the articles mentioned in the treaty which the said
power might concede to any third power; and also not to
enforce, one against another, any prohibition of importation
or exportation which should not at the same time be applicable
to all other nations. The sum and substance of the treaty was,
that France engaged to act more liberally for the future than
she had done for the past, and England made another step in
the way of liberalising her tariff, and placing all her
manufactures under the wholesome and invigorating influence of
free competition. Nor was the treaty allowed to remain limited
to France and England, for forthwith after its conclusion both
France and England entered into similar treaties with other
nations. And inasmuch as under existing treaties other nations
were bound to give to England as good treatment as they gave
to the most favoured nations, the restrictions theretofore in
existence in countries not originally parties to the French
treaty were everywhere greatly reduced, and thereby its
benefits extended rapidly over the greater part of Europe."
_L. Levi,
Statistical Results of the Recent Treaties of Commerce
(Journal of the Statistical Society,
volume 40, 1877), page 3._
TARIFF: (Germany): A. D. 1853-1892.
Progress towards Free Trade arrested by Prince Bismarck.
Protection measures of 1878-1887.
"Up to the revolutionary period of 1848-50, the policy of the
German Zollverein or Custom's Union was a pronounced
protectionism. The general liberalization, so to speak, of
political life in Western Europe through the events of the
years mentioned and the larger sympathy they engendered
between nations produced, however, a strong movement in
Germany and German-Austria in favor of greater freedom of
commercial exchange between these two countries. It resulted
in the conclusion, for the term of twelve years, of the treaty
of 1853 between the Zollverein and Austria, as the first of
the international compacts for the promotion of commercial
intercourse that formed so prominent a feature of European
history during the following twenty years. The treaty was a
first, but long step towards free exchange, providing, as it
did, for uniform duties on imports from other countries, for a
considerable free list and for largely reduced duties between
the contracting countries. It also contained stipulations for
its renewal on the basis of entire free trade. … A very
influential association was formed, with free trade as the
avowed ulterior object. Its leaders, who were also the
champions of political liberalism, represented intellects of
the highest order. They included the well-known economists
Prince Smith, Mittermaier, Rau, Faucher, Michaelis, Wirth,
Schulze and Braun. An 'Economic Congress' was held annually,
the proceedings of which attracted the greatest attention, and
exercised a growing influence upon the policy of the
governments composing the Zollverein. … The beneficial results
of the treaty of 1853 were so obvious and instantaneous that
the Zollverein and Austria would have no doubt sought to bring
about improved commercial relations with other nations by the
same means, but for the disturbance of the peace of Europe by
the Crimean war, and the conflict of 1859 between France,
Italy and Austria. The bitter feelings, caused by the latter
war against the two first named countries wherever the German
tongue was spoken, rendered the negotiation of commercial
treaties with them out of the question for a time. The great
achievement of Richard Cobden and Michel Chevalier, the famous
treaty of 1860 between Great Britain and France, changed this
reluctance at once into eagerness to secure the same
advantages that those two countries had insured to each other.
The enlightened and far-seeing despot occupying the throne of
France, being once won over to the cause of free exchange by
Cobden's ardor and persistence and clear and convincing
arguments, against the views of the majority of his ministers
and with probably 90 per cent. of his subjects strongly
opposed to the abandonment of protectionism, determined, with
the zeal of a new convert, to make the most of his new
departure. He was very willing, therefore, to meet the
advances of the Zollverein, so that in the spring of 1862,
after a whole year's negotiation, a formal treaty was
consummated between it and the French Empire. It was a very
broad measure. … It comprised a copyright and trade-mark
convention, provisions for liberal modifications of the
respective navigation laws and a commercial treaty proper. The
latter provided for the free admission of raw materials, for
the abolition of transit and export duties and for equalizing
import duties as nearly as possible, and also contained a
'most favored nation' clause. … In pursuance of the terms of
the treaty of 1853 with Austria, negotiations had been
commenced early in the sixties with reference to its renewal
upon the basis of the removal of all custom-barriers between
the two countries. Austria was naturally against the
conclusion of a treaty between the Zollverein and France with
herself left out, and opposed its consummation with all the
means at her command. … After long negotiations, accompanied
by much excitement in Germany, a compromise was reached in
1864, under which the Zollverein was renewed for twelve years,
that is till 1877, and the French treaty ratified on condition
that a new treaty should be made with Austria. This was done
in 1865, but the new convention did not provide for the
complete commercial union, contemplated under that of 1853. It
was only a compact between two independent nations, but on
more liberal lines than the old treaty, and certainly
constituting a yet nearer approach to free trade. … In other
directions the Zollverein lost no time in following the
example of Napoleon by entering successively in 1865 and 1866
into commercial treaties with Belgium, Italy, Great Britain
and Switzerland, which were simple conventions, by which the
contracting parties granted to each other the position of the
most favored nation, or formal tariff regulating treaties
after the model of that between the Zollverein and France.
These additional treaties were no more than the latter the
work of Bismarck. … The general upheaval in Germany arising
from the war between Prussia and Austria and her North and
South-German Allies, while temporarily delaying the farther
progress of tariff reform, subsequently accelerated its
forward march. …
{3079}
A special treaty for the reform of the constitution, so to
speak, of the Zollverein was concluded in July, 1867, between
the North-German Federation, the new political constellation
Prussia had formed out of all Germany north of the Main, after
destroying the old Diet, and Bavaria, Wuertemberg, Baden and
Hesse, under the provisions of which the tariff and revenue
policy of all Germany was to be managed by the
'Zollparlament,' consisting of an upper house, made up of
representatives of the governments, and of a lower house of
representatives of the people elected by universal suffrage on
a population basis. Thus tariff reform was actually the chain
that bound up, as it were, the material interests of all
Germans outside of Austria for the first time, as those of one
nation. Negotiations for a new commercial treaty with the dual
monarchy of Austria-Hungary—into which Austria had changed in
consequence of the events of 1866—commenced immediately after
the restoration of peace, and were brought to a satisfactory
conclusion in March, 1868. The treaty was to run nine years,
and provided for still lower duties than under the old treaty,
the principal reductions being on all agricultural products,
wines and iron. … The Franco-German war put an end to the
treaty of 1862 between France and the Zollverein. As a
substitute for the commercial part of it, article II of the
treaty of peace of 1871 provided simply that France and
Germany should be bound for an indefinite period to allow each
other the most favorable tariff rates either of them had
granted or might grant to Great Britain, Belgium, Holland,
Switzerland, Austria-Hungary and Russia. … A large majority of
the members of the first Reichstag [under the newly created
Empire] favored further legislation in the direction of free
trade, and the work of tariff reform was vigorously taken in
hand, as soon as the constitution and the essential organic
laws of the Empire had been framed. … In the session of 1873
the National Liberals brought in a motion asking the
Government to present measures for the abolition of all duties
on raw and manufactured iron, salt and other articles. The
Government responded very readily. … Prince Bismarck was no
less pronounced for a strict revenue tariff than any of the
other government speakers. Up to the end of 1875, there was
not the slightest indication of a change of views on his part
upon this general subject. … The climax of the free trade
movement in Germany can be said to have been reached about the
time last stated. But a few months later, suspicious signs of
a new inspiration on the part of the Prince became manifest.
Rumors of dissensions between him and Minister Delbrück began
to circulate, and gradually gained strength. In May, 1876, all
Germany was startled by the announcement that the latter and
his principal co-workers had resigned. Soon it was known that
their retirement was due to a disagreement with the Prince
over tariff reform matters. A crisis had evidently set in that
was a great puzzle at first to everybody. Gradually it became
clear that the cause of it was really a sudden abandonment of
the past policy by the Prince. The new course, upon which the
mighty helmsman was starting the ship of state, was signalized
in various ways, but the full extent of his change of front
was disclosed only in a communication addressed by him to the
Federal Council, under date of December 15, 1878. It was a
most extraordinary document. It condemned boldly all that had
been done by the government under his own eyes and with his
full consent in relation to tariff reform ever since the
Franco-German treaty of 1862. … As the principal reason for
the new departure, he assigned the necessity of reforming the
public finances in order to increase the revenues of the
Government. The will of the Chancellor had become the law for
the federal council, and, accordingly, the tariff-committee
began the work of devising a general protective tariff in hot
haste. It was submitted to the Reichstag by the Prince in May,
1879. … Thus Germany was started on the downward plain of
protectionism, on which it continued for twelve years. Beyond
all question, the Chancellor was solely responsible for it. …
The tariff bill of 1879 met with vigorous opposition under the
lead of ex-Minister Delbrück, but was passed by the large
majority of 217 to 117 —showing the readiness with which the
'bon plaisir' of the master had made converts to his new
faith. It was a sweeping measure, establishing large duties on
cereals, iron, lumber and petroleum, increasing existing
duties on textile goods, coffee, wines, rice, tea, and a great
number of other minor articles and also on cattle. The
protectionist current came to a temporary stop from 1880-1883,
inasmuch as in the new Reichstag, elected in 1881, the
protection and anti-protection parties were so evenly balanced
that the Government failed to carry its proposals for still
higher duties. The elections of 1884, in which the Government
brought every influence to bear against the opposition,
resulted, however, in the return of a protectionist majority.
Accordingly, there followed in 1885 a new screwing up of
duties, tripling those on grain, doubling those on lumber, and
raising most others. In 1887 the duties on grain were even
again increased. But now the insatiateness of protection and
especially the duties put on the necessaries of life produced
a strong reaction, as evidenced by the largely increased
membership of the opposition parties in the present Reichstag.
… The Imperial Government, shortly after the retirement of
Prince Bismarck had untied its hands, entered upon
negotiations with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Switzerland and
Belgium, which resulted in … reciprocity treaties."
_H. Villard,
German Tariff Policy
(Yale Review, May, 1892)._
ALSO IN:
_W. H. Dawson,
Bismarck and State Socialism._
TARIFF: (United States and Canada): A. D. 1854-1866.
The Reciprocity Treaty.
The Treaty commonly known in America as the Canadian
Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, between the governments of Great
Britain and the United States, was concluded on the 5th of
June, 1854, and ratifications were exchanged on the 9th of
September following. The negotiators were the Earl of Elgin
and Kincardine, on the part of the British Government, and
William L. Marcy, Secretary of State of the United States,
acting for the latter.
{3080}
By the first article of the treaty it was agreed that, "in
addition to the liberty secured to the United States fishermen
by the … convention of October 20, 1818, of taking, curing,
and drying fish on certain coasts of the British North
American Colonies therein defined, the inhabitants of the
United States shall have, in common with the subjects of Her
Britannic Majesty, the liberty to take fish of every kind,
except shell-fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the
bays, harbors, and creeks of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and of the several islands
thereunto adjacent, without being restricted to any distance
from the shore, with permission to land upon the coasts and
shores of those colonies and the islands thereof, and also
upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
said coast in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
all fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are hereby
reserved exclusively for British fishermen." The same article
provided for the appointment of commissioners and an
arbitrator or umpire to settle any disputes that might arise
"as to the places to which the reservation of exclusive right
to British fishermen contained in this article, and that of
fishermen of the United States contained in the next
succeeding article, apply." By the second article of the
treaty British subjects received privileges on the eastern
sea-coasts and shores of the United States north of the 36th
parallel of north latitude, identical with those given by the
first article to citizens of the United States on the coasts
and shores mentioned above. Article 3 was as follows: "It is
agreed that the articles enumerated in the schedule hereunto
annexed, being the growth and produce of the aforesaid British
colonies or of the United States, shall be admitted into each
country respectively free of duty: Schedule: Grain, flour, and
breadstuffs, of all kinds. Animals of all kinds. Fresh,
smoked, and salted meats. Cotton-wool, seeds, and vegetables.
Undried fruits, dried fruits. Fish of all kinds. Products of
fish, and of all other creatures living in the water. Poultry,
eggs. Hides, furs, skins, or tails, undressed. Stone or
marble, in its crude or unwrought state. Slate. Butter,
cheese, tallow. Lard, horns, manures. Ores of metals, of all
kinds. Coal. Pitch, tar, turpentine, ashes. Timber and lumber
of all kinds, round, hewed, and sawed, unmanufactured in whole
or in part. Firewood. Plants, shrubs, and trees. Pelts, wool.
Fish-oil. Rice, broom-corn, and bark. Gypsum, ground or
unground. Hewn, or wrought, or unwrought burr or grindstones.
Dye-stuffs. Flax, hemp, and tow, unmanufactured.
Unmanufactured tobacco. Rags." Article 4 secured to the
citizens and inhabitants of the United States the right to
navigate the River St. Lawrence and the canals in Canada
between the ocean and the great lakes, subject to the same
tolls and charges that might be exacted from Her Majesty's
subjects, but the British Government retained the right to
suspend this privilege, on due notice given, in which case the
Government of the United States might suspend the operations
of Article 3. Reciprocally, British subjects were given the
right to navigate Lake Michigan, and the Government of the
United States engaged itself to urge the State governments to
open the several State canals to British subjects on terms of
equality. It was further agreed that no export or other duty
should be levied on lumber or timber floated down the river
St. John to the sea, "when the same is shipped to the United
States from the province of New Brunswick." Article 5 provided
that the treaty should take effect whenever the necessary laws
were passed by the Imperial Parliament, the Provincial
Parliaments, and the Congress of the United States, and that
it should "remain in force for ten years from the date at
which it may come into operation, and further until the
expiration of twelve months after either of the high
contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish
to terminate the same." Article 6 extended the provisions of
the treaty to the island of Newfoundland, so far as
applicable, provided the Imperial Parliament, the Parliament
of Newfoundland and the Congress of the United States should
embrace the island in their laws for carrying the treaty into
effect; but not otherwise.
_Treaties and Conventions between the
United States and other Powers,
edition of 1889, pages 448-452._
The Treaty was abrogated in 1866, the United States having
given the required notice in 1865.
_F. E. Haynes,
The Reciprocity Treaty with Canada of 1854
(American Economic Association Publications,
volume 7, number 6)._
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1861-1864.
The Morrill Tariff and the War Tariffs.
"In 1861 the Morrill tariff act began a change toward a higher
range of duties and a stronger application of protection. The
Morrill act is often spoken of as if it were the basis of the
present protective system. But this is by no means the case.
The tariff act of 1861 was passed by the House of
Representatives in the session of 1859-60, the session
preceding the election of President Lincoln. It was passed,
undoubtedly, with the intention of attracting to the
Republican party, at the approaching Presidential election,
votes in Pennsylvania and other States that had protectionist
leanings. In the Senate the tariff bill was not taken up in
the same session in which it was passed in the House. Its
consideration was postponed, and it was not until the next
session—that of 1860-61—that it received the assent of the
Senate and became law. It is clear that the Morrill tariff was
carried in the House before any serious expectation of war was
entertained; and it was accepted by the Senate in the session
of 1861 without material change. It therefore forms no part of
the financial legislation of the war, which gave rise in time
to a series of measures that entirely superseded the Morrill
tariff. Indeed, Mr. Morrill and the other supporters of the
act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to
restore the rates of 1846. The important change which they
proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was
to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. … The specific
duties … established were in many cases considerably above the
ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes
made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron
and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican
party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States. Most of the
manufacturing States at this time still stood aloof from the
movement toward higher rates. … Mr. Rice, of Massachusetts,
said in 1860: 'The manufacturer asks no additional protection.
He has learned, among other things, that the greatest evil,
next to a ruinous competition from foreign sources, is an
excessive protection, which stimulates a like ruinous and
irresponsible competition at home'.
_Congressional Globe, 1859-60, page 1867._
{3081}
Mr. Sherman said: … 'The manufacturers have asked over and
over again to be let alone. The tariff of 1857 is the
manufacturers' bill; but the present bill is more beneficial
to the agricultural interest than the tariff of 1857.'
_Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 2053._
_C. F. Hunter's speech,
Congressional Globe, 1859-60, p. 3010._
In later years Mr. Morrill himself said that the tariff of
1861 'was not asked for, and but coldly welcomed, by
manufacturers, who always and justly fear instability.' …
Congressional Globe, 1869-70, p. 3295.
Hardly had the Morrill tariff been passed when Fort Sumter was
fired on. The Civil War began. The need of additional revenue
for carrying on the great struggle was immediately felt; and
as early as the extra session of the summer of 1861,
additional customs duties were imposed. In the next regular
session, in December, 1861, a still further increase of duties
was made. From that time till 1865 no session, indeed hardly a
month of any session, passed in which some increase of duties
on imports was not made. … The great acts, of 1862 and 1864
are typical of the whole course of the war measures; and the
latter is of particular importance, because it became the
foundation of the existing tariff system. … The three revenue
acts of June 30, 1864, practically form one measure, and that
probably the greatest measure of taxation which the world has
seen. The first of the acts provided for an enormous extension
of the internal-tax system; the second for a corresponding
increase of the duties on imports; the third authorized a loan
of $400,000,000. … Like the tariff act of 1862, that of 1864
was introduced, explained, amended, and passed under the
management of Mr. Morrill, who was chairman of the Committee
on Ways and Means. That gentleman again stated, as he had done
in 1862, that the passage of the tariff act was rendered
necessary in order to put domestic producers in the same
situation, so far as foreign competition was concerned, as if
the internal taxes had not been raised. This was one great
object of the new tariff. … But it explains only in part the
measure which in fact was proposed and passed. The tariff of
1864 was a characteristic result of that veritable furor of
taxation which had become fixed in the minds of the men who
were then managing the national finances. Mr. Morrill, and
those who with him made our revenue laws, seem to have had but
one principle: to tax every possible article indiscriminately,
and to tax it at the highest rates that anyone had the courage
to suggest. They carried this method out to its fullest extent
in the tariff act of 1864, as well as in the tax act of that
year. At the same time these statesmen were protectionists. …
Every domestic producer who came before Congress got what he
wanted in the way of duties. Protection ran riot; and this,
moreover, not merely for the time being. The whole tone of the
public mind toward the question of import duties became
distorted. … The average rate on dutiable commodities, which
had been 37.2 per cent. under the act of 1862, became 47.06
per cent. under that of 1864. … In regard to the duties as
they stood before 1883, it is literally true, in regard to
almost all protected articles, that the tariff act of 1864
remained in force for twenty years without reductions."
_F. W. Taussig,
Tariff History of the United States,
pages 158-169, with foot-note._
Under the Morrill Tariff, which went into effect April 1,
1861, the imposts which had averaged about 19 per cent. on
dutiable articles were raised to 36 per cent.
_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 1, page 400._
TARIFF: (Australia): A. D. 1862-1892.
Contrasted policy of Victoria and New South Wales.
Both New South Wales and Victoria "are young countries, and
are inhabited by men of the same race, speech, and training:
capital and labour oscillate freely between them: both use
substantially the same methods and forms of government: while
against the larger territory of New South Wales may be set the
superior climate and easier development of its southern
neighbour. Whatever may be the balance of the natural
advantages, whether of climate or population, is on the side
of Victoria, whose compact, fertile, and well watered
territory gained for it, on its first discovery, the
well-deserved title of Australia Felix. The striking and
ultimate point of difference between the two countries is
their fiscal policy. Since 1866 Victoria has lived under a
system of gradually increasing Protection, while the policy of
New South Wales has been, in the main, one of Free Trade.
According to all Protectionist theory Victoria should be
prosperous and New South Wales distressed; there should be
variety and growth in the one country, stagnation in the
other. At least the progress of Victoria ought to have been
more rapid than that of New South Wales, because she has added
to the natural advantages which she already enjoyed, the
artificial benefits which are claimed for a Protective tariff.
If, in fact, neither of these conclusions is correct, and,
while both countries have been phenomenally prosperous, New
South Wales has prospered the most, one of two conclusions is
inevitable—namely, either that certain special influences have
caused the more rapid progress of New South Wales which were
not felt in Victoria, or that Protection has retarded instead
of assisted the development of Victoria's natural superiority.
Writers of all schools admit that activity in certain
departments of national life is a fair indication of
prosperity and progress. It is, for instance, generally
allowed that an increase in population, a development of
agricultural and manufacturing industry, a growth of foreign
commerce, an increase in shipping, or an improvement in the
public revenue, are all signs of health and well-being; and
that a concurrence of such symptoms over a lengthened period
indicates an increase in material wealth. Accepting these
tests of progress, our comparison proceeds thus: first, we
examine the position of the two Colonies as regards
population, foreign commerce, shipping, agriculture,
manufactures, and revenue, at the time when both of them
adhered to Free Trade; from which we find that, according to
all these indications of prosperity, Victoria was then very
much the better off: In 1866 she outnumbered New South Wales
in population by 200,000 souls: her foreign commerce was
larger by £8,300,000: she had a greater area of land under
cultivation: her manufactures were well established, while
those of New South Wales were few and insignificant: she was
ahead in shipping, and her revenue was greater by one-third.
Passing next to the years which follow 1866, we observe that
New South Wales gradually bettered her position in every
province of national activity, and that, as the fetters of
Protection became tighter, Victoria receded in the race.
{3082}
She gave way first in the department of foreign commerce, next
in population, shipping, and revenue, until, in 1887, she
maintained her old superiority in agriculture alone. From this
accumulation of facts—and not from any one of them we infer
that the rate of progress in New South Wales under Free Trade
has been greater than that of Victoria under Protection."
_B. R. Wise,
Industrial Freedom,
appendix 3._
TARIFF: (Europe): A. D. 1871-1892.
Protectionist reaction on the Continent.
High Tariff in France.
"The Franco-German War (1870-1) and the overthrow of Napoleon
III. at once arrested the free-trade policy, which had little
support in the national mind, and was hardly understood
outside the small circle of French economists. The need of
fresh revenue was imperative, and M. Thiers, the most
prominent of French statesmen, was notoriously protectionist
in his leanings. Pure revenue duties on colonial and Eastern
commodities were first tried; the sugar duty was increased
30%; that on coffee was trebled; tea, cocoa, wines and
spirits, were all subjected to greatly increased charges. As
the yield thus obtained did not suffice, proposals for the
taxation of raw materials were brought forward but rejected by
the legislature in 1871, when M. Thiers tendered his
resignation. To avoid this result the measure was passed, not
however to come into operation until compensating productive
duties had been placed on imported manufactures. The existing
commercial treaties were a further obstacle to changes in
policy, and accordingly negotiations were opened with England
and Belgium, in order that the new duties might be applied to
their products. As was justifiable under the circumstances,
the former country required that if imported raw products were
to be taxed, the like articles produced in France should pay
an equivalent tax, and therefore, as the shortest way of
escape, the French Government gave notice for the termination
of the treaties (in the technical language of international
law 'denounced' them), and new conventions were agreed on; but
as this arrangement was just as unsatisfactory in the opinion
of the French Chambers, the old treaties were in 1873 restored
to force until 1877, and thus the larger part of the raw
materials escaped the new taxation. The protectionist tendency
was, too, manifested in the departure from the open system
introduced in 1866 in respect to shipping. A law of 1872
imposed differential duties on goods imported in foreign
vessels. … The advance of the sentiment in favour of a return
to the restrictive system was even more decidedly indicated in
1881. Bounties were then granted for the encouragement of
French shipping, and extra taxes imposed on indirect imports
of non-European and some European goods. In 1889 the carrying
trade between France and Algiers was reserved for native
ships. The revision of the general tariff was a more serious
task, undertaken with a view to influencing the new treaties
that the termination of the old engagements made necessary.
The tariff of 1881 (to come into force in 1882) made several
increases and substituted many specific for ad valorem duties.
Raw materials escaped taxation; half-manufactured articles
were placed under moderate duties. The nominal corn duties
were diminished by a fraction, but the duties on live stock
and fresh meat were considerably increased. … A new
'conventional tariff' speedily followed in a series of fresh
treaties with European countries. … The duties on whole or
partially-manufactured goods remained substantially unchanged
by the new treaties, which do not, in fact, vary so much from
the general tariff as was previously the case. The number of
articles included in the conventions had been reduced, and all
countries outside Europe came under the general code. The
reaction against the liberal policy of 1860 was thus as yet
very slight, and did not seriously affect manufactures. The
agricultural depression was the primary cause of the
legislation of 1885, which placed a duty of 3 francs per
quintal on wheat, 7 francs on flour, 2 francs on rye and
barley, and one franc on oats, with additional duties on
indirect importation. Cattle, sheep, and pigs came under
increases of from 50% to 100%. … Not satisfied with their
partial success, the advocates of high duties have made
further efforts. Maize, hitherto free, as being chiefly used
by farmers for feeding purposes, is now liable to duty, and
the tariff proposed in the present year (1891) raises the
rates on most articles from an average of 10% to 15% to one of
30% and 40%. … Germany did not quite as speedily come under
the influence of the economic reaction as France. … Italian
commercial policy also altered for the worse. From the
formation of the kingdom till 1875, as the various commercial
treaties and the general tariff of 1861 show, it was liberal
and tending towards freedom. About the latter date the forces
that we have indicated above as operating generally throughout
Europe, commenced to affect Italy. The public expenditure had
largely increased, and additional revenue was urgently
required. Agriculture was so depressed that, though the
country is pre-eminently agricultural, alarm was excited by
the supposed danger of foreign competition. The result was
that on the general revision of duties in 1877 much higher
rates were imposed on the principal imports. … Depression both
in agriculture and elaborative industries continued and
strengthened the protectionist party, who succeeded in
securing the abandonment of all the commercial treaties, and
the enactment of a new tariff in 1887. … The first effect of
the new system of high taxation with no conventional
privileges was to lead to a war of tariffs between France and
Italy. … Austria may be added to the list of countries in
which the protectionist reaction has been effectively shown. …
In Russia the revival (or perhaps it would be more correct to
say continued existence), of protection is decisively marked.
… Spain and Portugal had long been strongholds of
protectionist ideas. … Holland and Belgium have as yet [1891]
adhered to the system of moderate duties."
_C. F. Bastable,
The Commerce of Nations,
chapter 9._
A new tariff system was elaborated by the French Chambers,
with infinite labor and discussion, during the year 1891, and
adopted early in the following year, being known as the "Loi
du 11 .Janvier, 1892." This tariff makes a great advance in
duties on most imports, with a concession of lower rates to
nations according reciprocal favors to French productions. Raw
materials in general are admitted free of duties. The
commercial treaties of France are undergoing modification.
{3083}
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1883.
Revision of the Tariff.
In 1882, "Congress appointed a Tariff Commission 'to take into
consideration, and to thoroughly investigate, all the various
questions relating to the agricultural, commercial,
mercantile, manufacturing, mining, and industrial interests of
the United States, so far as the same may be necessary to the
establishment of a judicious tariff, or a revision of the
existing tariff upon a scale of justice to all interests.'
Several things it was expected would be accomplished by
revising the tariff, and the measure received the assent of
nearly all the members of Congress. The free-traders expected
to get lower duties, the protectionists expected to concede
them in some cases, and in others to get such modifications as
would remove existing ambiguities and strengthen themselves
against foreign competition. The protective force of the
existing tariff had been weakened in several important
manufactures by rulings of the treasury department. … The
composition of the commission was as satisfactory to the
manufacturing class as displeasing to free-traders. … Early in
their deliberations, the commission became convinced that a
substantial reduction of the tariff duties was demanded, not
by a mere indiscriminate popular clamor, but by the best
conservative opinion of the country, including that which had
in former times been most strenuous for the preservation of
the national industrial defences. Such a reduction of the
existing tariff the commission regarded not only as a due
recognition of public sentiment, and a measure of justice to
consumers, but one conducive to the general industrial
prosperity, and which, though it might be temporarily
inconvenient, would be ultimately beneficial to the special
interests affected by such reduction. No rates of defensive
duties, except for establishing new industries, which more
than equalized the conditions of labor and capital with those
of foreign competitors, could be justified. Excessive duties,
or those above such standard of equalization, were positively
injurious to the interest which they were supposed to benefit.
They encouraged the investment of capital in manufacturing
enterprise by rash and unskilled speculators, to be followed
by disaster to the adventurers and their employees, and a
plethora of commodities which deranged the operations of
skilled and prudent enterprise. … 'It would seem that the
rates of duties under the existing tariff—fixed, for the most
part, during the war under the evident necessity at that time
of stimulating to its utmost extent all domestic
production—might be adapted, through reduction, to the present
condition of peace requiring no such extraordinary stimulus.
And in the mechanical and manufacturing industries, especially
those which have been long established, it would seem that the
improvements in machinery and processes made within the last
twenty years, and the high scale of productiveness which had
become a characteristic of their establishments, would permit
our manufacturers to compete with their foreign rivals under a
substantial reduction of existing duties.' Entertaining these
views, the commission sought to present a scheme of tariff
duties in which substantial reduction was the distinguishing
feature. … The attempt to modify the tariff brought into bold
relief the numerous conflicting interests, and the difficulty
and delicacy of the undertaking. As our industries become more
heterogeneous, the tariff also grows more complex, and the
difficulty of doing justice to all is increased. For example,
the wool manufacturers to succeed best must have free wool and
dye-stuffs; on the other hand, both these interests desired
protection. The manufacturers of the higher forms of iron must
have free materials to succeed best; on the other hand, the
ore producers, the pig-iron manufacturers, and every
succeeding class desired a tariff on their products. It was
not easy for these interests to agree, and some of them did
not. The iron-ore producers desired a tariff of 85 cents a ton
on ore; the steel-rail makers were opposed to the granting of
more than 50; the manufacturers of fence wire were opposed to
an increase of duty on wire rods used for making wire, and
favored a reduction; the manufacturers of rods in this country
were desirous of getting an increase; the manufacturers of
floor oil-cloths desired a reduction or abolition of the duty
on the articles used by them; the soap manufacturers desired
the putting of caustic soda on the free list, which the
American manufacturers of it opposed; some of the woolen
manufacturers were desirous that protection should be granted
to the manufacturers of dye-stuffs, and some were not; the
manufacturers of tanned foreign goat and sheep skins desired
the removal of the tariff on such skins; those who tanned
them, and who were much less numerous, were equally tenacious
in maintaining the tariff on the raw skins, and the same
conflict arose between other interests. The method of
determining how much protection their several interests
needed, and of adjusting differences between them, has always
been of the crudest kind. … Although not all of the
recommendations of the commission were adopted, most of them
were. Those which pertained to the simplification of the law
were adopted with only slight changes. The bill reported by
the commission contained, not including the free list, 631
articles and classifications. … Less than 25 articles, mainly
in the cotton, woolen goods, and the iron and steel schedules,
were matters of contention. The rates on 409 of the 631
articles mentioned in the tariff recommended by the commission
were adopted, and between 50 and 60 more articles have
substantially the same rates, though levied under different
clauses. Of the 170 changes, 98 were fixed at lower rates than
those proposed by the commission, 46 at higher, and 26 have
been classed as doubtful."
_A. S. Bolles,
Financial History of the United States, 1861-1885,
book 2, chapter 7._
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1884-1888.
Attempts at Tariff Reform.
The Morrison Bills and the Hewett Bill.
President Cleveland's Message.
The Mills Bill and its defeat.
The slight concessions made in the protectionist
tariff-revision of 1883 did not at all satisfy the opinion in
the country demanding greater industrial freedom, and the
question of tariff-reform became more important than before in
American politics. The Democratic Party, identified by all its
early traditions, with the opposition to a policy of
"protection," won the election of 1884, placing Mr. Cleveland
in the Presidency and gaining control of the House of
Representatives in the 49th Congress. But it had drifted from
its old anchorage on the tariff question, and was slow in
pulling back. A large minority in the party had accepted and
become supporters of the doctrine which was hateful to their
fathers as an economic heresy.
{3084}
The majority of the Democrats in the House, however, made
strenuous efforts to accomplish something in the way of
reducing duties most complained of. Their first undertaking
was led by Mr. Morrison of Illinois, who introduced a bill
which "proposed an average reduction of 20 per cent., but with
so many exceptions that it was estimated the average reduction
on dutiable articles would be about 17 per cent. The rates
under the Morrill Act of 1861 were to form the minimum limit.
An extensive addition to the free list was proposed, including
the following articles: ores of iron, copper, lead, and
nickel, coal, lumber, wood, hay, bristles, lime, sponges,
indigo, coal tar and dyewoods." In the Committee of Ways and
Means the bill underwent considerable changes, the articles in
the free list being reduced to salt, coal, lumber and wood. It
was reported to the House March 11, and remained under debate
until May 6, when it was killed by a motion to strike out the
enacting clause, on which 118 Republicans and 41 Democrats
voted aye, against 4 Republicans and 151 Democrats voting nay.
The 4 Republicans supporting the bill were all from Minnesota;
of the 41 Democrats opposing it 12 were from Pennsylvania, 10
from Ohio, 6 from New York, 4 from California and 3 from New
Jersey. "The Morrison 'horizontal bill' having been thus
killed, Mr. Hewett, a New York Democrat, and a member of the
Ways and Means Committee, on May 12 introduced a new tariff
bill, providing for a reduction of 10 to 20 per cent. on a
considerable number of articles and placing several others on
the free list." The bill was reported favorably to the House,
but action upon it was not reached before the adjournment.
During the same session, a bill to restore the duties of 1867
on raw wool was defeated in the House; an amendment to the
shipping bill, permitting a free importation of iron and steel
steamships for employment in the foreign trade, passed the
House and was, defeated in the Senate; and a bill reducing the
duty on works of art from 20 to 10 per cent. was defeated in
the House. In the next Congress, the Forty-ninth, Mr. Morrison
led a new undertaking to diminish the protective duties which
were producing an enormous surplus of revenue. The bill which
he introduced (February 15, 1886) received radical changes in
the Ways and Means Committee, "inasmuch as it was clearly seen
that the opposition from the metal and coal interests was
sufficiently strong to destroy all chance of consideration in
the House. Accordingly, it was found preferable to make the
duties on wool and woolens the special point for assault." But
the bill modified on this new line,—lowering duties on woolens
to 35 per cent. ad valorem, and placing wool in the free list,
with lumber, wood, fish, salt, flax, hemp and jute,—was
refused consideration by a vote of 157 to 140 in the House, on
the 17th of June. Again there were 35 members of his own party
arrayed against Mr. Morrison. At the second session of the
same Congress, December 18, 1886, Mr. Morrison repeated his
attempt with no better success.
_O. H. Perry,
Proposed Tariff Legislation since 1883
(Quarterly Journal of Economics, October, 1887)._
The assembling of the 50th Congress, on the 6th of December,
1887, was signalized by a message from President Cleveland
which produced an extraordinary effect, decisively lifting the
tariff question into precedence over all other issues in
national politics, and compelling the Democratic Party to
array its lines distinctly and unequivocally against the
upholders of "protection" as an economic policy. He emphasized
the "paramount importance of the subject" impressively by
passing by every other matter of public concern, and devoting
his message exclusively to a consideration of the "'state of
the Union' as shown in the present condition of our Treasury
and our general fiscal situation." The condition of the
Treasury to which the President called attention was one of
unexampled plethora. "On the 30th day of June, 1885, the
excess of revenues over public expenditures, after complying
with the annual requirement of the Sinking-Fund Act, was
$17,859,735.84; during the year ended June 30, 1886, such
excess amounted to $49,405,545.20; and during the year ended
June 30, 1887, it reached the sum of $55,567,849.54." "Our
scheme of taxation," said the President, "by means of which
this needless surplus is taken from the people and put into
the public treasury, consists of a tariff or duty levied upon
importations from abroad, and internal-revenue taxes levied
upon the consumption of tobacco and spirituous and malt
liquors. It must be conceded that none of the things subjected
to internal-revenue taxation are, strictly speaking,
necessaries; there appears to be no just complaint of this
taxation by the consumers of these articles, and there seems
to be nothing so well able to bear the burden without hardship
to any portion of the people. But our present tariff laws, the
vicious, inequitable, and illogical source of unnecessary
taxation, ought to be at once revised and amended. These laws,
as their primary and plain effect, raise the price to
consumers of all articles imported and subject to duty, by
precisely the sum paid for such duties. Thus the amount of the
duty measures the tax paid by those who purchase for use these
imported articles. Many of these things, however, are raised
or manufactured in our own country, and the duties now levied
upon foreign goods and products are called protection to these
home manufactures, because they render it possible for those
of our people who are manufacturers to make these taxed
articles and sell them for a price equal to that demanded for
the imported goods that have paid customs duty. So it happens
that while comparatively a few use the imported articles,
millions of our people, who never use and never saw any of the
foreign products, purchase and use things of the same kind
made in this country, and pay therefor nearly or quite the
same enhanced price which the duty adds to the imported
articles. Those who buy imports pay the duty charged thereon
into the public treasury, but the majority of our citizens,
who buy domestic articles of the same class, pay a sum at
least approximately equal to this duty to the home
manufacturer. … The difficulty attending a wise and fair
revision of our tariff-laws is not underestimated. It will
require on the part of Congress great labor and care, and
especially a broad and national contemplation of the subject,
and a patriotic disregard of such local and selfish claims as
are unreasonable and reckless of the welfare of the entire
country. Under our present laws more than 4,000 articles are
subject to duty.
{3085}
Many of these do not in any way compete with our own
manufactures, and many are hardly worth attention as subjects
of revenue. A considerable reduction can be made in the
aggregate by adding them to the free list. The taxation of
luxuries presents no features of hardship; but the necessaries
of life used and consumed by all the people, the duty upon
which adds to the cost of living in every home, should be
greatly cheapened. The radical reduction of the duties imposed
upon raw material used in manufactures, or its free
importation, is of course an important factor in any effort to
reduce the price of these necessaries. … It is not apparent
how such a change can have any injurious effect upon our
manufacturers. On the contrary, it would appear to give them a
better chance in foreign markets with the manufacturers of
other countries, who cheapen their wares by free material.
Thus our people might have an opportunity of extending their
sales beyond the limits of home consumption—saving them from
the depression, interruption in business, and loss caused by a
glutted domestic market, and affording their employes more
certain and steady labor, with its resulting quiet and
contentment. The question thus imperatively presented for
solution should be approached in a spirit higher than
partisanship. … But the obligation to declared party policy
and principle is not wanting to urge prompt and effective
action. Both of the great political parties now represented in
the Government have, by repeated and authoritative
declarations, condemned the condition of our laws which
permits the collection from the people of unnecessary revenue,
and have, in the most solemn manner, promised its correction.
… Our progress toward a wise conclusion will not be improved
by dwelling upon the theories of protection and free trade.
This savors too much of bandying epithets. It is a condition
which confronts us—not a theory. Relief from this condition
may involve a slight reduction of the advantages which we
award our home productions, but the entire withdrawal of such
advantages should not be contemplated. The question of free
trade is absolutely irrelevant."—The President's emphatic
utterance rallied his party and inspired a more united effort
in the House to modify and simplify the tariff. Under the
chairmanship of Mr. Mills, of Texas, a bill was framed by the
Committee of Ways and Means and reported to the House on the
2d of April, 1888. "We have gone as far as we could," said the
Committee in reporting the bill, "and done what we could, in
the present condition of things, to place our manufactures
upon a firm and unshaken foundation, where they would have
advantages over all the manufacturers of the world. Our
manufacturers, having the advantage of all others in the
intelligence, skill, and productive capacity of their labor,
need only to be placed on the same footing with their rivals
in having their materials at the same cost in the open markets
of the world. In starting on this policy, we have transferred
many articles from the dutiable to the free list. The revenues
now received on these articles amount to $22,189,595.48.
Three-fourths of this amount is collected on articles that
enter into manufactures, of which wool and tin-plates are the
most important. … The repeal of all duties on wool enables us
to reduce the duties on the manufactures of wool
$12,332,211.65. The largest reduction we have made is in the
woolen schedule, and this reduction was only made possible by
placing wool on the free list. There is no greater reason for
a duty on wool than there is for a duty on any other raw
material. A duty on wool makes it necessary to impose a higher
duty on the goods made from wool, and the consumer has to pay
a double tax. If we leave wool untaxed the consumer has to pay
a tax only on the manufactured goods. … In the woolen schedule
we have substituted ad valorem for specific duties. The
specific duty is the favorite of those who are to be benefited
by high rates, who are protected against competition, and
protected in combinations against the consumer of their
products. There is a persistent pressure by manufacturers for
the specific duty, because it conceals from the people the
amount of taxes they are compelled to pay to the manufacturer.
The specific duty always discriminates in favor of the costly
article and against the cheaper one. … This discrimination is
peculiarly oppressive in woolen and cotton goods, which are
necessaries of life to all classes of people." The ad valorem
duty on woolen goods proposed by the committee in accordance
with these views, ranged from 30 to 45 per cent., existing
rates being reckoned as equivalent to about from 40 to 90 per
cent. ad valorem. Duties on cottons were fixed at 35 to 40 per
cent. On steel rails the bill proposed a reduction from $17
per ton to $11. It lowered the duty on pig-iron to $6 per ton.
It diminished the tariff on common earthenware from 60 to 35
per cent.; on china and decorated earthenware from 60 to 45
per cent.; on window-glass from 93 and 106 to 62 and 68 per
cent. It put tin plates on the free list, along with hemp,
flax, lumber, timber, salt, and other materials of manufacture
and articles in common use. These were the more important
modifications contemplated in what became known as "the Mills
Bill." After vigorous debate, it was passed by the Democrats
of the House with a nearness to unanimity which showed a
remarkable change in the sentiment of their party on the
subject. Only four Democratic representatives were found
voting in opposition to the measure. In the Senate, where the
Republicans were in the majority, the measure was wrecked, as
a matter of course. The protectionists of that body
substituted a bill which revised the tariff in the contrary
direction, generally raising duties instead of lowering them.
Thus the issue was made in the elections of 1888.
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1890.
The McKinley Act.
"In the campaign of 1888 the tariff question was the issue
squarely presented. … The victory of the Republicans … and the
election of President Harrison were the results. … The
election was won by a narrow margin, and was affected by
certain factors which stood apart from the main issue. The
independent voters had been disappointed with some phases of
President Cleveland's administration of the civil service, and
many who had voted for him in 1884 did not do so in 1888. … On
the whole, however, the Republicans held their own, and even
made gains, throughout the country, on the tariff issue; and
they might fairly consider the result a popular verdict in
favor of the system of protection. But their opposition to the
policy of lower duties, emphasized by President Cleveland, had
led them not only to champion the existing system, but to
advocate its further extension, by an increase of duties in
various directions. …
{3086}
Accordingly when the Congress then elected met for the session
of 1889-90, the Republican majority in the House proceeded to
pass a measure which finally became the tariff act of 1890.
This measure may fairly be said to be the direct result of Mr.
Cleveland's tariff message of 1887. The Republicans, in
resisting the doctrine of that message, were led by logical
necessity to the opposite doctrine of higher duties. …
Notwithstanding grave misgivings on the part of some of their
leaders, especially those from the northwest, the act known
popularly as the McKinley bill was pushed through."
_F. W. Taussig,
Tariff History of the United States,
chapter 5._
The bill was reported to the House of Representatives by the
Chairman of its Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. McKinley, on
the 16th of April, 1890. "We have not been so much concerned,"
said the majority of the Committee in their report, "about the
prices of the articles we consume as we have been to encourage
a system of home production which shall give fair remuneration
to domestic producers and fair wages to American workmen, and
by increased production and home competition insure fair
prices to consumers. … The aim has been to impose duties upon
such foreign products as compete with our own, whether of the
soil or the shop, and to enlarge the free list wherever this
can be done without injury to any American industry, or
wherever an existing home industry can be helped without
detriment to another industry which is equally worthy of the
protecting care of the Government. … We have recommended no
duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of
production here, including labor, and the cost of like
production in the countries which seek our markets, nor have
we hesitated to give this quantum of duty even though it
involved an increase over present rates and showed an advance
of percentages and ad valorem equivalents." On the changes
proposed to be made in the rates of duty on wool and on the
manufactures of wool—the subject of most debate in the whole
measure—the majority reported as follows; "By the census of
1880, in every county in the United States except 34, sheep
were raised. In 1883 the number of sheep in the United States
was over 50,000,000, and the number of persons owning flocks
was in excess of a million. This large number of flock-masters
was, to a considerable extent, withdrawn from the business of
raising grain and other farm products, to which they must
return if wool-growing cannot be profitably pursued. The
enormous growth of this industry was stimulated by the wool
tariff of 1867, and was in a prosperous condition prior to the
act of 1883. Since then the industry has diminished in
alarming proportions, and the business has neither been
satisfactory nor profitable. … By the proposed bill the duties
on first and second class wools are made at 11 and 12 cents a
pound, as against 10 and 12 under existing law. On third-class
wool, costing 12 cents or less, the duty is raised from 2½
cents a pound to 3½ cents, and upon wool of the third class,
costing above 12 cents, the duty recommended is an advance
from 5 to 8 cents per pound. … There seems to be no doubt that
with the protection afforded by the increased duties
recommended in the bill the farmers of the United States will
be able at an early day to supply substantially all of the
home demand, and the great benefit such production will be to
the agricultural interests of the country cannot be estimated.
The production of 600,000,000 pounds of wool would require
about 100,000,000 sheep, or an addition of more than 100 per
cent to the present number. … The increase in the duty on
clothing wool and substitutes for wool to protect the wool
growers of this country, and the well-understood fact that the
tariff of 1883, and the construction given to the worsted
clause, reduced the duties on many grades of woollen goods to
a point that invited increasing importations, to the serious
injury of our woollen manufacturers and wool growers,
necessitate raising the duties on woollen yarn, cloth and
dress goods to a point which will insure the holding of our
home market for these manufactures to a much greater extent
than is now possible. The necessity of this increase is
apparent in view of the fact already stated that during the
last fiscal year there were imports of manufactures of wool of
the foreign value of $52,681,482, as shown by the undervalued
invoices, and the real value in our market of nearly
$90,000,000—fully one-fourth of our entire home
consumption—equivalent to an import of at least 160,000,000
pounds of wool in the form of manufactured goods. In revising
the woollen-goods schedule so as to afford adequate protection
to our woollen manufacturers and wool growers we have
continued the system of compound duties which have proved to
be so essential in any tariff which protects wool, providing
first for a specific compensatory pound or square yard duty,
equivalent to the duty which would be paid on the wool if
imported, for the benefit of the wool grower, and an ad
valorem duty of from 30 to 50 per cent, according to the
proportion of labor required in the manufacture of the several
classes of goods, as a protection to the manufacturer against
foreign competition, and 10 per cent additional upon ready
made clothing for the protection of the clothing
manufacturers. … In computing the equivalent ad valorem duty
on manufactures of woollens, the combinations of both the
specific duty, which is simply compensatory for the duty on
the wool used, of which the wool grower receives the benefit,
and the duty which protects the manufacturers, makes the
average resultant rate of the woollen-goods schedule proposed
91.78 per cent."
_Report of the Committee on Ways and Means._
"Substantially as reported from the Committee on Ways and
Means, it [the McKinley Bill] passed the House, after two
weeks' debate, May 21 [1890]. The vote was a strictly party
one, except that two Republicans voted in the negative. June
19 the bill was reported from the Senate Committee on Finance
with a very large number of amendments, mainly in the way of a
lessening of rates. After debating the project during nearly
the whole of August and a week in September, the Senate passed
it by a strict party vote, September 10. The differences
between the houses then went to a conference committee. The
bill as reported by this committee, September 26, was adopted
by the House and Senate on the 27th and 30th respectively and
approved by the President October 1. On the final vote three
Republicans in each house declined to follow their party. The
law went into effect October 6.
{3087}
Prominent features of the new schedules are as follows:
steel rails reduced one-tenth of a cent per lb.;
tin plates increased from one cent to two and two-tenths cents
per lb., with the proviso that they shall be put on the free
list at the end of six years if by that time the domestic
product shall not have reached an aggregate equal to one-third
of the importations;
unmanufactured copper substantially reduced;
bar, block and pig tin, hitherto on the free list, receives a
duty of four cents per lb. to take effect July 1, 1893,
provided that it be restored to the free list if by July 1,
1895, the mines of the United States shall not have produced
in one year 5,000 tons;
a bounty of one and three-fourths and two cents per lb. upon
beet, sorghum, cane or maple sugar produced in the United
States between 1891 and 1905;
all imports of sugar free up to number 16, Dutch standard, in
color and all above that one-half cent per lb. (formerly from
three to three and a half cents), with one-tenth cent
additional if imported from a country that pays an export
bounty;
a heavy increase on cigar wrappers and cigars;
a general and heavy increase on agricultural products, e. g.
on beans, eggs, hay, hops, vegetables and straw;
a heavy increase on woolen goods, with a new classification of
raw wool designed to give more protection;
paintings and statuary reduced from 30 to 15 per cent.
The following (among other) additions are made to the free
list: beeswax, books and pamphlets printed exclusively in
languages other than English, blue clay, coal tar, currants
and dates, jute butts and various textile and fibrous grasses,
needles, nickel ore, flower and grass seeds and crude sulphur.
… Among the 464 points of difference between the two houses
which the conference committee had to adjust, some of the more
important were as follows: paintings and statuary, made free
by the House and kept at the old rate by the Senate, were
fixed at half the old rate; binding twine, made free by the
Senate in favor of Western grain-raisers but taxed by the
House to protect Eastern manufacturers, fixed at half the
House rate; the limit of free sugar fixed at number 16, as
voted by the House, instead of number 13, as passed by the
Senate, thus including in the free list the lower grades of
refined as well as all raw sugar. The question of reciprocity
with American nations was injected into the tariff discussion
by Secretary Blaine in June. In transmitting to Congress the
recommendation of the International American Conference for
improved commercial relations, the secretary dilated upon the
importance of securing the markets of central and South
America for our products, and suggested as a more speedy way
than treaties of reciprocity an amendment to the pending
tariff bill authorizing the President to open our ports to the
free entry of the products of any American nation which should
in turn admit free of taxation our leading agricultural and
manufactured products. In July Mr. Blaine took up the idea
again in a public correspondence with Senator Frye,
criticizing severely the removal of the tariff on sugar, as
that on coffee had been removed before, without exacting trade
concessions in return. He complained that there was not a
section or a line in the bill as it came from the House that
would open the market for another bushel of wheat or another
barrel of pork. The Senate Finance Committee acted upon the
suggestion of the secretary by introducing an amendment to the
bill authorizing and directing the President to suspend by
proclamation the free introduction of sugar, molasses, coffee,
tea and hides from any country which should impose on products
of the United States exactions which in view of the free
introduction of sugar etc. he should deem reciprocally unequal
and unreasonable. The rates at which the President is to
demand duties upon the commodities named are duly fixed. This
reciprocity provision passed the Senate and the conference
committee and became part of the law."
_Political Science Quarterly:
Record of Events, December, 1890._
TARIFF: (United States): A. D. 1894.
The Wilson Act.
Protected interests and the Senate.
Two years after the embodiment of the extremest doctrines of
protection in the McKinley Act, the tariff question was
submitted again to the people, as the dominant issue between
the Republican and Democratic parties, in the presidential and
congressional elections of 1892. The verdict of 1888 was then
reversed, and tariff reform carried the day. Mr. Cleveland was
again elected President, with a Democratic majority in both
houses of Congress apparently placed there to sustain his
policy. A serious financial situation was manifesting itself
in the country at the time he resumed the presidential office,
produced by the operation of the silver-purchase law of 1890
(see MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893), and by the
extravagance of congressional appropriations, depleting the
treasury. It became necessary, therefore, to give attention,
first, to the repeal of the mischievous silver law, which was
accomplished, November 1, 1893, at a special session of
Congress called by the President. That cleared the way for the
more serious work of tariff-revision, which was taken up under
discouraging circumstances of general depression and extensive
collapse in business, throughout the country. "The Democratic
members of the House committee on ways and means began during
the special session the preparation of a tariff bill. The
outcome of their labors was the Wilson Bill, which was laid
before the whole committee and made public November 27. On the
previous day the sugar schedule was given out, in order to
terminate the manipulation of the stock market through false
reports as to the committee's conclusions. The characteristic
features of the bill, as described in the statement of
Chairman Wilson which accompanied it, were as follows: First,
the adoption, wherever practicable, of ad valorem instead of
specific duties; second, 'the freeing from taxes of those
great materials of industry that lie at the basis of
production.' Specific duties were held to be objectionable,
first, as concealing the true weight of taxation, and second,
as bearing unjustly on consumers of commoner articles. Free
raw materials were held necessary to the stimulation of
industry and the extension of foreign trade. The schedules, as
reported, showed in addition to a very extensive increase in
the free list, reductions in rates, as compared with the
McKinley Bill, on all but a small number of items. The
important additions to the free list included iron ore,
lumber, coal and wool. Raw sugar was left free, as in the
existing law, but the rate on refined sugar was reduced from
one-half to one-fourth of a cent per pound, and the bounty was
repealed one-eighth per annum until extinguished.
{3088}
Some amendments were made in the administrative provisions of
the tariff law, designed to soften, as the committee said,
features of the McKinley Bill 'that would treat the business
of importing as an outlawry, not entitled to the protection of
the government.' It was estimated that the reduction of
revenue effected would be about $50,000,000, and the committee
set to work on an internal revenue bill to make good this
deficiency. On January 8 Mr. Wilson brought up the bill in the
House, and debate began under a rule calling for a vote on the
29th. During the consideration in committee a number of
changes were made in the schedules, the most important being
in respect to sugar, where the duty was taken off refined
sugars, and the repeal of the bounty was made immediate
instead of gradual. A clause was inserted, also, specifically
repealing the reciprocity provision of the McKinley Act. The
greatest general interest was excited, however, by the
progress of the internal revenue bill, the chief feature of
which was a proposition for an income tax. The bill, after
formulation by the Democratic members of the ways and means
committee, was brought before the full committee January 22.
Besides the income tax, the measure provided for a stamp duty
on playing cards, and raised the excise on distilled spirits
to one dollar per gallon. As to incomes, the committee's bill
… imposed a tax of two per cent on all incomes so far as they
were in excess of $4,000, after allowing deductions for taxes,
losses not covered by insurance and bad debts. Declarations of
income were required from all persons having over $3,500,
under heavy penalties for neglect, refusal or fraud in the
matter. As to corporations, the same rate was levied on all
interest on bonds and on all dividends and all surplus income
above dividends, excepting premiums returned to policy holders
by mutual life insurance companies, interest to depositors in
savings banks, and dividends of building loan associations. …
The income-tax measure was immediately and very vigorously
antagonized by a considerable number of Eastern Democrats,
headed by the New York Congressmen. It was adopted by the ways
and means committee mainly through Southern and Western votes.
On the 24th of January it was reported to the House. A
Democratic caucus on the following day resolved by a small
majority, against the wish of Mr. Wilson, to attach the
measure to the Tariff Bill. Accordingly, the rule regulating
the debate was modified to allow discussion of the amendment.
The final votes were then taken on February 1. The internal
revenue bill was added to the Wilson Bill by 182 to 50, 44
Democrats voting in the minority and most of the Republicans
not voting. The measure as amended was then adopted by 204 to
140, 16 Democrats and one Populist going with the Republicans
in the negative. In the hands of the Senate finance committee
the bill underwent a thorough revision, differences of opinion
in the Democratic majority leading to a careful discussion of
the measure in a party caucus. The measure as amended was laid
before the full committee March 8, and was introduced in the
Senate on the 20th. Changes in details were very numerous. The
most important consisted in taking sugar, iron ore and coal
off the free list and subjecting each to a small duty. Debate
on the bill was opened April 2. It was soon discovered,
however, that many Democratic senators were seriously
dissatisfied with the schedules affecting the industries of
their respective states, and at the end of April there was a
lull in the debate while the factions of the majority adjusted
their differences. A scheme of changes was finally agreed to
in caucus on May 3, and laid before the Senate by the finance
committee on the 8th. The most important features were a new
sugar schedule which had given great trouble, and very
numerous changes from ad valorem to specific duties, with a
net increase in rates."
_Political Science Quarterly:
Record of Political Events, June, 1894._
Very soon after the tariff bill appeared in the Senate, it
became apparent that the more powerful protected "interests,"
and conspicuously the "sugar trust" had acquired control, by
some means, of several Democratic senators, who were acting
obviously in agreement to prevent an honest fulfillment of the
pledges of their party, and especially as concerned the free
opening of the country to raw materials. Public opinion of the
conduct of the senators in question may be judged from the
expressions of so dignified an organ of the business world as
the "Banker's Magazine," which said in its issue of July,
1894: "Indifference has largely supplanted the hopes of the
friends of tariff reform, as well as the fears of the honest
advocates of high protection; and disgust, on the part of the
people, has taken the place of trust in our Government, at the
exposures of the corruption of the Senate by the most
unconscionable and greedy Trusts in existence. Hence the
indifference of everybody but the Trusts, and their Senatorial
attorneys and dummies with 'retainers' or Trust stocks in
their pockets; as it is taken for granted that no interests,
but those rich and characterless enough to buy 'protection'
will be looked after. … Nothing will be regarded as finally
settled … if the Tariff Bill, as emasculated by the Senate,
becomes a law; and it may as well be killed by the House, if
the Senate refuse to recede; or, vetoed by the President, if
it goes to him in its present shape; and let the existing
status continue, until the country can get rid of its
purchasable Senators and fill their disgraced seats with
honest men who cannot be bought up like cattle at so much per
head. This is the growing sentiment of business men
generally."
_H. A. Pierce,
A Review of Finance and Business
(Banker's Magazine, July, 1894)._
First in committee, and still more in the Senate after the
committee had reported, the bill was radically changed in
character from that which the House sent up. The profits of
the sugar trust were still protected, and coal and iron ore
were dropped back from the free list into the schedules of
dutiable commodities. According to estimates made, the average
rate of duty in the Wilson Bill as it passed the House was
35.52 per cent., and in the bill which passed the Senate it
was 37 per cent., as against 49.58 per cent. in the McKinley
law. Hence, the general effect of the revision in the Senate,
even as manipulated by the senators suspected of corrupt
motives, was an extensive lowering of duties. Some very
important additions to the free list made by the Wilson Bill
were left untouched by the senators—such as wool, lumber and
salt.
{3089}
In view of the extent of the gains acquired, the supporters of
tariff-reform in the House, after prolonged attempts in
conference committee to break the strength of the combination
against free sugar, free coal and free iron ore, were
reluctantly prevailed upon to accept the Senate bill. It had
passed the Senate on the 3d of July. The struggle in
conference committee lasted until the 13th of August, when the
House passed the Senate bill unchanged. The President declined
to give his signature to the act, but allowed it to become a
law. Immediately after the passage of the bill, the House
adopted special enactments admitting raw sugar, coal, iron
ore, and barbed wire, free of duty; but these bills were not
acted on in the Senate.
----------TARIFF: End--------
TARLETON, Colonel, in the War of the American Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); and 1780-1781.
TARPEIAN ROCK, The.
See CAPITOLINE HILL.
TARQUIN THE PROUD, The expulsion of.
See ROME: B. C. 510.
TARRACONENSIS.
See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25.
TARRAGONA: A. D. 1641.
Occupation by the French.
Surrender to the Spaniards.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
TARRAGONA: A. D. 1644.
Siege by the French.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1644-1646.
TARSUS.
See CILICIA.
TARTAN.
The title of the chief commander —under the king—of the
Assyrian armies.
TARTAR DYNASTY OF CHINA, The.
See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.
TARTARS, OR TATARS.
"The Chinese used the name in a general sense, to include the
greater part of their northern neighbours, and it was in
imitation of them, probably, that the Europeans applied the
name to the various nomade hordes who controlled Central Asia
after the Mongol invasion. But the name properly belonged, and
is applied by Raschid and other Mongol historians, to certain
tribes living in the north-eastern corner of Mongolia, who, as
I believe, were partially, at least, of the Tungusic race, and
whose descendants are probably to be found among the Solons of
Northern Manchuria."
_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 1, page 25._
"The name of Tartars, or Tatars, has been variously applied.
It was long customary among geographical writers to give this
title to the Kalmucs and Mongoles, and even to use it as a
distinguishing name for those races of men who resemble the
Kalmucs in features, and who have been supposed, whether
correctly or not, to be allied to them in descent. Later
authors, more accurate in the application of terms, have
declared this to be an improper use of the name of Tartar, and
by them the appellation has been given exclusively to the
tribes of the Great Turkish race, and chiefly to the northern
division of it, viz. to the hordes spread through the Russian
empire and independent Tartary. … Whatever may be the true
origin of the name of Tartar, custom has appropriated it to
the race of men extensively spread through northern Asia, of
whom the Ottoman Turks are a branch. It would, perhaps, be
more strictly correct to call all these nations Turks, but the
customary appellation may be retained when its meaning is
determined."
_J. C. Prichard,
Researches into the Physical History
of the Races of Mankind,
chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2)._
"The populations in question [the remnants, in southern Russia
and Siberia, of the great Mongol empire of the Kiptchak],
belong to one of three great groups, stocks, or families—the
Turk, the Mongol, or the Tungus. When we speak of a Tartar, he
belongs to the first, whenever we speak of a Kalmuk, he
belongs to the second, of these divisions. It is necessary to
insist upon this; because, whatever may be the laxity with
which the term Tartar is used, it is, in Russian ethnology at
least, a misnomer when applied to a Mongol. It is still worse
to call a Turk a Kalmuk."
_R. G. Latham,
The Nationalities of Europe,
volume 1, chapter 23._
"Tartars (more correctly Tatars, but Tartars is the form
generally current), a name given to nearly three million
inhabitants of the Russian empire, chiefly Moslem and of
Turkish origin. The majority—in European Russia—are remnants
of the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, while those who
inhabit Siberia are survivals of the once much more numerous
Turkish population of the Ural-Altaic region, mixed to some
extent with Finnish and Samoyedic stems, as also with Mongols.
… The ethnographical features of the present Tartar
inhabitants of European Russia, as well as their language,
show that they contain no admixture (or very little) of
Mongolian blood, but belong to the Turkish branch of the
Ural-Altaic stock, necessitating the conclusion that only
Batu, his warriors, and a limited number of his followers were
Mongolians, while the great bulk of the 13th-century invaders
were Turks."
_P. A. Kropotkine,
Article "Tartars" Encyclopœdia Brittanica._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Howorth,
History of the Mongols,
part 2, division 1, page 37._
See TURKS;
and MONGOLS.
TARTESSUS.
"The territory round Gades, Carteia, and the other Phenician
settlements in this district [southwestern Spain] was known to
the Greeks in the sixth century B. C. by the name of
Tartessus, and regarded by them somewhat in the same light as
Mexico and Peru appeared to the Spaniards of the sixteenth
century."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 18._
This was the rich region known afterwards to the Romans as
Bætica, as Turdetania, and in modern times as Andalusia.
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 21, section 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. Kenrick,
Phoenicia,
chapter 4, section 3._
TARUMI, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
TARUSATES, The.
See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.
TASHKEND OR TASHKENT, Russian capture of (1865).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.
TASMANIA: Discovery and naming.
See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
TATARS.
See TARTARS.
TAUBERBISCHOFSHEIM, Battle of.
See GERM[ANY: A. D. 1866.
{3090}
TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.
The Welcome to Monmouth.
The Maids of Taunton and their flag.
"When Monmouth marched into Taunton [A. D. 1685] it was an
eminently prosperous place. … The townsmen had long leaned
towards Presbyterian divinity and Whig politics. In the great
civil war, Taunton had, through all vicissitudes, adhered to
the Parliament, had been twice closely besieged by Goring, and
had been twice defended with heroic valour by Robert Blake,
afterwards the renowned Admiral of the Commonwealth. Whole
streets had been burned down by the mortars and grenades of
the Cavaliers. … The children of the men who, forty years
before, had manned the ramparts of Taunton against the
Royalists, now welcomed Monmouth with transports of joy and
affection. Every door and window was adorned with wreaths of
flowers. No man appeared in the streets without wearing in his
hat a green bough, the badge of the popular cause. Damsels of
the best families in the town wove colours for the insurgents.
One flag in particular was embroidered gorgeously with emblems
of royal dignity, and was offered to Monmouth by a train of
young girls." After the suppression of Monmouth's rebellion,
and while the "bloody Assizes" of Jeffreys were in progress,
these little girls were hunted out and imprisoned, and the
queen's maids of honor were permitted to extort money from
their parents for the buying of their pardon and release.
_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 5._
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).
TAURICA, TAURIC CHERSONESE.
The ancient Greek name of the Crimea, derived from the Tauri,
a savage people who once inhabited it; "perhaps," says Grote,
"a remnant of the expelled Cimmerians."
See BOSPHORUS, THE CITY, &c.;
and CIMMERIANS.
TAURIS, Naval battle near.
In the Roman civil war between Cæsar and his antagonists an
important naval battle was fought, B. C. 47, near the little
island of Tauris, on the Illyrian coast. Vatinius, who
commanded on the Cæsarian side, defeated Octavius, and drove
him out of the Adriatic.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 5, chapter 21._
TAVORA PLOT, The.
See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.
TAWACONIES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
TAXIARCH.
PHYLARCH.
"The tribe appears to have been the only military
classification known to Athens, and the taxiarch the only
tribe officer for infantry, as the phylarch was for cavalry,
under the general-in-chief."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 8._
ALSO IN:
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
TAYLOR, General Zachary,
The Mexican campaign of.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
Presidential election and administration.
Death.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
TCHERNAYA, Battle of the (1855).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.
TCHINOVNIKS.
To keep the vast and complex bureaucratic machine of Russia in
motion "it is necessary to have a large and well-drilled army
of officials. These are drawn chiefly from the ranks of the
noblesse and the clergy, and form a peculiar social class
called Tchinovniks, or men with 'Tchins.' As the Tchin plays
an important part in Russia, not only in the official world,
but also to some extent in social life, it may be well to
explain its significance. All officers, civil and military,
are, according to a scheme invented by Peter the Great,
arranged in fourteen classes or ranks, and to each class or
rank a particular name is attached. … As a general rule a man
must begin at or near the bottom of the official ladder, and
he must remain on each step a certain specified time. The step
on which he is for the moment standing, or, in other words,
the official rank or Tchin which he possesses, determines what
offices he is competent to hold. Thus rank or Tchin is a
necessary condition for receiving an appointment, but it does
not designate any actual office, and the names of the
different ranks are extremely apt to mislead a foreigner."
_D. M. "Wallace,
Russia,
chapter 13._
TCHOUPRIA, Battle of (1804).
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).
TEA: Introduction into Europe.
"The Dutch East India Company were the first to introduce it
into Europe, and a small quantity came to England from Holland
in 1666. The East India Company thereafter ordered their agent
at Bantam to send home small quantities, which they wished to
introduce as presents, but its price was 60s. per lb., and it
was little thought of. Twenty years elapsed before the Company
first decided on importing tea, but by degrees it came into
general use. In 1712 the imports of tea were only 156,000
lbs.; in 1750 they reached 2,300,000 lbs.; in 1800, 24,000,000
lbs.; in 1830, 30,500,000 lbs., and in 1870, 141,000,000 lbs."
_L. Levi,
History of British Commerce,
page 239._
TEA-PARTY, The Boston.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
TEA-ROOM PARTY, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
TEARLESS BATTLE, The (B. C. 368).
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
TECPANECAS, The.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
TECTOSAGES.
See VOLCÆ.
TECUMSEH, and his Indian League.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811;
and 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
TECUNA, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.
TEGYRA, Battle of.
The first important victory won by the Thebans (B. C. 375), in
the war which broke the power of Sparta. It was fought in
Lokrian territory.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 38._
TEHUEL-CHE, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PATAGONIANS.
TEKKE TURCOMANS, Russian subjugation of.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.
TEL EL AMARNA TABLETS, The.
See EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1500-1400.
TEL EL KEBIR, Battle of (1882).
See EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.
TELAMON, Battle of (B. C. 225).
See ROME: B. C. 295-191.
TELINGAS, The.
See TURANIAN RACES.
TELL, William, The Legend of.
See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.
TELMELCHES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
{3091}
TEMENIDÆ, The.
"The history of the Macedonian kingdom is the history of its
royal race. The members of this royal house called themselves
Temenidæ; i. e. they venerated as their original ancestor the
same Temenus who was accounted the founder of the Heraclide
dynasty in Peloponnesian Argos. Now, we remember the
disturbances at Argos during the regal period, the quarrel
between the Heraclidæ and the Dorian soldiery, and the flight
of a King Phidon to Tegea. It is therefore highly credible,
that during these troubles individual members of the royal
house emigrated, in order to seek a more favorable theatre for
their activity than was offered by the cribbed and confused
affairs of their home; and tradition points precisely to the
brother of this Phidon as the man who came to Macedonia from
the shores of Peloponnesus."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 7, chapter 1 (volume 5)._
TEMENITES.
One of the suburbs of the ancient city of Syracuse was
so-called from the ground sacred to Apollo Temenites which it
contained. It afterwards became a part of the city called
Neapolis.
TEMESVAR, Battle of (1849).
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
TEMESVAR, Siege and capture of (1716).
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
TEMPE, Vale of.
See THESSALY.
----------TEMPLARS: Start--------
TEMPLARS: A. D. 1118.
The founding of the Order.
"During the reign of Baldwin I. the kingdom [of Jerusalem] was
constantly harassed by the incursions of the Bedoween Arabs,
and pious pilgrims were exposed to great dangers in their
visits to the holy places. Nine valiant knights therefore, of
whom the two principal were Hugh de Payens and Godfrey of St.
Omer, vowed, in honour of the Sweet Mother of God (La douce
mère de Dieu) to unite the character of the soldier and the
monk, for the protection of pilgrims. In the presence of the
king and his barons, they took, in the year 1118, in the hands
of the patriarch, the three vows taken by the Hospitallers,
adding a fourth, that of combating the heathen, without
ceasing, in defence of pilgrims and of the Holy Land. The king
assigned them a part of his palace for their dwelling, and the
canons of the Temple gave them the open space between it and
the palace, whence they derived their appellation of Templars,
or Soldiers of the Temple. … Their garments were such as were
bestowed upon them by the charitable, and the seal of their
order, when they had attained to opulence—two knights mounted
on one horse—commemorated the time when a single war-horse had
to serve two knights of the Temple. When Baldwin II. was
released from captivity (1128), he sent envoys to Europe to
implore aid of the Christian powers. Among these were Hugh de
Payens, and some others of the brethren of the Temple. The
Templars appeared before the council of Troyes, and gave an
account of their order and its objects, which were highly
approved of by the fathers. The celebrated Bernard, abbot of
Clairvaux, took a lively interest in its welfare, and made
some improvements in its rule. A white mantle was assigned as
their habit, to which Pope Eugenius some years afterwards
added a plain red cross on the left breast; their banner was
formed of the black and white striped cloth named Bauséant,
which word became their battle-cry, and it bore the humble
inscription, 'Not unto us, O Lord, but unto thy name be
glory!' Hugh de Payens returned to Syria at the head of three
hundred knights of the noblest houses of the West, who had
become members of the order."
_T. Keightley,
The Crusaders,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Froude,
The Spanish Story of the Armada and other Essays,
chapter 4._
TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.
The Order in England and elsewhere.
"The Knights Templars first established the chief house of
their order in England, without Holborn Bars [London] on the
south side of the street, where Southampton House formerly
stood, adjoining to which Southampton Buildings were
afterwards erected. … This first house of the Temple,
established by Hugh de Payens himself, before his departure
from England, on his return to Palestine, was adapted to the
wants and necessities of the order in its infant state, when
the knights, instead of lingering in the preceptories of
Europe, proceeded at once to Palestine, and when all the
resources of the society were strictly and faithfully
forwarded to Jerusalem, to be expended in defence of the
faith; but when the order had greatly increased in numbers,
power, and wealth, and had somewhat departed from its original
purity and simplicity, we find that the superior and the
knights resident in London began to look abroad for a more
extensive and commodious place of habitation. They purchased a
large space of ground, extending from the White Friars
westward to Essex House without Temple Bar, and commenced the
erection of a convent on a scale of grandeur commensurate with
the dignity and importance of the chief house of the great
religio-military society of the Temple in Britain. It was
called the New Temple, to distinguish it from the original
establishment at Holborn, which came thenceforth to be known
by the name of the Old Temple. This New Temple was adapted for
the residence of numerous military monks and novices, serving
brothers, retainers, and domestics, … connected, by a range of
handsome cloisters, with the magnificent church, consecrated
by the patriarch. Alongside the river extended a spacious
pleasure ground. … The year of the consecration of the Temple
Church [A. D. 1185] Geoffrey, the superior of the order in
England, caused an inquisition to be made of the lands of the
Templars in this country. … The number of manors, farms,
churches, advowsons, demesne lands, villages, hamlets,
windmills, and water-mills, rents of assize, rights of common
and free warren, and the amount of all kinds of property
possessed by the Templars in England at the period of the
taking of this inquisition, are astonishing. … The annual
income of the order in Europe has been roughly estimated at
six millions sterling! According to Matthew Paris, the
Templars possessed nine thousand manors or lordships in
Christendom, besides a large revenue and immense riches
arising from the constant charitable bequests and donations of
sums of money from pious persons. … The Templars, in addition
to their amazing wealth, enjoyed vast privileges and
immunities."
_C. G. Addison,
The Knights Templars,
chapter 3._
{3092}
When the order of the Templars was suppressed and its property
confiscated, the convent and church of the Temple in London were
granted by the king, first, in 1313, to Aymer de Valence, Earl
of Pembroke; afterwards, successively, to the Duke of
Lancaster and to Hugh le Despenser. "The Temple then came for
a short time into the hands of the Knights Hospitallers, and
during the reign of Edward III. it seems to have been occupied
by the lawyers, as tenants under the Hospitallers. When that
order was dissolved by Henry VIII., the property passed into
the hands of the Crown, the lawyers still holding possession
as tenants. This continued till the reign of James I., when a
petition was drawn up and presented to the king asking him to
assign the property to the legal body in permanence. This was
accordingly done by letters patent, in A. D. 1609, and the
Benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple received possession of
the buildings, on consideration of a small annual payment to
the Crown."
_F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders,
part 2, chapter 7._
"Many of the old retainers of the Temple became servants of
the new lawyers, who had ousted their masters. … The dining in
pairs, the expulsion from hall for misconduct, and the locking
out of chambers were old customs also kept up. The judges of
Common Pleas retained the title of knight, and the Fratres
Servientcs of the Templars arose again in the character of
learned serjeants-at-law, the coif of the modern serjeant
being the linen coif of the old Freres Serjens of the Temple."
_W. Thornbury,
Old and New London,
volume 1, chapter 14._
ALSO IN:
_C. G. Addison,
The Knights Templars
chapter 7._
TEMPLARS: A. D. 1299.
Their last campaign in Palestine.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.
TEMPLARS: A. D. 1307-1314.
The prosecution and destruction of the order.
"When the Holy Land fell completely into Mahomedan hands on
the loss of Acre in 1291 [see JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291] they [the
Templars] abandoned the hopeless task and settled in Cyprus.
By the end of the thirteenth century they had almost all
returned to Europe. They were peculiarly strong and wealthy in
France—the strength and wealth were alike dangerous to them.
In Paris they built their fortress, the Temple, over against
the King's palace of the Louvre; and in that stronghold the
King himself had once to take refuge from the angry Parisian
mob, exasperated by his heavy extortions. During the life and
death struggle with the Papacy, the order had not taken the
side of the Church against the sovereign; for their wealth had
held them down. Philip [Philip IV], however, knew no
gratitude, and they were doomed. A powerful and secret society
endangered the safety of the state: their wealth was a sore
temptation: there was no lack of rumours. Dark tales came out
respecting the habits of the order; tales exaggerated and
blackened by the diseased imagination of the age. Popular
proverbs, those ominous straws of public opinion, were heard
in different lands, hinting at dark vices and crimes.
Doubtless the vows of the order, imposed on unruly natures,
led to grievous sins against the first laws of moral life. And
there was more than this: there were strange rumours of
horrible infidelity and blasphemy; and men were prepared to
believe everything. So no one seemed to be amazed when, in
October, 1307, the King made a sudden coup d'etat, arrested
all the Templars in France on the same day, and seized their
goods. The Temple at Paris with the Grand Master fell into his
hands. Their property was presently placed in the custody of
the Pope's nuncios in France; the knights were kept in dark
and dismal prisons. Their trial was long and tedious. Two
hundred and thirty-one knights were examined, with all the
brutality that examination then meant; the Pope also took the
depositions of more than seventy. From these examinations what
can we learn? All means were used: some were tortured, others
threatened, others tempted with promises of immunity. They
made confession accordingly; and the ghastly catalogue of
their professed ill-doings may be read in the history of the
trial. Who shall say what truth there was in it all? Probably
little or none. Many confessed and then recanted their
confession. The golden image with eyes of glowing carbuncle
which they worshipped; the trampling and spitting on the
crucifix; the names of Galla and Baphomet; the hideous
practices of the initiation;—all these things pass before us,
in the dim uncertainty, like some horrible procession of the
vices in hell. What the truth was will never be known. … The
knights made a dignified defence in these last moments of
their history; they did not flinch either at the terrible
prospect before them, or through memory of the tortures which
they had undergone. Public opinion, in and out of France,
began to stir against the barbarous treatment they had
received; they were no longer proud and wealthy princes, but
suffering martyrs, showing bravery and a firm front against
the cruelties of the King and his lawyers. Marigni, Philip's
minister and friend, and the King himself, were embarrassed by
the number and firmness of their victims, by the sight of
Europe looking aghast, by the murmurs of the people. Marigni
suggested that men who had confessed and recanted might be
treated as relapsed heretics, such being the law of the
Inquisition, (what irony was here!) and accordingly in 1310 an
enclosure was made at Paris, within which fifty-nine Templars
perished miserably by fire. Others were burnt later at Senlis.
… The King and Pope worked on the feeble Council, until in
March 1312 the abolition of the order was formally decreed;
and its chief property, its lands and buildings, were given
over to the Knights of St. John, to be used for the recovery
of the Holy Land; 'which thing,' says the Supplementor to
William of Nangis, 'came not to pass, but rather the endowment
did but make them worse than before.' The chief part of the
spoil, as might be well believed, never left the King's hands.
One more tragedy, and then all was over. The four heads of the
order were still at Paris, prisoners —Jacques de Molai, Grand
Master; Guy of Auvergne, the Master of Normandy, and two more.
The Pope had reserved their fate in his own hands, and sent a
commission to Paris, who were enjoined once more to hear the
confession of these dignitaries, and then to condemn them to
perpetual captivity. But at the last moment the Grand Master
and Guy publicly retracted their forced confessions, and
declared themselves and the order guiltless of all the
abominable charges laid against them. Philip was filled with
devouring rage. Without further trial or judgment he ordered
them to be led that night to the island in the Seine; there
they were fastened to the stake and burnt."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 10, section 3._
{3093}
In England, a similar prosecution of the Templars, instigated
by the pope, was commenced in January, 1308, when the chiefs
of the order were seized and imprisoned and subjected to
examination with torture. The result was the dissolution of
the order and the confiscation of its property; but none of
the knights were executed, though some died in prison from the
effects of their barbarous treatment. "The property of the
Templars in England was placed under the charge of a
commission at the time that proceedings were commenced against
them, and the king very soon treated it as if it were his own,
giving away manors and convents at his pleasure. A great part
of the possessions of the Order was subsequently made over to
the Hospitallers. … Some of the surviving Templars retired to
monasteries, others returned to the world, and assumed secular
habits, for which they incurred the censures of the Pope. … In
Spain, Portugal, and Germany, proceedings were taken against
the Order; their property was confiscated, and in some cases
torture was used; but it is remarkable that it was only in
France, and those places where Philip's influence was
powerful, that any Templar was actually put to death."
_F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders,
part 2, chapters 6-7 and 5._
ALSO IN:
_C. G. Addison,
The Knights Templars,
chapter 7._
_J. Michelet,
History of France,
book 5, chapter 3._
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 12, chapters 1-2 (volume 5)._
----------TEMPLARS: End--------
TEMPLE, The (London).
See TEMPLARS: A. D. 1185-1313.
TEMPLE OF CONCORD AT ROME, The.
After the long contest in Rome over the Licinian Laws, which
were adopted B. C. 367, M. Furius Camillus—the great
Camillus—being made Dictator for the fifth time, in his
eightieth year, brought about peace between the patricians and
plebeians, in commemoration of which he vowed a temple to
Concord. "Before he could dedicate it, the old hero died. The
temple, however, was built according to his design; its site,
now one of the best known among those of ancient Rome, can
still be traced with great certainty at the north-western
angle of the Forum, immediately under the Capitoline. The
building was restored with great magnificence by the Emperor
Tiberius; and it deserved to be so, for it commemorated one of
the greatest events of Roman history."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 2, chapter 15 (volume 1)._
TEMPLE OF DIANA.
See EPHESUS.
TEMPLE OF JANUS, The.
"The Temple of Janus was one of the earliest buildings of
Rome, founded, according to Livy (i. 19.) by Numa. It stood
near the Curia, on the northeast side of the Forum, at the
verge of a district called the Argiletum. … [it was] a small
'ædicula' or shrine, which towards the end of the Republic, or
perhaps earlier, was of bronze. It is shown with much
minuteness on a First Brass of Nero as a small cella, without
columns, but with richly ornamented frieze and cornice. Its
doors were closed on those rare occasions when Rome was at
peace with all the world. From the time of its traditional
founder, Numa, to that of Livy, it was only twice shut—once
after the first Punic War, and secondly after the victory of
Augustus at Actium. … It contained a very ancient statue,
probably by an Etruscan artist, of the double faced Janus
Bifrons, or Geminus. … The Temple of Janus gave its name to
this part of the edge of the Forum, and from the numerous
shops of the argentarii or bankers and money-lenders which
were there, the word Janus came to mean the usurers' quarter."
_J. H. Middleton,
Ancient Rome in 1885,
chapter 5._
The Temple of Janus was closed, once more, by Vespasian, after
the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the war in
Judea, A. D. 71. "It had stood open since the German wars of
the first princeps [Augustus]; or, according to the
computation of the christian Orosius, from the birth of Christ
to the overthrow of the Jewish people: for the senate had
refused to sanction Nero's caprice in closing it on his
precarious accommodation with Parthia. Never before had this
solemn act addressed the feelings of the citizens so directly.
… The Peace of Vespasian was celebrated by a new bevy of poets
and historians not less loudly than the Peace of Augustus. A
new era of happiness and prosperity was not less passionately
predicted."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 60._
TEMPLE OF SOLOMON, The.
"As soon as David had given to his people the boon of a unique
capital, nothing could be more natural than the wish to add
sacredness to the glory of the capital by making it the centre
of the national worship. According to the Chronicles, David …
had made unheard-of preparations to build a house for God. But
it had been decreed unfit that the sanctuary should be built
by a man whose hands were red with the blood of many wars, and
he had received the promise that the great work should be
accomplished by his son. Into that work Solomon threw himself
with hearty zeal in the month Zif of the fourth year of his
reign, when his kingdom was consolidated. … He inherited the
friendship which David had enjoyed, with Hiram, King of Tyre.
… The friendliest overtures passed between the two kings in
letters, to which Josephus appeals as still extant. A
commercial treaty was made by which Solomon engaged to furnish
the Tyrian king with annual revenues of wheat, barley, and
oil, and Hiram put at Solomon's disposal the skilled labour of
an army of Sidonian wood-cutters and artisans. … Some writers
have tried to minimise Solomon's work as a builder, and have
spoken of the Temple as an exceedingly insignificant structure
which would not stand a moment's comparison with the smallest
and humblest of our own cathedrals. Insignificant in size it
certainly was, but we must not forget its costly splendour,
the remote age in which the work was achieved, and the truly
stupendous constructions which the design required. Mount
Moriah was selected as a site hallowed by the tradition of
Abraham's sacrifice, and more recently by David's vision of
the Angel of the Pestilence with his drawn sword on the
threshing-floor of the Jebusite Prince Araunah. But to utilise
this doubly consecrated area involved almost super-human
difficulties, which would have been avoided if the loftier but
less suitable height of the Mount of Olives could have been
chosen. The rugged summit had to be enlarged to a space of 500
yards square, and this level was supported by Cyclopean walls,
which have long been the wonder of the world. … The caverns,
quarries, water storages, and subterranean conduits hewn out
of the solid rock, over which Jerusalem is built, could only
have been constructed at the cost of immeasurable toil. … It
was perhaps from his Egyptian father-in-law that Solomon, to
his own cost, learnt the secret of forced labour which alone
rendered such undertakings possible. …
{3094}
Four classes were subject to it.
1. The lightest labour was required from the native freeborn
Israelites (ezrach). They were not regarded as bondsmen, … yet
30,000 of these were required in relays of 10,000 to work, one
month in every three, in the forest of Lebanon.
2. There were the strangers, or resident aliens (Gerim), such
as the Phœnicians and Giblites, who were Hiram's subjects and
worked for pay.
3. There were three classes of slaves—those taken in war, or
sold for debt, or home-born.
4. Lowest and most wretched of all, there were the vassal
Canaanites (Toshabim), from whom were drawn those 70,000
burden-bearers, and 80,000 quarry-men, the Helots of
Palestine, who were placed under the charge of 3,600 Israelite
officers.
The blotches of smoke are still visible on the walls and roofs
of the subterranean quarries where these poor serfs, in the
dim torchlight and suffocating air, 'laboured without reward,
perished without pity, and suffered without redress.' The sad
narrative reveals to us, and modern research confirms, that
the purple of Solomon had a very seamy side, and that an abyss
of misery heaved and moaned under the glittering surface of
his splendour. … Apart from the lavish costliness of its
materials the actual Temple was architecturally a poor and
commonplace structure. It was quite small —only 90 feet long,
35 feet broad, and 45 feet high. It was meant for the symbolic
habitation of God, not for the worship of great congregations.
… Of the external aspect of the building in Solomon's day we
know nothing. We cannot even tell whether it had one level
roof, or whether the Holy of Holies was like a lower chancel
at the end of it; nor whether the roof was flat or, as the
Rabbis say, ridged; nor whether the outer surface of the
three-storied chambers which surrounded it was of stone, or
planked with cedar, or overlaid with plinths of gold and
silver; nor whether, in any case, it was ornamented with
carvings or left blank; nor whether the cornices only were
decorated with open flowers like the Assyrian rosettes. Nor do
we know with certainty whether it was supported within by
pillars or not. … It required the toil of 300,000 men for
twenty years to build one of the pyramids. It took two hundred
years to build and four hundred to embellish the great Temple
of Artemis of the Ephesians. It took more than five centuries
to give to Westminster Abbey its present form. Solomon's
Temple only took seven and a half years to build; but … its
objects were wholly different from those of the great shrines
which we have mentioned. … Needing but little repair, it stood
for more than four centuries. Succeeded as it was by the
Temples of Zerubbabel and of Herod, it carried down till
seventy years after the Christian era the memory of the
Tabernacle in the wilderness, of which it preserved the
general outline, though it exactly doubled all the proportions
and admitted many innovations."
_F. W. Farrar,
The First Book of Kings,
chapter 14 (Expositor's Bible)._
TEN, The Council of.
See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.
TEN THOUSAND, The Retreat of the.
See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.
TEN TRIBES OF ISRAEL, The.
See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH.
TEN YEARS WAR, The.
The long conflict between Athens and her confederated enemies,
Sparta at the head, which is usually called the Peloponnesian
War, was divided into two periods by the Peace or Nicias. The
war in the first period, covering a decade, was known as the
Ten Years War; though the Peloponnesians called it the Attic
War.
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 4, chapter 2._
See ATHENS: B. C. 421.
TENANT RIGHT, The Ulster.
The Tenant League.
See IRELAND: A. D.1848-1852.
TENCHEBRAY, Battle of (1106).
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
TENCTHERI, The.
See USIPETES.
TENEDOS.
See TROJA;
and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
TENEZ, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
----------TENNESSEE: Start--------
TENNESSEE:
The aboriginal inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE, and CHEROKEES.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,
Shaftesbury and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1748.
First English exploration from Virginia.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1768.
The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
Pretended cession of country south of the Ohio.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.
The first settlers in the eastern valley.
The Watauga commonwealth and its constitution.
"Soon after the successful ending of the last colonial
struggle with France, and the conquest of Canada, the British
king issued a proclamation forbidding the English colonists
from trespassing on Indian grounds, or moving west of the
mountains.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1763.
But in 1768, at the treaty of Fort Stanwix, the Six Nations
agreed to surrender to the English all the lands lying between
the Ohio and the Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.
This treaty was at once seized upon by the backwoodsmen as
offering an excuse for settling beyond the mountains. However,
the Iroquois had ceded lands to which they had no more right
than a score or more other Indian tribes. … The great
hunting-grounds between the Ohio and the Tennessee formed a
debatable land, claimed by every tribe that could hold its own
against its rivals. The eastern part of what is now Tennessee
consists of a great hill-strewn, forest-clad valley, running
from northeast to southwest, bounded on one side by the
Cumberland, and on the other by the Great Smoky and Unaka
Mountains; the latter separating it from North Carolina. In
this valley arise and end the Clinch, the Holston, the
Watauga, the Nolichucky, the French Broad, and the other
streams, whose combined volume makes the Tennessee River. The
upper end of the valley lies in southwestern Virginia, the
headwaters of some of the rivers being well within that State;
and though the province was really part of North Carolina, it
was separated therefrom by high mountain chains, while from
Virginia it was easy to follow the watercourses down the
valley. Thus, as elsewhere among the mountains forming the
western frontier, the first movements of population went
parallel with, rather than across, the ranges.
{3095}
As in western Virginia the first settlers came, for the most
part, from Pennsylvania, so, in turn, in what was then western
North Carolina, and is now eastern Tennessee, the first
settlers came mainly from Virginia, and, indeed, in great
part, from this same Pennsylvanian stock. Of course, in each
case there was also a very considerable movement directly
westward. They were a sturdy race, enterprising and
intelligent, fond of the strong excitement inherent in the
adventurous frontier life. Their untamed and turbulent
passions, and the lawless freedom of their lives, made them a
population very productive of wild, headstrong characters;
yet, as a whole, they were a God-fearing race, as was but
natural in those who sprang from the loins of the Irish
Calvinists. Their preachers, all Presbyterians, followed close
behind the first settlers and shared their toil and dangers. …
In 1769, the year that Boon first went to Kentucky, the first
permanent settlers came to the banks of the Watauga, the
settlement being merely an enlargement of the Virginia
settlement, which had for a short time existed on the
head-waters of the Holston, especially near Wolf Hills. At
first the settlers thought they were still in the domain of
Virginia, for at that time the line marking her southern
boundary had not been run so far west. … But in 1771, one of
the new-comers, who was a practical surveyor, ran out the
Virginia boundary line some distance to the westward, and
discovered that the Watauga settlement came within the limits
of North Carolina. Hitherto the settlers had supposed that
they themselves were governed by the Virginian law, and that
their rights as against the Indians were guaranteed by the
Virginian government; but this discovery threw them back upon
their own resources. They suddenly found themselves obliged to
organize a civil government. … About the time that the Watauga
commonwealth was founded; the troubles in North Carolina came
to a head. Open war ensued between the adherents of the royal
governor, Tryon, on the one hand, and the Regulators, as the
insurgents styled themselves, on the other, the struggle
ending with the overthrow of the Regulators at the battle of
Alamance.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.
As a consequence of these troubles, many people from the back
counties of North Carolina crossed the mountains, and took up
their abode among the pioneers on the Watauga and upper
Holston; the beautiful valley of the Nolichucky soon receiving
its share of this stream of immigration. Among the first
comers were many members of the class of desperate adventurers
always to be found hanging round the outskirts of frontier
civilization. … But the bulk of the settlers were men of
sterling worth; fit to be the pioneer fathers of a mighty and
beautiful state. … Such were the settlers of the Watauga, the
founders of the commonwealth that grew into the State of
Tennessee, who early in 1772 decided that they must form some
kind of government that would put down wrong-doing and work
equity between man and man. Two of their number already
towered head and shoulders above the rest in importance and
merit especial mention; for they were destined for the next
thirty years to play the chief parts in the history of that
portion of the Southwest which largely through their own
efforts became the State of Tennessee. These two men, neither
of them yet thirty years of age, were John Sevier and James
Robertson. … With their characteristic capacity for
combination, so striking as existing together with the equally
characteristic capacity for individual self-help, the settlers
determined to organize a government of their own. They
promptly put their, resolution into effect early in the spring
of 1772, Robertson being apparently the leader in the
movement. They decided to adopt written articles of agreement,
by which their conduct should be governed; and these were
known as the Articles of the Watauga Association. They formed
a written constitution, the first ever adopted west of the
mountains, or by a community composed of American-born
freemen. It is this fact of the early independence and
self-government of the settlers along the head-waters of the
Tennessee that gives to their history its peculiar importance.
They were the first men of American birth to establish a free
and independent community on the continent. … The first step
taken by the Watauga settlers, when they had determined to
organize, was to meet in general convention, holding a kind of
folk-thing, akin to the New England town-meeting. They then
elected a representative assembly, a small parliament or
'witanagemot,' which met at Robertson's station. Apparently
the freemen of each little fort or palisaded village, each
block-house that was the centre of a group of detached cabins
and clearings, sent a member to this first frontier
legislature. It consisted of thirteen representatives, who
proceeded to elect from their number five—among them Sevier
and Robertson—to form a committee or court, which should carry
on the actual business of government, and should exercise both
judicial and executive functions. This court had a clerk and a
sheriff, or executive officer, who respectively recorded and
enforced their decrees. … In fact, the dwellers, in this
little outlying frontier commonwealth, exercised the rights of
full statehood for a number of years; establishing in true
American style a purely democratic government with
representative institutions."
_T. Roosevelt,
The Winning of the West,
volume 1, chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_E. Kirke (pseudonym J. R. Gilmore),
The Rear-Guard of the Revolution,
chapters 2-6._
_J. Phelan,
History of Tennessee,
chapters 1-3._
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1776-1784.
Annexation to North Carolina.
Cession by that state to the Congress of the Confederation.
Consequent revolt.
Repeal of the act of cession.
"The Watauga people had hopes, when the articles of
association were adopted, of being able eventually to form an
independent government, governed as the older colonies were
governed, by royal governors. When the disagreements between
the colonies and the mother country arose, they modified their
views to the new order of things, and regarded themselves as a
distinct though as yet inchoate state. But their weakness …
rendered the protection of some more powerful state necessary
for their welfare. … They petitioned North Carolina for
annexation in 1776. Their petition was granted. … The
provincial congress of North Carolina met at Halifax in
November, 1776, and [Robertson, Sevier and two others] were
delegates from Washington District, Watauga settlement. …
{3096}
After the annexation of the Washington District the old form
of government was allowed to stand until the spring of 1777. …
In November of this year, 1777, the District of Washington
became Washington County. … From 1777 until the disturbances
of eight years later, the history of Tennessee was a part of
the history of North Carolina. … The part played by the
inhabitants of Tennessee in the war for independence was
active, and in one instance [at King's Mountain] decisive.
Their operations were chiefly of a desultory, guerrilla kind,
under the leadership of Sevier … and Shelby." Sevier was also
the leader in wars with the Indians, which were carried on
with unsparing fierceness on both sides. "In the April session
of 1784, the General Assembly of North Carolina, in accordance
with the recommendation of Congress itself, as well as with
the dictates of a far-seeing and enlightened statesmanship,
imitated the example of Virginia and New York, and ceded to
the United States all the territory which is now the State of
Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1781-1786.
This of course included all the settlements. The condition of
the cession was its acceptance by Congress within two years.
Until Congress should have accepted the ceded territory, the
jurisdiction of North Carolina over it was to remain in every
respect the same as heretofore. … When the question of cession
was first broached, it was accepted by the four
representatives of the western counties at Hillsboro, as well
as by those who proposed it, as the natural and legitimate
solution of a complex problem. No one apparently dreamed of
opposition on the part of the settlers themselves. … There is
no reason to think that the Watauga people had any objection
to the cession. … The objection was against the manner of the
cession and its conditions. … The main cause of complaint was
that North Carolina had left them without any form of
government for two years. … A storm of indignation swept
through the entire settlement. … The people regarded
themselves without government, and, true to the traditions of
their race, they sought the solution of the difficulty in
their own resources. … It is one of the noteworthy facts in
the history of institutions that the possessors of English
tradition always begin with the first primal germ of local
self-government at hand, be it court leet, court of quarter
sessions, township, county, school district, or military
company, and build upward. The Watauga people had nothing so
convenient as the militia companies, and they began with them
as representing a more minutely varied constituency than the
county court. Each company elected two representatives, and
the representatives so elected in each county formed
themselves into a committee, and the three committees of
Washington, Sullivan, and Greene counties met as a kind of
impromptu or temporary legislature, and decided to call a
general convention to be elected by the people of the
different counties. This convention met on the 23d of August,
1784, at Jonesboro. John Sevier was elected president, and
Landon Carter secretary. … It is supposed that the convention
which met at Jonesboro adopted the resolution to form a
'separate and distinct State, independent of the State of
North Carolina.' … Provision was made for the calling of a
future convention in which representation was to be according
to companies. … The meeting adjourned, having fairly
inaugurated the contest with North Carolina, which still
claimed jurisdiction." Soon afterward the legislature of North
Carolina repealed the act of cession, and "for a time it was
supposed that this would terminate the agitation in favor of a
new State."
_J. Phelan,
History of Tennessee,
chapters 5-10._
ALSO IN:
_J. R. Gilmore,
John Sevier as a Commonwealth Builder,
chapter 2._
_J. G. M. Ramsey,
Annals of Tennessee,
chapter 3._
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1780.
The Battle of King's Mountain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785.
The organization of the State of Franklin.
"Toward the close of May [1785] the western lands being again
under discussion [in Congress], a resolution was carried
urging North Carolina to reconsider her act of the previous
November, and once more cede to Congress her possessions
beyond the mountains. Had the request been granted, there can
be no doubt, the measure would have speedily brought peace and
quiet to that distracted region. But North Carolina was too
intent on bringing her rebellious subjects to terms to think
for a moment of bestowing them with their lands and goods on
Congress. Indeed, when the news of the request was carried
into the district some months later, the malcontents expressed
much surprise. They could not, they said, understand why
Congress should apply to North Carolina; North Carolina had
nothing to do with them. The parent State had, by her act of
1784, given them away. Congress did not take them under its
protection. They belonged, therefore, to nobody, and while in
this condition had called a convention, had framed a
constitution, had formed a new State, had chosen for it a
name, and elected a Legislature which was actually in session
at the time the act of the 23d of May was passed. … Much of
what they stated was strictly true. The delegates to the
second convention had assembled early in 1785. These had given
the State the name of Franklin, and had drawn up a
constitution which they submitted to the people. It was
expected that the men of the district would consider it
carefully, and select delegates to a third convention, which
should have full power to ratify or reject. The place fixed
upon for the meeting of the convention was Greenville. But as
there was then no printing-press nearer than Charleston or
Richmond, and as much time must elapse before the constitution
could become known to all, the delegates were not to convene
till the 14th of November. Meanwhile the Legislature was to
organize. Elections were held without delay; members were
chosen after the manner in which the settlers had long been
accustomed to elect representatives to the Assembly of the
parent State, and these, meeting at Jonesboro, conducted their
business with so much dispatch that on the last day of March
they adjourned. Many acts were passed by them. But one alone
excited general comment, and was the cause of unbounded
merriment across the mountains. A list of articles at that
time scarce to be met with in the State of Franklin would be a
long one. But there would be no article in the list less
plentiful than money. … When, therefore, the Legislature came
to determine what should be the legal currency of the State,
it most wisely contented itself with fixing the value of such
articles as had, from time immemorial, been used as money.
{3097}
One pound of sugar, the law said, should pass for a
shilling-piece; the skin of a raccoon or a fox for a shilling
and threepence. A gallon of rye whiskey, it was thought, was
worth twice that sum, while a gallon of peach-brandy or a yard
of good nine hundred flax linen was each to pass for a
three-shilling piece. Some difficulty was met with in
selecting articles that could be easily carried from place to
place and expressive of large values. It was, however, finally
determined that a clean beaver-skin, an otter or a deer-skin,
should each of them be the representative of six shillings. In
this kind of money, the law further prescribed, the salary of
every officer of the State, from the Governor down to the
hangman, was to be paid. When this act became known in the
East the wits were greatly amused. … In the belief that the
new money could not be counterfeited they were much mistaken.
Many bundles of what seemed to be otter-skins were soon
passing about, which, on being opened, were found to be skins
of raccoons with tails of otters sewed to them. … The name of
the State has often been asserted to be Frankland, the land of
the Franks, or Freemen. … But letters are extant from high
officials of the State to Benjamin Franklin declaring that it
was named after him."
_J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
volume 1, chapter 3, with foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_J. G. M. Ramsey,
Annals of Tennessee,
chapter 4._
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.
The troubled history and the fall of the state of Franklin.
The rise of the state of Tennessee.
On receiving news of the organization of the independent state
of Franklin, Governor Martin, of North Carolina, issued a
proclamation which was skilfully addressed to the cooler
judgment of the mountaineers and which "was not without its
effect." But, although the adherents of North Carolina
"gradually gained ground in the new commonwealth, a majority
still clung to Sevier, and refused to recognize any government
but the one they themselves had organized. In this opposition
of parties, disorders sprang up which presently degenerated
into lawlessness. Both governments claimed jurisdiction, and
both sought to exercise it. The consequence was that both
became inefficient. Party quarrels ensued; old friends became
enemies; Tipton and his followers openly supported the claims
of North Carolina; Sevier sought to maintain his authority as
the executive officer of Franklin. This antagonistic spirit
led to the commission of various outrages. … But in the midst
of these inglorious quarrels, Governor Sevier did not neglect
to defend from Indian aggressions the state over which he had
been called to preside. … He was far less successful, however,
in giving peace to the distracted state of Franklin. The
continuance of intestine dissensions, and the nice balance of
parties which took place in 1787, induced the people to refuse
to pay taxes either to North Carolina or to the local
government, until the supremacy of one or the other should be
more generally acknowledged. In this state of affairs, with
his government tottering to its downfall, Sevier earnestly
appealed to North Carolina for a ratification of the
independence of the state of Franklin, and to Franklin
himself, and the governors of Georgia and Virginia, for
counsel and assistance. Disappointed on all sides, he finally
rested for support upon his immediate friends, conscious of
the rectitude of his own intentions. … But the people were
already weary of a feud which threatened, at every fresh
outbreak, to end in bloodshed. In 1787 the last legislature of
the state of Franklin held its session at Greenville. … The
conciliatory measures of North Carolina presently disarmed the
malecontents of all further arguments for opposing the
reunion; and in February, 1788, the state of Franklin ceased
to exist." Fierce conflicts between Sevier and Tipton and
their hotter partisans still continued for some time; until,
in October, Sevier was arrested for high treason and
imprisoned at Morgantown. He escaped soon after, through the
aid of his sons, was elected to the North Carolina senate, and
was permitted to qualify for the seat on renewing his oath of
allegiance. "His services were remembered and his faults
forgotten." Meantime, settlements on the Cumberland, founded
in 1779 by James Robertson, had prospered and grown strong,
and Nashville, the chief among them, assumed its name in 1784,
"in commemoration of the patriotic services of Colonel Francis
Nash," of North Carolina, who fell in the battle of
Germantown. In 1790, after ratifying the Federal Constitution,
North Carolina, re-enacted the cession of her western
territory, coinciding with the present state of Tennessee, to
the United States, stipulating "that no regulation made or to
be made by Congress shall tend to the emancipation of slaves."
The "Territory southwest of the Ohio" was then organized, with
William Blount for governor. Six years later (January, 1796),
the population of the Territory having been ascertained by a
census to be 67,000 free white inhabitants and 10,000 slaves,
a constitution was adopted, the State of Tennessee was formed,
with John Sevier for Governor, and, after some opposition in
Congress, it was formally admitted to its place and rank as
one of the United States of America. Its first Representative
in the House was Andrew Jackson.
_W. H. Carpenter,
History of Tennessee,
chapters 13-17._
ALSO IN:
_J. R. Gilmore,
John Sevier as a Commonwealth-Builder,
chapters 4-12._
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1800.
The question of the Free Navigation of the Mississippi.
Discontent of the settlers and intrigues among them.
See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1813-1814.
The Creek War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-MAY).
The mode in which the state was dragged into Rebellion.
"The Legislature of Tennessee met on the 6th of January. On
the 12th, a bill for the calling of a state convention [with
the object of following the lead, in secession, which South
Carolina had taken on the 20th of December was passed.]
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
{3098}
It was passed subject to the approval of the voters. The
election took place on the 8th day of February. The people
voted against holding a convention by 67,360, to 54,156. In
disregard of this vote of the people, however, the
legislature, on May 1st, passed a joint resolution authorizing
the governor to enter into a military league with the Confederate
States. The league was formed. The Governor, Isham G. Harris,
sent a message to the legislature, announcing the fact. He
stated its terms. … It stipulated that until the state should
become a member of the Confederacy, 'the whole military force
and military operations, offensive and defensive, of said
state, in the impending conflict with the United States, shall
be under the chief control and direction of the President of
the Confederate States.' It was also agreed that the state
would, as soon as it should join the Confederacy, turn over
all public property it might acquire from the United States.
The legislature ratified the league by decided majorities of
both branches. These final proceedings took place on the 7th
day of May. On the preceding day, the legislature put forth a
declaration of independence. It was submitted to the votes of
the people for ratification. This document waives the right of
secession, as follows: 'We, the people of the State of
Tennessee, waiving an expression of opinion as to the abstract
doctrine of secession, but asserting the right, as a free and
independent people,' declare that all the laws and ordinances
by which Tennessee became a member of the Federal Union, 'are
hereby abrogated.' The vote for separation was declared by the
governor to be 104,019 for, and 47,238 against that measure.
It thus appears that the Legislature of Tennessee, in
declaring the separation of the state from the Federal Union,
placed its action upon the ground of a revolutionary right,
which all admit to be inalienable, if the cause be just."
_S. S. Cox,
Three Decades of Federal Legislation,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_F. Moore, editor,
Rebellion Record,
volume 1, documents 201-205._
_O. J. Victor,
History of the Southern Rebellion,
division 4, chapter 11 (volume 2)._
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (April).
Governor Harris' reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1861 (June).
The loyalty of East Tennessee and its resistance to Secession.
"For separation and representation at Richmond, East Tennessee
gave [at the election, June 8, when the question of secession
was nominally submitted to the people, the state having been
already delivered by its governor and legislature to the
Confederacy] 14,700 votes; and half of that number were Rebel
troops, having no authority under the Constitution to vote at
any election. For 'no separation' and 'no representation,'—the
straight-out Union vote,—East Tennessee gave 33,000, or 18,300
of a majority, with at least 5,000 quiet citizens deterred
from coming out by threats of violence, and by the presence of
drunken troops at the polls to insult them. … By … fraud and
villainy, … the great State of Tennessee was carried out of
the Union. The loyal people of East Tennessee, to their great
honor, had no lot or part in the work."
_W. G. Brownlow,
Sketches of the Rise, Progress and Decline of Secession,
pages 222-223._
"Finding themselves powerless before the tyranny inaugurated,
the Unionists of East Tennessee resolved, as a last resort, to
hold a Convention at Greenville, to consult as to the best
course to pursue. This Convention met June 17th. The
attendance was very large—thirty-one counties having delegates
present on the first day. Judge Nelson presided. After a four
days' session it adopted a Declaration of Grievances and
Resolutions," declaring that "we prefer to remain attached to
the Government of our fathers. The Constitution of the United
States has done us no wrong. The Congress of the United States
has passed no law to oppress us. … The secession cause has
thus far been sustained by deception and falsehood." The
Convention protested on behalf of East Tennessee against being
dragged into rebellion, and appointed commissioners to pursue
measures looking to the formation of a separate state. "Vain
protest! It was not long before those Unionists and
protestants against wrong were flying for their lives, and
were hunted down like wild beasts."
_O. J. Victor,
History of the Southern Rebellion,
division 5, chapter 5 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_T. W. Humes,
The Loyal Mountaineers of Tennessee,
chapters 6-11._
_W. Rule,
Loyalists of Tennessee in the late War
(Sketches of War History, Ohio Commandery, L. L. volume 2)._
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (February).
The breaking of the Rebel line of defense at Fort Henry and
Fort Donelson.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (March).
Andrew Johnson appointed military governor.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-JUNE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April).
The continued advance of the Union armies.
Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (April-May).
The Union advance upon Corinth, Mississippi.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June).
Evacuation of Fort Pillow and surrender
of Memphis by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862 (June-October).
The Buell-Bragg campaign.
Chattanooga secured by the Confederates.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1862-1863 (December-January).
Bragg and Rosecrans.
The Battle of Stone River, or Murfreesborough.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (February-April).
Engagements at Dover and Franklin.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (June-July).
The Tullahoma campaign of Rosecrans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
Burnside in east Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
BURNSIDE'S DELIVERANCE.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (August-September).
The Chickamauga campaign and battle.
The Union army at Chattanooga.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE)
ROSECRANS' ADVANCE.
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-November).
The Siege and the Battles of Chattanooga.
Lookout Mountain.
Missionary Ridge.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863 (October-December).
Siege of Knoxville.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
{3099}
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1863-1864 (December-April).
Winter operations.
Withdrawal of Longstreet from east Tennessee.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864(DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (April).
The Fort Pillow Massacre.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (APRIL: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (September-October).
Forrest's raid.
The capture of Athens.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1864 (November).
Hood's invasion and destruction.
The Battles of Franklin and Nashville.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865.
President Johnson's recognition of the
reconstructed State Government.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.
Reconstruction.
Abolition of Slavery.
Restoration of the State to its
"former, proper, practical relation to the Union."
In the early part of 1865, Andrew Johnson, though
Vice-President-elect, was "still discharging the functions of
military governor of Tennessee. A popular convention
originating from his recommendation and assembling under his
auspices, was organized at Nashville on the 9th day of
January, 1865. Membership of the body was limited to those who
'give an active support to the Union cause, who have never
voluntarily borne arms against the Government, who have never
voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy.' … Tennessee,
as Johnson bluntly maintained, could only be organized and
controlled as a State in the Union by that portion of her
citizens who acknowledged their allegiance to the Government
of the Union. Under this theory of procedure the popular
convention proposed an amendment to the State constitution,
'forever abolishing and prohibiting slavery in the State,' and
further declaring that 'the Legislature shall make no law
recognizing the right of property in man.' The convention took
several other important steps, annulling in whole and in
detail all the legislation which under Confederate rule had
made the State a guilty participant in the rebellion. Thus was
swept away the ordinance of Secession, and the State debt
created in aid of the war against the Union. All these
proceedings were submitted to popular vote on the 22d of
February, and were ratified by an affirmative vote of 25,293
against a negative vote of 48. The total vote of the State at
the Presidential election of 1860 was 145,333. Mr. Lincoln's
requirement of one-tenth of that number was abundantly
complied with by the vote on the questions submitted to the
popular decision. … Under this new order of things, William G.
Brownlow, better known to the world by his soubriquet of
'Parson' Brownlow, was chosen governor without opposition on
the 4th day of March, 1865, the day of Mr. Lincoln's second
inauguration. The new Legislature met at Nashville a month
later, on the 3d of April, and on the 5th ratified the
Thirteenth Amendment; thus adding the abolition of slavery by
National authority to that already decreed by the State. The
Legislature completed its work by electing two consistent
Union men, David T. Patterson and Joseph S. Fowler, to the
United States Senate. The framework of the new Government was
thus completed and in operation before the death of Mr.
Lincoln."
_J. G. Blaine,
Twenty Years of Congress,
volume 2, chapter 3._
After the organization of a loyal government in Tennessee,
more than a year passed before the restoration of the State to
its constitutional relations with the United States, by the
admission of its Senators and Representatives to Congress.
Tennessee was the first, however, among the seceded States to
obtain that recognition, by being the first to ratify the
Fourteenth Constitutional Amendment. "Immediately on the
reception of the circular of the Secretary of State containing
the proposed amendment, Governor Brownlow issued a
proclamation summoning the Legislature of Tennessee to
assemble at Nashville on the 4th of July [1866]. … Every
effort was made to prevent the assembling of the required
number [to constitute a quorum]. The powerful influence of the
President himself was thrown in opposition to ratification."
By arresting recalcitrant members, and by "the expedient of
considering the members who were under arrest and confined in
a committee room as present in their places," the quorum was
assumed to have been made up and the amendment was ratified.
"Immediately after the news was received in Washington, Mr.
Bingham, in the House of Representatives, moved to reconsider
a motion by which a joint resolution relating to the
restoration of Tennessee had been referred to the Committee on
Reconstruction," and, this motion being adopted, he introduced
a substitute which declared, "That the State of Tennessee is
hereby restored to her former, proper, practical relation to
the Union, and again entitled to be represented by Senators
and Representatives in Congress, duly elected and qualified,
upon their taking the oaths of office required by existing
laws." On the following day this joint resolution passed the
House, and a day later (July 21st), it was adopted by the
Senate.
_W. H. Barnes,
History of the 39th Congress,
chapter 20._
ALSO IN:
_Ira P. Jones,
Reconstruction in Tennessee
(Why the Solid South? chapter 7)._
TENNESSEE: A. D. 1866-1871.
The Ku Klux Klan.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.
----------TENNESSEE: End--------
TENNIS-COURT OATH, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).
TENOCHTITLAN.
The native name of the city of Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
TENPET, The.
See MAGIANS.
TENURE-OF-OFFICE BILL, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1866-1867 (DECEMBER-MARCH).
TEOTIHUACAN, Pyramids at.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE, &c.
TEQUESTA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
TERENTILIAN LAW, The.
See ROME: B. C. 451-449.
TERMILI, The.
See LYCIANS.
TEROUENNE: Siege and capture by the English (1513).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
TERRA FIRMA.
See TIERRA FIRME.
{3100}
TERROR, The Reign of.
As commonly used, this phrase describes the fearful state of
things that prevailed in France during a period of the French
Revolution which ended with the fall of Robespierre, July 27
(Ninth Thermidor), 1794. The beginning of the period so called
is usually placed at the date of the coup d'état, May 31-June
2, 1793, which overthrew the Girondists and gave unrestrained
power into the hands of the Terrorists of the Mountain. The
Reign of Terror was not however fully organized as a
deliberately merciless system, and made, according to the
demand of the Paris Commune, "the order of the day," until the
following September. In another view, the Reign of Terror may
be said to have begun with the creation of the terrible
Revolutionary Tribunal, March, 1793.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), to 1794 (JULY).
TERTIARII, The.
See BEGUINES, ETC.
TESCHEN, Treaty of (1779).
See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.
TESHER.
The name which the Egyptians gave to the Arabian desert,
signifying red earth.
See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.
TESSERA HOSPITALIS.
See HOSPES.
TEST ACT, and its Repeal.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673,
and 1827-1828 REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES.
TESTRI, Battle of (A. D. 687).
See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
TESTS, Religious, in the English Universities: Abolished.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
TETONS, The.
See AMERICAN' ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.
TETRARCH.
As originally used, this official title, from the Greek,
signified the governor of one fourth part of a country or
province. Later, the Romans applied it to many tributary
princes, in Syria and elsewhere, to whom they wished to give a
rank inferior to that of the tributary kings.
TETZEL, and the sale of Indulgences.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1517 TETZEL.
TEUKRIANS, The.
"The elegiac poet Kallinus, in the middle of the seventh
century B. C., was the first who mentioned the Teukrians; he
treated them as immigrants from Krête, though other authors
represented them as indigenous, or as having come from Attica.
However the fact may stand as to their origin, we may gather
that, in the time of Kallinus, they were still the great
occupants of the Troad [northwestern Asia Minor]. Gradually
the south and west coasts, as well as the interior of this
region, became penetrated by successive colonies of Æolic
Greeks. … The name Teukrians gradually vanished out of present
use and came to belong only to the legends of the past."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 14._
TEUTECAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.
TEUTONES.
TEUTONIC.
"In the way of evidence of there being Teutones amongst the
Germans, over and above the associate mention of their names
with that of the Cimbri [see CIMBRI], there is but little.
They are not so mentioned either by Tacitus or Strabo. …
Arguments have been taken from … the supposed connection of
the present word 'Deut-sch' =='German,' with the classical
word 'Teut-ones.' … The reasoning … runs thus: The syllable in
question is common to the word 'Teut-ones,' 'Teut-onicus,'
'Theod-iscas,' 'teud-uiscus,' 'teut-iscus,' 'tût-iske,'
'dût-iske,' 'tiut-sche,' 'deut-sch'; whilst the word Deut-sch
means German, As the 'Teut-ones' were Germans, so were the
Cimbri also. Now this line of argument is set aside by the
circumstance that the syllable 'Teut-' in Teut-ones and
Teut-onicus as the names of the confederates of the Cimbri, is
wholly unconnected with the 'Teut-' in 'theod-iscus' and
Deut-sch. This is fully shown by Grimm in his dissertation on
the words German and Dutch. In its oldest form the latter word
meant 'popular,' 'national,' 'vernacular'; it was an adjective
applied to the 'vulgar tongue,' or the vernacular German, in
opposition to the Latin. In the tenth century the secondary
form 'Teut-onicus' came in vogue even with German writers.
Whether this arose out of imitation of the Latin form
'Romanice,' or out of the idea of an historical connection
with the Teutones of the classics, is immaterial. It is clear
that the present word 'Deut-sch' proves nothing respecting the
Teutones. Perhaps, however, as early as the time of Martial
the word 'Teutonicus' was used in a general sense, denoting
the Germans in general. Certain it is that, before his time,
it meant the particular people conquered by Marius,
irrespective of origin or locality."
_R. G. Latham,
The Germany of Tacitus,
appendix 3._
TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
The founding of the order.
"It is not possible to find the exact date of the foundation
of the Teutonic Order, but it was probably about A. D. 1190
that it received its full organization as one of the
recognized Religious Military Orders. Its actual commencement,
like that of the other Orders, was obscure and humble. About
1128 or 1129, a wealthy German, who had taken part in the
siege and capture of Jerusalem, settled there with his wife,
intending to spend the remainder of his life in the practice
of religion and in visiting the holy places. His attention and
interest were soon excited by the misfortunes of his poorer
countrymen, who came in great numbers as pilgrims to
Jerusalem. Many fell sick, and endured great miseries and
hardships. Moved with compassion, he received some of the more
distressing cases into his own house. But he soon found that
the work grew beyond this, and he built a hospital, with a
chapel dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. In this institution he
passed the whole of his time, nursing the sick pilgrims; and
to their maintenance he devoted the whole of his means." One
by one, others of his countrymen joined the pious German in
his benevolent work, and "banded themselves together after the
pattern of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and united the
care of the sick and poor with the profession of arms in their
defence, under the title of Hospitallers of the Blessed
Virgin. This little band put themselves under the direction of
the Grand Prior of the Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem,
although they did not actually join this Order, whose
operations they so closely imitated. … It was, however, during
the siege of Acre [A. D. 1189-1191] that the Teutonic Order
received its final and complete organization as one of the
great Military Religious Orders of Europe." At Acre, the
Hospitallers of the Blessed Virgin, then driven from Jerusalem
by Saladin's conquest, joined certain citizens of Bremen and
Lu·beck in providing a field-hospital for the wounded and
sick, and in their new sphere of labor they acquired the
designation of the Teutonic Knights of the Hospital of the
Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem. "It is said that the Order owed
its constitution to Frederick, Duke of Suabia; but there is
much obscurity, and little authentic record to determine this
or to furnish particulars of the transaction. The Order seems,
however, to have been confirmed by Pope Celestine III."
_F. C. Woodhouse,
Military Religious Orders,
part 3, chapter 1._
{3101}
TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
Conquest of Prussia.
See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY; and LIVONIA.
TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL:
Subjection to Poland, secularization of the Order
and surrender of its territories.
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
TEUTONIC KNIGHTS OF THE HOSPITAL: A. D. 1809.
Suppression by Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).
TEWFIK, Khedive of Egypt, The reign of.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882; and 1882-1883.
TEWKESBURY, Battle of (1471).
The final battle of the "War of the Roses," in which Edward
IV. of England overthrew the last Lancastrian army, collected
by Queen Margaret of Anjou and her adherents; fought May 4,
1471. Three weeks previously, at Barnet, he had defeated and
slain the Earl of Warwick. At Tewkesbury Queen Margaret was
taken prisoner, her young son disappeared, how or when is
uncertain, and her husband, the deposed King Henry VI., died
mysteriously a few days afterwards in his prison in the tower.
It was the end of the Lancastrian struggle.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
----------TEXAS: Start--------
TEXAS:
The aboriginal inhabitants and the name.
Amongst the small tribes found early in the 19th century
existing west of the Mississippi on Red River and south of it,
and believed to be natives of that region, were the Caddoes,
"the Nandakoes, the Inies or Tachies, who have given their
name to the province of Texas, and the Nabedaches, … [who]
speak dialects of the Caddo language." Also, the Natchitoches,
the Yatassees, the Adaize, the Appelousas, etc.
_A. Gallatin,
Synopsis of the Indian Tribes
(Archœologia Americana, volume 2),
introduction, section 3._
ALSO IN:
_President's Message, February 19, 1806,
with accompanying documents._
See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.
TEXAS: A. D. 1685-1687.
La Salle's shipwrecked colony.
See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.
TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.
Relinquishment of American claims to Spain.
Condition as a Mexican province.
Encouragement of immigration from the United States and Europe.
"By the treaty of 1819 with Spain for the cession of the
Floridas, the United States relinquished all claim to the
western portion of Louisiana lying south of Red River and west
of the Sabine.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1819-1821;
and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.
After the final ratification of that treaty by both
governments, and the cession and delivery of the Floridas to
the United States, the Spaniards took formal possession of the
country west of the Sabine, and erected it into the 'Province
of Texas,' under the authority and jurisdiction of the Viceroy
of Mexico. From that time the Sabine River was the western
boundary of the United States, near the Gulf of Mexico. The
province of Texas at this time was occupied by the native
tribes of savages, interrupted only by a few Spanish
settlements. … The whole population, including some
settlements in the vicinity of the seacoast, scarcely exceeded
5,000 souls, of whom the greater portion were the remains of
old colonies formed during the Spanish dominion over the
province of Louisiana. Each principal settlement, from San
Antonio de Bexar to Nacogdoches, was placed under the
government of a military commandant, who exercised civil and
military authority within the limits of his presidio. … Such
was the province of Texas under the Spanish monarchy until the
year 1821, when Mexico became an independent nation. … On the
24th of October, 1824, the Mexican States adopted a Republican
form of government, embracing 'a confederation of independent
states,' known and designated as the 'United States of
Mexico.' In this confederation the departments of Texas and
Coahuila were admitted as one state, and were jointly
represented in the Congress of Mexico. Soon after the
establishment of independence in the United States of Mexico,
the colonization and settlement of Texas became a favorite
subject of national policy with the new government. To attract
population for the settlement of the country, colonization
laws were enacted, to encourage enterprising individuals from
foreign countries to establish large colonies of emigrants
within the limits of Texas. Under the provisions of these laws
enterprise was awakened in the United States and in some
portions of Europe. Founders of colonies, or 'Empresarios,'
were induced to enter into engagements for the occupancy and
settlement of large tracts of country, designated in their
respective 'grants'; the extent of the grant being
proportionate to the number of colonists to be introduced. The
first grant was made to Moses Austin, a native of Durham,
Connecticut, in 1821, and under its provisions he was required
by the Mexican authorities to introduce 300 families from the
United States. This enterprising man, having departed from
Bexar for the introduction of his colony, died on his journey
through the wilderness, leaving his plans of colonization to
be prosecuted by his son, Colonel Stephen F. Austin, who
possessed the talents, energy, and judgment requisite for the
arduous undertaking. Having succeeded to his father's
enterprise, he subsequently acquired more influence with the
Mexican government than any other 'empresario' in the
province. … But a few years had elapsed when nearly the whole
area of the department of Texas had been parceled out into
extensive grants for settlement by the different 'empresarios'
with their colonies. … Emigration from the United States, as
well as from Great Britain and Ireland, continued to augment
the population in all the departments until the year 1834,
when political troubles began to convulse the "Mexican
Republic." In 1835 "the whole Anglo-American population of
Texas was about 20,000; of this number General Austin's colony
comprised no less than 13,000, or more than half the entire
population. These were chiefly emigrants from the United
States. … The Mexicans within the limits of Texas at this
period scarcely exceeded 3,000, most of whom resided in the
vicinity of Bexar."
_J. W. Monette,
Discovery and Settlement of the Mississippi Valley,
volume 2, pages 569-572._
ALSO IN:
_H. Yoakum,
History of Texas,
volume 1, chapters 15-21._
{3102}
TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.
The introduction of Slavery.
Schemes of the Slave Power in the United States.
Revolutionary movement under Houston.
Independence of Mexico declared,
and practically won at San Jacinto.
The American settlers in Texas "brought their slaves with
them, and continued to do so notwithstanding a decree of the
Mexican Congress, issued in July, 1824, which forbade the
importation into Mexican territory of slaves from foreign
countries, and notwithstanding the Constitution adopted the
same year, which declared free all children thereafter born of
slaves. About that time the slave-holders in the United States
began to see in Texas an object of peculiar interest to them.
The Missouri Compromise, admitting Missouri as a Slave State
and opening to slavery all that part of the Louisiana purchase
south of 36° 30', seemed at first to give a great advantage to
the slave power. But gradually it became apparent that the
territory thus opened to slavery was, after all, too limited
for the formation of many new Slave States, while the area for
the building up of Free States was much larger. More territory
for slavery was therefore needed to maintain the balance of
power between the two sections. At the same time the Mexican
government, growing alarmed at the unruly spirit of the
American colony in Texas, attached Texas to Coahuila, the two
to form one state. The constitution of Coahuila forbade the
importation of slaves; and in 1829 the Republic of Mexico, by
the decree of September 15, emancipated all the slaves within
its boundaries. Then the American Slave States found
themselves flanked in the southwest by a power not only not in
sympathy with slavery, but threatening to become dangerous to
its safety. The maintenance of slavery in Texas, and
eventually the acquisition of that country, were thenceforth
looked upon by the slaveholding interest in this Republic as
matters of very great importance, and the annexation project
was pushed forward systematically. First the American settlers
in Texas refused to obey the Mexican decree of emancipation,
and, in order to avoid an insurrection, the Mexican
authorities permitted it to be understood that the decree did
not embrace Texas. Thus one point was gained. Then the
Southern press vigorously agitated the necessity of enlarging
the area of slavery, while an interest in the North was
created by organizing three land companies in New York, which
used pretended Mexican land grants in Texas as the basis of
issues of stock, promising to make people rich over-night, and
thus drawing Texas within the circle of American business
speculation. In 1830 President Jackson made another attempt to
purchase Texas [Henry Clay, in 1827, when Secretary of State
under John Quincy Adams, had already made a proposal to the
Mexican government for the purchase], offering five millions,
but without success. The Mexican government, scenting the
coming danger, prohibited the immigration of Americans into
Texas. This, however, had no effect. The American colony now
received a capable and daring leader in Sam Houston of
Tennessee, who had served with General Jackson in the Indian
wars. He went to Texas for the distinct object of wresting
that country from Mexico. There is reason for believing that
President Jackson was not ignorant of his intentions.
Revolutionary convulsions in Mexico gave the American
colonists welcome opportunities for complaints, which led to
collisions with the Mexican authorities. General Santa Anna,
who by a successful revolutionary stroke had put himself at
the head of the Mexican government, attempted to reduce the
unruly Americans to obedience. In 1835 armed conflicts took
place, in which the Americans frequently had the advantage.
The Texans declared their independence from Mexico on March 2,
1836. The declaration was signed by about 60 men, among whom
there were only two of Mexican nationality. The constitution
of the new republic confirmed the existence of slavery under
its jurisdiction, and surrounded it with all possible
guaranties. Meanwhile Santa Anna advanced at the head of a
Mexican army to subdue the revolutionists. Atrocious
butcheries marked the progress of his soldiery. On March 6 the
American garrison [250 men] of the Alamo [a mission church at
San Antonio de Bexar] was massacred, and on the 27th a large
number [500] of American prisoners at Goliad met a like fate.
These atrocities created a great excitement in the United
States. But on April 21 the Texans under Houston, about 800
strong, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Santa Anna's army of
1,500 men, at San Jacinto, taking Santa Anna himself prisoner.
When captive Mexican President concluded an armistice with the
victorious Texans, promising the evacuation of the country,
and to procure the recognition of its independence; but this
the Mexican Congress refused to ratify. The government of the
United States maintained, in appearance, a neutral position.
President Jackson had indeed instructed General Gaines to
march his troops into Texas, if he should see reason to
apprehend Indian incursions. Gaines actually crossed the
boundary line, and was recalled only after the Mexican
Minister at Washington had taken his passports. The
organization of reinforcements for Houston, however, had been
suffered to proceed on American soil without interference."
_C. Schurz,
Life of Henry Clay,
chapter 17 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 2, chapter 7._
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8 (Mexico, volume 5), chapter 7._
_A. M. Williams,
Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas._
TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.
Eight years of independence.
Annexation to the United States.
The question in Congress and the country.
"Santa Anna, … constrained in his extremity to acknowledge the
independence of Texas, … was liberated, and the new republic
established in October, 1836, with a Constitution modeled on
that of the United States, and with General Houston
inaugurated as its first President. The United States
forthwith acknowledged its independence. In less than a year
application was made to the United States government to
receive the new republic into the Union, and, though this was
at the time declined, it was obvious that the question was
destined to play a most important part in American civil
policy. The North saw in the whole movement a predetermined
attempt at the extension of slavery, and in the invasive
emigration, the revolt, the proclamation of independence, the
temporary organization of a republic, and the application to
be admitted into the Union as a state, successive steps of a
conspiracy which would, through the creation of half a dozen
or more new states, give a preponderance to the slave power in
the republic.
{3103}
Mr. Van Buren, who had declined the overtures for the
annexation of Texas, was succeeded in the Presidency by
General Harrison, who, dying almost immediately after his
inauguration, was followed by the Vice President, Mr. Tyler, a
Virginian, and a supporter of extreme Southern principles. The
annexation project was now steadily pressed forward, but,
owing to the difficult circumstances under which Mr. Tyler was
placed, and dissensions arising in the party that had elected
him, nothing decisive could be done until 1844, when Mr.
Upshur, the Secretary of State, being accidentally killed by
the bursting of a cannon, Mr. Calhoun succeeded him. A treaty
of annexation was at once arranged, but, on being submitted to
the Senate, was rejected. Undiscouraged by this result, the
South at once determined to make annexation the touchstone in
the coming Presidential election. … Mr. Van Buren and Mr.
Clay, the prominent candidates of the two opposing parties for
the Presidency, were compelled to make known their views
previously to the meeting of the nominating Conventions," and
both discountenanced annexation. Van Buren was accordingly
defeated in the Democratic Convention and James K. Polk
received the nomination. Clay was nominated by the Whigs, and
made an attempt, in the succeeding canvass, to change his
ground on the Texas question; but "his attempt only served to
make the matter worse, and cost him the support of the
anti-slavery party, whose votes would have elected him." Polk
was chosen President: but the annexation of Texas did not wait
for his inauguration. "On December 19th a joint resolution was
introduced into the House of Representatives providing for
annexation. Attempts were made to secure half the country for
free labor, the other half being resigned to slavery. … This
proposition was, however, defeated. … As the measure
eventually stood, it made suitable provision for the mode in
which the 'State of Texas' should be admitted into the Union,
the disposal of its munitions of war, public property,
unappropriated lands, debts. On the main point it was arranged
that new states, not exceeding four in number, in addition to
Texas proper, should subsequently be made out of its
territory, those lying south of latitude 36° 30' to be
admitted with or without slavery, as their people might
desire; in those north of that line, slavery to be prohibited.
Mr. Tyler, on the last day of his term of office, unwilling to
leave to his successor, Mr. Polk, the honor of completing this
great Southern measure, dispatched a swift messenger to Texas;
her assent was duly secured, and the Mexican province became a
state of the Union. But the circumstances and conditions under
which this had been done left a profound dissatisfaction in
the North. The portion of territory ceded to freedom did not
belong to Texas; her boundary did not approach within 200
miles of the Missouri Compromise line. The South had therefore
secured the whole of the new acquisition; she had seized the
substance, and had deluded the North with a shadow."
_J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
volume 1, chapter 22._
ALSO IN:
_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years View,
volume 2, chapters 135, 138-142, 148._
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 8, chapter 13._
_H. Greeley,
History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
chapter 10._
TEXAS: A. D. 1846-1848.
The Mexican War.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847: and 1847.
TEXAS: A. D. 1848.
Territory extorted from Mexico in the
Treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.
TEXAS: A. D. 1850.
Sale of territory to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
Secession from the Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
TEXAS: A. D. 1861 (February).
Twiggs' surrender of the Federal army, posts and stores.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).
TEXAS: A. D. 1862.
Farragut's occupation of coast towns.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).
TEXAS: A. D. 1865 (June).
Provisional government set up under President Johnson's
Plan of Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY).
TEXAS: A. D. 1865-1870.
Reconstruction.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), and after, to 1868-1870.
----------TEXAS: End--------
TEZCUCO.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
THABORITES, The.
See MYSTICISM.
THAI RACE, The.
See SIAM.
THAMANÆANS, The.
An ancient people who occupied the region in western
Afghanistan which lies south and southeast of Herat, from the
Haroot-rud to the Helmend.
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies, Persia,
chapter 1._
THAMES, Battle of the.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812-1813 HARRISON'S NORTHWESTERN CAMPAIGN.
THANAGE.
An old Celtic tenure by which certain thanes' estates were
held in Scotland, and which feudalism displaced.
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 3, page 246._
THANE,
THEGN.
See COMITATUS;
and ETHEL;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
THANET, The Jute Landing on.
See ENGLAND: A. D.449-473.
THANKSGIVING DAY, The American:
Its origin.
"The Pilgrims [at Plymouth], fond as they were of social
enjoyment, had since landing known no day of rest except the
sacred day of worship. Now [in 1621, the year after their
landing from the Mayflower] that the summer was past and the
harvest ended, they determined to have a period of recreation,
combined with thanksgiving for their many mercies. The
Governor thereupon sent out four huntsmen, who in one day
secured enough game to supply the Colony for nearly a week.
Hospitality was extended to Massasoit, who accepted and
brought ninety people with him. The guests remained three
days, during which they captured five deer to add to the
larder of their hosts. The motley company indulged in a round
of amusements, and the Colonists entertained their visitors
with military tactics and evolutions. Without doubt, religious
services opened each day; for the Pilgrims were cheerful
Christians, who carried religion into all their affairs. Thus
heartily and royally was inaugurated the great New England
festival of Thanksgiving. For two centuries it continued to be
a peculiarity of the Eastern States; but it has now become
national, its annual return finding a welcome along the Lake
shore and the Gulf, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. …
{3104}
In 1623 a public day of Thanksgiving is noticed; and one is
mentioned in a letter of 1632. … I do not doubt that such a
religious festival was held after every harvest, and that it
was so much a matter of course that the records did not
mention it any more than they did the great training-day, with
its sermon and holiday features."
_J. A. Goodwin,
The Pilgrim Republic,
pages 179-180, and foot-note._
THANN,
THAUN,
Battle of (1638).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.
Battle of (1809).
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).
THAPSACUS.
Thapsacus "was situated just above the modern town of Rakka,
at the only point in the central course of the Euphrates where
that river is fordable (though even here only at certain
seasons of the year), for which reason it continued to be used
alike by the Persian, Greek and Roman armies during a long
period. It was also a commercial route of importance in
ancient times."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 10, section 2 (volume 1)._
See, also, APAMEA.
THAPSUS, The Battle of (B. C. 46).
See ROME: B. C. 47-46.
THAPSUS: The Tyrian colony.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.
THASOS.
THASIAN MINES.
Thasos, an island off the coast of Thrace, in the northern
part of the Ægean Sea, was celebrated in antiquity for its
gold mines, first discovered and worked by the Phœnicians.
Still more valuable mines on the neighboring Thracian coast
were developed and worked by the Thasians. They were subdued
by the Persians and subsequently became subject to Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
THAUR, The Cave of Mount.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.
THAUSS, Battle of (1431).
See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.
THEATINES, The.
The founders of the Order of the Theatines (1524) were
"Gaetano of Thiene, a native of Vicenza, and Gian Pietro
Caraffa [afterwards Pope Paul IV.]. The former had quitted a
lucrative post at the Roman court in order to transplant the
ideas of the Oratory of the Divine Love to his native city,
Venice, and Verona, and had gradually come to concentrate his
pious thoughts upon the reformation of the secular clergy of
the Church. On his return to Rome, Bonifacio da Colle, a
Lombard lawyer, became interested in his design, and then it
was enthusiastically taken up by Caraffa, whose bishopric of
Chieti, or, according to the older form, Theate, gave its name
to the new order of the Theatines."
_A. W. Ward,
The Counter-Reformation,
page 28._
"To the vow of poverty they made the special addition that not
only would they possess nothing, but would even abstain from
begging, and await the alms that might be brought to their
dwellings. … They did not call themselves monks, but regular
clergy—they were priests with the vows of monks. Their
intention was to establish a kind of seminary for the
priesthood. … They devoted themselves rigidly to their
clerical duties—o preaching, the administration of the
sacraments, and the care of the sick. … The order of the
Theatines did not indeed become a seminary for priests
precisely, its numbers were never sufficient for that; but it
grew to be a seminary for bishops, coming at length to be
considered the order of priests peculiar to the nobility."
_L. Ranke,
History of the Popes,
book 2, section 3 (volume 1)._
THEBAIS, The.
The southern district of Upper Egypt, taking its name from
Thebes.
THEBES, Egypt.
"No city of the old world can still show so much of her former
splendour as Egyptian Thebes. … Not one of the many temples of
Thebes has wholly disappeared; some are almost complete; many
of the royal and private tombs were, until the tourist came,
fresh with colours as of yesterday. … The origin of the great
city is obscure. Unlike Memphis, Thebes, her southern rival,
rose to the headship by slow degrees. It was towards the close
of the dark age marked by the rule of Hanes, that a new line
of kings arose in the upper country, with Thebes for their
capital. At first they were merely nobles; then one became a
local king, and his successors won the whole dominion of
Egypt. These were the sovereigns of the Eleventh Dynasty.
Their date must be before Abraham, probably some centuries
earlier. … Thebes, like the other cities of Egypt, had a civil
and a religious name. The civil name was Apiu, 'the city of
thrones,' which, with the article 't' or 'ta,' became Ta-Apiu,
and was identified by the Greeks with the name of their own
famous city, by us corruptly called Thebes. The sacred name
was Nu-Amen, 'the city of Amen,' the god of Thebes; or simply
Nu, 'the city,' and Nu-ā, 'the great city.' In these names we
recognize the No-Amon and No of Scripture."
_R. S. Poole,
Cities of Egypt,
chapter 4._
See, also, EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.
----------THEBES, Greece: Start--------
THEBES, Greece:
The founding of the city.
"In the fruitful plain, only traversed by low hills, which
stretches from the northern declivity of Mount Cithæron to the
Bœotian lakes opposite the narrowest part of the sound which
separates Eubœa from the mainland, in the 'well-watered,
pasture-bearing region of the Aones,' as Euripides says, lay
the citadel and town of Thebes. According to Greek tradition,
it was built by Cadmus the Phœnician. The Aones, who inhabited
the country, are said to have amalgamated with the Phœnicians
whom Cadmus brought with him, into one people. The citadel lay
on a hill of moderate height between the streams Ismenus and
Dirce; it bore even in historical times the name Cadmea; the
ridge to the north of the town was called Phœnicium, i. e.
mountain of the Phœnicians. In the story of Cadmus and Europa,
Greek legend relates the Phœnician mythus of Melkarth and
Astarte. In order to seek the lost goddess of the moon,
Astarte, Cadmus-Melkarth, the wandering sun-god, sets forth.
He finds her in the far west, in Bœotia, and here in Thebes,
on the Cadmea, celebrates the holy marriage. … There are a few
relics of the wall of the citadel of Cadmea, principally on
the north side; they are great blocks, not quite regularly
hewn. Of the city wall and the famous seven gates in it
nothing remains; even this number seven points to the
Phœnicians as well as the designations which were retained by
these gates even in historical times. The Electric gate
belonged to the sun-god Baal, called by the Greeks Elector;
the Neitic gate, it would seem, to the god of war. …
{3105}
The gate Hypsistia was that of Zeus Hypsistos, whose shrine
stood on the Cadmea; … the Prœtidic gate belonged to Astarte,
whose domain was the moon; the Oncæic gate in the north-west
belonged to Athena Onca, who is expressly called a Phœnician
goddess. … It is probable that the two remaining gates, the
Homoloic and the Crenaic, were also dedicated to gods of this
circle—to the spirits of planets. According to Greek legend,
Cadmus invented the building of walls, mining, armour, and
letters. Herodotus contents himself with saying that the
Phœnicians who came with Cadmus taught much to the Greeks,
even writing: from the Phœnicians the Ionians, in whose midst
they lived, had learned letters. If even this early borrowing
of writing on the part of the Greeks is incorrect, all the
other particulars,—the legend of Cadmus, which extends to the
Homeric poems, where the inhabitants of Thebes are called
Cadmeans; the rites of the Thebans; the walls and gates,—
taken together, give evidence that the Phœnicians went over
from Eubœa to the continent, and here fixed one of their most
important and lasting colonies upon and around the hill of
Cadmea."
_M. Duncker,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 4._
See, also, BŒOTIA.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 509-506.
Unsuccessful war with Athens.
See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 480.
Traitorous alliance with the Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 480 (SALAMIS).
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 479.
Siege and reduction by the confederate Greeks.
Punishment for the Persian alliance.
See GREECE: B. C. 479 (PLATÆA).
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 457-456.
War with Athens.
Defeat at Œnophyta.
Overthrow of the oligarchies.
See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 447-445.
Bœotian revolution.
Overthrow of Athenian influence.
Defeat of Athens at Coronea.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 431.
Disastrous attack on Platæa.
Opening hostilities of the Peloponnesian War.
See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 404-403.
Shelter and aid to Athenian patriots.
See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 395-387.
Confederacy against Sparta and alliance with Persia.
The Corinthian War.
Battle of Coronea.
Peace of Antalcidas.
See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 383.
The betrayal of the city to the Spartans.
See GREECE: B. C. 383.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 379-371.
The liberation of the city.
Rise of Epaminondas.
Overthrow of Spartan supremacy at Leuctra.
See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 378.
The Sacred Band.
"This was an institution connecting itself with earlier usages
of the land. For already in the battle of Delium a band of the
Three Hundred is mentioned, who fought, like the heroes of the
Homeric age, associated in pairs, from their chariots in front
of the main body of the soldiery. This doubtless very ancient
institution was now [B. C. 378] revived and carried out in a
new spirit under the guidance of Epaminondas and Gorgidas.
They had quietly assembled around them a circle of youths,
with whom they had presented themselves before the community
on the day of the Liberation, so that they were regarded as
the founders of the Sacred Band of Thebes. It was now no
longer a privilege of the nobility to belong to the Three
Hundred; but those among the youth of the land who were in
feeling the noblest and most high-minded, and who already
under the oppression of the Tyrants had been preparing
themselves for the struggle for freedom, were henceforth the
elect and the champions. It was their duty to stimulate the
rest eagerly to follow their example of bravery and
discipline; they were associated with one another by the bonds
of friendship and by identity of feelings. … A soldier-like
spirit was happily blended with ethical and political points
of view, and ancient national usage with the ideas of the
present and with Pythagorean principles; and it constitutes an
honorable monument of the wisdom of Epaminondas."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 6, chapter 1._
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 370-362.
Intervention in Peloponnesus.
Successive expeditions of Epaminondas.
Invasions of Sparta.
Formation of the Arcadian Union.
Battle of Mantinea and death of Epaminondas.
See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 357-338.
The Ten Years Sacred War with the Phocians.
Intervention of Philip of Macedon.
Loss of independence and liberty.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 335.
Revolt.
Destruction by Alexander the Great.
See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 316.
Restoration by Cassander of Macedonia.
See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.
THEBES, Greece: B. C. 291-290.
Siege of by Demetrius.
Thebes, with other Bœotian towns, united in a revolt against
Demetrius Poliorcetes, while the latter held the throne of
Macedonia, and was reduced to submission, B. C. 290, after a
siege which lasted nearly a year.
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 60._
THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1146.
Sack by the Normans of Sicily.
Abduction of silk-weavers.
See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1205.
Included in the Latin duchy of Athens.
See ATHENS: A. D. 1205.
THEBES, Greece: A. D. 1311.
Conquest by the Catalans.
See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.
----------THEBES, Greece: End--------
THEGN,
THANE.
See COMITATUS; ETHEL; and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
THEIPHALI.
THEIPHALIA.
See TAIFALÆ.
THEMES.
Administrative divisions of the Byzantine Empire. "The term
thema was first applied to the Roman legion. The military
districts, garrisoned by legions, were then called themata,
and ultimately the word was used merely to indicate
geographical administrative divisions."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1, chapter 1, section 1, foot-note._
See, also, BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717.
THEMISTOCLES, Ascendancy and fall of.
See ATHENS: B. C. 489-480, to 477-462.
THEODORA,
Empress in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
A. D. 1042, and 1054-1056.
THEODORE, King of Corsica.
See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
Theodore I., Pope, A. D. 642-649.
Theodore II., Pope, 898.
Theodore or Feodore, II., Czar of Russia, 1584-1598.
Theodore III., Czar of Russia, 1676-1682.
Theodore Lascaris I., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1206-1222.
Theodore Lascaris II., Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1255-1259.
THEODORIC, Ostrogothic kingdom of.
See GOTHS: A. D. 473-488;
and ROME: A. D. 488-526.
{3106}
THEODOSIAN CODE, The.
See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.
THEODOSIUS I., Roman Emperor
(Eastern), A. D. 378-395;
(Western), 392-395;
in Britain.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.
Theodosius II., Roman Emperor
(Eastern), 408-450;
(Western), 423-425.
Theodosius III., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 716-717.
THEOPHILUS,
Emperor in the East, (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 829-842.
THEORI.
The name of Theori, among the ancient Greeks, "in addition to
its familiar signification of spectators at the theatre and
public ambassadors to foreign sanctuaries and festivals, was
specially applied to certain public magistrates, whose
function it was to superintend and take charge of religious
affairs in general, though they often possessed along with
this some more extensive political power."
_G. Schumann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 2, chapter 5._
THEORICON, The.
"By means of the Theoricon …, the most pernicious issue of
the age of Pericles, there arose in a small free state
[Athens] a lavish expenditure, which was relatively not less
than in the most voluptuous courts, and which consumed large
sums, while the wars were unsuccessful for the want of money.
By it is understood the money which was distributed among the
people for the celebration of the festivals and games, partly
to restore to the citizens the sum required for their
admission into the theatre, partly to enable them to procure a
better meal. In part it was expended for sacrifices, with
which a public feast was connected. … The superintendents of
the theoricon were not called treasurers; but they evidently
had a treasury. Their office was one of the administrative
offices of the government, and indeed of the most eminent.
They were elected by the assembly of the people through
cheirotonia. Their office seems to have been annual. Their
number is nowhere given. Probably there were ten of them, one
from each tribe. … The Athenian people was a tyrant, and the
treasury of the theorica its private treasury."
_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens
(translated by Lamb),
book 2, chapter 7; also chapter 13._
THEOW.
"In the earliest English laws … slaves are found; the 'theow'
[from the same root as 'dienen,' to serve] or slave simple,
whether 'wealh'—that is, of British extraction, captured or
purchased—or of the common German stock descended from the
slaves of the first colonists; the 'esne' or slave who works
for hire; the 'wite-theow' who is reduced to slavery because
he cannot pay his debts."
_W. Stubbs,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 5, section 37._
THERA.
The ancient name of the Greek island of Santorin, one of the
Sporades, whose inhabitants were enterprising navigators, and
weavers and dyers of purple stuffs. They are said to have
founded Cyrene, on the north African coast.
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 2, chapter 3._
See CYRENAICA.
"The island was the site of one of the largest volcanic
eruptions in recorded history … about [1600 B. C.] at
the height of the Minoan civilization."
_Wikipedia: Santorini.
Transcriber's Note._
THERMÆ.
"The Roman thermæ were a combination on a huge scale of the
common balneæ with the Greek gymnasia. Their usual form was
that of a large quadrangular space, the sides of which were
formed by various porticos, exedræ, and even theatres for
gymnastic and literary exercises, and in the centre of which
stood a block of buildings containing the bath rooms and
spacious halls for undergoing the complicated process of the
Roman warm bath. The area covered by the whole group of
buildings was, in many cases, very large. The court of the
Baths of Caracalla enclosed a space of 1,150 feet on each
side, with curvilinear projections on two sides. The central
mass of building was a rectangle, 730 feet by 380. … The other
great Imperial thermæ of Rome, those of Nero, Titus, Domitian,
Diocletian, and Constantine, were probably upon the same plan
as the Thermæ Caracallæ. All were built of brick, and the
interior was decorated with stucco, mosaics, or slabs of
marble, and other ornamental stones. … The public balneæ, as
distinct from thermæ, … were used simply as baths, and had
none of the luxurious accessories attached to them which were
found in the courts of the great thermæ."
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
introduction._
THERMIDOR, The month.
See FRANCE; A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.
THERMIDORIANS.
The Ninth of Thermidor.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JULY), and
1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of.
See THESSALY.
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 480.
The defense by Leonidas against the Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 352.
Repulse of Philip of Macedon.
See GREECE: B. C. 357-330.
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 279.
Defense against the Gauls.
See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: B. C. 191.
Defeat of Antiochus by the Romans.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
THERMOPYLÆ, The Pass of: A. D. 1822.
Greek victory over the Turks.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
THERVINGI, The.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.
THESES OF LUTHER, The Ninety-five.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1517.
THESMOPHORIA, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 383.
THESMOTHETES.
See ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.
THESPROTIANS.
See EPIRUS; and HELLAS.
----------THESSALONICA: Start--------
THESSALONICA.
Therma, an unimportant ancient city of Macedonia, received the
name of Thessalonica, about 315 B. C., in honor of the sister
of Alexander the Great, who married Cassander. Cassander gave
an impetus to the city which proved lasting. It rose to a high
commercial rank, acquired wealth, and became, under the
Romans, the capital of the Illyrian provinces.
THESSALONICA: A. D. 390.
Massacre ordered by Theodosius.
A riotous outbreak at Thessalonica, A. D. 390, caused by the
imprisonment of one of the popular favorites of the circus,
was punished by the Emperor Theodosius in a manner so fiendish
that it seems wellnigh incredible. He caused the greatest
possible number of the inhabitants to be invited, in his name,
to witness certain games in the circus. "As soon as the
assembly was complete, the soldiers, who had secretly been
posted round the circus, received the signal, not of the
races, but of a general massacre.
{3107}
The promiscuous carnage continued three hours, without
discrimination of strangers or natives, of age or sex, of
innocence or guilt; the most moderate accounts state the
number of the slain at 7,000; and it is affirmed by some
writers that more than 15,000 victims were sacrificed. … The
guilt of the emperor is aggravated by his long and frequent
residence at Thessalonica."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 27._
THESSALONICA: A. D. 904.
Capture and pillage by the Saracens.
The capture of Thessalonica by a piratical expedition from
Tarsus, A. D. 904, was one of the most terrible experiences of
its kind in that age of blood and rapine, and one of which the
fullest account, by an eye-witness and sufferer, has come down
to posterity. The wretched inhabitants who escaped the sword
were mostly sold into slavery, and the splendid city—then the
second in the Byzantine Empire—was stripped of all its wealth.
The defense of the place had been neglected, with implicit
dependence on the goodwill and the power of St. Demetrius.
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057,
book 2, chapter 1, section 2._
THESSALONICA: A. D. 1204-1222.
Capital of the kingdom of Saloniki.
See SALONIKI.
THESSALONICA: A. D. 1222-1234.
The Greek empire.
See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.
THESSALONICA: A. D. 1430.
Capture by the Turks.
Thessalonica, feebly defended by Venetians and Greeks, was
taken by the Turks, under Amurath II., in February, 1430.
"'The pillage and the carnage,' relates the Greek Anagnosta,
an eye-witness of this disastrous night, 'transcended the
hopes of the Turks and the terror of the Greeks. No family
escaped the swords, the chains, the flames, the outrages of
the Asiatics fierce for their prey. At the close of the day,
each soldier drove like a herd before him, through the streets
of Salonica, troops of women, of young girls, of children, of
caloyers and anchorites, of monks of all the monasteries.
Priests were chained with virgins, children with old men,
mothers with their sons, in derision of age, of profession, of
sex, which added a barbarous irony to nudity and death
itself.'"
_A. Lamartine,
History of Turkey,
book 10, section 27._
----------THESSALONICA: End--------
THESSALY.
"The northern part of Greece is traversed in its whole length
by a range of mountains, the Greek Apennines, which issue from
the same mighty root, the Thracian Scomius, in which Hæmus,
and Rhodopé and the Illyrian Alps likewise meet. This ridge
first takes the name of Pindus, where it intersects the
northern boundary of Greece, at a point where an ancient route
still affords the least difficult passage from Epirus into
Thessaly. From Pindus two huge arms stretch towards the
eastern sea and enclose the vale of Thessaly, the largest and
richest plain in Greece: on the north the Cambunian Hills,
after making a bend towards the south, terminate in the
loftier heights of Olympus, which are scarcely ever entirely
free from snow; the opposite and lower chain of Othrys
parting, with its eastern extremity, the Malian from the
Pagasæan Gulf, sinks gently towards the coast. A fourth
rampart, which runs parallel to Pindus, is formed by the range
which includes the celebrated heights of Pelion and Ossa; the
first a broad and nearly even ridge, the other towering into a
steep and conical peak, the neighbour and rival of Olympus,
with which, in the songs of the country, it is said to dispute
the pre-eminence in the depth and duration of its snows. The
mountain barrier with which Thessaly is thus encompassed is
broken only at the northeast corner by a deep and narrow
cleft, which parts Ossa from Olympus; the defile so renowned
in poetry as the vale, in history as the pass, of Tempe. The
imagination of the ancient poets and declaimers delighted to
dwell on the natural beauties of this romantic glen and on the
sanctity of the site, from which Apollo had transplanted his
laurel to Delphi. … South of this gulf [the Gulf of Pagasæ],
the coast is again deeply indented by that of Malia, into
which the Spercheius, rising from Mount Tymphrestus, a
continuation of Pindus, winds through a long, narrow vale,
which, though considered as a part of Thessaly, forms a
separate region, widely distinguished from the rest by its
physical features. It is intercepted between Othrys and Œta, a
huge, rugged pile, which stretching from Pindus to the sea at
Thermopylæ, forms the inner barrier of Greece, as the
Cambunian range is the outer, to which it corresponds in
direction and is nearly equal in height. From Mount
Callidromus, a southern limb of Œta, the same range is
continued without interruption, though under various names and
different degrees of elevation, along the coast of the Eubœan
Sea. … Another branch, issuing from the same part of Pindus,
connects it with the loftier summits of Parnassus, and
afterward skirting the Corinthian Gulf under the names of
Cirphis and Helicon, proceeds to form the northern boundary of
Attica under those of Cithæron and Parnes."
_C. Thirlwall,
History of Greece,
chapter 1 (volume 1)._
In the mythical legends of Greece, Thessaly was the kingdom of
Hellen, transmitted to his son Æolus and occupied originally
by the Æolic branch of the Hellenic family. The Æolians,
however, appear to have receded from the rich Thessalian
plain, into Bœotia and elsewhere, before various invading
tribes. The people who fixed their name, at last, upon the
country, the Thessalians, came into it from Epirus, crossing
the Pindus mountain-range.
See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS;
and DORIANS AND IONIANS.
THETES, The.
See DEBT, ANCIENT LEGISLATION CONCERNING: GREEK;
also, ATHENS: B. C. 594.
THEUDEBERT, King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 596-612.
THIASI.
"The name denotes associations [in ancient Athens] which had
chosen as their special protector and patron some deity in
whose honour at certain times they held sacrifices and festal
banquets, whilst they pursued in addition objects of a very
varied nature, sometimes joint-stock businesses, sometimes
only social enjoyments."
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece,
part 3, chapter 3, section 2._
THIBAULT I., King of Navarre, A. D. 1236-1253.
Thibault II., King of Navarre, 1253-1270.
THIBET.
See TIBET.
THIERRY I., King of the Franks, at Metz, A. D. 511-534.
Thierry II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), 612-613;
King of Burgundy, 596-613.
Thierry III., King of the Franks
(Neustria and Burgundy), 670-691.
Thierry IV., King of the Franks
(Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy), 720-737.
{3108}
THIERS, Adolphe, and the founding of the third French Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.
THIN.
THINÆ.
See CHINA: The NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.
THING.
THINGVALLA.
ALTHING.
"The judicial and legislative assembly of the Northmen
represented by the word 'thing' (from 'tinga'=to speak, and
allied to our English word 'think') can be traced in many
local names throughout England, and more especially in the
extreme North, where the Scandinavian race prevailed, and
where the 'thing' was primitively held upon the site of, or as
an appanage to, a 'hof' or temple. It is plainly seen in the
Tynwald Court or general legislative assembly for the Isle of
Man, where the distinctive feature of the primitive open-air
assembly still survives in the custom of the whole assembly
going once a year in solemn procession, attended by the
governor of the island and a military escort, to a hill known
as the Tynwald Hill, whence all the laws that have been passed
in the course of the past year are proclaimed in English and
Manx. … In Norway there is an 'Al-thing' or general assembly,
and four district 'things' for the several provinces, as well
as a Norwegian Parliament familiar to us as 'Stor-thing' or
great council."
_R. R. Sharpe,
Introduction to Calendar of Wills, Court of Husting, London,
volume 1._
"By the end of the period of the first occupation of Iceland,
a number of little kingdoms had been formed all round the
coast, ruled by the priests, who, at stated times, convened
their adherents and retainers to meetings for the settlement
of matters which concerned any or all of them. These were
called 'Things'—meetings, i. e. Mot-things. Each was
independent of the other, and quarrels between the members of
two separate Things could only be settled as the quarrels of
nations are settled, by treaty or war. But the time soon
arrived when the progress of political thought began to work
upon this disjointed constitution; and then amalgamation of
local Things into an Althing, of local jurisdiction into a
commonwealth jurisdiction, was the historical result. … The
Thingvalla, or Thing-field itself, was a vast sunken plain of
lava, about four miles broad and rather more than four miles
deep, lying with a dip or slope from north-east to south-west,
between two great lips or furrows. A stream called Öxará,
(Axewater) cuts off a rocky portion of the plain, so as almost
to form an island. This is the famous Hill of Laws, or
Lögberg, which was the heart of the Icelandic body politic. …
This example of the Icelandic Thing is the most perfect that
is known to history."
_G. L. Gomme,
Primitive Folk-Moots,
chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_G. W. Dasent,
introduction to "The Story of Burnt Njal."_
See, also, NORMANS.
NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;
and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.
THINGMEN.
See HOUSECARLS.
THINIS.
See MEMPHIS, EGYPT;
also EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE.
THIONVILLE: A. D. 1643.
Siege and capture by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1643.
THIONVILLE: A. D. 1659.
Ceded to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.
THIRD ESTATE, The.
See ESTATES, THE THREE.
THIRTEEN COLONIES, The.
See
MASSACHUSETTS;
RHODE ISLAND;
CONNECTICUT;
NEW HAMPSHIRE;
NEW YORK;
NEW JERSEY;
PENNSYLVANIA;
DELAWARE:
MARYLAND;
VIRGINIA;
NORTH CAROLINA;
SOUTH CAROLINA;
GEORGIA;
also, NEW ENGLAND.
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).
THIRTY TYRANTS OF ATHENS, The.
See ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.
THIRTY TYRANTS OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, The.
See ROME: A. D. 192-284.
THIRTY YEARS TRUCE, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
THIRTY YEARS WAR, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618, to 1648:
and BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618, and 1621-1648.
THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, The.
"In 1563 the Articles of the English Church, forty-two in
number, originally drawn up in 1551 under Edward VI., were
revised in Convocation, and reduced to their present number,
thirty-nine; but it was not until 1571 that they were made
binding upon the clergy by Act of Parliament."
_T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 12._
THIS,
THINIS.
See EGYPT: THE OLD EMPIRE AND THE MIDDLE EMPIRE;
also, MEMPHIS, EGYPT.
THISTLE: Its adoption as the national emblem of Scotland.
See SAINT ANDREW: THE SCOTTISH ORDER.
THISTLE, Order of the.
A Scottish order of knighthood instituted by James V. in 1530.
THOMAS, General George H.:
Campaign against Zollicoffer.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).
Refusal of the command of the Army of the Ohio.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).
At Chickamauga, and in the Chattanooga Campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER) ROSECRANS' ADVANCE;
and (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).
The Atlanta campaign.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA),
to (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).
Campaign against Hood.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE),
and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).
THOMAS À BECKET, Saint, and King Henry II.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.
THOMPSON'S STATION, Battle at.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).
THORN, Peace of (1466).
See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
"THOROUGH," Wentworth and Laud's government system.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1633-1639.
THRACE: B. C. 323-281.
The kingdom of Lysimachus and its overthrow.
See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280.
{3109}
THRACIANS, The.
"That vast space comprised between the rivers Strymon and
Danube, and bounded to the west by the easternmost Illyrian
tribes, northward of the Strymon, was occupied by the
innumerable subdivisions of the race called Thracians, or
Threïcians. They were the most numerous and most terrible race
known to Herodotus: could they by possibility act in unison or
under one dominion (he says) they would be irresistible. …
Numerous as the tribes of Thracians were, their customs and
character (according to Herodotus) were marked by great
uniformity: of the Getæ, the Trausi, and others, he tells us a
few particularities. … The general character of the race
presents an aggregate of repulsive features unredeemed by the
presence of even the commonest domestic affections. … It
appears that the Thynians and Bithynians, on the Asiatic side
of the Bosphorus, perhaps also the Mysians, were members of
this great Thracian race, which was more remotely connected,
also, with the Phrygians. And the whole race may be said to
present a character more Asiatic than European; especially in
those ecstatic and maddening religious rites, which prevailed
not less among the Edonian Thracians than in the mountains of
Ida and Dindymon of Asia, though with some important
differences. The Thracians served to furnish the Greeks with
mercenary troops and slaves."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 26._
"Under Seuthes [B. C. 424] Thrace stood at the height of its
prosperity. It formed a connected empire from Abdera to the
Danube, from Byzantium to the Strymon. … The land abounded in
resources, in corn and flocks and herds, in gold and silver. …
No such state had as yet existed in the whole circuit of the
Ægean. … But their kingdom failed to endure. After Seuthes it
broke up into several principalities."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 7, chapter 1._
"Herodotus is not wrong in calling the Thracians the greatest
of the peoples known to him after the Indians. Like the
Illyrian, the Thracian stock attained to no full development,
and appears more as hard-pressed and dispossessed than as
having any historically memorable course of its own. … The
Thracian [language] disappeared amidst the fluctuations of
peoples in the region of the Danube and the overpowerful
influence of Constantinople, and we cannot even determine the
place which belongs to it in the pedigree of nations. … Their
wild but grand mode of worshipping the gods may perhaps be
conceived as a trait peculiar to this stock—the mighty
outburst of the joy of spring and youth, the nocturnal
mountain-festivals of torch-swinging maidens, the intoxicating
sense-confusing music, the flowing of wine and the flowing of
blood, the giddy festal whirl, frantic with the simultaneous
excitement of all sensuous passions. Dionysos, the glorious
and the terrible, was a Thracian god." Under the supremacy of
the Romans, the Thracians were governed by a native line of
vassal kings, reigning at Bizye (Wiza), between Adrianople and
the coast of the Black Sea, until the Emperor Claudius, A. D.
46, suppressed the nominal kingdom and made Thrace a Roman
province.
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 6._
In the 8th and 9th centuries, "the great Thracian race, which
had once been inferior in number only to the Indian, and
which, in the first century of our era, had excited the
attention of Vespasian by the extent of the territory it
occupied, had … almost disappeared. The country it had
formerly inhabited was peopled by Vallachian and Sclavonian
tribes."
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1, chapter 1, section 1._
THREE CHAPTERS, The dispute of the.
A famous church dispute raised in the sixth century by the
Emperor Justinian, who discovered an heretical taint in
certain passages, called the Three Chapters, culled out of the
works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and two other doctors of the
church who had been teachers and friends of Nestorius. A
solemn Church Council called (A. D. 553) at Constantinople—the
fifth general Council—condemned the Three Chapters and
anathematized their adherents. But this touched by implication
the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, which were especially
cherished in the Latin Church, and Rome became rebellious. In
the end, the Roman opposition prevailed, and, "in the period
of a century, the schism of the three chapters expired in an
obscure angle of the Venetian province."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 47._
ALSO IN:
_H. H. Milman,
History of Latin Christianity,
book 1, chapter 4._
THREE F'S. The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
THREE HENRYS. War of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.
THREE HUNDRED AT THERMOPYLÆ, The.
See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).
THREE HUNDRED OF THEBES, The.
See THEBES: B. C. 378.
THREE KINGS, Battle of the.
See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST, AND SINCE.
THREE LEGS OF MAN. The.
See TRISKELION.
THREE PRESIDENCIES OF INDIA, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
THUCYDIDES: The origin of his history.
See AMPHIPOLIS.
THUGS.
THUGGEE.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
THULE.
Pytheas, a Greek traveller and writer of the time (as
supposed) of Alexander the Great, was the first to introduce
the name of Thule into ancient geography. He described it
vaguely as an island, lying six days' voyage to the north of
Britain, in a region where the sea became like neither land
nor water, but was of a thick and sluggish substance,
resembling that of the jelly fish. "It appears to me
impossible to identify the Thule of Pytheas with any approach
to certainty; but he had probably heard vaguely of the
existence of some considerable island, or group of islands, to
the north of Britain, whether the Orkneys or the Shetlands it
is impossible to say."
_E. H. Bunbury,
History of Ancient Geography,
chapter 15, section 2, foot-note._
Some modern writers identify Thule with Iceland; some with the
coast of Norway, mistakenly regarded as an island. But,
whichever land it may have been, Thule to the Greeks and
Romans, was Ultima Thule,—the end of the known world,—the
most northerly point of Europe to which their knowledge
reached.
_R. F. Burton,
Ultima Thule,
introduction, section 1 (volume 1)._
{3110}
THUNDERING LEGION, The.
During the summer of the year 174, in a campaign which the
Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus conducted against the Quadi,
on the Danube, the Roman army was once placed in a perilous
position. It was hemmed in by the enemy, cut off from all
access to water, and was reduced to despair. At the last
extremity, it is said, the army was saved by a miraculous
storm, which poured rain on the thirsty Romans, while
lightning and hail fell destructively in the ranks of the
barbarians. According to the Pagan historians, Aurelius owed
this "miraculous victory," as it was called, to the arts of
one Arnuphis, an Egyptian magician. But later Christian
writers told a different story. They relate that the
distressed army contained one legion composed entirely of
Christians, from Melitene, and that these soldiers, being
called upon by the emperor to invoke their God, united in a
prayer which received the answer described. Hence, the legion
was known thereafter, by imperial command, as the Thundering
Legion.
_P. B. Watson,
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History,
book 5, chapter 5._
THURII.
THURIUM.
See SIRIS.
THURINGIA.
THURINGIANS, The.
"To the eastward of the Saxons and of the Franks, the
Thuringians had just formed a new monarchy. That people had
united to the Varni and the Heruli, they had spread from the
borders of the Elbe and of the Undstrut to those of the
Necker. They had invaded Hesse or the country of the Catti,
one of the Frankish people, and Franconia, where they had
distinguished their conquests by frightful cruelties. … It is
not known at what period these atrocities were committed, but
Thierri [or Theoderic, one of the four Frank kings, sons of
Clovis] towards the year 528, reminds his soldiers of them to
excite their revenge; it is probable that they were the
motives which induced the Franks of Germany and those of Gaul
to unite, in order to provide more powerfully for their
defence." Thierry, the Frank king at Metz, and Clotaire, his
brother, who reigned at Soissons, united in 528 against the
Thuringians and completely crushed them. "This great province
was then united to the monarchy of the Franks, and its dukes,
during two centuries, marched under the standards of the
Merovingians."
_J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
The French under the Merovingians,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_W. C. Perry,
The Franks,
chapter 3._
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.
THURINGIA:
Absorbed in Saxony.
See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY.
THURM AND TAXIS, Prince, and the German postal system.
See POST.
THYMBRÆAN ORACLE.
See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.
THYNIANS. The.
See BITHYNIANS.
TIBARENIANS, The.
A people who anciently inhabited the southern coast of the
Euxine, toward its eastern extremity.
_G. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies: Persia,
chapter 1._
TIBBOOS, The.
See LIBYANS.
TIBERIAS, Battle of (1187).
See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.
TIBERIAS, The Patriarch of.
See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.
TIBERIUS,
Roman Emperor, A. D. 14-37.
German campaigns.
See GERMANY: B. C. 8-A. D. 11.
Tiberius II, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 578-582.
Tiberius Absimarus, Roman Emperor (Eastern), 698-704.
TIBET.
"The name of Tibet is applied not only to the south-west
portion of the Chinese Empire, but also to more than half of
Kashmîr occupied by peoples of Tibetan origin. These regions
of 'Little Tibet' and of 'Apricot Tibet' —so called from the
orchards surrounding its villages—consist of deep valleys
opening like troughs between the snowy Himalayan and Karakorum
ranges. Draining towards India, these uplands have gradually
been brought under Hindu influences, whereas Tibet proper has
pursued a totally different career. It is variously known as
'Great,' the 'Third,' or 'East Tibet'; but such is the
confusion of nomenclature that the expression 'Great Tibet' is
also applied to Ladak, which forms part of Kashmîr. At the
same time, the term Tibet itself, employed by Europeans to
designate two countries widely differing in their physical and
political conditions, is unknown to the people themselves.
Hermann Schlagintweit regards it as an old Tibetan word
meaning 'strength,' or 'empire' in a pre-eminent sense and
this is the interpretation supplied by the missionaries of the
seventeenth century, who give the country the Italian name of
Potente, or 'Powerful.' But however this be, the present
inhabitants use the term Bod-yul alone; that is, 'land of the
Bod,' itself probably identical with Bhutan, a Hindu name
restricted by Europeans to a single state on the southern
slope of the Himalayas. The Chinese call Tibet either Si-Tsang
—that is, West Tsang, from its principal province—or
Wei-Tsang, a word applied to the two provinces of Wei and
Tsang, which jointly constitute Tibet proper. To the
inhabitants they give the name of Tu-Fan, or 'Aboriginal
Fans,' in opposition to the Si-Fan, or "Western Fans,' of
Sechuen and Kansu. … Suspended like a vast terrace some 14,000
or 16,000 feet above the surrounding plains, the Tibetan
plateau is more than half filled with closed basins dotted
with a few lakes or marshes, the probable remains of inland
seas whose overflow discharged through the breaks in the
frontier ranges. … During the present century the Tibetan
Government has succeeded better than any other Asiatic state
in preserving the political isolation of the people, thanks
chiefly to the relief and physical conditions of the land.
Tibet rises like a citadel in the heart of Asia; hence its
defenders have guarded its approaches more easily than those
of India, China, and Japan. The greater part of Tibet remains
still unexplored. … The great bulk of the inhabitants, apart
from the Mongolo-Tartar Horsoks of Khachi and the various
independent tribes of the province of Kham, belong to a
distinct branch of the Mongolian family. They are of low size,
with broad shoulders and chests, and present a striking
contrast to the Hindus in the size of their arms and calves,
while resembling them in their small and delicate hands and
feet. … The Tibetans are one of the most highly endowed people
in the world. Nearly all travellers are unanimous in praise of
their gentleness, frank and kindly bearing, unaffected
dignity. Strong, courageous, naturally cheerful, fond of
music, the dance and song, they would be a model race but for
their lack of enterprise. They are as easily governed as a
flock of sheep, and for them the word of a lama has force of
law. Even the mandates of the Chinese authorities are
scrupulously obeyed, and thus it happens that against their
own friendly feelings they jealously guard the frontiers
against all strangers.
{3111}
The more or less mixed races of East Tibet on the Chinese
frontier, on the route of the troops that plunder them and of
the mandarins who oppress them, seem to be less favourably
constituted, and are described as thievish and treacherous. …
The Tibetans have long been a civilised people. … In some
respects they are even more civilised than those of many
European countries, for reading and writing are general
accomplishments in many places, and books are here so cheap
that they are found in the humblest dwellings, though several
of these works are kept simply on account of their magical
properties. In the free evolution of their speech, which has
been studied chiefly by Foucaux, Csoma de Körös, Schiefner,
and Jäschke, the Tibetans have outlived the period in which
the Chinese are still found. The monosyllabic character of the
language, which differs from all other Asiatic tongues, has
nearly been effaced. … The Tibetan Government is in theory a
pure theocracy. The Dalia-lama, called also the
Gyalba-remboché, 'Jewel of Majesty,' or 'Sovereign Treasure,'
is at once god and king, master of the life and fortunes of
his subjects, with no limit to his power except his own
pleasure. [On Lamaism in Tibet, see LAMAS.] Nevertheless he
consents to be guided in ordinary matters by the old usages,
while his very greatness prevents him from directly oppressing
his people. His sphere of action being restricted to spiritual
matters, he is represented in the administration by a viceroy
chosen by the Emperor in a supreme council of three high
priests. … Everything connected with general politics and war
must be referred to Peking, while local matters are left to
the Tibetan authorities. … Pope, viceroy, ministers, all
receive a yearly subvention from Peking and all the Tibetan
mandarins wear on their hats the button, or distinctive sign
of the dignities conferred by the empire. Every third or fifth
year a solemn embassy is sent to Peking with rich presents,
receiving others in exchange from the 'Son of Heaven.' … The
whole land belongs to the Dalai-lama, the people being merely
temporary occupants, tolerated by the real owner. The very
houses and furniture and all movable property are held in
trust for the supreme master, whose subjects must be grateful
if he takes a portion only for the requirements of the
administration. Due of the most ordinary sentences, in fact,
is wholesale confiscation, when the condemned must leave house
and lands, betaking themselves to a camp life, and living by
begging in the districts assigned to them. So numerous are
these chong long, or official mendicants, that they form a
distinct class in the State. … Since the cession of Ladak to
Kashmir, and the annexation of Batang, Litang, Aten-tze, and
other districts to Sechuen and Yunnan, Si-tsang, or Tibet
proper, comprises only the four provinces of Nari, Tsang, Wei,
or U, and Kham. Certain principalities enclosed in these
provinces are completely independent of Lassa, and either
enjoy self-government or are directly administered from
Peking. … Even in the four provinces the Chinese authorities
interfere in many ways, and their power is especially felt in
that of Nari, where, owing to its dangerous proximity to
Kashmir and India, the old spirit of independence might be
awakened. Nor is any money allowed to be coined in Tibet,
which in the eyes of the Imperial Government is merely a
dependency of Sechuen, whence all orders are received in
Lassa."
_É. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
volume 2, chapter 2._
ALSO IN:
_H. Bower,
Diary of a Journey across Tibet,
chapter 16._
TIBISCUS, The.
The ancient name of the river Theiss.
TIBUR.
An important Latin city, more ancient than Rome, from which it
was only 20 miles distant, on the Anio. Tibur, after many
wars, was reduced by the Romans to subjection in the 4th
century, B. C., and the delightful country in its neighborhood
became a favorite place of residence for wealthy Romans in
later times. The ruins of the villa of Hadrian have been
identified in the vicinity, and many others have been named,
but without historical authority. Hadrian's villa is said to
have been like a town in its vast extent. The modern town of
Tivoli occupies the site of Tibur.
_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 14._
TIBURTINE SIBYL.
See SIBYLS.
TICINUS, Battle on the.
See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.
TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM, The.
See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1825.
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1731.-
Built by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1756.
Reconstructed by the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1756.
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1758.
The bloody repulse of Abercrombie.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758.
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1759.
Taken by General Amherst.
See CANADA: A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1775.
Surprised and taken by the Green Mountain Boys.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).
TICONDEROGA, Fort: A. D. 1777.
Recapture by Burgoyne.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).
TIEN-TSIN, Treaty of (1858).
See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.
TIERRA FIRME.
"The world was at a loss at first [after Columbus' discovery]
what to call the newly found region to the westward. It was
easy enough to name the islands, one after another, as they
were discovered, but when the Spaniards reached the continent
they were backward about giving it a general name. … As the
coast line of the continent extended itself and became known
as such, it was very naturally called by navigators 'tierra
firme,' firm land, in contradistinction to the islands which
were supposed to be less firm. … The name Tierra Firme, thus
general at first, in time became particular. As a designation
for an unknown shore it at first implied only the Continent.
As discovery unfolded, and the magnitude of this Firm Land
became better known, new parts of it were designated by new
names, and Tierra Firme became a local appellation in place of
a general term. Paria being first discovered, it fastened
itself there; also along the shore to Darien, Veragua, and on
to Costa Rica, where at no well defined point it stopped, so
far as the northern seaboard was concerned, and in due time
struck across to the South Sea, where the name marked off an
equivalent coast line. … As a political division Tierra Firme
had existence for a long time.
{3112}
It comprised the provinces of Darien, Veragua, and Panama,
which last bore also the name of Tierra Firme as a province.
The extent of the kingdom was 65 leagues in length by 18 at
its greatest breadth, and 9 leagues at its smallest width. It
was bounded on the east by Cartagena, and the gulf of Urabá
and its river; on the west by Costa Rica, including a portion
of what is now Costa Rica; and on the north and south by the
two seas. … Neither Guatemala, Mexico, nor any of the lands to
the north were ever included in Tierra Firme. English authors
often apply the Latin form, Terra Firma, to this division,
which is misleading."
_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 290, foot-note._
See, also, SPANISH MAIN.
TIERS ETAT.
See ESTATES, THE THREE.
TIGORINI,
TIGURINI, in Gaul, The.
After the Cimbri had defeated two Roman armies, in 113 and 109
B. C., "the Helvetii, who had suffered much in the constant
conflicts with their north-eastern neighbours, felt themselves
stimulated by the example of the Cimbri to seek in their turn
for more quiet and fertile settlements in western Gaul, and
had, perhaps, even when the Cimbrian hosts marched through
their land, formed an alliance with them for that purpose.
Now, under the leadership of Divico, the forces of the Tougeni
(position unknown) and of the Tigorini (on the lake of Murten)
crossed the Jura and reached the territory of the Nitiobroges
(about Agen on the Garonne). The Roman army under the consul
Lucius Cassius Longinus, which they here encountered, allowed
itself to be decoyed by the Helvetii into an ambush, in which
the general himself and his legate, the consular Gaius Piso,
along with the greater portion of the soldiers, met their
death."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 5._
Subsequently the Tigorini and the Tougeni joined the Cimbri,
but were not present at the decisive battle on the Raudine
Plain and escaped the destroying swords of the legions of
Marius, by flying back to their native Helvetia.
TIGRANOCERTA, Battle of (B. C. 69).
See ROME: B. C. 78-68.
TIGRANOCERTA, The building of.
See GORDYENE.
TILDEN, Samuel J.
In the Free Soil Movement.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
The overthrow of the Tweed Ring.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.
Defeat in Presidential Election.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876-1877.
TILLEMONT: A. D. 1635.
Stormed and sacked by the Dutch and French.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.
TILLY, Count von: Campaigns.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1620, to 1631-1632.
TILSIT, Treaty of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
TIMAR.
TIMARLI.
SAIM.
SPAHI.
"It was Alaeddin who first instituted a division of all
conquered lands among the 'Sipahis,' or Spahis (horsemen), on
conditions which, like the feudal tenures of Christian Europe,
obliged the holders to service in the field. Here, however,
ends the likeness between the Turkish 'Timar' and the European
fief. The 'Timarli' were not, like the Christian knighthood, a
proud and hereditary aristocracy almost independent of the
sovereign and having a voice in his councils, but the mere
creatures of the Sultan's breath. The Ottoman constitution
recognised no order of nobility, and was essentially a
democratic despotism. The institution of military tenures was
modified by Amurath I., who divided them into the larger and
smaller ('Siamet' and 'Timar'), the holders of which were
called 'Saim' and 'Timarli.' Every cavalier, or Spahi, who had
assisted to conquer by his bravery, was rewarded with a fief,
which, whether large or small, was called 'Kilidseh' (the
sword). The symbols of his investment were a sword and colours
('Kilidsch' and 'Sandjak')."
_T. H. Dyer,
The History of Modern Europe,
volume 1, introduction._
See, also, SPAHIS.
TIMOCRACY.
See GEOMORI.
TIMOLEON, and the deliverance of Sicily.
See SYRACUSE: B. C. 344.
TIMOUR, The Conquests of.
"Timour the Tartar, as he is usually termed in history, was
called by his countrymen Timourlenk, that is, Timour the Lame,
from the effects of an early wound; a name which some European
writers have converted into Tamerlane, or Tamberlaine. He was
of Mongol origin [see below], and a direct descendant, by the
mother's side, of Zenghis. Khan. He was born at Sebzar, a town
near Samarcand, in Transoxiana, in 1336. … Timour's early
youth was passed in struggles for ascendeney with the petty
chiefs of rival tribes, but at the age of thirty-five he had
fought his way to undisputed pre-eminence, and was proclaimed
Khan of Zagatai by the 'couroultai,' or general assembly of
the warriors of his race. He chose Samarcand as the capital of
his dominion, and openly announced that he would make that
dominion comprise the whole habitable earth. … In the
thirty-six years of his reign he raged over the world from the
great wall of China to the centre of Russia on the north; and
the Mediterranean and the Nile were the western limits of his
career, which was pressed eastward as far as the sources of
the Ganges. He united in his own person the sovereignties of
twenty-seven countries, and he stood in the place of nine
several dynasties of kings. … The career of Timour as a
conqueror is unparalleled in history; for neither Cyrus, nor
Alexander, nor Cæsar, nor Attila, nor Zenghis Khan, nor
Charlemagne, nor Napoleon, ever won by the sword so large a
portion of the globe, or ruled over so many myriads of
subjugated fellow-creatures."
_E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 3._
"Born of the same family as Jenghiz, though not one of his
direct descendants, he bore throughout life the humble title
of Emir, and led about with him a nominal Grand Khan [a
descendant of Chagatai, one of the sons of Jenghiz Khan], of
whom he professed himself a dutiful subject. His pedigree may
in strictness entitle him to be called a Mogul; but, for all
practical purposes, himself and his hordes must be regarded as
Turks. Like all the eastern Turks, such civilization as they
had was of Persian origin; and it was of the Persian form of
Islam that Timour was so zealous an assertor."
_E. A. Freeman,
History and Conquests of the Saracens,
lecture 6._
{3113}
In 1378 Timour overran Khuarezm. Between 1380 and 1386 he
subjugated Khorassan, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sistan. He
then passed into southern Persia and forced the submission of
the Mozafferides who reigned over Fars, punishing the city of
Isfahan for a rebellious rising by the massacre of 70,000 of
its inhabitants. This done, he returned to Samarkand for a
period of rest and prolonged carousal. Taking the field again
in 1389, he turned his arms northward and shattered the famous
"Golden Horde," of the Khanate of Kiptchak, which dominated a
large part of Russia. In 1392-93 the Tartar conqueror
completed the subjugation of Persia and Mesopotamia,
extinguishing the decayed Mongol Empire of the Ilkhans, and
piling up a pyramid of 90,000 human heads on the ruins of
Bagdad, the old capital of Islam. Thence he pursued his career
of slaughter through Armenia and Georgia, and finished his
campaign of five years by a last destroying blow struck at the
Kiptchak Khan whom he is said to have pursued as far as
Moscow. Once more, at Samarkand, the red-handed, invincible
savage then gave himself up to orgies of pleasure-making; but
it was not for many months. His eyes were now on India, and
the years 1398-1399 were spent by him in carrying death and
desolation through the Punjab, and to the city of Delhi, which
was made a scene of awful massacre and pillage. No permanent
conquest was achieved; the plunder and the pleasure of
slaughter were the ends of the expedition. A more serious
purpose directed the next movement of Timour's arms, which
were turned against the rival Turk of Asia Minor, or Roum—the
Ottoman, Bajazet, or Bayezid, who boasted of the conquest of
the Roman Empire of the East. In 1402, Bajazet was summoned
from the siege of Constantinople to defend his realm. On the
20th of July in that year, on the plain of Angora, he met the
enormous hosts of Timourlenk and was overwhelmed by them—his
kingdom lost, himself a captive. The merciless Tartar hordes
swept hapless Anatolia with a besom of destruction and death.
Nicæa, Prusa and other cities were sacked. Smyrna provoked the
Tartar savage by an obstinate defense and was doomed to the
sword, without mercy for age or sex. Even then, the customary
pyramid of heads which he built on the site was not large
enough to satisfy his eye and he increased its height by
alternate layers of mud. Aleppo, Damascus, and other cities of
Syria had been dealt with in like manner the year before. When
satiated with blood, he returned to Samarkand in 1404, rested
there until January 1405, and then set out upon an expedition
to China; but he died on the way. His empire was soon broken
in pieces.
_A. Vambery,
History of Bokhara,
chapters 10, 11, 12._
ALSO IN:
_J. Hutton,
Central Asia,
chapters 5-6._
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 65._
_A. Lamartine,
History of Turkey,
book 7._
_H. G. Smith,
Romance of History,
chapter 4._
TIMUCHI.
This was the name given to the members of the senate or
council of six hundred of Massilia—ancient Marseilles.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 1, chapter 21._
TIMUCUA, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.
TINNEH.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
TIOCAJAS, Battles of.
See ECUADOR: ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.
TIPPECANOE, The Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1811.
TIPPERMUIR, Battle of (1644).
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
TIPPOO (OR TIPU) SAIB, English wars with.
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793, and 1798-1805.
TIROL.
See TYROL.
TIRSHATHA.
An ancient Persian title, borne by an officer whose functions
corresponded with those of High Sheriff.
_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, section 1._
TIRYNS.
See ARGOS; and HERACLEIDÆ.
TITHE.
"To consecrate to the Sanctuary in pure thankfulness towards
God the tenth of all annual profits, was a primitive tradition
among the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians. The
custom, accordingly, very early passed over to Israel."
_H. Ewald.
Antiquities of Israel,
introduction, 3d section, II., 3_.
Modern "recognition of the legal obligation of tithe dates
from the eighth century, both on the continent and in England.
In A. D. 779 Charles the Great ordained that everyone should
pay tithe, and that the proceeds should be disposed of by the
bishop; and in A. D. 787 it was made imperative by the
legatine councils held in England."
_W. Stubbs.
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 8, section 86 (volume 1)._
TITHE OF SALADIN.
See SALADIN, THE TITHE OF.
TITHES, Irish.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
TITIES, The.
See ROME: THE BEGINNINGS.
TITUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 79-81.
TIVITIVAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.
TIVOLI.
See TIBUR.
TLACOPAN.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.
TLASCALA.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).
T'LINKETS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.
TOBACCO:
Its introduction into the Old World from the New.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.
The systematic culture of the plant introduced in Virginia.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.
TOBACCO NATION, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS;
and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.
TOBAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.
TOGA, The Roman.
"The toga, the specifically national dress of the Romans, was
originally put on the naked body, fitting much more tightly
than the rich folds of the togas of later times. About the
shape of this toga, which is described as a semicircular cloak
…, many different opinions prevail. Some scholars consider it
to have been an oblong piece of woven cloth …; others
construct it of one or even two pieces cut into segments of a
circle. Here again we shall adopt in the main the results
arrived at through practical trials by Weiss ('Costümkunde,'
page 956 et seq.). The Roman toga therefore was not … a
quadrangular oblong, but 'had the shape of an oblong edged off
into the form of an oval, the middle length being equal to
about three times the height of a grown-up man (exclusive of
the head), and its middle breadth equal to twice the same
length. In putting it on, the toga was at first folded
lengthwise, and the double dress thus originated was laid in
folds on the straight edge and thrown over the left shoulder
in the simple manner of the Greek or Tuscan cloak; the toga,
however, covered the whole left side and even dragged on the
ground to a considerable extent. The cloak was then pulled
across the back and through the right arm, the ends being
again thrown over the left shoulder backwards. The part of the
drapery covering the back was once more pulled towards the
right shoulder, so as to add to the richness of the folds.' …
The simpler, that is narrower, toga of earlier times naturally
clung more tightly to the body."
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 95._
{3114}
"No tacks or fastenings of any sort indeed are visible in the
toga, but their existence may be inferred from the great
formality and little variation displayed in its divisions and
folds. In general, the toga seems not only to have formed, as
it were, a short sleeve to the right arm, which was left
unconfined, but to have covered the left arm down to the
wrist. … The material of the toga was wool; the colour, in
early ages, its own natural yellowish hue. In later periods
this seems, however, only to have been retained in the togas
of the higher orders; inferior persons wearing theirs dyed,
and candidates for public offices bleached by an artificial
process. In times of mourning the toga was worn black, or was
left off altogether. Priests and magistrates wore the 'toga
pretexta,' or toga edged with a purple border, called
pretexta. This … was, as well as the bulla, or small round
gold box suspended on the breast by way of an amulet, worn by
all youths of noble birth to the age of fifteen. … The knights
wore the 'trabea,' or toga striped with purple throughout."
_T. Hope,
Costume of the Ancients,
volume 1._
TOGATI, The.
See ROME: B. C. 275.
TOGGENBURG WAR, The.
See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.
TOGRUL BEG, Seljuk Turkish Sultan. A. D. 1037-1063.
TOHOMES, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
TOHOPEKA, Battle of (1814).
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).
TOISECH.
See RI.
TOISON D'OR.
The French name of the Order of Knighthood known in the
English-speaking world as the "Order of the Golden Fleece."
See GOLDEN FLEECE.
TOLBIAC, Battle of.
See ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504;
also, FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.
TOLEDO, Ohio: A. D. 1805-1835.
Site in dispute between Ohio and Michigan.
See MICHIGAN: A. D. 1837.
TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 531-712.
The capital of the Gothic kingdom in Spain.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.
TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 712.
Surrender to the Arab-Moors.
See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.
TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1083-1085.
Recovery from the Moors.
On the crumbling of the dominions of the Spanish caliphate of
Cordova, Toledo became the seat of one of the most vigorous of
the petty kingdoms which arose in Moorish Spain. But on the
death of its founder, Aben Dylnun, and under his incapable son
Yahia, the kingdom of Toledo soon sank to such weakness as
invited the attacks of the Christian king of Leon, Alfonso VI.
After a siege of three years, on the 25th of May, A. D. 1085,
the old capital of the Goths, which the Moslems had occupied
for nearly four centuries, was restored to their descendants
and successors.
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Spain and Portugal,
book 3, section 1, chapter 1._
TOLEDO, Spain: A. D. 1520-1522.
Revolt against the government of Charles, the emperor.
Siege and surrender.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.
TOLEDO, Councils of.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.
TOLENTINO, Treaty of (1797).
See FRANCE: A. D, 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
TOLERATION, and the Puritan theocracy
In Massachusetts.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.
In Maryland.
See MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.
TOLERATION ACT, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
TOLOSA, Battle of Las Navas de (1211 or 1212).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232;
also, ALMOHADES.
TOLTECS, The.
See MEXICO, ANCIENT.
TOMI.
An ancient Greek city on the western shore of the Euxine,
which was Ovid's place of banishment. Its site is occupied by
the modern town of Kustendje.
TONE, Theobald Wolf, and the United Irishmen.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.
TONIKAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONIKAN FAMILY.
TONKAWAN FAMILY, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TONKAWAN FAMILY.
TONKIN.
COCHIN-CHINA.
ANNAM.
CAMBOJA.
"The whole region which recent events have practically
converted into French territory comprises four distinct
political divisions: Tonkin in the north; Cochin-China in the
centre; Lower Cochin-China and Camboja in the south. The first
two, formerly separate States, have since 1802 constituted a
single kingdom, commonly spoken of as the empire of Annam.
This term Annam (properly An-nan) appears to be a modified
form of Ngannan, that is, 'Southern Peace,' first applied to
the frontier river between China and Tonkin, and afterwards
extended not only to Tonkin, but to the whole region south of
that river after its conquest and pacification by China in the
third century of the new era. Hence its convenient application
to the same region since the union of Tonkin and Cochin-China
under one dynasty and since the transfer of the administration
to France in 1883, is but a survival of the Chinese usage, and
fully justified on historic grounds. Tonkin (Tongking,
Tungking), that is, 'Eastern Capital,' a term originally
applied to Ha-noi when that city was the royal residence, has
in quite recent times been extended to the whole of the
northern kingdom, whose true historic name is Yüeh-nan. Under
the native rulers Tonkin was divided into provinces and
sub-divisions bearing Chinese names, and corresponding to the
administrative divisions of the Chinese empire. … Since its
conquest by Cochin-China the country has been administered in
much the same way as the southern kingdom. From this State
Tonkin is separated partly by a spur of the coast range
projecting seawards, partly by a wall built in the sixteenth
century and running in the same direction. After the erection
of this artificial barrier, which lies about 18° North
Latitude, between Hatinh and Dong-koi, the northern and
southern kingdoms came to be respectively distinguished by the
titles of Dang-ngoai and Dang-trong, that is, 'Outer' and
'Inner Route.'
{3115}
The term Cochin-China, by which the Inner Route is best known,
has no more to do with China than it has with the Indian city
of Cochin. It appears to be a modified form of Kwe-Chen-Ching,
that is, the 'Kingdom of Chen-Ching,' the name by which this
region was first known in the 9th century of the new era, from
its capital Chen-Ching. Another although less probable
derivation is from the Chinese Co-Chen-Ching, meaning 'Old
Champa,' a reminiscence of the time when the Cham (Tsiam)
nation was the most powerful in the peninsula. … Before the
arrival of the French, Cochin-China comprised the whole of the
coast lands from Tonkin nearly to the foot of the Pursat hills
in South Camboja. … From the remotest times China claimed, and
intermittently exercised, suzerain authority over Annam, whose
energies have for ages been wasted partly in vain efforts to
resist this claim, partly in still more disastrous warfare
between the two rival States. Almost the first distinctly
historic event was the reduction of Lu-liang, as Tonkin was
then called, by the Chinese in 218 B. C., when the country was
divided into prefectures, and a civil and military
organisation established on the Chinese model. … Early in the
ninth century of the new era the term Kwe-Chen-Ching
(Cochin-China) began to be applied to the southern, which had
already asserted its independence of the northern, kingdom. In
1428 the two States freed themselves temporarily from the
Chinese protectorate, and 200 years later the Annamese reduced
all that remained of the Champa territory, driving the natives
to the uplands, and settling in the plains. This conquest was
followed about 1750 by that of the southern or maritime
provinces of Camboja since known as Lower (now French)
Cochin-China. In 1775 the King of Cochin-China, who had
usurped the throne in 1774, reduced Tonkin, and was
acknowledged sovereign of Annam by the Chinese emperor. But in
1798 Gia-long, son of the deposed monarch, recovers the throne
with the aid of some French auxiliaries, and in 1802
reconstitutes the Annamese empire under the Cochin-Chinese
sceptre. From this time the relations with France become more
frequent. … After his death in 1820 the anti-European national
party acquires the ascendant, the French officers are
dismissed, and the Roman Catholic religion, which had made
rapid progress during the reign of Gia-long, is subjected to
cruel and systematic persecution. Notwithstanding the protests
and occasional intervention of France, this policy is
persevered in, until the execution of Bishop Diaz in 1857 by
order of Tu-Duc, third in succession from Gia-long, calls for
more active interference. Admiral Rigault de Genouilly
captures Tourane in 1858, followed next year by the rout of
the Annamese army at the same place, and the occupation of the
forts at the entrance of the Donnai and of Gia-diñh (Saigon),
capital of Lower Cochin-China. This virtually established
French supremacy, which was sealed by the treaty of 1862,
ceding the three best, and that of 1867 the three remaining,
provinces of Lower Cochin-China. It was further strengthened
and extended by the treaty of 1863, securing the protectorate
of Camboja and the important strategical position of
'Quatre-Bras' on the Mekhong. Then came the scientific
expedition of Mekhong (1866-68), which dissipated the hopes
entertained of that river giving access to the trade of
Southern China. Attention was accordingly now attracted to the
Song-koi basin, and the establishment of French interests in
Tonkin secured by the treaties of peace and commerce concluded
with the Annamese Government in 1874. This prepared the way
for the recent diplomatic complications with Annam and China,
followed by the military operations in Cochin-China and Tonkin
[see FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889], which led up to the treaties of
1883 and 1884, extending the French protectorate to the whole
of Annam, and forbidding the Annamese Government all
diplomatic relations with foreign powers, China included,
except through the intermediary of France. Lastly, the
appointment in 1886 of a French Resident General, with full
administrative powers, effaced the last vestige of national
autonomy, and virtually reduced the ancient kingdoms of Tonkin
and Cochin-China to the position of an outlying French
possession."
_A. H. Keane,
Eastern Geography,
pages 98-104._
"In the south-eastern extremity of Cochin-China, and in
Camboja, still survive the scattered fragments of the
historical Tsiam (Cham, Khiam) race, who appear to have been
at one time the most powerful nation in Farther India.
According to Gagelin, they ruled over the whole region between
the Menam and the Gulf of Tongking. … Like the Tsiams, the
Cambojans, or Khmers, are a race sprung from illustrious
ancestry, but at present reduced to about 1,500,000, partly in
the south-eastern provinces of Siam, partly forming a petty
state under French protection, which is limited east and west
by the Mekong and Gulf of Siam, north and south by the Great
Lake and French Cochin-China. During the period of its
prosperity the Cambojan empire overshadowed a great part of
Indo-China, and maintained regular intercourse with
Cisgangetic India on the one hand, and on the other with the
Island of Java. The centre of its power lay on the northern
shores of the Great Lake, where the names of its great cities,
the architecture and sculptures of its ruined temples, attest
the successive influences of Brahmanism and Buddhism on the
local culture. A native legend, based possibly on historic
data, relates how a Hindu prince migrated with ten millions of
his subjects, some twenty-three centuries ago, from
Indraspathi (Delhi) to Camboja, while the present dynasty
claims descent from a Benares family. But still more active
relations seem to have been maintained with Lanka (Ceylon),
which island has acquired almost a sacred character in the
eyes of the Cambojans. The term Camboja itself (Kampushea,
Kamp'osha) has by some writers been wrongly identified with
the Camboja of Sanskrit geography. It simply means the 'land
of the Kammen,' or 'Khmer.' Although some years under the
French protectorate, the political institutions of the
Cambojan state have undergone little change. The king, who
still enjoys absolute power over the life and property of his
subjects, chooses his own mandarins, and these magistrates
dispense justice in favour of the highest bidders. Trade is a
royal monopoly, sold mostly to energetic Chinese contractors;
and slavery has not yet been abolished, although the severity
of the system has been somewhat mitigated since 1877. Ordinary
slaves now receive a daily pittance, which may help to
purchase their freedom. …
{3116}
On the eastern slopes, and in the lower Mekong basin, the
dominant race are the Giao-shi (Giao-kii} or Annamese, who are
of doubtful origin, but resemble the Chinese more than any
other people of Farther India. Affiliated by some to the
Malays, by others to the Chinese, Otto Kunze regards them as
akin to the Japanese. According to the local traditions and
records they have gradually spread along the coast from
Tongking southwards to the extremity of the Peninsula. After
driving the Tsiams into the interior, they penetrated about
1650 to the Lower Mekong, which region formerly belonged to
Camboja, but is now properly called French Cochin-China. Here
the Annamese, having driven out or exterminated most of the
Cambojans, have long formed the great majority of the
population."
_É. Reclus,
The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia,
volume 3, chapter 22._
TONNAGE AND POUNDAGE.
See TUNNAGE AND POUNDAGE;
also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1629.
TONQUIN.
See TONKIN.
TONTONTEAC.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.
TONTOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP.
TOPASSES, The.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
TOPEKA CONSTITUTION, The.
See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.
TOQUIS.
See CHILE: THE ARAUCANIANS.
TORBAY, Landing of William of Orange at.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
TORDESILLAS, Treaty of.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
TORGAU: A. D. 1525.
Protestant League.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1525-1529.
TORGAU: A. D. 1645.
Yielded to the Swedes.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.
TORGAU: A. D. 1760.
Victory of Frederick the Great.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
TORGAU: A. D. 1813.
Siege and capture by the Allies.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).
TORIES, English:
Origin of the Party and the Name.
See RAPPAREES; ENGLAND: A. D. 1680;
and CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
TORIES, English:
Of the American Revolution, and their exile.
"Before the Revolution the parties in the colonies were
practically identical with the Whigs and Tories of the mother
country, the Whigs or anti-prerogative men supporting ever the
cause of the people against arbitrary or illegal acts of the
governor or the council. In the early days of the Revolution
the ultra Tories were gradually driven into the ranks of the
enemy, until for a time it might be said that all
revolutionary America had become Whig; the name Tory, however,
was still applied to those who, though opposed to the
usurpations of George III., were averse to a final separation
from England."
_G. Pellew,
John Jay,
page 269._
"The terms Tories, Loyalists, Refugees, are burdened with a
piteous record of wrongs and sufferings. It has not been found
easy or satisfactory for even the most candid historian to
leave the facts and arguments of the conflict impartially
adjusted. Insult, confiscation of property, and exile were the
penalties of those who bore these titles. … Remembering that
the most bitter words of Washington that have come to us are
those which express his scorn of Tories, we must at least look
to find some plausible, if not justifying, ground for the
patriot party. Among those most frank and fearless in the
avowal of loyalty, and who suffered the severest penalties,
were men of the noblest character and of the highest position.
So, also, bearing the same odious title, were men of the most
despicable nature, self-seeking and unprincipled, ready for
any act of evil. And between these were men of every grade of
respectability and of every shade of moral meanness. … As a
general rule, the Tories were content with an unarmed
resistance, where they were not reinforced by the resources or
forces of the enemy. But in successive places in possession of
the British armies, in Boston, Long Island, New York, the
Jerseys, Philadelphia, and in the Southern provinces, there
rallied around them Tories both seeking protection, and ready
to perform all kinds of military duty as allies. By all the
estimates, probably below the mark, there were during the war
at least 25,000 organized loyalist forces. … When the day of
reckoning came at the close of the war, it needed no spirit of
prophecy to tell how these Tories, armed or unarmed, would
fare, and we have not to go outside the familiar field of
human nature for an explanation. That it was not till six
months after the ratification of the treaty by Congress that
Sir Guy Carleton removed the British army from New York—the
delay being caused by his embarrassment from the crowds of
loyalists seeking his protection—is a reminder to us of their
forlorn condition. … From all over the seaboard of the
continent refugees made their way to New York in crowds. …
They threw themselves in despair upon the protection of the
British commander. … He pleaded his encumbrances of this
character in answer to the censures upon him for delaying his
departure, and he vainly hoped that Congress would devise some
measures of leniency to relieve him. It is difficult to
estimate with any approach to exactness the number of these
hounded victims. Many hundreds of them had been seeking refuge
in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick since the autumn of 1782, and
additional parties, in increasing number, followed to the same
provinces. An historian [Murdoch, "History of Nova Scotia"]
sets the whole number at the close of 1783 at 25,000. Large
numbers of the loyalists of the Southern provinces were
shipped to the Bahamas and to the West India Islands. At one
time Carleton had upon his hands over 12,000 Tories clamorous
for transportation. … A celebration of the centennial of the
settlement of Upper Canada by these exiles took place in 1884.
At a meeting of the royal governor, Lord Dorchester, and the
council, in Quebec, in November, 1789, in connection with the
disposal of still unappropriated crown lands in the province,
order was taken for the making and preserving of a registry of
the names of all persons, with those of their sons and
daughters, 'who had adhered to the unity of the empire, and
joined the royal standard in America before the treaty of
separation in the year 1783.' The official list contains the
names of several thousands. It was by their descendants and
representatives that the centennial occasion referred to was
observed. … Some bands passed to Canada by Whitehall, Lake
Champlain, Ticonderoga, and Plattsburg, then southward to
Cornwall, ascending the St. Lawrence, and settling on the
north bank.
{3117}
Others went from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia up the St.
Lawrence to Sorel, where they wintered, going afterwards to
Kingston. Most of the exiles ascended the Hudson to Albany,
then by the Mohawk and Wood Creek to Oneida and Ontario lakes.
… As these exiles had stood for the unity of the empire, they
took the name of the 'United Empire Loyalists'" (a name which
is often abbreviated in common use to U. E. Loyalists).
_G. E. Ellis,
The Loyalists and their Fortunes
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 7, pages 185-214)._
"Some 10,000 refugees had, in 1784, and the few years
following, found homes in Western Canada, just as it is
estimated … that 20,000 had settled in the provinces by the
sea. Assuming full responsibility for the care and present
support of her devoted adherents, Great Britain opened her
hand cheerfully to assist them. … The sum paid by the British
Government to the suffering refugees was about $15,000,000."
_G. Bryce,
Short History of the Canadian People,
chapter 7, section 2._
ALSO IN:
_E. Ryerson,
The Loyalists of America and their Times._
_L. Sabine,
Biographical Sketches of the Loyalists of America._
TORNOSA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
TORO, Battle of (1476).
See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.
TOROMONOS, The.
See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINES INHABITANTS.
TORONTO: A. D. 1749.
The hospitable origin of the city.
"The Northern Indians were flocking with their beaver-skins to
the English of Oswego; and in April, 1749, an officer named
Portneuf had been sent with soldiers and workmen to build a
stockaded trading-house at Toronto, in order to intercept
them,—not by force, which would have been ruinous to French
interests, but by a tempting supply of goods and brandy. Thus
the fort was kept well stocked, and with excellent effect."
_F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._
TORONTO: A. D. 1813.
Taken and burned by the Americans.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1813 (APRIL-JULY).
TORONTO: A. D. 1837.
The Mackenzie rising.
Defeat of the rebels.
See CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.
TORQUES.
"The Latin word torques has been applied in a very extended
sense to the various necklaces or collars for the neck, found
in Britain, and other countries inhabited by the Celtic
tribes. This word has been supposed to be derived from the
Welch or Irish 'torc,' which has the same signification, but
the converse is equally plausible, that this was derived from
the Latin."
_S. Birch,
On the Torc of the Celts
(Archaeological Journal, volume 2)._
TORRES VEDRAS, The Lines of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
and 1810-1812.
TORTONA: A. D. 1155.
Destruction by Frederick Barbarossa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.
TORTOSA: A. D. 1640.
Spanish capture and sack.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.
TORTUGAS:
The Rendezvous of the Buccaneers.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
TORTURE.
See LAW, CRIMINAL,: A. D.1708.
TORY.
See TORIES.
TOTEMS.
"A peculiar social institution exists among the [North
American] Indians, very curious in its character; and though I
am not prepared to say that it may be traced through all the
tribes east of the Mississippi, yet its prevalence is so
general, and its influence on political relations so
important, as to claim especial attention. Indian communities,
independent of their local distribution into tribes, bands,
and villages, are composed of several distinct clans. Each
clan has its emblem, consisting of the figure of some bird,
beast, or reptile; and each is distinguished by the name of
the animal which it thus bears as its device; as, for example,
the clan of the Wolf, the Deer, the Otter, or the Hawk. In the
language of the Algonquins, these emblems are known by the
name of 'Totems.' The members of the same clan, being
connected, or supposed to be so, by ties of kindred more or
less remote, are prohibited from intermarriage. Thus Wolf
cannot marry Wolf; but he may, if he chooses, take a wife from
the clan of Hawks, or any other clan but his own. It follows
that when this prohibition is rigidly observed, no single clan
can live apart from the rest; but the whole must be mingled
together, and in every family the husband and wife must be of
different clans. To different totems attach different degrees
of rank and dignity; and those of the Bear, the Tortoise, and
the Wolf are among the first in honor. Each man is proud of
his badge, jealously asserting its claims to respect; and the
members of the same clan, though they may, perhaps, speak
different dialects, and dwell far asunder, are yet bound
together by the closest ties of fraternity. If a man is
killed, every member of the clan feels called upon to avenge
him; and the wayfarer, the hunter, or the warrior is sure of a
cordial welcome in the distant lodge of the clansman whose
face perhaps he has never seen. It may be added that certain
privileges, highly prized as hereditary rights, sometimes
reside in particular clans; such as that of furnishing a
sachem to the tribe, or of performing certain religious
ceremonies or magic rites."
_F. Parkman,
Conspiracy of Pontiac,
chapter 1._
"A totem is a class of material objects which a savage regards
with superstitious respect, believing that there exists
between him and every member of the class an intimate and
altogether special relation. The name is derived from an
Ojibway (Chippeway) word 'totem,' the correct spelling of
which is somewhat uncertain. It was first introduced into
literature, so far as appears, by J. Long, an Indian
interpreter of last century, who spelt it 'totam.' … The
connexion between a man and his totem is mutually beneficent;
the totem protects the man, and the man shows his respect for
the totem in various ways, by not killing it if it be an
animal, and not cutting or gathering it if it be a plant. As
distinguished from a fetich, a totem is never an isolated
individual, but always a class of objects, generally a species
of animals or of plants, more rarely a class of inanimate
natural objects, very rarely a class of artificial objects.
Considered in relation to men, totems are of at least three
kinds:—
(1) the clan totem, common to a whole clan, and passing by
inheritance from generation to generation;
(2) the sex totem, common either to all the males or to all
the females of a tribe, to the exclusion in either case of the
other sex;
(3) the individual totem, belonging to a single individual and
not passing to his descendants."
_J. G. Frazer,
Totemism,
pages 1-2._
ALSO IN:
_L. H. Morgan,
League of the Iroquois,
chapter 4._
_L. H. Morgan,
Ancient Society,
part 2._
_L. Fison and A. W. Howitt,
Kamilaroi and Kurnai,
appendix B._
_W. R. Smith,
Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,
chapter 7._
{3118}
TOTILA, King of the Ostrogoths.
See ROME: A. D. 535-553.
TOTONACOS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TOTONACOS.
TOUL: A. D. 1552-1559.
Possession acquired by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
TOUL: A. D. 1648.
Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
TOULON: A. D. 1793-1794.
Revolt against the Revolutionary Government at Paris.
English aid called in.
Siege, capture and frightful vengeance by the Terrorists.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);
and 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).
----------TOULOUSE: Start--------
TOULOUSE: B. C. 106.
Acquisition by the Romans.
Tolosa, modern Toulouse, was the chief town of the Volcæ
Tectosages (see VOLCÆ, THE), a Gallic tribe which occupied the
upper basin of the Garonne, between the western prolongation
of the Cevennes and the eastern Pyrenees. Some time before 106
B. C. the Romans had formed an alliance with the Tectosages
which enabled them to place a garrison in Tolosa; but the
people had tired of the arrangement, had risen against the
garrison and had put the soldiers in chains. On that
provocation, Q. Servilius Cæpio, one of the consuls of the
year 106, advanced upon the town, found traitors to admit him
within its gates, and sacked it as a Roman general knew how to
do. He found a great treasure of gold in Tolosa, the origin of
which has been the subject of much dispute. The treasure was
sent off under escort to Massilia, but disappeared on the way,
its escort being attacked and slain. Consul Cæpio was accused
of the robbery; there was a great scandal and prosecution at
Rome, and "Aurum Tolosanum"—"the gold of Toulouse"—became a
proverbial expression, applied to ill-gotten wealth.
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 2, chapter 1._
TOULOUSE: A. D. 410-509.
The Gothic kingdom.
See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419, and after.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 721.
Repulse of the Moslems.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 781.
Made a county of Aquitaine.
See AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.
TOULOUSE: 10-11th Centuries.
The rise of the Counts.
The counts of Toulouse "represented an earlier line of dukes
of Aquitaine, successors of the dukes of Gothia or Septimania,
under whom the capital of southern Gaul had been not Poitiers
but Toulouse, Poitou itself counting as a mere underfief. In
the latter half of the tenth century these dukes of Gothia or
Aquitania Prima, as the Latin chroniclers sometimes called
them from the Old Roman name of their country, had seen their
ducal title transferred to the Poitevin lords of Aquitania
Secunda—the dukes of Aquitaine with whom we have had to deal.
But the Poitevin overlordship was never fully acknowledged by
the house of Toulouse; and this latter in the course of the
following century again rose to great importance and
distinction, which reached its height in the person of Count
Raymond IV., better known as Raymond of St. Gilles, from the
name of the little county which had been his earliest
possession. From that small centre his rule gradually spread
over the whole territory of the ancient dukes of Septimania.
In the year of the Norman conquest of England [1066] Rouergue,
which was held by a younger branch of the house of Toulouse,
lapsed to the elder line; in [1088] the year after the
Conqueror's death Raymond came into possession of Toulouse
itself; in 1094 he became, in right of his wife, owner of half
the Burgundian county of Provence. His territorial influence
was doubled by that of his personal fame; he was one of the
chief heroes of the first Crusade; and when he died in 1105 he
left to his son Bertrand, over and above his Aquitanian
heritage, the Syrian county of Tripoli. On Bertrand's death in
1112 these possessions were divided, his son Pontius
succeeding him as count of Tripoli, and surrendering his
claims upon Toulouse to his uncle Alfonso Jordan, a younger
son of Raymond of St. Gilles. Those claims, however, were
disputed. Raymond's elder brother, Count William IV., had left
an only daughter who, after a childless marriage with King
Sancho Ramirez of Aragon, became the wife of Count William
VIII. of Poitou. From that time forth it became a moot point
whether the lord of St. Gilles or the lord of Poitiers was the
rightful count of Toulouse. … With all these shiftings and
changes of ownership the kings of France had never tried to
interfere. Southern Gaul—'Aquitaine' in the wider sense—was a
land whose internal concerns they found it wise to leave as
far as possible untouched."
_K. Norgate,
England under the Angevin Kings,
volume I, chapter 10._
See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.
TOULOUSE: 12th Century.
The joyous court.
See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 1209.
The beginning of the Albigensian Crusades.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 1213.
Conquest by Simon de Montfort and his crusaders.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 1229-1271.
End of the reign of the Counts.
See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
TOULOUSE: A. D. 1814.
The last battle of the Peninsular War.
Occupation of the city by the English.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
TOURCOIGN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
TOURNAY: A. D. 1513.
Capture by the English.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1513-1515.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1581.
Siege and capture by the Spaniards.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1583.
Submission to Spain.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1667.
Taken by the French.
See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1709.
Siege and reduction by Marlborough and Prince Eugene.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709.
{3119}
TOURNAY: A. D. 1713.
Ceded to Holland.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1745-1748.
Siege.
Battle of Fontenoy and surrender to the French.
Restoration at the Peace.
See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES):
A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.
TOURNAY: A. D. 1794.
Battles near the city.
Surrender to the French.
FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
----------TOURNAY: End--------
TOURNEY.
TOURNAMENT.
JOUST.
"The word tourney, sometimes tournament, and in Latin
'torneamentum,' clearly indicates both the French origin of
these games and the principal end of that exercise, the art of
manœuvring, of turning ('tournoyer') his horse skilfully, to
strike his adversary and shield himself at the same time from
his blows. The combats, especially those of the nobility, were
always fought on horseback, with the lance and sharp sword;
the knight presented himself, clothed in armour which covered
his whole body, and which, while it preserved him from wounds,
bent to every movement and retarded those of his war horse. It
was important, therefore, that constant exercise should
accustom the knight's limbs to the enormous weight which he
must carry, and the horse to the agility which was expected of
him. In a 'passage' or 'pass of arms' ('passage' or 'pas
d'armes') the generic name of all those games, this exercise
was composed of two parts: the joust, which was a single
combat of knight against knight, both clothed in all their
arms, and the tourney, which was the image of a general
battle, or the encounter and evolutions of two troops of
cavalry equal in number."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
France under the Feudal System
(Translated by W. Bellingham),
chapter 8._
TOURS: A. D. 732.
Defeat of the Moors by Charles Martel.
See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732;
also, FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.
TOURS: A. D. 1870.
Seat of a part of the provisional
Government of National Defense.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE, The career of.
See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.
TOWER AND SWORD, The Order of the.
This was an order of knighthood founded in Portugal by Alfonso
V., who reigned from 1438 to 1481. "The institution of the
order related to a sword reputed to be carefully guarded in a
tower of the city of Fez: respecting it there was a prophecy
that it must one day come into the possession of a Christian
king; in other words, that the Mohammedan empire of
northwestern Africa would be subverted by the Christians.
Alfonso seemed to believe that he was the destined conqueror."
_S. A. Dunham.
History of Spain and Portugal,
volume 3, page 225 (American edition)._
TOWER OF LONDON, The.
"Built originally by the Conqueror to curb London, afterwards
the fortress-palace of his descendants, and in the end the
State prison, from which a long procession of the ill-starred
great went forth to lay their heads on the block on Tower
Hill; while State murders, like those of Henry VI. and the two
young sons of Edward IV., were done in the dark chambers of
the Tower itself."
_Goldwin Smith,
A Trip to England,
page 56._
"Even as to length of days, the Tower has no rival among
palaces and prisons. … Old writers date it from the days of
Caesar; a legend taken up by Shakspeare and the poets in
favour of which the name of Caesar's Tower remains in popular
use to this very day. A Roman wall can even yet be traced near
some parts of the ditch. The Tower is mentioned in the Saxon
Chronicle, in a way not incompatible with the fact of a Saxon
stronghold having stood upon the spot. The buildings as we
have them now in block and plan were commenced by William the
Conqueror; and the series of apartments in Caesar's Tower [the
great Norman keep now called the White Tower]—hall, gallery,
council chamber, chapel—were built in the early Norman reigns
and used as a royal residence by all our Norman kings."
_W. H. Dixon,
Her Majesty's Tower,
chapter 1._
"We are informed by the 'Textus Roffensis' that the present
Great or White Tower was constructed by Gundulph, Bishop of
Rochester, under the direction of King William I., who was
suspicious of the fidelity of the citizens. The date assigned
by Stow is 1078."
_J. Britton and E. W. Brayley,
Memoirs of the Tower of London,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_Lord de Ros,
Memorials of the Tower._
TOWN.
"Burh, burgh, borough, in its various spellings and various
shades of meaning, is our native word for urbes of every kind
from Rome downward: It is curious that this word should in
ordinary speech have been so largely displaced by the vaguer
word tun, town, which means an enclosure of any kind, and in
some English dialects is still applied to a single house and
its surroundings."
_E. A. Freeman,
City and Borough
(Macmillan's Magazine, May, 1889)._
See, also, TOWNSHIP; BOROUGH; GUILDS; and COMMUNE.
TOWNSHEND MEASURES, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767.
TOWNSHIP.
"In recent historical writing dealing with Anglo-Saxon
conditions, a great place has been occupied by the 'township.'
The example was set sixty years ago by Palgrave; but it does
not seem to have been generally followed until in 1874 Dr.
Stubbs gave the word a prominent place in his 'Constitutional
History.' With Dr. Stubbs the 'township' was 'the unit of the
constitutional machinery or local administration'; and since
then most writers on constitutional and legal history have
followed in the same direction. … The language commonly used
in this connection need not, perhaps, necessarily be
understood as meaning that the phenomenon which the writers
have in mind was actually known to the Saxons themselves as a
'township' ('tunscipe'). It may be said that 'township' is
merely a modern name which it is convenient to apply to it.
Yet, certainly, that language usually suggests that it was
under that name that the Saxons knew it. … It is therefore of
some interest, at least for historical terminology,—and
possibly for other and more important reasons,—to point out
that there is no good foundation in Anglo-Saxon sources for
such a use of the term; that 'tunscipe' in the few places
where it does appear does not mean an area of land, an extent
of territory, or even the material houses and crofts of a
village; that it is probably nothing more than a loose general
term for 'the villagers.' …
{3120}
Only three passages in Anglo-Saxon literature have as yet been
found in which the word 'tunscipe' appears,—the Saxon
translation of Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History,' volume 10, the
laws of Edgar, iv. 8, and the 'Saxon Chronicle,' s. a 1137. …
The later history of the word 'township' would probably repay
investigation. It is certainly not a common word in literature
until comparatively recent times; and, where it does appear,
its old meaning seems often to cling to it. … There is a good
deal to make one believe that 'town ' [see, above, TOWN]
continued to be the common popular term for what we may
describe in general language as a rural centre of population
even into the 18th century. … The far more general use of the
word 'town' than of 'township' in early New England is most
naturally explained by supposing that it was the word
ordinarily employed in England at the time of the
migration,—at any rate, in East Anglia. … It might very
naturally be said that the effect of the foregoing argument is
no more than to replace 'township' by town, and that such a
change is immaterial,—that it is a difference between
tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. I cannot help thinking, however,
that the adoption of a more correct terminology will be of
scientific advantage; and for this reason. So long as we speak
of the Anglo-Saxon 'township' we can hardly help attaching to
the word somewhat of the meaning which it has borne since the
sixteenth century. We think of it as an area inhabited by
freemen with an administrative machinery in the hands of an
assembly of those inhabitants and of officers chosen by them.
We start, therefore, with a sort of unconscious presumption
that the 'township' was what we call 'free.' … Now, it is this
question as to the position of the body of the population in
the earliest Anglo-Saxon times that is just now at issue; and
no student would say that at present the question is settled."
_W. J. Ashley,
The Anglo-Saxon "Township"
(Quarterly Journal of Economics, April, 1894)._
TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING, The New England.
"When people from England first came to dwell in the
wilderness of Massachusetts Bay, they settled in groups upon
small irregular-shaped patches of land, which soon came to be
known as townships. … This migration … was a movement, not of
individuals or of separate families, but of
church-congregations, and it continued to be so as the
settlers made their way inland and westward. … A township
would consist of about as many farms as could be disposed
within convenient distance from the meeting-house, where all
the inhabitants, young and old, gathered every Sunday, coming
on horseback or afoot. The meeting-house was thus centrally
situated, and near it was the town pasture or 'common,' with
the school-house and the block-house, or rude fortress for
defence against the Indians. … Around the meeting-house and
common the dwellings gradually clustered into a village, and
after a while the tavern, store, and town-house made their
appearance. … Under these circumstances they developed a kind
of government which we may describe in the present tense, for
its methods are pretty much the same to-day that they were two
centuries ago. In a New England township the people directly
govern themselves; the government is the people, or, to speak
with entire precision, it is all the male inhabitants of
one-and-twenty years of age and upwards. The people tax
themselves. Once each year, usually in March but sometimes as
early as February or as late as April, a 'town-meeting' is
held, at which all the grown men of the township are expected
to be present and to vote, while anyone may introduce motions
or take part in the discussion. … The town-meeting is held in
the town-house, but at first it used to be held in the church,
which was thus a 'meeting-house' for civil as well as
ecclesiastical purposes. At the town-meeting measures relating
to the administration of town affairs are discussed and
adopted or rejected; appropriations are made for the public
expenses of the town, or in other words the amount of the town
taxes for the year is determined; and town officers are
elected for the year. … The principal executive magistrates of
the town are the selectmen. They are three, five, seven, or
nine in number. … It [the town] was simply the English parish
government brought into a new country and adapted to the new
situation. Part of this new situation consisted in the fact
that the lords of the manor were left behind. There was no
longer any occasion to distinguish between the township as a
manor and the township as a parish; and so, as the three names
had all lived on together, side by side, in England, it was
now the oldest and most generally descriptive name,
'township,' that survived, and has come into use throughout a
great part of the United States. … New York had from the very
beginning the rudiments of an excellent system of local
self-government. The Dutch villages had their assemblies,
which under the English rule were developed into
town-meetings, though with less ample powers than those of New
England. … The New York system is of especial interest,
because it has powerfully influenced the development of local
institutions throughout the Northwest."
_J. Fiske,
Civil Government in the United States,
chapters 2 and 4._
"The name town first occurs in the record of the second
colonial meeting of the Court of Assistants [Massachusetts
Bay, September 7, 1630], in connection with the naming of
Boston, Charlestown and Watertown. … A rude pattern of a frame
of town government was shaped by Dorchester, when, in place of
the earlier practice of transacting business at meetings of
the whole body of its freemen (the grants of land being
certified by a committee consisting of the clergymen and
deacons), it designated certain inhabitants, twelve in number,
to meet weekly, and consult and determine upon public
affairs,—without any authority, however, beyond other
inhabitants who should choose to come and take part in their
consultations and votes. About the same time, at Watertown, it
was 'agreed by the consent of the freemen, that there should
be three persons chosen for the ordering of the civil
affairs.' In the fourth year from the settlement of Boston, at
which time the earliest extant records were made, three
persons were chosen 'to make up the ten to manage the affairs
of the town.' The system of delegated town action was there
perhaps the same which was defined in an 'Order made by the
inhabitants of Charlestown, at a full meeting [February 10,
1635], for the government of the town by Selectmen,'—the name
presently extended throughout New England to the municipal
governors. …
{3121}
The towns have been, on the one hand, separate governments,
and, on the other, the separate constituents of a common
government. In Massachusetts, for two centuries and a quarter,
the Deputies in the General Court—or Representatives, as they
have been named under the State Constitution—continued to
represent the municipal corporations. In New Hampshire,
Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island, that basis of
representation still subsists."
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
volume 1, chapter 9._
"Boston … is the largest community that ever maintained the
town organization, probably the most generally able and
intelligent. No other town ever played so conspicuous a part
in connection with important events. It led Massachusetts, New
England, the thirteen colonies, in the struggle for
independence. Probably in the whole history of the Anglo-Saxon
race, there has been no other so interesting manifestation of
the activity of the Folk-mote. Of this town of towns, Samuel
Adams was the son of sons. … One may almost call him the
creature of the town-meeting."
_J. K. Hosmer,
Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town-Meeting
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 4)._
ALSO IN:
_E. Channing,
Town and County Government in the English Colonies
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, series 2, number 10)._
See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644;
and SELECTMEN.
TOWTON, Battle of (A. D. 1461).
On Palm Sunday, March 29, 1461, two armies of Englishmen met
on a "goodly plain," ten miles from the city of York, between
the villages of Towton and Saxton, to fight out the contention
of the parties of the "two roses,"—of Lancaster and York. The
battle they fought is called the bloodiest that ever dyed
English soil. It raged through an afternoon and 'a night until
the following day, and the slain of the two sides has been
variously reckoned by different historians at 20,000 to
38,000. No quarter was given by the victorious partisans of
Edward IV. and the Lancastrians were utterly crushed. Henry
VI. fled to Scotland and Queen Margaret repaired to France.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.
_C. Ransome,
Battle of Towton
(English Historical Review, July, 1889)._
TOXANDRIA.
After Julian's successful campaigns against the Franks, A. D.
358, the latter were permitted to remain, as subjects of the
Roman Empire, in "an extensive district of Brabant, which was
then known by the appellation of Toxandria, and may deserve to
be considered as the original seat of their Gallic monarchy. …
This name seems to be derived from the 'Toxandri' of Pliny,
and very frequently occurs in the histories of the middle age.
Toxandria was a country of woods and morasses, which extended
from the neighbourhood of Tongres to the conflux of the Vahal
and the Rhine."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 19, with foot-note._
See, also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.
TOXARCHI, The.
The commanders of the Athenian archers and of the city-watch
(known as Scythians) were so called.
_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens,
book 2, chapter 11. _
TRACHIS.
TRACHINIA.
See GREECE: B. C. 480 (THERMOPYLÆ).
TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
TRACT NINETY.
See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
TRADES UNIONS.
See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
TRAFALGAR, Naval Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
TRAJAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 98-117.
TRAJAN'S WALL.
The Emperor Trajan "began a fortified line, afterwards
completed, from the Rhine to the Danube. This great work was
carried from Ratisbon to Mayence. It was known as Trajan's
Wall. It may still be traced to some extent by the marks of a
mound and a ditch."
_Church and Brodribb,
Notes to the Germany of Tacitus,
chapter 29._
TRAMELI, The.
See LYCIANS.
TRANSALPINE.
Beyond the Alps, looking from the Roman standpoint.
TRANSLEITHANIA.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.
TRANSOXANIA.
See BOKHARA.
TRANSPADANE GAUL.
Cisalpine Gaul north of the Padus, or Po.
See PADUS.
TRANSRHENANE.
Beyond the Rhine,—looking from the Roman standpoint; that is,
on the eastern and northern side of the Rhine.
TRANSVAAL REPUBLIC, The.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
TRANSYLVANIA: Early history.
See DACIA.
TRANSYLVANIA: The Huns in possession.
See HUNS: A. D. 433-453.
TRANSYLVANIA: 12th Century.
Conquest by Hungary.
Settlement of Germans.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.
TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1526-1567.
John Zapolya, the waivod, elected King of Hungary.
His contest with Ferdinand of Austria.
His appeal to the Turks.
The Sultan assumes suzerainty of the country.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.
TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1567-1660.
Struggles between the Austrian and the Turk.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604; and 1606-1660.
TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1575.
Stephen Batory, the Duke, elected King of Poland.
See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.
TRANSYLVANIA: A. D: 1599-1601.
Wallachian conquest.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,
14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).
TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1606.
Yoke of the Ottomans partly broken.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.
TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1660-1664.
Recovery of independence from the Turks.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
TRANSYLVANIA: A. D. 1699.
Ceded to the House of Austria by the Turks,
in the Treaty of Carlowitz.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
TRANSYLVANIA, The Kentucky colony of.
See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778.
TRAPPISTS.
The monks of La Trappe are often referred to as Trappists.
"This celebrated abbey was one of the most ancient belonging
to the Order of Cisteaux [the Cistercians]. It was established
[A. D. 1140] by Rotrou, the second count of Perche, and
undertaken to accomplish a vow made whilst in peril of
shipwreck." In the 17th century the monks had become
scandalous]y degenerate and dissolute. Their institution was
reformed by M. de Rancé, who assumed the direction as abbot in
1662, and who introduced the severe discipline for which the
monastery was afterwards famous. Among its rules was one of
absolute silence.
_C. Lancelot,
A Tour to Alet and La Grande Chartreuse,
volume 1, pages 113-186._
{3122}
TRASIMENE, Lake, Battle of (B. C. 217).
See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.
TRASTEVERE.
Trastevere was a suburb of Rome "as early as the time of
Augustus; it now contains the oldest houses in Rome, which
belong to the 11th and 12th centuries."
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on ancient Ethnography and Geography,
volume 2, page 103._
TRAUSI, The.
See THRACIANS.
TRAVENDAHL, Treaty of (1700).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697-1700.
TRAVENSTADT, Battle of (1706).
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
TREASON.
See MAJESTAS.
TREATIES.
The Treaties of which account is given in this work are so
numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting
references to them under this general heading. They are
severally indexed under the names by which they are
historically known.
TREATY PORTS, The.
See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1812.
TREBIA,
TREBBIA,
Battle of the.
See PUNIC WARS: THE SECOND.
Battle.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).
TREBIZOND:
Origin of the city.
"Trebizond, celebrated in the retreat of the Ten Thousand as
an ancient colony of Greeks, derived its wealth and splendour
from the munificence of the Emperor Hadrian, who had
constructed an artificial port on a coast left destitute by
nature of secure harbours. The city was large and populous."
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 10._
TREBIZOND: A. D. 258.
Capture by the Goths.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
TREBIZOND: A. D. 1204-1461.
The Greek empire.
"The empire of Trebizond was the creation of accident. … The
destruction of a distant central government, when
Constantinople was conquered by the Frank Crusaders, left
[the] provincial administration without the pivot on which it
had revolved. The conjuncture was seized by a young man, of
whom nothing was known but that he bore a great name, and was
descended from the worst tyrant in the Byzantine annals, This
youth grasped the vacant sovereignty, and, merely by assuming
the imperial title, and placing himself at the head of the
local administration, founded a new empire. Power changed its
name and its dwelling, but the history of the people was
hardly modified. The grandeur of the empire of Trebizond
exists only in romance. Its government owed its permanence to
its being nothing more than a continuation of a
long-established order of civil polity, and to its making no
attempt to effect any social revolution." The young man who
grasped the sovereignty of this Asiatic fragment of the
shattered Byzantine empire was Alexius, a grandson of
Andronicus I., the last emperor at Constantinople of the
family of Comnenos. This Alexius and his brother David, who
had been raised in obscurity at Constantinople, escaped from
the city before it was taken by the Crusaders, and fled to the
coast of Colchis, "where their paternal aunt, Thamar,
possessed wealth and influence. Assisted by her power, and by
the memory of their tyrannical grandfather, who had been
popular in the east of Asia Minor, they were enabled to
collect an army of Iberian mercenaries. At the head of this
force Alexios entered Trebizond in the month of April 1204,
about the time Constantinople fell into the hands of the
Crusaders. He had been proclaimed emperor by his army on
crossing the frontier. To mark that he was the legitimate
representative of the imperial family of Komnenos, and to
prevent his being confounded with the numerous descendants of
females, or with the family of the emperor Alexius III.
(Angelos), who had arrogated to themselves his name, he
assumed the designation of Grand-Komnenos. Wherever he
appeared, he was acknowledged as the lawful sovereign of the
Roman empire." For a time Alexius of Trebizond, with the help
of his brother David, extended his dominions in Asia Minor
with rapidity and ease, and he was brought very soon into
collision with the other Greek emperor, Theodore Lascaris, who
had established himself at Nicæa. It seemed likely, at first,
that Trebizond would become the dominant power; but the
movement of events which favored that one of the rival empires
was presently stayed, and then reversed, even though Alexius
took aid from the Latin emperor at Constantinople. Not many
years later, in fact, the empire of Trebizond evaded
extinction at the hands of the Turkish Sultan of Iconium, or
Roum, only by paying tribute and acknowledging vassalage to
that sovereign. For sixty years the so-called empire continued
in a tributary relationship to the Seljuk sultans and to the
grand khan of the Mongols who overthrew them in 1244. But, if
not a very substantial empire during that period, it seems to
have formed an exceedingly prosperous and wealthy commercial
power, controlling not only a considerable coast territory on
its own side of the Euxine, but also Cherson, Gothia, and all
the Byzantine possessions in the Tauric Chersonesos; and "so
close was the alliance of interest that these districts
remained dependent on the government of Trebizond until the
period of its fall." On the decline of the Mongol power, the
empire of Trebizond regained its independence in 1280, and
maintained it for nearly a century, when it was once more
compelled to pay tribute to the later Mongol conqueror, Timur.
At the end of the 14th century the little "empire" was reduced
to a strip of coast, barely forty miles wide, extending from
Batoun to Kerasunt, and the separated city of Oinaion, with
some territory adjoining it. But, within this small compass,
"few countries in Europe enjoyed as much internal tranquility,
or so great security for private property." The commerce of
Trebizond had continued to flourish, notwithstanding frequent
quarrels and hostilities with the Genoese, who were the chief
managers of its trade with the west. But the decay of the
empire, politically, commercially, and morally, was rapid in
its later years. First becoming tributary to the Ottoman
conqueror of Constantinople, it finally shared the fate of the
Byzantine capital. The city of Trebizond was surrendered to
Mohammed II. in 1461. Its last emperor, David, was permitted
to live for a time, with his family, in the European dominions
of the Turk; but after a few years, on some suspicion of a
plot, he was put to death with his seven sons, and their
bodies were cast unburied to the dogs. The wife and mother of
the dead—the fallen empress Helena—guarded them and dug a
grave for them with her own hands. The Christian population of
Trebizond was expelled from the city and mostly enslaved. Its
place was taken by a Moslem colony.
_G. Finlay,
History of the Empire of Trebizond
(History of Greece and of the Empire of Trebizond)._
{3123}
TREBONIAN LAW, The.
See ROME: B. C. 57-52.
TREK, The Great.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
TREMECEN, The Kingdom of.
See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.
TREMONT, The Name.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1630.
TRENT, The Council of.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.
TRENT AFFAIR, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).
TRENTON: A. D. 1776.
The surprise of the Hessians.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1777 WASHINGTON'S RETREAT.
----------TRÈVES: Start--------
TRÈVES:
Origin.
Trèves was originally the chief town of the Treviri, from whom
it derived its name. When the Romans established a colony
there they called it Augusta Trevirorum. In time, the Augusta
was dropped and Trevirorum became Trèves, or Trier.
See TREVIRI.
TRÈVES:
Under the Romans.
"The town of the Treveri, named Augusta probably from the
first emperor, soon gained the first place in the Belgic
province; if, still, in the time of Tiberius, Durocortorum of
the Remi (Rheims) is named the most populous place of the
province and the seat of the governors, an author from the
time of Claudius already assigns the primacy there to the
chief place of the Treveri. But Treves became the capital of
Gaul—we may even say of the West—only through the remodelling
of the imperial administration under Diocletian. After Gaul,
Britain and Spain were placed under one supreme
administration, the latter had its seat in Treves; and
thenceforth Treves was also, when the emperors stayed in Gaul,
their regular residence, and, as a Greek of the fifth century
says, the greatest city beyond the Alps."
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 3._
TRÈVES: A. D. 306.
The Ludi Francici at.
See FRANKS: A. D. 306.
TRÈVES: A. D. 364-376.
Capital of Valentinian and the Western Empire.
See ROM[E: A. D. 363-379.
TRÈVES: A. D. 402.
Abandoned by the Roman præfecture.
See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.
TRÈVES: A. D. 1125-1152.
Origin of the Electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.
TRÈVES: A. D. 1675.
Taken from the French by the Imperialists.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
TRÈVES: A. D. 1689.
Threatened destruction by the French.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.
TRÈVES: A. D. 1697.
Restored to the Empire.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
TRÈVES: A. D. 1704.
Taken by Marlborough.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.
TRÈVES: A. D. 1801-1803.
Extinction of the Electorate.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.
----------TRÈVES: End--------
TREVILLIAN'S STATION, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA)
CAMPAIGNING IN THE SHENANDOAH.
TREVIRI, The.
The Treviri were one of the peoples of Gaul, in Cæsar's time,
"whose territory lay on the left bank of the Rhine and on both
sides of the Mosella (Mosel). Trier [ancient Treves] on the
Mosel was the head-quarters of the Treviri."
_G. Long,
Decline of the Roman Republic,
volume 4, chapter 8._
TREVISAN MARCHES, Tyranny of Eccelino di Romano in the.
See VERONA: A. D. 1230-1259.
TRIAD SOCIETY, OR
WATER-LILY SECT, The.
The most extensive of the many secret societies among the
Chinese is "the Tienti hwui, or San-hoh hwui, i. e. the Triad
Society. It was formerly known by the title of the Pih-lien
kiau, or Water-lily Sect, but having been proscribed by the
government, it sought by this alteration of name, and some
other slight changes, to evade the operation of the laws. In
fact, it still subsists in some of the remoter provinces under
its old name and organization. The known and indeed almost
openly avowed object of this society has been, for many years,
the overturn of the Mant-chou dynasty."
_The Chinese Rebellion
(North American Review, July, 1854)._
ALSO IN:
_Abbé Huc,
Christianity in China, &c.
volume 2, pages 274-277._
_H. A. Giles,
Historic China,
pages 395-399._
TRIAL BY COMBAT.
See WAGER OF BATTLE.
TRIANON TARIFF, The.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.
TRIARII.
See LEGION, ROMAN.
TRIBE.
TRIBUS.
See ROME, THE BEGINNING.
TRIBES, Greek.
See PHYLÆ.
TRIBOCES, The.
A people who, in Cæsar's time, were established on both banks
of the Rhine, occupying the central part of the modern Grand
Duchy of Baden and the opposite region of Gaul.
_Napoleon III.,
History of Cæsar,
book 3, chapter 2, foot-note._
See, also, VANGIONES.
TRIBON, The.
A garment of thick cloth and small size worn by Spartan
youths, and sometimes by old men.
_C. C. Felton,
Greece, Ancient and Modern,
course 2, lecture 7._
TRIBUNAL, The Revolutionary.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL.).
TRIBUNES, Consular, or Military.
See CONSULAR TRIBUNES.
TRIBUNES OF THE PLEBS.
See ROME: B. C. 494-492.
TRIBUNITIA, Potestas.
See POTESTAS TRIBUNITIA.
TRIBUTUM, The.
The tributum, a war-tax, collected from the Roman people in
the earlier periods of the Republic, was "looked upon as a
loan, and was returned on the termination of a successful war
out of the captured booty. … The principle that Rome was
justified in living at the expense of her subjects was
formally acknowledged when, in the year 167 B. C., the
tributum—the only direct tax which the Roman citizens paid—was
abolished, because the government could dispense with it after
the conquest of Macedonia. The entire burden and expense of
the administration were now put off upon the subjects."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 6, chapter 7 (volume 4)._
TRICAMARON, Battle of (A. D. 533).
See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.
TRICASSES.
The earlier name of the city of Troyes, France.
{3124}
TRICHINOPOLY:
Siege and relief (1751).
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
TRICOTEUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).
TRIDENTINE COUNCIL.
The Council of Trent; so called from Tridentum, the ancient
Latin name of the town.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563.
TRIERARCHY.
See LITURGIES.
TRINACRIA.
The ancient Greek name of the island of Sicily.
TRINCOMALEE, Battle of (1767).
See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.
TRINIDAD: A. D. 1498.
Discovery by Columbus.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.
TRINIDAD: A. D. 1801.
Acquisition by England.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
TRINITY HOUSE.
"Perhaps there is throughout Britain no more interesting
example of the innate power and varied developments of the old
gild principle, certainly no more illustrious survival of it
to modern times, than the Trinity House. It stands out now as
an institution of high national importance, whose history is
entwined with the early progress of the British navy and the
welfare and increase of our sea craft and seamanship: in an
age when the tendency is to assume state control over all
matters of national interest the Trinity House, a voluntary
corporation, still fulfils the public functions to which its
faithful labours, through a long course of years, have
established its right and title. Although its earliest records
appear to be lost or burned, there seems to be no doubt that
Henry VIII's charter of 1514 was granted to a brotherhood
already existing. … In the charter itself we read that the
shipmen or mariners of England 'may anew erect' a gild, and
lands and tenements in Deptford Strand, already in possession,
are referred to. Similar bodies were formed in other places;
in the fourteenth century there was a shipmen's gild at Lynn
and another at Hull; in the fifteenth century the shipmen were
one of the crafts of York. Mr. Barrett mentions that they also
had houses at Newcastle and Dover. The Hull gild (which also
happens to have been dedicated to the Trinity) flourished for
seventy-four years before receiving its first royal grant. The
objects to which it was devoted were akin to those of the
Deptford House, and Henry VIII incorporated it in 1547, just
about the time when most gilds, not of crafts, were destroyed.
… The charitable side of the Trinity House functions has
always been considerable; in 1815 they possessed no less than
144 almshouses, besides giving 7,012 pensions; but of late
years their funds applicable to such purposes have been
curtailed. … It is significant that in Edward VI's reign the
name and style of Gild was abandoned by the brethren for the
title of 'the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford
Strond.' Gilds now had come into disrepute. The functions of
the Trinity House have long been recognised of such value to
the public service that their honourable origin, so consonant
with other English institutions is apt to be forgotten. … To
cherish the 'science and art of mariners,' and to provide a
supply of pilots, especially for the Thames up to London, were
their prime duties. The Admiralty and Navy boards were as
administrative bodies in 1520, and the ship-building yard at
Deptford, with the store-houses there, 'was placed under the
direct control of the gild.' The Sea Marks Act of 1566,
established which throws considerable light on the position of
the company at that time, endued them with the power of
preserving old and setting up new sea marks or beacons round
the coasts, among which trees came under their purview. How
far their jurisdiction extended is not stated; it would be
interesting to know whether their progress round the whole
shores of Britain were gradual or not. It is, perhaps, for its
work in connexion with light-houses, light-ships, buoys, and
beacons, that the Trinity House is best known to the general
public. … It was only in 1836 that parliament 'empowered the
corporation to purchase of the crown, or from private
proprietors, all lights then in existence,' which are
therefore at present under their efficient central control. …
The principal matters in their sphere of action—the important
provision of pilots, the encouragement and supply of seamen,
ballastage and ballast, lights and buoys, the suppression of
piracy and privateers, tonnage measurement, the victualling of
the navy, their intimate connexion with the gradual growth and
armament of the navy, the curious right to appoint certain
consuls abroad—all these receive illustration at first hand
from the author's careful researches among state papers and
the muniments of the corporation."
_Lucy T. Smith,
Review of "The Trinity House of Deptford Strond";
by C. R. B. Barrett
(English Historical Review, April, 1894)._
TRINOBANTES, The.
The Trinobantes were the first of the tribes of Britain to
submit to Cæsar. They inhabited the part of the country now
embraced in the county of Essex and part of Middlesex. Their
chief town, or stronghold ("oppidum") was Camulodunum, where
the Romans afterwards founded a colony which became the modern
city of Colchester. Cunobelin, the Cymbeline of Shakespeare,
was a king of the Trinobantes who acquired extensive power.
One of the sons of Cunobelin, Caractacus, became the most
obstinate enemy of the Romans when they seriously began the
conquest of Britain, in the reign of Claudius.
_E. L. Cutts,
Colchester,
chapters 2-3._
ALSO IN:
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 51._
See also,
BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.
TRIOBOLON.
Three oboli,—the daily compensation paid in Athens to citizens
who served as judges in the great popular courts: afterwards
paid, likewise, to those who attended the assemblies of the
people.
_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens,
book 2, chapter 15._
TRIPLE ALLIANCE, The.
There have been a number of Triple Alliances formed in
European history; see, for example.
NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668,
and SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
But the one in recent times to which allusion is often made is
that in which Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, are the
three parties. It was formed by treaty in February, 1882, and
renewed in 1887. Its purpose is mutual defense, especially, no
doubt, against the apprehended combination of Russia with
France.
----------TRIPOLI: Start--------
TRIPOLI, North Africa:
Origin of the name of.
See LEPTIS MAGNA.
{3125}
TRIPOLI, North Africa:
History.
See BARBARY STATES.
TRIPOLI, Syria:
Capture by the Crusaders.
Destruction of the Library.
Formation of the Latin county.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111;
and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1009-1144.
TRIPONTIUM.
A town in Roman Britain, where one of the great roads crossed
the Avon, near modern Lilburne.
_T. Wright,
Celt, Roman and Saxon,
chapter 5._
TRISAGION, The.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512.
TRI-SKELION.
GAMMADION.
FYLFOT-CROSS.
SVASTIKA.
"One of the most remarkable instances of the migration of a
symbol is that afforded by the 'tri-skelion,' or, as we more
familiarly know it, 'the three legs of Man.' It first appears
on the coins of Lycia, circa B. C. 480; and then on those of
Sicily, where it was adopted by Agathocles, B. C. 317-307, but
not as a symbol of the morning, midday, and afternoon sun, but
of the land of Trinacria, i. e., 'Three Capes,' the ancient
name of Sicily; and finally on the coins of the Isle of Man,
on which it seems to refer rather to the position of that
island between England, Scotland, and Ireland, than to its
triangular shape. The tri-skelion of Lycia is made up of three
cocks' heads. … But on the coins of Sicily and of the Isle of
Man the tri-skelion consists of three human legs of an
identical pattern, excepting that those of the latter island
are spurred. This form of tri-skelion is borne on the arms of
several old English families, and it was in all probability
first introduced into this country [England] by some Crusader
returning from the East by way of Sicily. … The tri-skelion is
but a modification of the 'gammadion' or 'fyl-fot-cross,' the
'svastika' of the Hindus. The latter was long ago suspected by
Edward Thomas to be a sun-symbol; but this was not positively
proved until Mr. Percy Gardner found a coin of the ancient
city of Mesembria in Thrace stamped with a gammadion bearing
within its open centre an image of the sun—Mesembria meaning
the city of 'Mid-day,' and this name being figured on some of
its coins by the decisive legend _MEΣ卍_. … The gammadion
has travelled further afield than any other symbol of
antiquity. … Count Goblet d'Alviella traces it back at last to
the Troad as the cradle of its birth, some time anterior to
the 13th century B. C."
_The Athenœum, August 13, 1802
(Reviewing Comte Goblet d'Alviella's
"La Migration des Symboles")._
TRITTYES.
See PHYLÆ.
TRIUMPH AND OVATION, The Roman.
"The highest reward of the commander was the triumphal
entrance. At first it was awarded by senate and people to real
merit in the field, and its arrangement was simple and
dignified; but soon it became an opportunity of displaying the
results of insatiable Roman rapacity and love of conquest.
Only the dictators, consuls, prætors, and, in late republican
times, occasionally legates, were permitted by the senate to
enter Rome in triumph, the permission to the legate being
granted only in case he had commanded independently ('suis
auspiciis'), and conducted the army to Rome from a victorious
campaign 'in sua provincia.' As in later times it was
impossible to conduct the whole army from distant provinces to
Rome, the last-mentioned condition was dispensed with, the
claim of the commander to a triumph being acknowledged in case
in one of the battles gained by him 5,000 enemies had been
killed. The senate granted the expenses necessary for the
procession after the quæstor urbanus had examined and
confirmed the commander's claim. Streets and squares through
which the procession had to pass were festively adorned. The
temples were opened, and incense burnt on the altars.
Improvised stands were erected in the street, filled with
festive crowds shouting 'Io triumphe!' The commander, in the
meantime, collected his troops near the temples of Bellona and
Apollo, outside the gates of Rome. … The victor was met at the
'porta triumphalis' by the senate, the city magistrates, and
numerous citizens, who took the lead of the procession, while
lictors opened a way through the crowd. After the city
dignitaries followed tibicines, after them the booty. …
Fettered kings, princes, and nobles followed, doomed to
detention in the Mamertine prison. Next came sacrificial oxen
with gilt horns, accompanied by priests; and, finally,
preceded by singers, musicians, and jesters, the triumphal
chariot drawn by four horses. Clad in a toga picta and the
tunica palmata, temporarily taken from the statue of the
Capitoline Jupiter, the triumphator stood in his chariot
holding the eagle-crowned ivory sceptre in his hand, while a
servus publicus standing behind him held the corona
triumphalis over his head. The army brought up the rear of the
procession, which moved from the Campus Martius through the
circus of Flaminius to the Porta Carmentalis, and thence, by
way of the Velabrum and the Circus Maximus, the Via Sacra and
the Forum, to the Capitol. Here the triumphator deposited his
golden crown in the lap of the Capitoline Jupiter, and
sacrificed the usual suovetaurilia. … The ovatio was granted
for less important conquests, or to a general for victories
not won 'suis auspiciis.' The victor, adorned with the toga
prætexta and the myrtle crown, originally used to walk; in
later times he rode on horseback."
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 100._
See, also, VIA SACRA.
TRIUMVIRATE,
The First.
See ROME: B. C. 63-58.
The Second.
See ROME: B. C. 44-42.
TROIS ÉVÊCHÉS, Les, and their acquisition by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559, and 1670-1681;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1648.
TROISVILLE, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
TROJA.
TROY.
TROAD.
ILIUM.
"In the whole long extent of this Western coast [of Asia
Minor] no region occupies a fairer situation than the northern
projection, the peninsula jutting out between Archipelago,
Hellespont, and Propontis, of which the mountain-range of Ida,
abounding in springs, forms the centre. Its woody heights were
the seat of the Phrygian Mother of the Gods; in its depths it
concealed treasures of ore, which the dæmons of mining, the
Dactyli of Ida, were here first said to have been taught by
Cybele to win and employ. A hardy race of men dwelt on the
mountains so rich in iron, divided into several tribes, the
Cebrenes, the Gergithians, and above all the beauteous
Dardani, among whom the story went, how their ancestor,
Dardanus, had, under the protection of the Pelasgian Zeus,
founded the city of Dardania.
{3126}
Some of these Dardani descended from the highlands into the
tracts by the coast, which has no harbours, but an island
lying in front of it called Tenedos. Here Phœnicians had
settled and established purple-fisheries in the sea of Sigeum;
at a later period Hellenic tribes arrived from Crete and
introduced the worship of Apollo. In the secure waters between
Tenedos and the mainland took place that contact which drew
the Idæan peninsula into the intercourse subsisting between
the coasts of the Archipelago. … In the midst of this
intercourse on the coast arose, out of the tribe of the
Dardani, which had deserted the hills, the branch of the
Trojans. … Thus, in the midst of the full life of the nations
of Asia Minor, on the soil of a peninsula (itself related to
either side) on which Phrygians and Pelasgians, Assyrians,
Phœnicians, and Hellenic mariners met, grows up the empire of
the Dardanides. The springs of the Ida range collect into
rivers, of which two flow to the Propontis, and one, the
Scamander, into the Ægean. The latter first flows through his
bed high in the mountains, through which he then breaks in a
narrow rocky gorge, and quitting the latter enters the flat
plain of his water-shed, surrounded on three sides by gentle
declivities, and open on the West to the sea. … In the
innermost corner of this plain projects a rocky height with
precipitous sides, as if it would bar the passage of the river
breaking forth from the ravine. Skirted in a wide curve by
Scamander on the East, it sinks to the West in gentle
declivities, where numerous veins of water spring from the
earth; these unite into two rivulets, distinguished by the
abundance and temperature of their water, which remain the
same at all seasons of the year. This pair of rivulets is the
immutable mark of nature, by which the height towering above
is recognized as the citadel of Ilium. They are the same
rivulets to which of old the Trojan women descended from the
Scæan gate to fetch water or to wash linen, and to this day
the same ancient walls close around the flowing water and
render it more easily available. The source of these rivulets
was the seat of power. On the gentler declivity lay Troja;
over which towered the steep citadel of Pergamus, the view
from whose turrets commanded the entire plain, … and beyond
the plain the broad sea itself. … No royal seat of the ancient
world could boast a grander site than this Trojan citadel."
_E. Curtius,
History of Greece,
book 1, chapter 3._
The site contemplated by Dr. Curtius in the description quoted
above is some five miles higher up the valley of the Scamander
than Hissarlik, where Dr. Schliemann's excavations are
believed by many scholars to have now established the location
of ancient Troy.
_H. Schliemann,
Ilios: the City and Country of the Trojans._
"Dr. Schliemann described in his 'Troja' and 'Ilios' seven
successive layers of city ruins found in his excavations at
Hissarlik. This number was increased in 1890 to nine by the
discovery of two layers intervening between the highest (or
Roman) layer, formerly called the seventh, and the sixth, or
so-called Lydian layer. These two lavers were, from the
character of the finds, attributed to the early and the later
Greek period. Dr. Schliemann was baffled by the fact that he
could discover no acropolis for the sixth, seventh, or eighth
layers. Dr. Dörpfeld, who in May [1893] resumed the
excavations at the expense of Dr. Schliemann's widow, makes in
the Mittheilungen of the German Archæological Society (xviii,
2), which appeared November 7, a significant report clearly
establishing the fact that the Romans, in building the great
temple of Ilian Athene, cut down the highest part of the
acropolis, and thus destroyed all traces of the acropolis
belonging to those layers. The excavations of 1890 had brought
to light two magnificent buildings in the sixth layer, besides
'Lydian' jars, much pottery, and one entire vase of the
Mykenæan or Homeric period. The evidence favored the
identification of this layer with the Homeric Troy or the
period of Mykenæ and Tiryns. On the other hand, the fact that
only two buildings find no city wall had been discovered for
this layer seemed to indicate that the Troy of Priam must be
referred to a lower level, namely, the second, where a
magnificent wall of prehistoric style had been discovered,
although its architecture and the character of the finds
suggested a more primitive culture than that painted in
Homeric song. The sixth layer has now in large part been
exposed by Dr. Dörpfeld and reveals the most imposing wall of
pre-Roman times. The remains of seven vast buildings have been
brought to light which have in part the ground plan of the
ancient Greek temples and of the halls of Tiryns and Mykenæ,
though surpassing those in proportions and in the carefulness
of their architecture. The remains of one admirable building
contained a hall 37 feet by 30. … Further, Dr. Dörpfeld
uncovered the fortifications of this city in many places, and
found them some sixteen feet in thickness with a still greater
height. On the outside the wall has a uniform slope. A
strong-tower fifty-eight feet in diameter contains an inner
staircase. In strength, proportions, and careful architecture
this tower will compare favorably with any tower of Greek
antiquity. The neat work of the corners and the nice dressing
of the stones might refer it to a period later than Homer, to
the historical Greek period, did we not know that in
historical times Troy was too insignificant to need the
erection of such walls. Moreover, the tower, built over in
Greek times, and partly damaged by the addition of an outer
stair, was finally in Roman times buried under massive
foundations. The correspondences in stone-work of the wall and
the houses place the tower and the buildings evidently in the
same layer. In the houses were found both local pottery and
also pottery of the Mykenæan style."
_The Nation,
November 30, 1893._
"The latest news from the explorations at Hissarlik (Levant
Herald July 7) comes to us from the owner of the site, Mr.
Frank Calvert, United States consul, Dardanelles. It was
readily seen that the second, or burned city which Dr.
Schliemann enthusiastically assumed to be the city of Priam,
instead of solving the question of the 'Iliad,' offered new
problems to the archæologist. The precious objects and the
works of art there found were evidently ruder and more ancient
by some centuries than those of Mycenæ, and therefore
decidedly earlier than Homeric Troy. In the sixth city,
however, pottery of a Mycenæan type was discovered, and this
led Dr. Dörpfield, assisted by Mrs. Schliemann, and later by
the German Government, to extend excavations on this level,
with results that are now proving fruitful, and that may
possibly be conclusive. Curiously enough, Dr. Schliemann's
excavations obscured rather than aided this particular
investigation.
{3127}
The area of the sixth city was twice as great as the space
covered by the successive acropolises of the other five; and,
in consequence, their debris was dumped on the very spot which
Dr. Dörpfield has just been clearing. The massive walls he has
uncovered, from five to six metres broad, the lofty towers,
and the street which has been traced, may provisionally be
assumed to belong to the Homeric Troy."
_The Nation,
August 9, 1894._
ALSO IN:
_C. Schuchardt,
Schliemann's Excavations._
See, also,
ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;
and HOMER.
TROPAION.
The trophy erected by a victorious army, among the Greeks, on
the spot from which the enemy had been driven. The trophy was
constructed in some manner out of the booty taken.
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 54._
TROPPAU, Congress of.
See VERONA, CONGRESS OF.
TROUBADOURS.
TROUVÈRES.
JOGLARS.
JONGLEURS.
"The poets of the South of France during the Middle Age called
themselves 'Trobadors,' that is to say 'inventers' or
'finders'; and they adapted the 'langue d'oc,' also called the
Romansh of the South, or the Provençal, to the expression of
poetical sentiments. It is probable that poets of this
description existed as early as the formation of the idiom in
which they wrote. At any rate, we know that toward the year
1000 they already enjoyed considerable distinction, although
there is scarcely anything now left us from the earliest
period of their existence. … In regard to the time within
which the poetry of the Troubadours was in vogue, M. Fauriel
assumes only two periods. But it may perhaps be more
conveniently divided into three, as follows: The first
commences with its origin, as a popular poetry, and extends to
the time when it became an art and a profession, the poetry of
the nobles and the courts, that is to say, from about 1090 to
1140. The second is the period of its culmination, which
extends from the year 1140 to 1250. The third is the period of
its decadence, from 1250 to 1290."
_G. J. Adler,
Introduction to Fauriel's
"History of Provençal Poetry."_
"Sufficient has been said … to show the superiority of lyrical
over epic poetry in Provence. This inequality of the two
branches implied a commensurate difference of praise and
social esteem awarded to those who excelled in either of them,
and it is perhaps from this point of view that the two great
divisions of poets in the 'langue d'oc,' respectively
described as 'joglars' and 'trobadors,' or, in the French and
generally adopted form of the word, 'troubadours,' may be most
distinctly recognised. … It seems sufficiently established
that the verb 'trobar' and its derivative noun first and
foremost apply to lyrical poetry. To speak therefore of the
Troubadour as the singer of songs, of cansos and sirventeses
and albas and retroensas is a correct and tolerably
comprehensive definition."
_F. Hueffer,
The Troubadours,
chapter 6._
"In the twelfth century, the Romance-Wallon [or the 'langue
d'oil' of northern France] became a literary language,
subsequent, by at least a hundred years, to the
Romance-provençal. … The reciters of tales, and the poets,
giving the name of Troubadour a French termination, called
themselves Trouvères. With the exception of the difference of
language, it may be thought that the Troubadour and the
Trouvère, whose merit was pretty nearly equal; who were
equally ignorant or well-informed: who both of them spent
their lives at courts, at which they composed their poems, and
where they mingled with knights and ladies; and who were both
accompanied by their jongleurs and minstrels, should have
preserved the same resemblance in their productions. Nothing,
however, can be more dissimilar than their poems. All that
remains of the poetry of the Troubadours is of a lyrical
character, while that of the Trouvères is decidedly epic. …
The Trouvères have left us many romances of chivalry, and
fabliaux."
_J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
Literature of the South of Europe,
chapter 7 (volume 1)._
"We know nothing of the rise or origin of the two classes of
Trouveurs and Jongleurs. The former (which it is needless to
say is the same word as Troubadour, and Trobador, and
Trovatore) is the term for the composing class, the latter for
the performing one. But the separation was not sharp or
absolute."
_G. Saintsbury,
Short History of French Literature,
book 1, chapter 1._
TROY.
See TROJA.
TROYES,
Treaty of (1420).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422.
Treaty of (1564).
See FRANCE: A. D, 1563-1564.
TRUCE, The Five Years.
See FIVE YEARS TRUCE.
TRUCE, The Sacred.
See OLYMPIC GAMES.
TRUCE, The Thirty Years.
See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.
TRUCE OF GOD, The.
"This extraordinary institution is the most speaking witness,
at once to the ferocity of the times [11th century], and also
to the deep counter feeling which underlay men's minds. Clergy
and laity alike felt that the state of things which they saw
daily before their eyes was a standing sin against God and
man, repugnant alike to natural humanity and to the precepts
of the Christian religion. States were everywhere so
subdivided, governments were everywhere so weak, that, in most
parts of Europe, every man who had the needful force at his
command simply did that which was right in his own eyes. …
Every man claimed the right of private war against every other
man who was not bound to him by some special tie as his lord
or his vassal. And the distinction between private war and
mere robbery and murder was not always very sharply drawn. … A
movement on behalf of peace and good will towards men could
not fail in those days to assume an ecclesiastical form. As of
old the Amphiktyonic Council, the great religious synod of
Greece, strove to put some bounds to the horrors of war as
waged between Greek and Greek, so now, in the same spirit, a
series of Christian synods strove, By means of ecclesiastical
decrees and ecclesiastical censures, to put some bounds to the
horrors of war as waged between Christian and Christian. … The
movement began in Aquitaine [A. D. 1034], and the vague and
rhetorical language of our authority would seem to imply that
all war, at any rate all private war, was forbidden under pain
of ecclesiastical censures. It must not be forgotten that, in
that age, it must have been exceedingly difficult to draw the
distinction between public and private war. …
{3128}
But the doctrine, hard as it might be to carry out in
practice, was rapturously received at its first announcement.
As the first preaching of the Crusade was met with one
universal cry of 'God wills it,' so the Bishops, Abbots, and
other preachers of the Truce were met with a like universal
cry of Peace, Peace, Peace. Men bound themselves to God and to
one an·other to abstain from all wrong and violence, and they
engaged solemnly to renew the obligation every five years.
From Aquitaine the movement spread through Burgundy Royal and
Ducal. But it seems to have been gradually found that the
establishment of perfect peace on earth was hopeless. After
seven years from the first preaching of peace, we find the
requirements of its apostles greatly relaxed. It was found
vain to forbid all war, even all private war. All that was now
attempted was to forbid violence of every kind from the
evening of Wednesday till the morning of Monday. It was in
this shape that the Truce was first preached in northern and
eastern Gaul. The days of Christ's supper, of His passion, of
His rest in the grave and His resurrection, were all to be
kept free from strife and bloodshed."
_E. A. Freeman,
Norman Conquest,
chapter 8, section 2 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_P. Schaff,
History of the Christian Church,
volume 4, chapter 6, section. 78._
TRUCELESS WAR, The.
See CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.
TRUELLAS, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER)
PROGRESS OF THE WAR.
TRYON, Governor, The flight of.
See NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).
TSHEKHS, The.
See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE &c.
TSING, OR CH'ING, Dynasty, The.
See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.
TUARIKS, The.
See LIBYANS.
TUATH.
"Among the people of Gaelic race [in Ireland and Scotland] the
original social unit appears to have been the 'Tuath,' a name
originally applied to the tribe, but which came to signify
also the territory occupied by the tribe community. … Several
of these Tuaths were grouped together to form a still larger
tribe, termed a Mortuath or great tribe, over whom one of the
kings presided as Ri Mortuath. … Then several of these
Mortuath formed a province, called in Irish 'Cuicidh,' or a
fifth. … Over each province was the Ri Cuicidh, or provincial
king, and then over the whole was the Ardri, or sovereign of
all Ireland. The succession to these several grades of Ri, or
king, was the same as that of the Ri Tuath, and was regulated
by the law of Tanistry, that is, hereditary in the family but
elective in the individual, the senior of the family being
usually preferred."
_W. F. Skene,
Celtic Scotland,
volume 3, page 136-150._
TUATHA-DE-DANAAN.
One of the races named in Irish legend as original settlers of
Ireland, represented to have come from Greece and to have been
extraordinarily proficient in the arts of magic. They were
conquered, after two centuries, as the legend runs, by the
Milesians, or Scots.
_T. Wright,
History of Ireland,
book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1)._
See IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.
TUBANTES, The.
See FRANKS: ORIGIN AND EARLIEST HISTORY.
TUCUMAN, The province of.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
TUDELA, Battle of.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).
TUDORS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1485-1603.
TUGENDBUND, The.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1808 (APRIL-DECEMBER).
TUILERIES, The.
The palace of the Tuileries is said to have taken its name
from the tile-making which had been carried on formerly in the
vicinity of the ground on which it was built. "The history of
it begins in the year 1564, when Catherine de Medicis
conceived the idea of having a palace to herself near the
Louvre, yet independent, in which she might be near enough to
her son Charles IX. to have influence over him. … The palace
was never very long or very closely connected with the history
of the monarchy. It is not at all comparable to Windsor in
that respect. Henry IV. liked it, Louis XIV. preferred
Versailles, Louis XV. lived at the Tuileries in his minority.
The chosen association of the palace with the sovereigns of
France is very recent. Louis XVI. lived in it, and so did
Charles X. and Louis-Philippe. The two Napoleons were fond of
it. … The last inhabitant was the Empress Eugénie, as Regent.
… The parliamentary history of the Tuileries is important, as
it has been not only a palace but a parliament house. … The
destruction of the Tuileries by the Communards [1871] was a
lamentable event from the point of view of the historian and
the archaeologist, but artistically the loss is not great."
_P. G. Hamerton,
Paris in Old and Present Times,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_History of Paris
(London: 1827), volume 2, chapter 2._
TUILERIES: A. D. 1792.
Mobbing of the King.
The attack of August 10.
Massacre of the Swiss.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (JUNE-AUGUST).
TUKUARIKAS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.
TULCHAN BISHOPS.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.
TULLAHOMA CAMPAIGN, The.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).
TULLIANUM, The.
See MAMERTINE PRISON.
TUMULT OF AMBOISE.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.
TUMULUS.
A mound; usually a grave mound, or barrow.
TUN.
TUNSCIPE.
See TOWN; TOWNSHIP;
and BOROUGH.
TUNIC, The Roman.
"The tunica was put on in the same way as the Greek chiton.
Its cut was the same for men and women, and its simple
original type was never essentially modified by the additions
of later fashion. It was light and comfortable, and was worn
especially at home; out of doors the toga was arranged over
it."
_E. Guhl and W. Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans,
section 95._
TUNIS, Ancient.
See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF;
also, AFRICA, THE ROMAN PROVINCE.
TUNIS: A. D. 1270-1271.
Crusade of Saint Louis.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1270-1271.
TUNIS: Modern history.
See BARBARY STATES.