"Of late years the Venetians had had difficulties with the New

Rome. … These difficulties arose, in great measure, from the

fact that the influence of Venice in Constantinople was no

longer sufficient to exclude that of the other Italian

republics. … But the hostility to Constantinople reached its

height when the Venetians learned that Alexis had, in May

1201, received an embassy from Genoa, and was negotiating with

Ottobono della Croce, its leader, for the concession of

privileges for trade in Romania which Venice had hitherto

regarded as exclusively her own. From this time the Doge

appears to have determined to avenge the wrongs of his state

on the ruler who had ventured to favour his rivals."

_E. Pears,

The Fall of Constantinople,

chapter 8._

{3607}

VENICE: A. D. 1201-1203.

Perfidious part in the conquest of Constantinople.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

VENICE: A. D. 1204.

Share of the Republic in the partition of the Byzantine Empire.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

VENICE: A. D. 1216.

Acquisition of the Ionian Islands.

See CORFU: A. D. 1216-1880;

and IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.

VENICE: A. D. 1256-1258.

Battles with the Genoese at Acre.

"At the period of the Crusades, it was usual in those cities

or towns where the Christians held sway, to assign to each of

the mercantile communities which had borne a part in the

conquest or recovery of the particular district, a separate

quarter where they might have their own mill, their own oven,

their own bath, their own weights and measures, their own

church, and where they might be governed by their own laws,

and protected by their own magistrates. … At Saint Jean

d'Acre, however, the Church of Saint Sabbas was frequented by

the Venetians and the Genoese in common; and it happened that,

in course of time, both nations sought to found a right to the

exclusive property of the building." Collisions ensued, in one

of which (1256), the Genoese drove the Venetians from their

factory at Acre and burned the church of Saint Sabbas. The

Venetians retaliated by sending a squadron to Acre which

destroyed all the Genoese shipping in the port, burned their

factory, and reduced a castle near the town which was held by

a Genoese garrison. Early in 1257 the fleets of the two

republics met and fought a battle, between Acre and Tyre, in

which the Venetians were the victors. On the 24th of June,

1258, a second battle was fought very nearly on the same spot,

and again Venice triumphed, taking 2,600 prisoners and 25

galleys. Through the efforts of the Pope, a suspension of

hostilities was then brought about; but other causes of war

were working in the east, which soon led to fresh encounters

in arms between the two jealous commercial rivals.

_W. C. Hazlitt,

History of the Venetian Republic,

chapter 11 (volume 1)._

VENICE: A. D. 1261-1263.

The supplanting of the Venetians by the Genoese at

Constantinople and in the Black Sea.

War between the Republics.

The victory at Malvasia.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

VENICE: A. D. 1294-1299.

War with Genoa.

Disastrous defeat at Curzola.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

VENICE: 14th Century.

Fleets.

Commerce.

Industries.

"In the 14th century Venice had 3,000 merchantmen manned by

25,000 sailors. A tenth part of these were ships exceeding 700

tons burden. There were besides 45 war-galleys manned by

11,000 hands; and 10,000 workmen, as well as 36,000 seamen,

were employed in the arsenals. The largest of the war-galleys

was called the Bucentaur; it was a state vessel of the most

gorgeous description. Every year the Doge of Venice, seated

upon a magnificent throne surmounted by a regal canopy,

dropped from this vessel a ring into the Adriatic, to

symbolise the fact that land and sea were united under the

Venetian flag. This ceremony commemorated the victory gained

over the fleet of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa In 1177,

when the Venetians obliged him to sue for peace.

See VENICE: A. D. 1177.

Ascension Day was selected for its celebration, and the

Bucentaur, glorious with new scarlet and gold, its deck and

seats inlaid with costly woods, and rowed with long banks of

burnished oars, for many years bore the Doge to plight his

troth with the words, 'We espouse thee, O Sea! in token of

true and eternal sovereignty.' The merchant fleet of Venice

was divided into companies sailing together according to their

trade. Their routes, and the days for departure and return,

their size, armament, crew, and amount of cargo, were all

defined. In those times the seas were as much infested with

pirates as the deserts with robbers; each squadron therefore

hired a convoy of war-galleys for its protection on the

voyage. There were six or seven such squadrons in regular

employment. The argosies of Cyprus and Egypt, and the vessels

engaged in the Barbary and Syrian commerce, concentrated their

traffic chiefly at Alexandria and Cairo. The so-called

Armenian fleet proceeded to Constantinople and the Euxine,

visiting Kaffa and the Gulf of Alexandretta. A Catalonian

fleet traded with Spain and Portugal, and another with France;

while the most famous of all, the Flanders galleys, connected

the seaports of France, England, and Holland with the great

commercial city of Bruges. The internal traffic with Germany

and Italy was encouraged with equal care, oriental produce

arriving from Constantinople and Egypt, and many other

commodities being distributed, at first by way of Carinthia,

and afterwards of the Tyrol. Germans, Hungarians, and

Bohemians conducted this distribution. In Venice a bonded

warehouse (fondaco dei tedeschi), or custom-house, was

accorded to the Germans, where they were allowed to offer

their wares for sale, though only to Venetian dealers. Similar

privileges were granted to the Armenians, Moors, and Turks,

but not to the Greeks, against whom a strong animosity

prevailed. … The ancient industries of preparing salt and

curing fish were never disregarded. The Adriatic sands

supplied material adapted for a glass of rare beauty and

value, of which mirrors and other articles of Venetian

manufacture were made. Venetian goldsmiths' work was

universally famed. Brass and iron foundries prepared the raw

material for the armourers, whose weapons, helmets, and

bucklers were unsurpassed for strength and beauty.

Ship-building, with a people whose principle it was always to

have more ships than any other state, was necessarily a very

important branch of industry. Not satisfied with penetrating

to every part already opened to enterprise, the Venetians

travelled into regions before unknown, and gave to the world

the record of their daring adventures. Maffeo and Nicolo Polo

spent fifteen years visiting Egypt, Persia, India, the Khan of

Tartary, and the Grand Khan or Emperor of China. Marco Polo,

son of Nicolo, as well as Barthema and Joseph Barbaro,

extended the knowledge obtained by their precursors in

northern Europe and Asia."

_J. Yeats,

Growth and Vicissitudes of Commerce,

page 98-101._

See (In Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

ALSO IN:

_A. Anderson,

Origin of Commerce,

volume 1._

_Venetian Commerce

(Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, volume 5, pages 393-411)._

VENICE: A. D. 1336-1338.

Alliance with Florence against Mastino della Scala.

Conquest of Treviso and other territory on the mainland.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

{3608}

VENICE: A. D. 1351-1355.

Alliance with the Greeks and Aragonese in war with Genoa.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

VENICE: A. D. 1358.

Loss of Dalmatia.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

Renewed war with Genoa.

The defeat at Pola.

The treaty of June, 1355, between Venice and Genoa (see

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355), established a peace which

lasted only until April, 1378, when, "a dispute having arisen

between the rival States in relation to the island of Tenedos,

which the Venetians had taken possession of, the Signory

formally declared war against Genoa, which it denounced as

false to all its oaths and obligations. On the 26th of this

month, Vettore Pisani was invested with the supreme command of

the naval forces of the republic. … The new commander-in-chief

was the son of Nicolo Pisani, and had held a commission in the

Navy for 25 years. … Of the seamen he was the idol. … Pisani

sailed from Venice early in May, with 14 galleys; and, on the

30th of the month, while cruising off Antium, came across a

Genoese squadron of 10 galleys, commanded by Admiral Fieschi.

It was blowing a gale at the time, and five of Pisani's

vessels, which had parted company with him, and fallen to

leeward, were unable to rejoin him, while one of Fieschi's

drifted ashore, and was wrecked. Thus the battle which

immediately ensued was between equal forces; but the Genoese

admiral was no match for Vettore Pisani," and sustained a

disastrous defeat, losing four vessels, with all their

officers and crew. "During the summer, Pisani captured great

numbers of the enemy's merchantmen; but was unable to find

their fleet, which, under Luciano Doria, was actively engaged

in cutting up Venetian commerce in the East. In November he

asked permission to return to Venice to refit his vessels,

which were in a very bad condition, but this was denied him;

and, being kept constantly cruising through the winter, at its

expiration only six of his vessels were found to be seaworthy.

Twelve others, however, were fitted out at their own expense

and sent to him by his friends, who perceived that his

political enemies were making an effort to ruin him. At the

end of February, 1379, Michele Steno and Donato Zeno were

appointed by the Government' proveditori' of the fleet. These

officers, like the field deputies of the Dutch republic in

later times, were set as spies over the commander-in-chief,

whose operations they entirely controlled. On the 1st of May,

Pisani left Brindisi, bound to Venice, having a large number

of merchantmen in charge, laden with wheat; and, on the 6th

instant, as the weather looked squally, put into Pola, with

his convoy, for the night. On the following morning, at

day-break, it was reported to him that Doria was off the port

with 25 vessels; whereupon he determined not to leave his

anchorage until Carlo Zeno, whom he was expecting with a

reenforcement of 10 galleys, should be seen approaching. But

the Proveditori, loudly denouncing such a determination as a

reflection upon the valor of his officers and men, ordered

him, peremptorily, in the name of the Senate, to engage the

enemy without delay." The result was an overwhelming defeat,

out of which Pisani brought six galleys, only—" which were all

that were saved from this most terrible engagement, wherein

800 Venetians perished and 2,000 were taken prisoners. …

Pisani was now violently assailed by his enemies; although

they well knew that he had fought the battle of Pola against

his own judgment, and agreeably to the wishes of the

government, as made known to him by its accredited agents,

Michele Steno and Donato Zeno. The Great Council decreed his

immediate removal from the supreme command, and he was brought

to Venice loaded with chains." Condemned, upon trial before

the Senate, he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months.

_F. A. Parker,

The Fleets of the World,

pages 100-105._

VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

The war of Chioggia.

The dire extremity of the Republic and her deliverance.

After the great victory of Pola, which cost the Genoese the

life of Luciano D'Oria, they lost no time in pressing their

beaten enemy, to make the most of the advantage they had won.

"Fresh galleys were forthwith placed under the command of

Pietro, another of the noble D'Oria family; and before the

eyes of all Genoa, and after the benediction of the

archbishop, the fleet sailed from the harbour, and a great cry

was raised from roof to roof, and from window to window, and

each alley and each street re-echoed it with enthusiasm, 'to

Venice! to Venice!' On arriving in the Adriatic, Pietro D'Oria

joined the fleet already there, and prepared for his attack on

Venice. These were pitiful days for the Queen of the Adriatic,

the days of her greatest peril and humiliation. The Lord of

Padua joined the Genoese; the King of Hungary sent troops, as

did also the Marquis of Friuli, and all seemed lost to her

both by sea and land. Everywhere within the city was misery

and dismay. … To possess himself of Chioggia, which was 25

miles distant from Venice, was D'Oria's first plan. It was the

key of the capital, commanded the entrance to the harbour, and

cut off any assistance which might come from Lombardy.

Chioggia was very strong in itself, defended by bastions on

all sides; its weak point lay in being built on two sides of a

river, which was spanned by a large wooden bridge. It was the

first care of the defenders to block up the mouth of this

river. After a few days of gallant defence, and a few days of

gallant attack by sea and land, the defenders of Chioggia were

reduced to the last extremity. The entrance to the river was

broken open, and the bridge, which for some time was a

stumbling-block to the besiegers, was destroyed with all the

soldiers upon it by the bravery of a Genoese sailor, who took

a boat laden with tar and wool and other combustible

materials, and set fire to it, escaping by means of swimming.

The defenders having thus perished in the flames, and Chioggia

being taken [August, 1379], the triumph of the Genoese was at

its height. It now seemed as if Pietro D'Oria had but the word

of command to give, and Venice would have met with the same

fate as Pisa had but a century before. But with this the

fortune of the Ligurians began to wane. One small cannon of

leather, with a wooden car, brought from Chioggia as a trophy

to Genoa, is all that exists to-day to testify to their

victory." The Venetians, in consternation at the fall of

Chioggia, sent a deputation to D'Oria humbly offering to

submit to any terms of peace he might dictate; but the

insolent victor ordered them home with the message that there

could be no peace until he had entered their city to bridle

the bronze horses which stand on the Piazza of St. Mark.

{3609}

This roused the indignation and courage of Venice anew, and

every nerve was strained in the defense of the port. "Vettor

Pisani, who since the defeat at Pola had languished in prison,

was brought out by unanimous consent, and before an assembled

multitude he quietly and modestly accepted the position of

saviour of his country. … The one saving point for Venice lay

in the arrival of a few ships from Constantinople, which …

Carlo Zeno had under his command, endeavouring to make a

diversion in the favour of the Venetians at the Eastern

capital. Pending the return of this fleet, the Venetians made

an attack on Chioggia. And an additional gleam of hope raised

the spirits of Pisani's men in the disaffection of the King of

Hungary from the Genoese cause; and gradually, as if by the

magic hand of a fickle fortune, Pietro D'Oria found himself

and his troops besieged in Chioggia, instead of going on his

way to Venice as he had himself prophesied. But the Genoese

position was still too strong, and Pisani found it hopeless to

attempt to dislodge them; his troops became restless: they

wished to return to Venice, though they had sworn never to go

back thither except as conquerors. It was in this moment of

dire distress that the ultimate resort was vaguely whispered

from the Venetian Council Hall to the Piazza. A solemn decree

was passed, 'that if within four days the succour from Carlo

Zeno did not arrive, the fleet should be recalled from

Chioggia, and then a general council should be held as to

whether their country could be saved, or if another more

secure might not be found elsewhere.' Then did the law-givers

of Venice determine that on the fifth day the lagunes should

be abandoned, and that they should proceed en masse to Crete

or Negropont to form for themselves a fresh nucleus of power

on a foreign soil. It is indeed hard to realize that the fate

of Venice, associated with all that is Italian, the offspring

of the hardy few who raised the city from the very waves, once

hung in such a balance. But so it was, when towards the

evening of the fourth day [January 1, 1380] sails were

descried on the horizon, and Carlo Zeno arrived to save his

country from so great a sacrifice. Meanwhile, at Chioggia the

Genoese were day by day becoming more careless; they felt

their position so strong, they talked merrily of fixing the

day when they should bivouac on the Piazza of St. Mark. Little

did they dream of the net of misfortune into which they were

being drawn so fast. Besides reinforcements by sea, assistance

by land flocked in towards Venice. Barnabo Visconti, and his

company of the Star, a roving company of Germans, and the

celebrated Breton band under Sir John Hawkwood, the

Englishman, all hurried to assist the fallen banner of St.

Mark. Pietro D'Oria did all he could to maintain discipline

amongst his troops; but when he fell one day in an engagement,

through being struck by a Venetian arrow, a general

demoralization set in, and their only thought was how to save

themselves and abandon Chioggia. … On the 18th of February,

1380, the Venetians made another gallant attack. Both sides

fought with desperation, the Genoese for life, their rivals

for their country and their country's fame. Fearful slaughter

occurred amongst the Genoese, and they were obliged to retire

within the walls. … Driven to extremities, on the 22nd of June

In that year, 4,000 Genoese were taken to the public prisons

in Venice. … Since both parties were tired of war, and

weakened with these extreme efforts, it was no difficult

matter to establish a peace [August 8, 1381]."

_J. T. Bent,

Genoa,

chapter 8._

ALSO IN:

_W. O. Hazlitt,

History of the Venetian Republic,

chapter 20 (volume 3)._

_H. F. Brown,

Venice,

chapter 12._

VENICE: A. D. 1386.

Acquisition of Corfu.

See Corfu: A. D. 1216-1880.

VENICE: A. D. 1406-1447.

Acquisition of neighboring territory in northeastern Italy.

On the death of Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the first Duke of

Milan (see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447), the eastern parts of his

duchy, "Padua, Verona, Brescia, Bergamo, were gradually added

to the dominion of Venice. By the middle of the 15th century,

that republic had become the greatest power In northern

Italy."

_E. A. Freeman,

Historical Geography of Europe,

page 241._

See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

VENICE: A. D. 1426-1447.

League with Florence, Naples, Savoy, and other States

against the Duke of Milan.

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

VENICE: A. D. 1450-1454.

War with Milan and Florence.

Alliance with Naples and Savoy.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

VENICE: A. D. 1454-1479.

Treaty with the Turks, followed by war.

Loss of ground in Greece and the islands.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

VENICE: A. D. 1460-1479.

Losing struggle with the Turks in Greece and the Archipelago.

See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481;

and ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.

VENICE: A. D. 1469-1515.

The early Printers.

The Aldine Press.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.

VENICE: A. D. 1489.

Acquisition of Cyprus.

See Cyprus: A. D.1489-1570.

VENICE: A. D. 1492-1496.

The invasion of Italy by Charles VIII. of France.

Alliance with Naples, Milan, Spain, the Emperor and the Pope.

Expulsion of the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1492-1494; and 1494-1496.

VENICE: A. D. 1494-1503.

The rising power and spreading dominion of the republic.

The fears and jealousies excited.

"The disturbances which had taken place In Italy since Charles

VIII.'s advent there, came very opportunely for their [the

Venetians'] plans and policy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1494-1496; 1499-1500; 1501-1504.

On every available occasion the Venetians spread their power

all round about them. In the struggle between Charles and

Ferrantino [or Ferdinand, of Naples] they acquired five fine

cities in Apulia, excellently situated for their requirements,

which they peopled by the reception of fugitive Jews from

Spain. Moreover, in the kingdom of Naples, one party had

declared for them. … Tarento raised their standard. During the

Florentine disorders they were within an ace of becoming

masters of Pisa. In the Milanese feuds they acquired Cremona

and Ghiara d'Adda. Their power was all the more terrible, as

they had never been known to lose again anything which they

had once gotten. No one doubted that their aim was the

complete sovereignty over the whole of Italy.

{3610}

Their historians always talked as if Venice was the ancient

Rome once more. … The Turkish war, which had kept them a while

employed, now at an end, they next tried their fortune in

Romagna, and endeavoured, availing themselves of the quarrels

between the returning nobles and Cesar [Borgia, son of Pope

Alexander VI.], to become, if not the sole, at all events the

most powerful, vassals of the papal chair. … The Venetians

prepared to espouse the cause of those whom Cesar had

suppressed. The cities reflected how genuine and substantial

that peace was that the lion of Venice spread over all its

dependencies. Having appeared in this country at the end of

October, 1503, and having first promised the Malatesti other

possessions in their own country, they took Rimini, with the

concurrence of the prince and citizens. Without ado they

attacked Faenza. … They continued their conquests, and, in the

territories of Imola, Cesena, and Forli, took stronghold after

stronghold. … Then it was that the first minister of France

stated his belief that, 'had they only Romagna, they would

forthwith attack Florence, on account of a debt of 180,000

guilders owing them.' If they were to make an inroad into

Tuscany, Pisa would fall immediately on their arrival. Their

object in calling the French into the Milanese territory was,

that they considered them more fitted to make a conquest than

to keep it; and, in the year 1504, they were negotiating how

it were possible to wrest Milan again from them. Could they

only succeed in this, nothing in Italy would be able longer to

withstand them. 'They wanted,' as Macchiavelli said, 'to make

the Pope their chaplain.' But they met with the staunchest

resistance in Julius [the Pope, Julius II.], as in him they

could discover no weak point to attack. As pointedly as he

could express himself, he declared to them, on the 9th

November, 1503, that, 'though hitherto their friend, he would

now do his utmost against them, and would besides incite all

the princes of Christendom against them.'"

_L. von Ranke,

History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations,

book 2, chapter 3._

VENICE: A. D. 1498-1502.

War with the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1498-1502.

VENICE: A. D. 1499-1500.

Alliance with France against the Duke of Milan.

French conquest of the duchy.

Acquisition of Cremona.

See ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500.

VENICE: 15-17th Centuries.

The decline of Venetian commerce and its causes.

"Commerce was for a long time free at Venice; and the republic

only began to decline when its government had caused the

source of its prosperity to be exhausted by monopoly. At first

all the young patricians were subjected to the most severe

ordeals of a commercial training. They were often sent as

novices on board state-vessels to try fortune with a light

venture, so much did it enter into the views of the

administration to direct all citizens toward industrial

occupations! The only reproach that can be brought against the

Venetians, is the effort to exclude foreigners from all

competition with them. Although commercial jealousy had not

yet erected prohibitions into a system, and the ports of the

republic were open to all the merchandise of the world, yet

the Venetians only permitted its transportation in their own

ships; and they reigned as absolute masters over all the

Mediterranean. War had given them security from the Pisans,

the Sicilians and the Genoese. Spain, long occupied by the

Moors, gave them little occasion of offence. France disdained

commerce; England had not yet begun to think of it; the

republic of Holland was not in existence. Under cover of the

right of sovereignty on the gulf, which she had arrogated to

herself, Venice reserved the almost exclusive right to

navigate. Armed flotillas guarded the mouths of all her

rivers, and allowed no barque to enter or depart without being

vigorously examined. But what profited that jealous solicitude

for the interests of her navigation? A day came when the

Portuguese discovered the Cape of Good Hope, and all that

structure of precautions and mistrust suddenly fell to pieces.

Here begin the first wars of customs-duties, and political

economy receives from history valuable instruction. The

Venetians had levelled all obstacles, but for themselves

alone, and to the exclusion of other nations. Their

legislation was very strict in respect to foreigners, in the

matter of commerce. The laws forbade a merchant who was not a

subject of the republic to be even received on board a vessel

of the state. Foreigners paid customs-duties twice as high as

natives. They could neither build nor buy vessels in Venetian

ports. The ships, the captains, the owners, must all be

Venetian. Every alliance between natives and strangers was

interdicted; there was no protection, no privileges and no

benefits save for Venetians: the latter, however, all had the

same rights. In Venice itself, and there alone, was it

permitted to negotiate with the Germans, Bohemians and

Hungarians. As national manufactures acquired importance, the

government departed from the liberal policy it had hitherto

pursued, and the manufacturers obtained an absolute

prohibition of such foreign merchandise as they produced. In

vain, in the 17th century, did declining commerce urge the

reestablishment of former liberties and the freedom of the

port: the attempt was made for a brief moment, but the spirit

of restriction won the day, and the prohibitory regime early

prepared the way for the death of the republic. The people of

Ita]y, however, pardoned the Venetians for their commercial

intolerance, because of the moderate price at which they

delivered all commodities. The Jews, Armenians, Greeks and

Germans flocked to Venice and engaged with safety in

speculations, which were always advantageous, because of the

security which the credit institutions gave and the recognized

probity of the merchants. But soon Venice saw numerous

manufactures spring up in Europe rivaling her own, and her

commerce encountered most formidable competition in that of

the Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish and English. The discovery of

the Cape of Good Hope took away from her the monopoly of the

spices of the Indies.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1463-1498.

The taking of Constantinople, by Mahomet II, had already

deprived her of the magnificent privileges which her subjects

enjoyed in that rich capital of the Orient. But the discovery

of America and the vigorous reprisals of Charles V, who, at

the commencement of his reign, in 1517, doubled the

customs-duties which the Venetians paid in his states,

completed the ruin of that fortunate monopoly which had made

all Europe tributary. Charles V raised the import and export

duties on all Venetian merchandise to twenty per cent; and

this tariff, which would to-day appear moderate, sufficed then

to prevent the Venetians from entering Spanish ports.

{3611}

Such was the origin of the exclusive system, the fatal

invention which the republic of Venice was so cruelly to

expiate. So long as she sought fortune only in the free

competition of the talent and capital of her own citizens, she

increased from age to age and became for a moment the arbiter

of Europe; but as soon as she wished to rule the markets by

the tyranny of monopoly, she saw a league formed against her

commerce, formidable for a very different reason from that of

Cambray."

_J. A. Blanqui,

History of Political Economy in Europe,

chapter 20._

See, also (in Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

VENICE: A. D. 1501.

Hostile schemes of the Emperor and the King of France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

The League of Cambrai.

The republic despoiled of her continental provinces.

"The craving appetite of Louis XII., … sharpened by the loss

of Naples, sought to indemnify itself by more ample

acquisitions in the north. As far back as 1504, he had

arranged a plan with the emperor for the partition of the

continental possessions of Venice. …

See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

The scheme is said to have been communicated to Ferdinand [of

Aragon] in the royal interview at Savona [1507]. No immediate

action followed, and it seems probable that the latter

monarch, with his usual circumspection, reserved his decision

until he should be more clearly satisfied of the advantages to

himself. At length the projected partition was definitely

settled by the celebrated treaty of Cambray, December 10th,

1508, between Louis XII. and the emperor Maximilian, in which

the Pope, King Ferdinand, and all princes who had any claims

for spoliations by the Venetians, were invited to take part.

The share of the spoil assigned to the Catholic monarch

[Ferdinand] was the five Neapolitan cities, Trani, Brindisi,

Gallipoli, Pulignano, and Otranto, pledged to Venice for

considerable sums advanced by her during the late war. The

Spanish court, and, not long after, Julius II., ratified the

treaty, although it was in direct contravention of the avowed

purpose of the pontiff, to chase the 'barbarians' from Italy.

It was his bold policy, however, to make use of them first for

the aggrandisement of the church, and then to trust to his

augmented strength and more favorable opportunities for

eradicating them altogether. Never was there a project more

destitute of principle or sound policy. There was not one of

the contracting parties who was not at that very time in close

alliance with the state, the dismemberment of which he was

plotting. As a matter of policy, it went to break down the

principal barrier on which each of these powers could rely for

keeping in check the overweening ambition of its neighbors,

and maintaining the balance of Italy. The alarm of Venice was

quieted for a time by assurances from the courts of France and

Spain that the league was directed solely against the Turks,

accompanied by the most hypocritical professions of good will,

and amicable offers to the republic. The preamble of the

treaty declares that, it being the intention of the allies to

support the pope in a crusade against the infidel, they first

proposed to recover from Venice the territories of which she

had despoiled the church and other powers, to the manifest

hindrance of these pious designs. … The true reasons for the

confederacy are to be found in a speech delivered at the

German diet, some time after, by the French minister Hélian.

'We,' he remarks, after enumerating various enormities of the

republic, 'wear no fine purple; feast from no sumptuous

services of plate; have no coffers overflowing with gold. We

are barbarians. Surely,' he continues in another place, 'if it

is derogatory to princes to act the part of merchants, it is

unbecoming in merchants to assume the state of princes.' This,

then, was the true key to the conspiracy against Venice; envy

of her superior wealth and magnificence, hatred engendered by

her too arrogant bearing, and lastly the evil eye with which

kings naturally regard the movements of an active, aspiring

republic. To secure the co-operation of Florence, the kings of

France and Spain agreed to withdraw their protection from

Pisa, for a stipulated sum of money.

See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

There is nothing in the whole history of the merchant princes

of Venice so mercenary and base as this bartering away for

gold the independence for which this little republic had been

so nobly contending for more than 14 years. Early in April,

1509, Louis XII. crossed the Alps at the head of a force which

bore down all opposition. City and castle fell before him, and

his demeanor to the vanquished, over whom he had no rights

beyond the ordinary ones of war, was that of an incensed

master taking vengeance on his rebellious vassals. In revenge

for his detention before Peschiera, he hung the Venetian

governor and his son from the battlements. This was an outrage

on the laws of chivalry, which, however hard they bore on the

peasant, respected those of high degree. … On the 14th of May,

1509, was fought the bloody battle of Agnadel, which broke the

power of Venice and at once decided the fate of the war.

Ferdinand had contributed nothing to these operations, except

by his diversion on the side of Naples, where he possessed

himself without difficulty of the cities allotted to his

share. They were the cheapest, and, if not the most valuable,

were the most permanent acquisitions of the war, being

reincorporated in the monarchy of Naples. Then followed the

memorable decree by which Venice released her continental

provinces from their allegiance, authorizing them to provide

in any way they could for their safety; a measure which,

whether originating in panic or policy, was perfectly

consonant with the latter. The confederates, who had remained

united during the chase, soon quarrelled over the division of

the spoil. Ancient jealousies revived. The republic, with cool

and consummate policy, availed herself of this state of

feeling. Pope Julius, who had gained all that he had proposed,

and was satisfied with the humiliation of Venice, now felt all

his former antipathies and distrust of the French return in

full force. The rising flame was diligently fanned by the

artful emissaries of the republic, who at length effected a

reconciliation on her behalf with the haughty pontiff. The

latter … planned a new coalition for the expulsion of the

French, calling on the other allies to take part in it."

_W. H. Prescott,

History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,

part 2, chapter 22 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:

_T. A. Trollope,

History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

book 9, chapter 10 (volume 4)._

_The City in the Sea,

chapter 21._

_M. Creighton,

History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation,

book 5, chapter 14._

_L. von Ranke,

History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514,

book 2, chapter 3._

_H. F. Brown,

Venice,

chapters 17-18._

{3612}

VENICE: A. D. 1510-1513.

The breaking of the League of Cambrai.

The" Holy League" of Pope Julius with Venice,

Ferdinand, Maximilian, and Henry VIII. against France.

The French expelled from Italy.

The Republic recovers its domain.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

VENICE: A. D. 1517.

Peace with the Emperor Maximilian.

Recovery of Verona.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1516-1517.

VENICE: A. D. 1526.

The Holy League against the Emperor, Charles V.

See ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527.

VENICE: A. D. 1527.

Fresh alliance with France and England against the Emperor.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

VENICE: A. D. 1570-1571.

Holy League with Spain and the Pope against the Turks.

Great battle and victory of Lepanto.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

VENICE: A. D. 1572.

Withdrawal from the Holy League.

Separate peace with the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.

VENICE: 16th Century.

The Art of the Renaissance.

"It was a fact of the greatest importance for the development

of the fine arts in Italy that painting in Venice reached

maturity later than in Florence. Owing to this circumstance

one chief aspect of the Renaissance, its material magnificence

and freedom, received consummate treatment at the hands of

Titian, Tintoretto, and Veronese. To idealise the sensualities

of the external universe, to achieve for colour what the

Florentines had done for form, to invest the worldly grandeur

of human life at one of its most gorgeous epochs with the

dignity of the highest art, was what these great artists were

called on to accomplish. Their task could not have been so

worthily performed in the fifteenth century as in the

sixteenth, if the development of the æsthetic sense had been

more premature among the Venetians. Venice was precisely

fitted for the part her painters had to play. Free, isolated,

wealthy, powerful; famous throughout Europe for the pomp of

her state equipage, and for the immorality of her private

manners; ruled by a prudent aristocracy, who spent vast wealth

on public shows and on the maintenance of a more than imperial

civic majesty: Venice with her pavement of liquid chrysoprase,

with her palaces of porphyry and marble, her frescoed façades,

her quays and squares aglow with the costumes of the Levant,

her lagoons afloat with the galleys of all nations, her

churches floored with mosaics, her silvery domes and ceilings

glittering with sculpture bathed in molten gold: Venice

luxurious in the light and colour of a vaporous atmosphere,

where sea-mists rose into the mounded summer clouds; arched

over by the broad expanse of sky, bounded only by the horizon

of waves and plain and distant mountain ranges, and reflected

in all its many hues of sunrise and sunset upon the glassy

surface of smooth waters: Venice asleep like a miracle of opal

or of pearl upon the bosom of an undulating lake:—here and

here only on the face of the whole globe was the unique city

wherein the pride of life might combine with the lustre of the

physical universe to create and stimulate in the artist a

sense of all that was most sumptuous in the pageant of the

world of sense. … The Venetians had no green fields and trees,

no garden borders, no blossoming orchards, to teach them the

tender suggestiveness, the quaint poetry of isolated or

contrasted tints. Their meadows were the fruitless furrows of

the Adriatic, hued like a peacock's neck; they called the

pearl-shells of their Lido flowers, fior di mare. Nothing

distracted their attention from the glories of morning and of

evening presented to them by their sea and sky. It was in

consequence of this that the Venetians conceived colour

heroically, not as a matter of missal-margins or of

subordinate decoration, but as a motive worthy in itself of

sublime treatment. In like manner, hedged in by no limitary

hills, contracted by no city walls, stifled by no narrow

streets, but open to the liberal airs of heaven and ocean, the

Venetians understood space and imagined pictures almost

boundless in their immensity. Light, colour, air, space: those

are the elemental conditions of Venetian art; of those the

painters weaved their ideal world for beautiful and proud

humanity. … In order to understand the destiny of Venice in

art, it is not enough to concentrate attention on the

peculiarities of her physical environment. Potent as these

were in the creation of her style, the political and social

conditions of the Republic require also to be taken into

account. Among Italian cities Venice was unique. She alone was

tranquil in her empire, unimpeded in her constitutional

development, independent of Church interference, undisturbed

by the cross purposes and intrigues of the despots, inhabited

by merchants who were princes, and by a free-born people who

had never seen war at their gates. The serenity of undisturbed

security, the luxury of wealth amassed abroad and liberally

spent at home, gave a physiognomy of ease and proud

self-confidence to all her edifices. The grim and anxious

struggles of the Middle Ages left no mark on Venice. How

different was this town from Florence, every inch of whose

domain could tell of civic warfare. … It is not an

insignificant, though a slight, detail, that the predominant

colour of Florence is brown, while the predominant colour of

Venice is that of mother-of-pearl, concealing within its

general whiteness every tint that can be placed upon the

palette of a painter. The conditions of Florence stimulated

mental energy and turned the forces of the soul inwards. Those

of Venice inclined the individual to accept life as he found

it. Instead of exciting him to think, they disposed him to

enjoy, or to acquire by industry the means of manifold

enjoyment. To represent in art the intellectual strivings of

the Renaissance was the task of Florence and her sons; to

create a monument of Renaissance magnificence was the task of

Venice."

_J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Fine Arts,

chapter 7._

{3613}

VENICE: A. D. 1606-1607.

The Republic under the guidance of Fra Paolo Sarpi.

Conflict with the Pope.

The Interdict which had no terrors.

"In the Constitution of the Republic at this time [1606] there

were three permanent officials called Counsellors of Law, or

State Counsellors, whose duties were to instruct the Doge and

Senate on the legal bearings of any question in dispute in

which the Republic was involved. But at the beginning of this

year, because of the ecclesiastical element that frequently

appeared in these quarrels (for they were mostly between the

State and the Pope), the Senate resolved to create a new

office, namely, that of 'Teologo-Consultore,' or Theological

Counsellor. In looking about for one to fill this office the

choice of Doge and Senate unanimously fell upon Fra Paolo

Sarpi. … I have called Fra Paolo Sarpi the greatest of the

Venetians. … Venice has produced many great men—Doges,

soldiers, sailors, statesmen, writers, poets, painters,

travellers—but I agree with Mrs. Oliphant that Fra Paolo is 'a

personage more grave and great, a figure unique in the midst

of this ever animated, strong, stormy, and restless race'; and

with Lord Macaulay, who has said of him that 'what he did, he

did better than anybody.' … He was supreme as a thinker, as a

man of action, and as a transcript and pattern of every

Christian principle. … Foreigners who came to Venice sought

above all things to see him as 'the greatest genius of his

age.' … On the 28th of January, 1606, he entered upon his

public duties." From that time until his death, seventeen

years later, he not only held the office of Theological

Counsellor, but the duties of the three Counsellors of Law

were gradually transferred to him, as those offices were

vacated, in succession, by death. "During this time question

after question arose for settlement, many of which were of

momentous import, the resolution of which bore, not upon the

interests of Venice merely, but of Europe; and affected, not

the then living generation only, but a remote posterity. In

every case Fra Paolo's advice was sought, in every case it was

followed, and in every case it was right. The consequence was

that the history of the Republic during these seventeen years

was one unbroken record of great intellectual and moral

victories. … Never was there in any land, by any Government, a

servant more honoured and more beloved. The solicitude of the

Doge, of the dreaded Council of Ten, of the Senate, of the

whole people, for the safety and well-being of their

Consultore, was like that of a mother for her only child.

'Fate largo a Fra Paolo'—'Make room for Fra Paolo,' was often

heard as he passed along the crowded Merceria. Fra Paolo loved

Venice with an undying devotion, and Venice loved him with a

romantic and tender affection. The Pope, whose quarrels with

the Republic were the chief cause of the creation of the

office of Theological Counsellor, and of Fra Paolo's election

to it, was Paul V. … Strained relations … [had] existed

between Venice and the Vatican during the last years of

Clement VIII.'s Pontificate. His seizure of the Duchy of

Ferrara, his conduct in the matter of the Patriarch Zane's

appointment, his attempt to cripple the book-trade of Venice

by means of the Index Expurgatorius, all led to serious

disputes, in everyone of which he got the worst of it. Pope

Paul V., who was then Cardinal Borghese, chafed at what he

considered Clement's pusillanimity. Talking of these matters

to the Venetian ambassador at Rome, Leonardo Donato, he once

said, 'If I were Pope, I would place Venice under an interdict

and excommunication;' 'And if I were Doge,' was the reply, 'I

would trample your interdict and excommunication under foot.'

Curiously enough, both were called upon to fill these offices,

and both proved as good as their words. … Paul V. … found

several excuses for quarrel. The Patriarch, Matteo Zane—he

whose appointment had been a matter of dispute with Clement

VIII.—died, and the Senate appointed Francesco Vendramin as

his successor. Pope Paul claimed the right of presentation,

and demanded that he should be sent to Rome for examination

and approval. The Senate replied by ordering his investiture,

and forbidding him to leave Venice. Again, money had to be

raised in Brescia for the restoration of the ramparts, and the

Senate imposed a tax on all the citizens—laymen and

ecclesiastics alike. Pope Paul V. claimed exemption for the

latter, as being his subjects. The Senate refused to listen to

him. … These differences were causing both the Pope and the

Republic to look to their armoury and to try the temper of

their weapons, when two more serious matters occurred which

brought them into open warfare. The prologue was passed, the

drama was about to open. First, two priests in high position

were leading flagrantly wicked and criminal lives. … The

Senate sent its officers, and had the offenders seized and

brought to Venice, and locked up from further mischief in the

dungeons of the Ducal Palace. Pope Paul V. angrily

remonstrated, and peremptorily demanded their instant

liberation, on the ground that being priests they were not

amenable to the secular arm. … Secondly, two ecclesiastical

property laws were in force throughout the Republic; by one

the Church was prohibited from building any new monasteries,

convents, or churches without the consent of the Government

under penalty of forfeiture; and by the other it was

disqualified from retaining property which it might become

possessed of by donation or by inheritance, but was bound to

turn it into money. … Pope Paul V. … demanded the repeal of

these property laws. These two demands, regarding the

imprisoned ecclesiastics and the property laws, were first put

forward in October, 1605. … Early in December, the Pope,

impatient to bring the quarrel to a head, threatened to place

Venice under interdict and excommunication if it did not yield

to his demands. … It was at this acute stage of the quarrel

that the Republic laid hold of Fra Paolo Sarpi, and, as we

have already noted, made him its Theological Counsellor, and

the struggle henceforth became, to a large extent, a duel

between 'Paul the Pope, and Paul the Friar.' On the very day

that Fra Paolo accepted this office he informed the Senate

that two courses of action were open to them. They could argue

the case either de jure or de facto. First, de jure, that is,

they could appeal against the judgment of the Pope to a Church

Council. … Secondly, the Republic could adopt the de facto

course; that is, it could rely on its own authority and

strength. It could set these over against the Pope's, and

whilst willing to argue out the matter in a spirit of reason

with him, yet meet his force with opposing force. If he turned

a deaf ear to right, there was no help for it but to make it a

question of might. The de facto course was therefore the one

Fra Paolo recommended; adding very significantly, 'He who

appeals to a Council admits that the righteousness of his

cause may be questioned, whereas that of Venice is

indisputable.'

{3614}

The Senate hailed the advice thus given, and instructed him to

draw out a reply to the Pope's brief in accordance with it. …

From the moment this reply was received a bitter controversy

was set on foot. Renewed demands came from Rome, and renewed

refusals were sent from Venice. … Meanwhile the eyes of all

the Courts of Europe were directed to the great struggle, and

Venice made them more than spectators by laying its case as

prepared by their Consultore fairly and fully before them. The

time had not arrived for any nation to enter as a party into

the contest, but all frankly expressed their opinions, which

were, with the exception of that of Spain, unequivocally on

the side of Venice. … At last the Pope determined to put into

execution the threats contained in the briefs, and to place

the Republic under interdict and excommunication. On the 17th

of April, 1606, the bull of interdict and excommunication was

launched; twenty-four days being allowed Venice for

repentance, with three more added of the Pope's gracious

clemency. The die was thus cast by Pope Paul V., by which he

was either to humble the Republic, or discredit himself and

his 'spiritual arms' in the sight of Europe. The bull was a

sweeping one. … No more masses were to be said. Baptism,

marriage, and burial services were to cease. The churches were

to be locked up, and the priests could withdraw from the

devoted land. All social relationships were dissolved.

Marriages were declared invalid, and all children born were

illegitimate. Husbands could desert their wives, and children

disobey their parents. Contracts of all kinds were declared

null and void. Allegiance to the Government was at an end."

_A. Robertson,

Fra Paolo Sarpi,

chapter 5, and preface._

"It was proposed in the college of Venice to enter a solemn

protest, as had been done in earlier times; but this proposal

was rejected, on the ground that the sentence of the pope was

in itself null and void, and had not even a show of justice.

In a short proclamation, occupying only a quarto page,

Leonardo Donato made known to the clergy the resolution of the

republic to maintain the sovereign authority, 'which

acknowledges no other superior in worldly things save God

alone.' Her faithful clergy would of themselves perceive the

nullity of the 'censures' issued against them, and would

continue the discharge of their functions, the cure of souls

and the worship of God, without interruption. No alarm was

expressed, no menaces were uttered, the proclamation was a

mere expression of confidence and security. It is, however,

probable that something more may have been done by verbal

communication. By these proceedings, the question of claim and

right became at once a question of strength and of possession.

Commanded by their two superiors—the pope and the republic—to

give contradictory proofs of obedience, the Venetian clergy

were now called on to decide to which of the two they would

render that obedience. They did not hesitate; they obeyed the

republic: not a copy of the brief was fixed up. The delay

appointed by the pope expired; public worship was everywhere

conducted as usual. As the secular clergy had decided, so did

also the monastic orders. The only exception to this was

presented by the orders newly instituted, and in which the

principle of ecclesiastical restoration was more particularly

represented; these were the Jesuits, Theatines, and Capuchins.

The Jesuits, in so far as they were themselves concerned, were

not altogether decided; they first took counsel of their

Provincial at Ferrara, and afterwards of their General in

Rome, who referred the question to the pope himself. Paul V.

replied that they must either observe the interdict, or shake

the dust from their feet and leave Venice. A hard decision

assuredly, since they were distinctly informed that they would

never be permitted to return; but the principle of their

institution allowed them no choice. Embarking in their boats,

they departed from the city, and took shelter in the papal

dominions. Their example influenced the other two orders. A

middle course was proposed by the Theatines, but the Venetians

did not think it advisable; they would suffer no division in

their land, and demanded either obedience or departure. The

deserted churches were easily provided with other priests, and

care was taken that none should perceive a deficiency. … It is

manifest that the result was a complete schism. The pope was

amazed; his exaggerated pretensions were confronted by the

realities of things with the most unshrinking boldness. Did

any means exist by which these might be overcome? Paul V.

thought at times of having recourse to arms. … Legates were

despatched, and troops fitted out; but in effect they dared

not venture to attempt force. There would have been cause to

apprehend that Venice would call the Protestants to her aid,

and thus throw all Italy, nay the Catholic world at large,

into the most perilous commotions. They must again betake

themselves, as on former occasions, to political measures, for

the adjustment of these questions touching the rights of the

Church. … I have neither inclination nor means for a detailed

account of these negotiations through the whole course of the

proceedings. … The first difficulty was presented by the pope,

who insisted, before all things, that the Venetian laws, which

had given him so much offence, should be repealed; and he made

the suspension of his ecclesiastical censures to depend on

their repeal. But the Venetians, also, on their part, with a

certain republican self-complacency, were accustomed to

declare their laws sacred and inviolable. When the papal

demand was brought under discussion in January, 1607, although

the college wavered, yet at last it was decidedly rejected in

the senate. The French, who had given their word to the pope,

succeeded in bringing the question forward once more in March,

when of the four opponents in the college, one at least

withdrew his objections. After the arguments on both sides had

again been fully stated in the senate, there was still, it is

true, no formal or express repeal of the laws, but a decision

was adopted to the effect that 'the republic would conduct

itself with its accustomed piety.' However obscure these words

appear, the ambassador and the pope thought they discovered in

them the fulfilment of their wishes. The pope then suspended

his censures."

_L. Ranke,

History of the Popes,

book 6, section 12 (volume 2)._

"The moral victory remained with Venice. She did not recall

her laws as to taxation of the clergy and the foundation of

new churches and monasteries [nor permit the Jesuits to

return, until many years later]. … The hero of the whole

episode, Fra Paolo Sarpi, continued to live quietly in his

convent of the Servites at S. Fosca.

{3615}

The Government received warning from Rome that danger was

threatening. In its turn it cautioned Fra Paolo. But he paid

little or no heed." On the 25th of October, 1607, towards five

o'clock in the evening, as he was returning to his convent, he

was attacked by three assassins, who inflicted serious wounds

upon him and left him for dead. By great care, however, Fra

Paolo's life was saved, and prolonged until 1623. The would-be

assassins escaped into the Papal States, where "they found not

only shelter but a welcome."

_H. F. Brown,

Venice,

chapter 20._

ALSO IN:

_J. A. Symonds,

Renaissance in Italy: The Catholic Reaction,

chapter 10 (volume 2)._

_T. A. Trollope,

Paul the Pope and Paul the Friar._

See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1605-1700.

VENICE: A. D. 1620-1626.

The Valteline War.

Alliance with France and Savoy against the Austro-Spanish power.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

VENICE: A. D. 1629-1631.

League with France against Spain and the Emperor.

The Mantuan War.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

VENICE: A. D. 1645-1669.

The war of Candia with the Turks.

Loss of Crete.

See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

VENICE: A. D. 1684-1696.

War of the Holy League against the Turks.

Siege and capture of Athens.

Conquest of the Morea and parts of Dalmatia and Albania.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

VENICE: A. D. 1699.

Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.

Turkish Cession of part of the Morea and most of Dalmatia.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

VENICE: A. D. 1714-1718.

War with the Turks.

The Morea lost.

Defense of Corfu.

Peace of Passarowitz.

See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

VENICE: A. D. 1767.

Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

VENICE: A. D. 1796.

Bonaparte's schemes for the destruction of the Republic.

The picking of the quarrel.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1797.

The ignominious overthrow of the Republic by Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);

and 1797 (APRIL-MAY).

VENICE: A. D. 1797 (October).

City and territories given over to Austria

by the Treaty of Campo-Formio.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1805.

Territories ceded by Austria to the kingdom of Italy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

VENICE: A. D. 1814.

Transfer of Venetian states to Austria.

Formation of the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);

VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF; AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846;

and ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

VENICE: A. D. 1815.

Restoration of the Bronze Horses taken away by Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

VENICE: A. D. 1848-1849.

Insurrection.

Expulsion of the Austrians.

Provisional government under Daniel Manin.

Renewed subjugation.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

VENICE: A. D. 1859.

Grievous disappointment in the Austro-Italian war.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

VENICE: A. D. 1866.

Relinquishment by Austria.

Annexation to the kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

----------VENICE: End--------

VENICONII, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

VENLOO, Surrender of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1585-1586.

VENNER'S INSURRECTION.

See FIFTH MONARCHY MEN.

VENNONES, The.

See RHÆTIA.

VENTA.

Three important cities in Roman Britain bore the name of

Venta; one occupying the site of modern Winchester, a second

standing near Norwich, the third at Caerwent in Wales. They

were distinguished, respectively, as Venta Belgarum, Venta

Icenorum and Venta Silurum.

_T. Wright,

Celt, Roman and Saxon._

VENTÔSE, The month.

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

VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1519.

Founded by Cortes.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1839.

Attacked by the French.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1828-1844.

VERA CRUZ, Mexico: A. D. 1847.

Bombardment and capture by the Americans.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

VERAGUA: A. D. 1502.

Attempted settlement by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A D. 1498-1505.

VERAGUA: A. D. 1509.

Attempted settlement by Nicuesa.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1511.

VERCELLI: A. D. 1638-1659.

Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

Restoration to Savoy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

VERDUN: A. D. 1552-1559.

Possession taken by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

VERDUN: A. D. 1648.

Ceded to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

VERDUN, The Treaty of: A. D. 843.

The contest and civil war which arose between the three

grandsons of Charlemagne resulted in a treaty of partition,

brought about in 843, which forever dissolved the great Frank

Empire of Clovis, and of the Pippins and Karls who finished

what he began. "A commission of 300 members was appointed to

distribute itself over the surface of the empire, and by an

exact examination of the wealth of each region, and the wishes

of its people, acquire a knowledge of the best means of making

an equitable division. The next year the commissioners

reported the result of their researches to the three kings,

assembled at Verdun, and a treaty of separation was drawn up

and executed, which gave Gaul, from the Meuse and Saone as far

as the Pyrenees, to Karl; which gave Germany, beyond the

Rhine, to Ludwig the Germanic; and which secured to Lother

Italy, with a broad strip on the Rhine, between the dominions

of Karl and Ludwig, under the names of Lotheringia or

Lorraine. This was the first great treaty of modern Europe; it

began a political division which lasted for many centuries;

the great empire of Karl was formally dismembered by it, and

the pieces of it scattered among his degenerate descendants."

_P. Godwin,

History of France: Ancient Gaul,

chapter 18._

{3616}

"The treaty of Verdun, in 843, abrogated the sovereignty that

had been attached to the eldest brother and to the imperial

name in former partitions; each held his respective kingdom as

an independent right. This is the epoch of a final separation

between the French and German members of the empire. Its

millenary was celebrated by some of the latter nation in

1843."

_H. Hallam,

The Middle Ages,

chapter 1, part 1 (volume l)._

See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 814-962.

VERGARA, Treaty of (1839).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

VERGENNES, Count de,

and the French alliance with the revolted American Colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1776-1778;

1778 (FEBRUARY): 1778-1779,

and 1782 (SEPTEMBER) and (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VERGNIAUD AND THE GIRONDISTS.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),

to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

VERGOBRET, The.

The chief magistrate of the tribe of Gauls known as the Ædui

was called the vergobret. "Cæsar terms this magistrate

vergobretus, which Celtic scholars derive from the words

'ver-go-breith,' ('homme de jugement,' O'Brien, Thierry). He

was elected by a council of priests and nobles, and had the

power of life and death. But his office was only annual."

Divitiacus, the Æduian friend of Cæsar and the Romans, had

been the vergobret of his tribe.

_C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 6, foot-note._

VERMANDOIS, House of.

The noble House of Vermandois which played an important part

in French history during the Middle Ages, boasted a descent

from Charlemagne, through his best loved son, Pippin, king of

Italy. "Peronne and the Abbey of Saint-Quintin composed the

nucleus of their Principality; but, quietly and without

contradiction, they had extended their sway over the heart of

the kingdom of Soissons; and that antient Soissons, and the

rock of Lâon, and Rheims, the prerogative city of the Gauls,

were all within the geographical ambit of their territory. In

such enclavures as we have named, Vermandois did not possess

direct authority. Lâon, for example, had a Count and a bishop,

and was a royal domain."

_Sir F. Palgrave,

History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 5, section 6 (volume 1)._

----------VERMONT: Start--------

VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

Beginning of settlement.

The New Hampshire Grants and the conflict with New York.

Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.

"Among the causes of the controversies which existed between

the colonies in early times, and continued down to the

revolution, was the uncertainty of boundary lines as described

in the old charters. … A difficulty of this kind arose between

the colony of New York and those of Connecticut,

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. By the grant of King Charles

II. to his brother, the Duke of York, the tract of country

called New York was bounded on the east by Connecticut River,

thus conflicting with the express letter of the Massachusetts

and Connecticut charters, which extended those colonies

westward to the South Sea, or Pacific Ocean. After a long

controversy, kept up at times with a good deal of heat on both

sides, the line of division between these colonies was fixed

by mutual agreement at 20 miles east of Hudson's River,

running nearly in a north and south direction. … The

Massachusetts boundary was decided much later to be a

continuation of the Connecticut line to the north, making the

western limit of Massachusetts also 20 miles from the same

river. … Meantime New Hampshire had never been brought into

the controversy, because the lands to the westward of that

province beyond Connecticut River had been neither settled nor

surveyed. There was indeed a small settlement at Fort Dummer

on the western margin of the River, which was under the

protection of Massachusetts. … Such was the state of things

when Benning Wentworth became governor of New Hampshire, with

authority from the King to issue patents for unimproved lands

within the limits of his province. Application was made for

grants to the west of Connecticut River, and even beyond the

Green Mountains, and in 1749 he gave a patent for a township 6

miles square, near the north west angle of Massachusetts, to

be so laid out, that its western limit should be 20 miles from

the Hudson, and coincide with the boundary line of Connecticut

and Massachusetts continued northward. This township was

called Bennington. Although the governor and council of New

York remonstrated against this grant, and claimed for that

colony the whole territory north of Massachusetts as far

eastward as Connecticut River, yet Governor Wentworth was not

deterred by this remonstrance from issuing other patents,

urging in his justification, that New Hampshire had a right to

the same extension westward as Massachusetts and Connecticut."

After the British conquest of Canada, 1760, "applications for

new patents thronged daily upon Governor Wentworth, and within

four years' time the whole number of townships granted by him,

to the westward of Connecticut River, was 138. The territory

including these townships was known by the name of the New

Hampshire Grants, which it retained till the opening of the

revolution, when its present name of Vermont began to be

adopted."

_J. Sparks,

Life of Ethan Allen

(Library of American Biographies, volume 1)._

"Lieutenant Governor Colden, acting chief magistrate of New

York in the absence of General Monckton, perceiving the

necessity of asserting the claims of that province to the

country westward of the Connecticut river, wrote an energetic

letter to Governor Wentworth, protesting against his grants.

He also sent a proclamation among the people, declaring the

Connecticut river to be the boundary between New York and New

Hampshire. But protests and proclamations were alike unheeded

by the governor and the people until the year 1764, when the

matter was laid before the King and council for adjudication.

The decision was in favor of New York. Wentworth immediately

bowed to supreme authority, and ceased issuing patents for

lands westward of the Connecticut. The settlers, considering

all questions in dispute to be thus finally disposed of, were

contented, and went on hopefully in the improvement of their

lands. Among these settlers in the Bennington township were

members of the Allen family, in Connecticut, two of whom,

Ethan and Ira, were conspicuous in public affairs for many

years, as we shall hereafter have occasion to observe. The

authorities of New York, not content with the award of

territorial jurisdiction over the domain, proceeded, on the

decision of able legal authority, to assert the right of

property in the soil of that territory, and declared

Wentworth's patents all void.

{3617}

They went further. Orders were issued for the survey and sale

of farms in the possession of actual settlers, who had bought

and paid for them, and, in many instances, had made great

progress in improvements. In this, New York acted not only

unjustly, but very unwisely. This oppression, for oppression

it was, was a fatal mistake. It was like sowing dragons' teeth

to see them produce a crop of full-armed men. The settlers

were disposed to be quiet, loyal subjects of New York. They

cared not who was their political master, so long as their

private rights were respected. But this act of injustice

converted them into rebellious foes, determined and defiant. …

Meanwhile speculators had been purchasing from New York large

tracts of these estates in the disputed territory, and were

making preparations to take possession. The people of the

Grants sent one of their number to England, and laid their

cause before the King and council. He came back in August,

1767, armed with an order for the Governor of New York to

abstain from issuing any more patents for lands eastward of

Lake Champlain. But as the order was not 'ex post facto' in

its operations, the New York patentees proceeded to take

possession of their purchased lands. This speedily brought on

a crisis, and for seven years the New Hampshire Grants formed

a theater where all the elements of civil war, except actual

carnage, were in active exercise. … The hardy yeomanry who

first appeared in arms for the defense of their territorial

rights, and afterwards as patriots in the common cause when

the Revolution broke out, were called Green Mountain Boys."

_B. J. Lossing,

Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,

volume 1, chapter 12._

ALSO IN:

_S. Williams,

History of Vermont,

chapter 9._

_W. Slade, editor,

Vermont State Papers,

pages 1-49._

_Vermont Historical Society Collection,

volumes 1 and 3._

VERMONT: A. D. 1775.

Ticonderoga surprised by the Green Mountain Boys.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

VERMONT: A. D. 1777.

Stark's victory at Bennington.

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

VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.

State independence declared and constitution framed.

Admission to the Union denied.

"The settlers in the land which this year [1777] took the name

of Vermont refused by a great majority to come under the

jurisdiction of New York; on the 15th of January 1777, their

convention declared the independence of their state. At

Windsor, on the 2d of June, they appointed a committee to

prepare a constitution; and they hoped to be received into the

American union. But, as New York opposed, congress, by an

uncertain majority against a determined minority, disclaimed

the intention of recognising Vermont as a separate state. … On

the 2d of July the convention of Vermont reassembled at

Windsor. The organic law which they adopted, blending the

culture of their age with the traditions of Protestantism,

assumed that all men are born free and with inalienable

rights; that they may emigrate from one state to another, or

form a new state in vacant countries; that 'every sect should

observe the Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious

worship'; that every man may choose that form of religious

worship 'which shall seem to him most agreeable to the

revealed will of God. 'They provided for a school in each

town, a grammar-school in each county, and a university in the

state. All officers, alike executive and legislative, were to

be chosen annually and by ballot; the freemen of every town

and all one year's residents were electors. Every member of

the house of representatives must declare his 'belief in one

God …; in the divine inspiration of the scriptures; and in the

Protestant religion.' The legislative power was vested in one

general assembly, subject to no veto. … Slavery was forbidden

and forever; and there could be no imprisonment for debt. …

After the loss of Ticonderoga, the introduction of the

constitution was postponed [until March, 1778], lest the

process of change should interfere with the public defence."

_G. Bancroft,

History of the United States (Author's last revision),

volume 5, pages 157, and 161-162._

ALSO IN;

_Ira Allen,

History of Vermont

(Vermont Historical Society Collection,

volume 1, pages 375-393)._

_Vermont Historical Society Collection,

volume 3._

_R. E. Robinson,

Vermont: a Study of Independence,

chapters 10-14._

VERMONT: A. D. 1781.

Negotiations with the British authorities

as an independent State.

Vermont had repeatedly applied for admission into the Union;

but the opposition of her neighbors, who claimed her

territory, and the jealousy of the southern states, who

objected to the admission of another northern state, prevented

favorable action in Congress. In 1780 a fresh appeal was made

with a declaration that if it failed the people of the Green

Mountains would propose to the other New England states and to

New York, "an alliance and confederation for mutual defense,

independent of Congress and of the other states." If neither

Congress nor the northern states would listen to them, then,

said the memorial, "they are, if necessitated to it, at

liberty to offer or accept terms of cessation of hostilities

with Great Britain without the approbation of any other man or

body of men." "The British generals in America had for some

time entertained hopes of turning the disputes in relation to

Vermont to their own account, by detaching that district from

the American cause and making it a British province. But the

first intimation of their views and wishes was communicated in

a letter from Colonel Beverly Robinson to Ethan Allen; dated

New York, March 30th, 1780. In July, this letter was delivered

to Allen in the street in Arlington, by a British soldier in

the habit of an American farmer. Allen perused the letter, and

then told the bearer that he should consider it, and that he

might return. … Allen immediately communicated the contents of

this letter to Governor Chittenden and some other confidential

friends, who agreed in opinion, that no answer should be

returned. Robinson, not receiving a reply to his letter and

supposing it to have been miscarried, wrote again to Allen on

the 2d of February, 1781, enclosing his former letter. In his

second letter, after saying he had received new assurances of

the inclination of Vermont to join the king's cause, he said

that he could then write with more authority; and assured

Allen that he and the people of Vermont could obtain the most

favorable terms, provided they would take a decisive and

active part in favor of Great Britain. He requested an answer;

and that the way might be pointed out for continuing the

correspondence; and desired to be informed in what manner the

people of Vermont could be most serviceable to the British

cause.

{3618}

Allen returned no answer to either of these letters; but, on

the 9th of March, 1781, inclosed them in a letter to Congress,

informing them of all the circumstances which had thus far

attended the business. He then proceeded to justify the

conduct of Vermont in asserting her right to independence, and

expressed his determinate resolution to do every thing in his

power to establish it. … 'I am confident,' said he, 'that

Congress will not dispute my sincere attachment to the cause

of my country, though I do not hesitate to say, I am fully

grounded in opinion, that Vermont has an indubitable right to

agree on terms of a cessation of hostilities with Great

Britain, provided the United States persist in rejecting her

application for an union with them.' … During the spring of

1780, some of the scouting parties belonging to Vermont had

been taken by the British and carried prisoners to Canada. On

the application of their friends to Governor Chittenden, he,

in the month of July, sent a flag with a letter to the

commanding officer in Canada, requesting their release or

exchange. In the fall, the British came up lake Champlain in

great force, and a very favorable answer was returned by

General Haldimand to Governor Chittenden's letter. A flag was

at the same time sent to Ethan Allen, then a brigadier general

and commanding officer in Vermont, proposing a cessation of

hostilities with Vermont, during negotiations for the exchange

of prisoners."

_Z. Thompson,

History of the State of Vermont,

chapter 4, section 6._

"The immediate results were a truce, which covered not only

Vermont but the frontiers of New York to Hudson river; the

disbanding of the militia of Vermont; and the retiring of the

British troops to winter quarters in Canada. Until the truce

became generally known, the results of it occasioned much

surprise in New York. It was further agreed, that the

commissioners of both parties should meet on the subject of

the cartel, and go together to Canada. This was attempted, but

failed on account of the difficulty of getting through the ice

on Lake Champlain. After contending several days with the

elements, the commissioners separated; but 'while their men

[wrote Ira Allen] were breaking through the ice, much

political conversation and exhibits of papers took place.'

Williams ['History of Vermont'] is more definite: 'the British

agents availed themselves of this opportunity to explain their

views, to make their proposals, and offer as complete an

establishment for Vermont, from the royal authority, as should

be desired. The commissioners from Vermont treated the

proposals with affability and good humor, and though they

avoided bringing anything to a decision, the British concluded

they were in a fair way to effect their purposes.' The

subsequent negotiations at Isle aux Noix, between Ira Allen

and the British commissioners, as to matters beyond settling a

cartel, were secret, and even the commander of the post had no

knowledge of them, although he was associated with the British

commissioners on the question of an exchange of prisoners.

These facts show that the public had no knowledge except of a

truce for a humane and proper attempt to relieve citizens of

Vermont, and its officers and soldiers, who were then

prisoners in Canada; and the conclusion is that all the

suspicion that then existed of the patriotism and fidelity of

the great body of the people of the state, and all the obloquy

since drawn from the negotiation with Haldimand and cast upon

the state, were entirely unjust. If any body was really at

fault, the number implicated was very small. Williams asserted

that 'eight persons only in Vermont, were in the secret of

this correspondence;' and Ira Allen that, in May, 1781, 'only

eight persons were in the secret, but more were added as the

circumstances required.'"

_Vermont Historical Society Collection,

volume 2, introduction._

"By the definitive treaty between Great Britain and the United

States, September 3, 1783, Vermont was included within the

boundaries separating the independent American from British

territory, and thus the independence of Vermont was

acknowledged first by the mother country. The State had been

de facto independent from its organization; and therefore the

following record, with the other papers contained in this and

the first volume of the Historical Society Collections covers

the existence of Vermont as an independent and sovereign

state."

_Vermont Historical Society Collection,

volume 2, page 397._

ALSO IN:

_Vermont Historical Society Collection,

volume 2,

Haldimand Papers._

_D. Brymner,

Report on Canadian Archives, 1889,

pages 53-58._

_R. E. Robinson,

Vermont: a Study of Independence,

chapter 15._

VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.

Renunciation of the claims of New York

and admission of the State to the Union.

"The rapid increase of the population of Vermont having

destroyed all hope on the part of New York, of re-establishing

her jurisdiction over that rebellious district, the holders of

the New York grants, seeing no better prospect before them,

were ready to accept such an indemnity as might be obtained by

negotiation. Political considerations had also operated. The

vote of Vermont might aid to establish the seat of the federal

government at New York. At all events, that state would serve

as a counterbalance to Kentucky, the speedy admission of which

was foreseen. The Assembly of New York [July, 1789] had

appointed commissioners with full powers to acknowledge the

independence of Vermont, and to arrange a settlement of all

matters in controversy. To this appointment Vermont had

responded, and terms had been soon arranged. In consideration

of the sum of $30,000, as an indemnity to the New York

grantees, New York renounced all claim of jurisdiction

[October 7, 1790], consented to the admission of Vermont into

the Union, and agreed to the boundary heretofore claimed—the

western line of the westernmost townships granted by New

Hampshire and the middle channel of Lake Champlain. This

arrangement was immediately ratified by the Legislature of

Vermont. A Convention, which met at the beginning of the year

[1791], had voted unanimously to ratify the Federal

Constitution, and to ask admission into the Union.

Commissioners were soon after appointed by the Assembly to

wait upon Congress and to negotiate the admission. No

opposition was made to it, and [February 18, 1791] within

fourteen days after the passage of the bill for the

prospective admission of Kentucky, Vermont was received into

the Union, from and after the termination of the present

session of Congress. The Constitution under which Vermont came

into the Union, originally adopted in 1777, had been slightly

altered in 1785. Most of its provisions seem to have been

copied from the first Constitution of Pennsylvania. … The

revision of 1785 struck out the requirement of Protestantism;

another revision in 1793, still following the example of

Pennsylvania, released the members of Assembly from the

necessity of any religious subscription."

_R. Hildreth,

History of the United States,

volume 4, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:

_H. Beckley,

History of Vermont,

chapters 5-6._

_J. L. Heaton,

Story of Vermont,

chapter 4._

{3619}

VERMONT: A. D. 1812.

Vigorous support of the war with England.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1814.

The Hartford Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

VERMONT: A. D. 1864.

The St. Albans Raid.

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

THE ST. ALBANS RAID.

----------VERMONT: End--------

VERMONT UNIVERSITY.

"At the time of the organization of the State government, in

1798, the University of Vermont was endowed with lands which

proved subsequently to amount to 29,000 acres. In 1791 the

university was organized. … The early years of the university,

planted as it was in the wilderness, were full of struggles

and misfortunes. The State was generous in the extreme at the

beginning, but failed to support the university it had

created. The land was poor and brought little income, the

whole tract bringing but 2,500 dollars at that time. In 1813

the buildings of the university were seized by the Government

and used for the storage of United States arms, by which much

damage was suffered, and the houseless students all left, most

of them to shoulder muskets against the British invaders. The

buildings were rented in 1814 for the United States Army.

Worse misfortunes occurred in 1824, the buildings being

consumed by fire, but were restored by the citizens of

Burlington in the following year. For the first ninety-five

years of the corporate existence of the university the State

never gave anything toward the support of it more than has

been set forth in the above statements."

_F. W. Blackmar,

History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education

in the United States

(Bureau of Education, Circ. of Information, 1890, number 1),

pages 125-126._

VERNEUIL, Battle of (1424).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

VERNICOMES.

A tribe in ancient Caledonia, whose territory was the eastern

half of Fife.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

VEROMANDUI, The.

See BELGÆ.

----------VERONA: Start--------

VERONA: A. D. 312.

Siege, battle, and victory of Constantine.

See ROME: A. D. 805-323.

VERONA: A. D. 403.

Defeat of Alaric by Stilicho.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 400-403.

VERONA: A. D. 489.

Defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric.

See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

Residence of Theodoric the Ostrogoth.

"Pavia and Verona [as well as his ordinary capital city,

Ravenna] were also places honoured with the occasional

residence of Theodoric. At both he built a palace and public

baths. … At Verona, the palace, of which there were still some

noble remains incorporated into the castle of the Viscontis,

was blown up by the French in 1801, and an absolutely modern

building stands upon its site. … It seems probable that

Theodoric's residence at both these places depended on the

state of Transalpine politics. When the tribes of the middle

Danube were moving suspiciously to and fro, and the vulnerable

point by the Brenner Pass needed to be especially guarded, he

fixed his quarters at Verona. When Gaul menaced greater

danger, then he removed to Ticinum [Pavia]. It was apparently

the fact that Verona was his coign of vantage, from whence be

watched the German barbarians, which obtained for him from

their minstrels the title of Dietrich of Bern. Thus strangely

travestied, he was swept within the wide current of the

legends relating to Attila, and hence it is that the really

grandest figure in the history of the migration of the peoples

appears in the Nibelungen Lied, not as a great king and

conqueror on his own account, but only as a faithful squire of

the terrible Hunnish king whose empire had in fact crumbled

into dust before the birth of Theodoric."

_T. Hodgkin,

Italy and Her Invaders,

book 4, chapter 8 (volume 3)._

VERONA: 11-12th Centuries.

Acquisition of Republican Independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

The tyranny of Eccelino di Romano and the crusade against him.

"In the north-eastern corner of Italy the influence of the old

Lombard lords, which had been extinguished there as in most

other parts of the peninsula, was succeeded by that of a

family that had accompanied one of the emperors from Germany.

… The eye of a traveller passing from Verona to Padua may

still be struck by one or two isolated hills, which seem as it

were designed by nature to be meet residences for the tyrants

of the surrounding plains. One of these gave birth to a person

destined to become the scourge of the neighbouring country. …

Eccelino di Romano … was descended from a German noble brought

into Italy by Otho III. The office of Podesta of Verona had

become hereditary in his family. In the wars of the second

Frederic [1236-1250], he put himself at the head of the

Ghibellines in the surrounding principalities, and became a

strenuous supporter of the emperor. Under the protection of so

powerful an ally, be soon made himself master of Padua, where

he established his headquarters, and built the dungeons, where

the most revolting cruelties were inflicted on his victims."

_W. P. Urquhart,

Life and Times of Francesco Sforza,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

In 1237, the emperor, Frederick II., "obliged to return to

Germany, left under the command of Eccelino a body of German

soldiers, and another of Saracens, with which this able

captain made himself, the same year, master of Vicenza, which

he barbarously pillaged, and the following year of Padua. …

Eccelino judged it necessary to secure obedience, by taking

hostages from the richest and most powerful families; he

employed his spies to discover the malcontents, whom he

punished with torture, and redoubled his cruelty in proportion

to the hatred which he excited." Subsequently, the emperor

confided "the exclusive government of the Veronese marches

[also called the Trevisan marches] to Eccelino. The hatred

which this ferocious man excited by his crimes fell on the

emperor. Eccelino imprisoned in the most loathsome dungeons

those whom he considered his enemies, and frequently put them

to death by torture, or suffered them to perish by hunger. …

{3620}

In the single town of Padua there were eight prisons always

full, notwithstanding the incessant toil of the executioner to

empty them; two of these contained each 300 prisoners. A

brother of Eccelino, named Alberic, governed Treviso with less

ferocity, but with a power not less absolute." Eccelino

maintained the power which he had gathered into his hands for

several years after Frederick's death. At length, the pope,

"Alexander IV., to destroy the monster that held in terror the

Trevisan march, caused a crusade to be preached in that

country. He promised those who combated the ferocious Eccelino

all the indulgences usually reserved for the deliverers of the

Holy Land. The marquis d'Este, the count di San Bonifazio,

with the cities of Ferrara, Mantua, and Bologna, assembled

their troops under the standard of the church; they were

joined by a horde of ignorant fanatics from the lowest class."

Headed by the legate Philip, archbishop of Ravenna, the

crusaders took Padua, June 18, 1256, and "for seven days the

city was inhumanly pillaged by those whom it had received as

deliverers. As soon as Eccelino was informed of the loss he

had sustained, he hastened to separate and disarm the 11,000

Paduans belonging to his army; he confined them in prisons,

where all, with the exception of 200, met a violent or

lingering death. During the two following years, the Guelphs

experienced nothing but disasters: the legate, whom the pope

had placed at their head, proved incompetent to command them;

and the crowd of crusaders whom he called to his ranks served

only to compromise them, by want of courage and discipline. …

The following year, this tyrant, unequalled in Ita]y for

bravery and military talent, always an enemy to luxury, and

proof against the seductions of women, making the boldest

tremble with a look, and preserving in his diminutive person,

at the age of 65, all the vigor of a soldier, advanced into

the centre of Lombardy, in the hope that the nobles of Milan,

with whom he had already opened a correspondence, would

surrender this great city." But, by this time, even his old

Ghibelline associates had formed alliances with the Guelphs

against him, and he was beset on all sides. "On the 16th of

September, 1259, whilst he was preparing to retire, he found

himself stopped at the bridge of Cassano. … Repulsed, pursued

as far as Vimercato, and at last wounded in the foot, he was

made prisoner and taken to Soncino: there, he refused to

speak; rejected all the aid of medicine; tore off all the

bandages from his wounds, and finally expired, on the eleventh

day of his captivity. His brother with all his family were

massacred in the following year."

_J. C. L. de Sismondi,

History of the Italian Republics,

chapters 3-4._

ALSO IN:

_J. Miley,

History of the Papal States,

book 7, chapter 1 (volume 3)._

VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

Rise of the House of the Scaligeri.

Successes of Can' Grande della Scala.

Wars and Reverses of Mastino.

After the death of Eccelino, Verona, by its own choice came

under the government of the first Mastino della Scala, who

established the power of a house which became famous in

Italian history. Mastino's grandson, Cane, or Can' Grande

della Scala, "reigned in that city from 1312 to 1329, with a

splendor which no other prince in Ita]y equalled. … Among the

Lombard princes he was the first protector of literature and

the arts. The best poets, painters, and sculptors of Italy,

Dante, to whom he offered an asylum, as well as Uguccione da

Faggiuola, and many other exiles illustrious in war or

politics, were assembled at his court. He aspired to subdue

the Veronese and Trevisan marches, or what has since been

called the Terra Firma of Venice. He took possession of

Vicenza; and afterwards maintained a long war against the

republic of Padua, the most powerful in the district, and that

which had shown the most attachment to the Guelph party and to

liberty." In 1328, Padua submitted to him; and "the year

following he attacked and took Treviso, which surrendered on

the 6th of July, 1329. He possessed himself of Feltre and

Cividale soon after. The whole province seemed subjugated to

his power; but the conqueror also was subdued." He died on the

22d of the same month in which Treviso was taken.

_J. C. L. de Sismondi,

History of the Italian Republics,

chapter 6._

Can' Grande was succeeded by his nephew, the second Mastino

della Scala, who, in the next six years, "extended his states

from the northeastern frontiers of Italy to the confines of

Tuscany; and the possession of the strong city of Lucca now

gave him a secure footing in this province. He shortly made it

appear to what purpose he meant to apply this new advantage.

Under the plea of re-establishing the Ghibelin interests, but

in reality to forward his own schemes of dominion, he began to

fill all Tuscany with his machinations. Florence was neither

slow to discover her danger, nor to resent the treachery of

her faithless ally,"—which Mastino had recently been.

Florence, according]y, formed an alliance with Venice, which

Mastino had rashly offended by restricting the manufacture of

salt on the Trevisan coast, and by laying heavy duties on the

navigation of the Po. Florence agreed "to resign to Venice the

sole possession of such conquests as might be made in that

quarter; only reserving for herself the acquisition of Lucca,

which she was to obtain by attacking Mastino in Tuscany,

entirely with her own resources. Upon these terms an alliance

was signed between the two republics, and the lord of Verona

had soon abundant reason to repent of the pride and treachery

by which he had provoked their formidable union (A. D. 1336).

… During three campaigns he was unable to oppose the league in

the field, and was compelled to witness the successive loss of

many of his principal cities (A. D. 1337). His brother Albert

was surprised and made prisoner in Padua, by the treachery of

the family of Carrara, who acquired the sovereignty of that

city; Feltro was captured by the Duke of Carinthia, Brescia

revolted, and fell with other places to Azzo Visconti. … In

this hopeless condition Mastino artfully addressed himself to

the Venetians, and, by satisfying all their demands, detached

them from the general interests of the coalition (A. D. 1338).

By a separate treaty which their republic concluded with him,

and which was then only communicated to the Florentines for

their acceptance, Mastino ceded to Venice Treviso, with other

fortresses and possessions, and the right of free navigation

on the Po; he agreed at the same time to yield Bassano and an

extension of territory to the new lord of Padua, and to

confirm the sovereignty of Brescia to Azzo Visconti; but for

the Florentine republic no farther advantage was stipulated

than the enjoyment of a few castles which they had already

conquered in Tuscany."

_G. Procter,

History of Italy,

chapter 4, part 3._

ALSO IN:

_H. E. Napier,

Florentine History,

chapter 19 (volume 2)._

{3621}

VERONA: A. D. 1351-1387.

Degeneracy and fall of the Scaligeri.

Subjugation by the Visconti of Milan.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

VERONA: A. D. 1405.

Added to the dominion of Venice.

See ITALY: A. D. 1402-1406.

VERONA: A. D. 1797.

Massacre of French Soldiers.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (APRIL-MAY).

VERONA: A. D. 1814.

Surrender to the Austrians.

See ITALY: A. D. 1814.

----------VERONA: End--------

VERONA, The Congress of (after Troppau and Laybach).

"The rapid spread of revolution in Europe inspired serious

misgivings among the great powers, and impelled the Holy

Alliance [see HOLY ALLIANCE] to show its true colours. Austria

was especially alarmed by the movement in Naples [see ITALY:

A. D. 1820-1821], which threatened to overthrow its power in

Italy, and Metternich convoked a congress at Troppau, in Upper

Silesia (October, 1820), at which Austria, Russia, Prussia,

France and England were represented. Neapolitan affairs were

the chief subject of discussion, and it was soon evident that

Austria, Russia and Prussia were agreed as to the necessity of

armed intervention. England made a formal protest against such

high-handed treatment of a peaceful country; but as the

protest was not supported by France, and England was not

prepared to go to war for Naples, it was disregarded. The

three allied powers decided to transfer the congress to

Laybach and to invite Ferdinand I. to attend in person." The

result of the conference at Laybach was a movement of 60,000

Austrian troops into Naples and Sicily, in March, 1821, and a

restoration of Ferdinand, who made a merciless use of his

opportunity for revenge.

_R. Lodge,

History of Modern Europe,

chapter 25, section 8._

From Laybach, the allied sovereigns issued a circular to their

representatives at the various foreign courts, in which

portentous document they declared that "useful and necessary

changes in legislation and in the administration of states

could only emanate from the free will, and from the

intelligent and well-weighed convictions, of those whom God

has made responsible for power. Penetrated with this eternal

truth, the sovereigns have not hesitated to proclaim it with

frankness and vigour. They have declared that, in respecting

the rights and independence of legitimate power, they regarded

as legally null, and disavowed by the principles which

constituted the public right of Europe, all pretended reforms

operated by revolt and open hostilities." "These principles,

stated nakedly and without shame, were too much even for Lord

Castlereagh. In a despatch, written early in the year 1821,

while admitting the right of a state to interfere in the

internal affairs of another state when its own interests were

endangered, he protested against the pretension to put down

revolutionary movements apart from their immediate bearing on

the security of the state so intervening, and denied that

merely possible revolutionary movements can properly be made

the basis of a hostile alliance. The principles of the Holy

Alliance were not intended to remain a dead letter; they were

promptly acted upon. Popular movements were suppressed in

Naples and Piedmont; and intervention in Spain, where the

Cortes had been summoned and the despotic rule of Ferdinand

VII. had been overthrown, was in contemplation. Greece

imitated the example set in the western peninsulas of Europe.

The Congress of Verona was summoned, and Lord Castlereagh (now

the Marquis of Londonderry) was preparing to join it, when in

an access of despondency, the origin of which is variously

explained, he took his own life." He was succeeded in the

British Ministry by Mr. Canning.

_F. H. Hill,

George Canning,

chapter 20._

"The first business which presented itself to Mr. Cunning was

to devise a system by which the Holy Alliance could be

gradually dissolved, and England rescued from the consequences

of her undefined relations with its members. The adjourned

Congress was on the point of assembling at Verona, and as it

was necessary to send a representative in place of Lord

Castlereagh, who seems to have been terrified at the prospect

that lay before him, the Duke of Wellington was selected, and

dispatched without loss of time. … The very first blow he

[Canning] struck in the Congress of Verona announced to the

world the attitude which England was about to take, and her

total denial of the rights of the Alliance to interfere with

the internal affairs of any independent nation. It appeared

that France had collected a large army in the south, and not

having legitimate occupation for it, proposed to employ it in

the invasion of Spain [see Spain: A. D. 1814-1827]. This

monstrous project was submitted to Congress, and ardently

approved of by Russia. It was now that England spoke out for

the first time in this cabal of despots. … After some

interchanges of notes and discussions agreed to by the allies,

the British plenipotentiary, as he was instructed, refused all

participation in these proceedings, and withdrew from the

Congress. This was the first step that was taken to show the

Alliance that England would not become a party to any act of

unjust aggression or unjustifiable interference. A long

correspondence ensued between Mr. Canning and M. de

Chateaubriand. … The French king's speech, on opening the

Chambers, revealed the real intentions of the government,

which Mr. Canning had penetrated from the beginning. The

speech was, in fact, a declaration of war against Spain,

qualified by the slightest imaginable hypothesis. But, happily

for all interests, there was no possibility of disguising the

purpose of this war, which was plainly and avowedly to force

upon the people of Spain such a constitution as the king (a

Bourbon), in the exercise of his absolute authority, should

think fit to give them. … Against this principle Mr. Canning

entered a dignified protest. … Although he could not avert

from Spain the calamity of a French invasion, he made it clear

to all the world that England objected to that proceeding, and

that she was no longer even to be suspected of favoring the

designs of the Holy Alliance. The French army made the passage

of the Bidassoa. From that moment Mr. Canning interfered no

farther. He at once disclosed the system which he had already

matured and resolved upon. Having first protested against the

principle of the invasion, he determined to maintain the

neutrality of England in the war that followed.

{3622}

By this course he achieved the end he had in view, of severing

England from the Holy Alliance without embroiling her in any

consequent responsibilities. … Mr. Canning's 'system' of

foreign policy, as described in his own language, resolved

itself into this principle of action, that 'England should

hold the balance, not only between contending nations, but

between conflicting principles; that, in order to prevent

things from going to extremities, she should keep a distinct

middle ground, staying the plague both ways.' … The

development of this principle, as it applied to nations, was

illustrated in the strict but watchful neutrality observed

between France and Spain; and, as it applied to principles, in

the recognition of the independence of the Spanish-American

colonies. The latter act may be regarded as the most important

for which Mr. Canning was officially responsible, as that

which exerted the widest and most distinct influence over the

policy of other countries, and which most clearly and

emphatically revealed the tendency of his own. It showed that

England would recognize institutions raised up by the people,

as well as those which were created by kings. It gave the

death-blow to the Holy Alliance." The logic and meaning of Mr.

Canning's recognition of the Spanish American republics found

expression in one famous passage of a brilliant speech which

he made in the House of Commons, December 12, 1826,

vindicating his foreign policy. "If France," he said,

"occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order to avoid the

consequences of that occupation, that we should blockade

Cadiz? No, I looked another way—I sought materials of

compensation in another hemisphere. Contemplating Spain such

as our ancestors had known her, I resolved that if France had

Spain, it should not be Spain with the Indies. I called the

New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old."

_R. Bell,

Life of the Right Honourable George Canning,

chapter 13._

ALSO IN:

_F. H. Hill,

George Canning,

chapter 20._

_F. A. Châteaubriand,

The Congress of Verona._

_Sir A. Alison,

History of Europe, 1815-1852,

chapters 8 and 12 (volume l,—American edition)._

_S. Walpole,

History of England,

chapter 9 (volume 2)._

VERRAZANO, Voyages of.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

----------VERSAILLES: Start--------

VERSAILLES.

Louis XIV. "preferred Versailles to his other chateaux,

because Fontainebleau, Chambord, Saint-Germain, were

existences ready created, which Francois I. and Henri IV. had

stamped with the ineffaceable imprint of their glory: at

Versailles, everything was to be made, save the modest

beginning left by Louis XIII. … At Versailles, everything was

to be created, we say,—not only the monuments of art, but

nature itself. This solitary elevation of ground, although

pleasing enough through the woods and hills that surrounded

it, was without great views, without sites, without waters,

without inhabitants. … The sites would be created by creating

an immense landscape by the hand of man; the waters would be

brought from the whole country by works which appalled the

imagination; the inhabitants would be caused, if we may say

so, to spring from the earth, by erecting a whole city for the

service of the chateau. Louis would thus make a city of his

own, a form of his own, of which he alone would be the life.

Versailles and the court would be the body and soul of one and

the same being, both created for the same end, the

glorification of the terrestrial God to whom they owed

existence. … The same idea filled the interior of the palace.

Painting deified Louis there under every form, in war and in

peace, in the arts and in the administration of the empire; it

celebrated his amours as his victories, his passions as his

labors. All the heroes of antiquity, all the divinities of

classic Olympus, rendered him homage or lent him their

attributes in turn. He was Augustus, he was Titus, he was

Alexander; he was thundering Jupiter, he was Hercules, the

conqueror of monsters; oftener, Apollo, the inspirer of the

Muses and the king of enlightenment. Mythology was no longer

but a great enigma, to which the name of Louis was the only

key; he was all the gods in himself alone. … Louis, always

served in his desires by the fertility of his age, had found a

third artist, Lenostre, to complete Lebrun and Mansart. Thanks

to Lenostre, Louis, from the windows of his incomparable

gallery of mirrors, saw nought that was not of his own

creation. The whole horizon was his work, for his garden was

the whole horizon. … Whole thickets were brought full-grown

from the depths of the finest forests of France, and the arts

of animating marble and of moving waters filled them with

every prodigy of which the imagination could dream. An

innumerable nation of statues peopled the thickets and lawns,

was mirrored in the waters, or rose from the bosom of the

wave. … Louis had done what he wished; he had created about

him a little universe, in which he was the only necessary and

almost the only real being. But terrestrial gods do not create

with a word like the true God. These buildings which stretch

across a frontage of twelve hundred yards, the unheard-of

luxury of these endless apartments, this incredible multitude

of objects of art, these forests transplanted, these waters of

heaven gathered from all the slopes of the heights into the

windings of immense conduits from Trappes and Palaiseau to

Versailles, these waters of the Seine brought from Marly by

gigantic machinery through that aqueduct which commands from

afar the valley of the river like a superb Roman ruin, and

later, an enterprise far more colossal! that river which was

turned aside from its bed and which it was undertaken to bring

thirty leagues to Versailles over hills and valleys, cost

France grievous efforts and inexhaustible sweats, and

swallowed up rivers of gold increasing from year to year. …

Versailles has cost France dearly, very dearly; nevertheless

it is important to historic truth to set aside in this respect

too long accredited exaggerations. … The accounts, or at least

the abstracts of the accounts, of the expenditures of Louis

XIV. for building, during the greater part of his reign, have

been discovered. The costs of the construction, decoration,

and furnishing of Versailles, from 1664 to 1690, including the

hydraulic works and the gardens, in addition to the

appendages,—that is, Clagny, Trianon, Saint-Cyr, and the two

churches of the new city of Versailles,—amount to about one

hundred and seven millions, to which must be added a million,

or a million and a half perhaps, for the expenses of the years

1661-1663, the accounts of which are not known, and three

million two hundred and sixty thousand francs for the

sumptuous chapel, which was not built until 1699-1710.

{3623}

The proportion of the mark to the franc having varied under

Louis XIV., it is difficult to arrive at an exact reduction to

the present currency. … The expenses of Versailles would

represent to-day more than four hundred millions. This amount

is enormous; but it is not monstrous like the twelve hundred

millions of which Mirabeau speaks, nor, above all, madly

fantastic like the four thousand six hundred millions imagined

by Volney."

_H. Martin,

History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 1, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:

_L. Ritchie,

Versailles._

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1789.

Opening scenes of the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (MAY), and after.

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1870.

Headquarters of the German court and the army besieging Paris.

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

VERSAILLES: A. D. 1871.

Assumption of the dignity of Emperor of Germany

by King William of Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1871.

----------VERSAILLES: End--------

VERTERÆ.

A Roman city in Britain, which probably occupied the site of

the modern town of Brough, in Westmoreland, where many remains

of the Romans have been found.

_T. Wright,

Celt, Roman, and Saxon,

chapter 5._

VERTURIONES, The.

A name by which one of the Caledonian tribes was known to the

Romans.

VERULAMIUM.

VERULAM.

"The 'oppidum' of Cassivelaunus [the stronghold which Cæsar

reduced on his second invasion of Britain] is generally

believed to have been situated where the modern town of St.

Alban's now stands [but the point is still in dispute]. An

ancient ditch can still be traced surrounding a considerable

area on the banks of the River Ver, from which the Roman town

of Verulam [Verulamium] took its name. This town, which

probably originated in the camp of Cæsar, grew into an

important city in Roman times. It stands on the opposite side

of the River Ver, and is still known for its Roman remains."

_H. M. Scarth,

Roman Britain,

chapter 2._

See BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

VERVINS, Treaty of (1598).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

VESONTIO.

Modern Besançon, in France; originally the largest of the

towns of the Sequani.

_G. Long,

Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapter 2._

VESPASIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 69-79.

VESPUCIUS, Americus (or Amerigo Vespucci), The voyages of.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498; 1499-1500;

1500-1514; 1503-1504.

Also (in Supplement)

AMERICA: THE ALLEGED FIRST VOYAGE OF VESPUCIUS.

VESTAL VIRGINS.

"The Vestals ('virgines Vestales,' 'virgines Vestæ') were

closely connected with the college of pontifices. They are

said to have come from Alba soon after the foundation of Rome:

at first there were two Vestals for each of the two tribes,

Ramnes and Tities; afterwards two others were added for the

Luceres, and the number of six was exceeded at no period. The

vestal, on being chosen, was not allowed to be younger than

six or older than ten years. … She was clad in white garments

and devoted to the service of Vesta for thirty years. … After

this period she was at liberty either to remain in the service

of the goddess (which was generally done) or to return to her

family and get married. Her dress was always white; round her

forehead she wore a broad band like a diadem ('infula'), with

ribbons ('vittæ') attached to it. During the sacrifice, or at

processions, she was covered with a white veil. … She was

carefully guarded against insult or temptation; an offence

offered to her was punished with death; … in public everyone,

even the consul, made way to the lictor preceding the maiden.

At public games and pontifical banquets she had the seat of

honour; and a convicted criminal accidentally meeting her was

released. Amongst her priestly functions was the keeping of

the eternal fire in the temple of Vesta, each Vestal taking

her turn at watching. … Breach of chastity on the part of the

Vestal was punished with death."

_E. Guhl and W. Koner,

Life of the Greeks and Romans,

section 103._

VESTINIANS, The.

See SABINES.

VESUVIUS:

Great eruption.

Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum.

See POMPEII.

VESUVIUS, Battle of (B. C. 338).

See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

VETERA: A. D. 69.

Siege and Massacre.

The most important success achieved by the Batavian patriot,

Civilis, in the revolt against the Romans which he led, A. D.

69, was the siege and capture of Vetera,—a victory sullied by

the faithless massacre of the garrison after they had

capitulated.

_C. Merivale,

History of the Romans,

chapter 58._

VETO, The Aragon.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

VETO:

The Polish Liberum Veto.

See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.

VETO:

Of the President of the United States.

See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES,

Article I., Section 7.

VETTONES, The.

A people who occupied the part of ancient Spain between the

Tagus and the Upper Douro at the time of the Roman conquest

of that country.

_T. Mommsen,

History of Rome,

book 4, chapter 1._

VIA SACRA AT ROME, The.

"The Via Sacra began at the Sacellum Streniæ, which was on the

part of the Esquiline nearest to the Colosseum; on reaching

the Summa Via Sacra … it turned a little to the right,

descending the Clivus Sacer; at the foot of the slope it

passed under the arch of Fabius, by the side of the Regia;

thence it ran in a straight line, passing by the Basilica

Æmilia, the arch of Janus, the Curia Hostilia, till it reached

the foot of the Capitoline Hill, where, turning to the left,

it ascended the Clivus Capitolinus, and reached its

termination at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The Via

Sacra, as Ovid tells us, took its name from the sacred rites

which were performed on it. Along this road passed the

processions of priests with the sacred animals to be

sacrificed at the altar of Jupiter Capitolinus. … Along this

road also passed the triumphal processions of the victorious

Roman generals. The procession entered Rome by the Porta

Triumphalis, passed through the Circus Maximus, then, turning

to the left, proceeded along the road at the foot of the

southeast slope of the Palatine, when it joined the Via Sacra,

and again turned to the left and ascended the Velia; on reaching

the Summa Via Sacra it descended the Clivus Sacer, and then

passed along the rest of the Via Sacra till it reached its

destination at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, where the

victorious general lay before the god the spoils of his

conquests."

_H. M. Westropp,

Early and Imperial Rome,

page 121._

ALSO IN:

_J. H. Parker,

Archaeology of Rome,

part 6._

{3624}

VICARS, or Vice-Præfects, of the Roman Empire.

See DIOCESES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

VICENZA: A. D. 1237.

Pillage by Eccelino di Romano.

See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

VICKSBURG: A. D. 1862-1863.

The defense, the siege and the capture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI),

and (DECEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI);

1863 (JANUARY-APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI):

and 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

VICTOR II., Pope, A. D. 1055-1057.

Victor III., Pope, 1086-1087.

Victor Amadeus, Duke of Savoy, 1630-1637.

Victor Amadeus II.,

Duke of Savoy, 1675-1730:

King of Sicily, 1713-1720;

King of Sardinia, 1720-1730.

Victor Amadeus III.,

Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1773-1796.

Victor Emanuel I.,

Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1802-1821.

Victor Emanuel II.,

King of Sardinia, 1849-1861;

King of Italy, 1861-1878.

VICTORIA, Queen of England, A. D. 1837.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1837.

The founding of the colony.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1850-1855.

Separation from New South Wales.

Discovery of gold.

Adoption of a Constitution.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1839-1855.

VICTORIA: A. D. 1862-1892.

Comparative view.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (AUSTRALIA): A. D. 1862-1892;

and AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.

VICTORIA CROSS, The.

An English naval and military decoration, instituted after the

Crimean War, on the 29th of January, 1856, by the command of

Queen Victoria.

VICUS.

According to Niebuhr, the term "Vicus" in Roman

topography—about which there has been much controversy—"means

nothing else but a quarter or district [of the city] under the

superintendence of its own police officer."

_B. G. Niebuhr,

Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography,

volume 2, page 86._

See, also, GENS.

VIDOMME.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

----------VIENNA, Austria: Start--------

VIENNA, Austria: Origin of.

See VINDOBONA.

VIENNA, Austria: 12th Century.

Fortification and commercial advancement by the Austrian Dukes.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1485.

Siege, capture, and occupation by Matthias of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1529.

Siege by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1619.

Threatened by the Bohemian army.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1645.

Threatened by the Swedes.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1683.

Siege by the Turks.

Deliverance by John Sobieski.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1805.

Surrendered to Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1809.

Capitulation to Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

VIENNA, Austria: A. D. 1848.

Revolutionary riots.

Bombardment of the city.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

VIENNA, The Congress of.