History for ready reference, Volume 1, A-Elba (part 4 of 15)

History for ready reference, Volume 1, A-Elba (part 4 of 15)

"The Greeks ... were industrious, commercial, sensitive to physical and moral beauty, eager for discussion and controversy; they were proud of their humanity, and happy in the possession of their poets, their historians, their orators and artists. It is singular, in the history of nations, to meet with a people distinguished at once by mercantile aptitude, and by an exquisite feeling and sympathy for works of art; to see the vanity of wealth compatible with a nice discernment for the true principles of taste; to behold a nation, inconstant in ideas; inconceivably fickle in prejudices, worshipping a man one day and proscribing him the next, yet at the same time progressing with unheard-of rapidity; within the space of a few years traversing all systems of philosophy, all forms of government, laying the foundations of all sciences, making war on all its neighbors, yet, in the midst of this chaos of ideas, systems, and passions, developing art steadily and with calm intelligence, giving to it novelty, originality, and beauty, while preserving it pure from the aberrations and caprices of what we now call fashion. At the time of the battle of Salamis, 480 B. C., Athens had been destroyed, its territory ravaged, and the Athenians had nothing left but their ships; yet so great was the activity of this commercial but artistic people, that, only twenty years afterwards, they had built the Parthenon."

E. E. Viollet-le-Duc, Discourses on Architecture, page 65.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429. The Age of Pericles: Domestic life. The Athenian house.

"For any one coming from Asia it seemed as if in entering Athens he was coming into an ant's nest. Possessing, at the epoch of its greatest power, the three ports of Munychia, Phalerum and the Piræus, it covered a district whose circumference measured two hundred stadia (twenty-four miles). But it was around the Acropolis that the houses were crowded together and the population always in activity. There wagons were passing to and fro, filled with merchandise from the ports or conveying it thither. The streets and public places in which people passed their lives presented a busy and noisy scene. Strangers, who came to buy or to sell, were continually entering or leaving the shops and places of manufacture, and slaves were carrying messages or burdens. {162} Women as well as men were to be seen in the streets, going to the markets, the public games and the meetings of corporate bodies. From the earliest hours of the day large numbers of peasants might be seen bringing in vegetables, fruit and poultry, and crying their wares in the streets. Houses of the higher class occupied the second zone; they generally possessed a garden and sometimes outbuildings of considerable extent. Around them were to be seen clients and parasites, waiting for the hour when the master should make his appearance; and whiling away the time discussing the news of the day, repeating the rumours, true or false, that were current in the city; getting the slaves to talk, and laughing among themselves at the strangers that happened to be passing, or addressing them with a view to make fun of their accent, garb or dress. The house of Chremylus, recently built in that second zone, was a subject of remark for all the idlers. Chremylus, who had lately become wealthy by means of commerce, and of certain transactions of more or less creditable character in the colonies, was an object of envy and criticism to most people, and of admiration for some who did justice to his intelligence and energy. He enjoyed a certain degree of influence in the public assemblies--thanks to his liberality; while he took care to secure the good graces of the archons and to enrich the temples."

[Image] Plan Of Athenian House.

"We have [in the accompanying figure] the ground-plan of the residence of this Athenian citizen. The entrance x opens on the public road. The site is bounded on either side by narrow streets. This entrance x opens on the court O, which is surrounded by porticos. At A is the porter's lodge, and at B the rooms for the slaves, with kitchen at C and latrines at a. From this first court: in the centre of which is a small fountain with a basin which receives the rain water, the passage D leads into the inner court E; which is larger and is likewise surrounded by porticos. At G is the reception room, at H the strong room for valuables, and at S the private altar. At F is a large storeroom containing provisions and wine; and at I the small dining room (triclinium); the cooking-room for the family being at J with latrines at b. The large triclinium is at K. The passage m admits to the gynæceum, containing the bedrooms P along the portico M, a common room for the women, with its small enclosed garden, and closets at e. The quarters for visitors are entered by the passage t, and consist of bedrooms V, a portico T, a small garden and closets f. At d is an opening into the lane for the servants, when required. The gardens extend in the direction Z. This house is situated on the slopes of the hill which to the south-west looks towards the Acropolis; thus it is sheltered from the violent winds which sometimes blow from this quarter. From the large dining-hall and from the terrace L, which adjoins it, there is a charming prospect; for, above the trees of the garden is seen the city overlooked by the Acropolis, and towards the left the hill of the Areopagus. From this terrace L there is a descent to the garden by about twelve steps. The position was chosen with a view to protection against the sun's heat and the troublesome winds. From the portico of the gynæceum are seen the hills extending towards the north, covered with houses surrounded by olive-trees; and in the background Mount Pentelicus. ... In the dwelling of Chremylus the various departments were arranged at the proprietor's discretion, and the architect only conformed to his instructions. Thus the front part of the house is assigned to the external relations of the owner. In this court O assemble the agents or factors who come to give an account of the commissions they have executed, or to receive orders. If the master wishes to speak to any of them, he takes him into his reception room; his bedchamber being at R, he can easily repair to that reception-room or to the gynæceum reserved for the women and younger children. If he entertains friends, they have their separate apartments, which are shut off, not being in communication with the first court except through the passage t. All that part of the habitation which is beyond the wide entrance-hall D is consecrated to domestic life; and only the intimate friends of the family are admitted into the second court; for example, if they are invited to a banquet,--which is held in the great hall K. The master usually takes his meals with his wife and one or two members of his family who live in the house, in the smaller room I, the couches of which will hold six persons; whereas fifteen guests can be accommodated on the couches of the great hall K. Chremylus has spared nothing to render his house one of the most sumptuous in the city. The columns of Pentelican marble support architraves of wood, surmounted by friezes and cornices overlaid with stucco and ornamented with delicate painting. Everywhere the walls are coated with fine smooth plaster, adorned with paintings; and the ceilings are of timber artistically wrought and coloured."

E. Viollet-le-Duc, The Habitations of Man in all Ages, chapter 17.

{163}

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429. The Age of Pericles: Law and its Administration. Contrast with the Romans.

"It is remarkable ... that the 'equality' of laws on which the Greek democracies prided themselves--that equality which, in the beautiful drinking song of Callistratus, Harmodius and Aristogiton are said to have given to Athens--had little in common with the 'equity' of the Romans. The first was an equal administration of civil laws among the citizens, however limited the class of citizens might be; the last implied the applicability of a law, which was not civil law, to a class which did not necessarily consist of citizens. The first excluded a despot; the last included foreigners, and for some purposes slaves. ... There are two special dangers to which law, and society which is held together by law, appear to be liable in their infancy. One of them is that law may be too rapidly developed. This occurred with the codes of the more progressive Greek communities, which disembarrassed themselves with astonishing facility from cumbrous forms of procedure and needless terms of art, and soon ceased to attach any superstitious value to rigid rules and prescriptions. It was not for the ultimate advantage of mankind that they did so, though the immediate benefit conferred on their citizens may have been considerable. One of the rarest qualities of national character is the capacity for applying and working out the law, as such, at the cost of constant miscarriages of abstract justice, without at the same time losing the hope or the wish that law may be conformed to a higher ideal. The Greek intellect, with all its nobility and elasticity, was quite unable to confine itself within the strait waistcoat of a legal formula; and, if we may judge them by the popular courts of Athens, of whose working we possess accurate knowledge, the Greek tribunals exhibited the strongest tendency to confound law and fact. The remains of the Orators and the forensic commonplaces preserved by Aristotle in his Treatise on Rhetoric, show that questions of pure law were constantly argued on every consideration which could possibly influence the mind of the judges. No durable system of jurisprudence could be produced in this way. A community which never hesitated to relax rules of written law whenever they stood in the way of an ideally perfect decision on the facts of particular cases, would only, if it bequeathed any body of judicial principles to posterity, bequeath one consisting of the ideas of right and wrong which happened to be prevalent at the time. Such jurisprudence would contain no framework to which the more advanced conceptions of subsequent ages could be fitted. It would amount at best to a philosophy, marked with the imperfections of the civilisation under which it grew up. ... The other liability to which the infancy of society is exposed has prevented or arrested the progress of far the greater part of mankind. The rigidity of primitive law, arising chiefly from its earlier association and identification with religion, has chained down the mass of the human race to those views of life and conduct which they entertained at the time when their usages were first consolidated into a systematic form. There were one or two races exempted by a marvellous fate from this calamity, and grafts from these stocks have fertilised a few modern societies; but it is still true that, over the larger part of the world, the perfection of law has always been considered as consisting in adherence to the ground plan supposed to have been marked out by the original legislator. If intellect has in such cases been exercised on jurisprudence, it has uniformly prided itself on the subtle perversity of the conclusions it could build on ancient texts without discoverable departure from their literal tenour. I know no reason why the law of the Romans should be superior to the laws of the Hindoos, unless the theory of Natural Law had given it a type of excellence different from the usual one."

H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, ch, 3-4.

"But both the Greek and the English trial by jury were at one time the great political safeguard against state oppression and injustice; and, owing to this origin, free nations become so attached to it that they are blind to its defects. And just as Ireland would now benefit beyond conception by the abolition of the jury system, so the secured Athenian (or any other) democracy would have thriven better had its laws been administered by courts of skilled judges. For these large bodies of average citizens, who, by the way, were not like our jurymen, unwilling occupants of the jury-box, but who made it a paid business and an amusement, did not regard the letter of the law. They allowed actions barred by the reasonable limits of time; they allowed arguments totally beside the question, though this too was illegal, for there was no competent judge to draw the line; they allowed hearsay evidence, though that too was against the law; indeed the evidence produced in most of the speeches is of the loosest and poorest kind. Worse than all, there were no proper records kept of their decisions, and witnesses were called in to swear what had been the past decisions of a jury sitting in the same city, and under the same procedure. This is the more remarkable, as there were state archives, in which the decrees of the popular assembly were kept. ... There is a most extraordinary speech of Lysias against a man called Nichomachus, who was appointed to transcribe the laws of Solon in four months, but who kept them in his possession for six years, and is accused of having so falsified them as to have substituted himself for Solon. Hence there can have been no recognized duplicate extant, or such a thing could not be attempted. So again, in the Trapeziticus of Isocrates, it is mentioned as a well known fact, that a certain Pythodorus was convicted of tampering with state documents, signed and sealed by the magistrates, and deposited in the Acropolis. All these things meet us in every turn in the court speeches of the Attic orators. We are amazed at seeing relationships proved in will cases by a man coming in and swearing that such a man's father had told him that his brother was married to such a woman, of such a house. We find the most libellous charges brought against opponents on matters totally beside the question at issue, and even formal evidence of general bad character admitted. We find some speakers in consequence treating the jury with a sort of mingled deference and contempt which is amusing. 'On the former trial of this case,' they say, 'my opponent managed to tell you many well devised lies; of course you were deceived, how could it be otherwise, and you made a false decision;' or else, 'You were so puzzled that you got at variance with one another, you voted at sixes and sevens, and by a small majority you came to an absurd decision.' {164} 'But I think you know well,' says Isocrates, 'that the city has often repented so bitterly ere this for decisions made in passion and without evidence, as to desire after no long interval to punish those who misled it, and to wish those who had been calumniated were more than restored to their former prosperity. Keeping these facts before you, you ought not to be hasty in believing the prosecutors, nor to hear the defendants with interruption and ill temper. For it is a shame to have the character of being the gentlest and most humane of the Greeks in other respects, and yet to act contrary to this reputation in the trials which take place here. It is a shame that in other cities, when a human life is at stake, a considerable majority of votes is required for conviction, but that among you those in danger do not even get an equal chance with their false accusers. You swear indeed once a year that you will attend to both plaintiff and defendant, but in the interval only keep your oath so far as to accept whatever the accusers say, but you sometimes will not let those who are trying to refute them utter even a single word. You think those cities uninhabitable, in which citizens are executed without trial, and forget that those who do not give both sides a fair hearing are doing the very same thing.'"

J. P. Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece, chapter 13.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429. The Age of Pericles: Political life. The democracy.

"The real life of Athens lasted at the most for 200 years: and yet there are moments in which all that we have won by the toils of so many generations seems as if it would be felt to be but a small thing beside a single hour of Periklês. The Democracy of Athens was in truth the noblest fruit of that self-developing power of the Greek mind which worked every possession of the common heritage into some new and more brilliant shape, but which learned nothing, nothing of all that formed its real life and its real glory, from the Barbarians of the outer world. Men tell us that Greece learned this or that mechanical invention from Phœnicia or Egypt or Assyria. Be it so; but stand in the Pnyx; listen to the contending orators; listen to the ambassadors of distant cities; listen to each side as it is fairly hearkened to, and see the matter in hand decided by the peaceful vote of thousands--here at least of a truth is something which Athens did not learn from any Assyrian despot or from any Egyptian priest. And we, children of the common stock, sharers in the common heritage, as we see man, Aryan man, in the full growth of his noblest type, we may feel a thrill as we think that Kleisthenês and Periklês were, after all, men of our own blood--as we think that the institutions which grew up under their hands and the institutions under which we ourselves are living are alike branches sprung from one stock, portions of one inheritance in which Athens and England have an equal right. In the Athenian Democracy we see a popular constitution taking the form which was natural for such a constitution to take when it was able to run its natural course in a common-wealth which consisted only of a single city. Wherever the Assembly really remains, in truth as well as in name, an Assembly of the whole people in their own persons, it must in its own nature be sovereign. It must, in the nature of things, delegate more or less of power to magistrates and generals; but such power will be simply delegated. Their authority will be a mere trust from the sovereign body, and to that sovereign body they will be responsible for its exercise. That is to say, one of the original elements of the State, the King or chief, now represented by the elective magistracy, will lose its independent powers, and will sink into a body who have only to carry out the will of the sovereign Assembly. So with another of the original elements, the Council. This body too loses its independent being; it has no ruling or checking power; it becomes a mere Committee of the Assembly, chosen or appointed by lot to put measures into shape for more easy discussion in the sovereign body. As society becomes more advanced and complicated, the judicial power can no longer be exercised by the Assembly itself, while it would be against every democratic instinct to leave it in the arbitrary power of individual magistrates. Other Committees of the Assembly, Juries on a gigantic scale, with a presiding magistrate as chairman rather than as Judge, are therefore set apart to decide causes and to sit in judgment on offenders. Such is pure Democracy, the government of the whole people and not of a part of it only, as carried out in its full perfection in a single city. It is a form of government which works up the faculties of man to a higher pitch than any other; it is the form of government which gives the freest scope to the inborn genius of the whole community and of every member of it. Its weak point is that it works up the faculties of man to a pitch so high that it can hardly be lasting, that its ordinary life needs an enthusiasm, a devotion too highly strung to be likely to live through many generations. Athens in the days of her glory, the Athens of Periklês, was truly 'the roof and crown of things;' her democracy raised a greater number of human beings to a higher level than any government before or since; it gave freer play than any government before or since to the personal gifts of the foremost of mankind. But against the few years of Athenian glory we must set the long ages of Athenian decline. Against the city where Periklês was General we must set the city where Hadrian was Archon. On the Assemblies of other Grecian cities it is hardly needful to dwell. Our knowledge of their practical working is slight. We have one picture of a debate in the popular Assembly of Sparta, an Assembly none the less popular in its internal constitution because it was the assembly of what, as regarded the excluded classes of the State, was a narrow oligarchy. We see that there, as might be looked for, the chiefs of the State, the Kings, and yet more the Ephors, spoke with a degree of official, as distinguished from personal, authority which fell to the lot of no man in the Assembly of Athens. Periklês reigned supreme, not because he was one of Ten Generals, but because he was Periklês. ... In the Ekklêsia which listened to Periklês and Dêmosthenes we feel almost as much at home as in an institution of our own land and our own times. At least we ought to feel at home there; for we have the full materials for calling up the political life of Athens in all its fullness, and within our own times one of the greatest minds of our own or of any age has given its full strength to clear away the mists of error and calumny which so long shrouded the parent state of justice and freedom. {165} Among the contemporaries and countrymen of Mr. Grote it is shame indeed if men fail to see in the great Democracy the first state which taught mankind that the voice of persuasion could be stronger than a despot's will, the first which taught that disputes could be settled by a free debate and a free vote which in other lands could have been decided only by the banishment or massacre of the weaker side. ... It must be constantly borne in mind that the true difference between an aristocratic and a democratic government, as those words were understood in the politics of old Greece, lies in this. In the Democracy all citizens, all who enjoy civil rights, enjoy also political rights. In the aristocracy political rights belong to only a part of those who enjoy civil rights. But, in either case, the highest authority of the State is the general Assembly of the whole ruling body, whether that ruling body be the whole people or only a part of it. ... The slaves and strangers who were shut out at Athens were, according to Greek ideas, no Athenians; but every Athenian had his place in the sovereign assembly of Athens, while every Corinthian had not his place in the sovereign assembly of Corinth. But the aristocratic and the democratic commonwealth both agreed in placing the final authority of the State in the general Assembly of all who enjoy the highest franchise. ... The people, of its own will, placed at its head men of the same class as those who in the earlier state of things had ruled it against its will. Periklês, Nikias, Alkibiadês, were men widely differing in character, widely differing in their relations to the popular government. But all alike were men of ancient birth, who, as men of ancient birth, found their way, almost as a matter of course, to those high places of the State to which Kleôn found his way only by a strange freak of fortune. At Rome we find quite another story. There, no less than at Athens, the moral influence of nobility survived its legal privileges; but, more than this, the legal privileges of the elder nobility were never wholly swept away, and the inherent feeling of respect for illustrious birth called into being a younger nobility by its side. At Athens one stage of reform placed a distinction of wealth instead of a distinction of birth: another stage swept away the distinction of wealth also. But the reform, at each of its stages, was general; it affected all offices alike, save those sacred offices which still remained the special heritage of certain sacred families. ... In an aristocratic commonwealth there is no room for Periklês; there is no room for the people that hearkened to Periklês; but in men of the second order, skilful conservative administrators, men able to work the system which they find established, no form of government is so fertile. ... But everywhere we learn the same lesson, the inconsistency of commonwealths which boast themselves of their own freedom and exalt themselves at the cost of the freedom of others."

E. A. Freeman, Comparative Politics, lecture 5-6.

"Dêmos was himself King, Minister, and Parliament. He had his smaller officials to carry out the necessary details of public business, but he was most undoubtedly his own First Lord of the Treasury, his own Foreign Secretary, his own Secretary for the Colonies. He himself kept up a personal correspondence both with foreign potentates and with his own officers on foreign service; the 'despatches' of Nikias and the 'notes' of Philip were alike addressed to no officer short of the sovereign himself; he gave personal audience to the ambassadors of other states, and clothed his own with just so great or so small a share as he deemed good of his own boundless authority. He had no need to entrust the care of his thousand dependencies to the mysterious working of a Foreign Office; he himself sat in judgment upon Mitylenaian rebels; he himself settled the allotment of lands at Chalkis or Amphipolis; he decreed by his own wisdom what duties should be levied at the Sound of Byzantion; he even ventured on a task of which two-and-twenty ages have not lessened the difficulty, and undertook, without the help of a Lord High Commissioner, to adjust the relations and compose the seditions even of Korkyra and Zakynthos. He was his own Lord High Chancellor, his own Lord Primate, his own Commander-in-Chief. He listened to the arguments of Kleôn on behalf of a measure, and to the arguments of Nikias against it, and he ended by bidding Nikias to go and carry out the proposal which he had denounced as extravagant or unjust. He listened with approval to his own 'explanations;' he passed votes of confidence in his own policy; he advised himself to give his own royal assent to the bills which he had himself passed, without the form of a second or third reading, or the vain ceremony of moving that the Prytaneis do leave their chairs. ... We suspect that the average Athenian citizen was, in political intelligence, above the average English Member of Parliament. It was this concentration of all power in an aggregate of which every citizen formed a part, which is the distinguishing characteristic of true Greek democracy. Florence had nothing like it; there has been nothing like it in the modern world: the few pure democracies which have lingered on to our own day have never had such mighty questions laid before them, and have never had such statesmen and orators to lead them. The great Democracy has had no fellow; but the political lessons which it teaches are none the less lessons for all time and for every land and people."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays (volume 2): The Athenian Democracy.

"The individual freedom which was enjoyed at Athens and which is extolled by Pericles was plainly an exception to the common usage of Greece, and is so regarded in the Funeral Speech. The word 'freedom,' it should be remembered, bore an ambiguous meaning. It denoted on the one hand political independence,--the exercise of sovereign power by the State and of political rights by the citizens. In this sense every Greek citizen could claim it as his birthright. Even the Spartans could tell the Persian Hydarnes that he had not, like them, tasted of freedom, and did not know whether it was sweet or not. But the word also denoted personal and social liberty,--freedom from the excessive restraints of law, the absence of a tyrannous public opinion and of intolerance between man and man. Pericles claims for Athens 'freedom' in this double sense. But freedom so far as it implies the absence of legal interference in the private concerns of life was but little known except at Athens."

S. H. Butcher, Some Aspects of Greek Genius, pages 70-71.

{166}

"To Athens ... we look ... for an answer to the question, What does history teach in regard to the virtue of a purely democratic government? And here we may safely say that, under favourable circumstances, there is no form of government which, while it lasts, has such a virtue to give scope to a vigorous growth and luxuriant fruitage of various manhood as a pure democracy. ... But it does not follow that, though in this regard it has not been surpassed by any other form of government, it is therefore absolutely the best of all forms of government. ... Neither, on the other hand, does it follow from the shortness of the bright reign of Athenian democracy--not more than 200 years from Clisthenes to the Macedonians--that all democracies are short-lived, and must pay, like dissipated young gentlemen, with premature decay for the feverish abuse of their vital force. Possible no doubt it is, that if the power of what we may call a sort of Athenian Second Chamber, the Areiopagus, instead of being weakened as it was by Aristides and Pericles, had been built up according to the idea of Æschylus and the intelligent aristocrats of his day, such a body, armed, like our House of Lords, with an effective negative on all outbursts of popular rashness, might have prevented the ambition of the Athenians from launching on that famous Syracusan expedition which exhausted their force and maimed their action for the future. But the lesson taught by the short-lived glory of Athens, and its subjugation under the rough foot of the astute Macedonian, is not that democracies, under the influence of faction, and, it may be, not free from venality, will sell their liberties to a strong neighbour--for aristocratic Poland did this in a much more blushless way than democratic Greece--but that any loose aggregate of independent States, given more to quarrel amongst themselves than to unite against a common enemy, whether democratic, or aristocratic, or monarchical in their form of government, cannot in the long run maintain their ground against the firm policy and the well-massed force of a strong monarchy. Athens was blotted out from the map of free peoples at Chæronea, not because the Athenian people had too much freedom, but because the Greek States had too little unity. They were used by Philip exactly in the same way that Napoleon used the German States at the commencement of the present century."

J. S. Blackie, What does History Teach? pages 28-31.

"In Herodotus you have the beginning of the age of discussion. ... The discourses on democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, which he puts into the mouth of the Persian conspirators when the monarchy was vacant, have justly been called absurd, as speeches supposed to have been spoken by those persons. No Asiatic ever thought of such things. You might as well imagine Saul or David speaking them as those to whom Herodotus attributes them. They are Greek speeches, full of free Greek discussions, and suggested by the experience, already considerable, of the Greeks in the results of discussion. The age of debate is beginning, and even Herodotus, the least of a wrangler of any man, and the most of a sweet and simple narrator, felt the effect. When we come to Thucydides, the results of discussion are as full as they have ever been; his light is pure, 'dry light,' free from the 'humours' of habit, and purged from consecrated usage. As Grote's history often reads like a report to Parliament, so half Thucydides reads like a speech, or materials for a speech, in the Athenian Assembly."

W. Bagehot, Physics and Politics, pages 170-171.

ATHENS: B. C. 440-437. New settlements of Klerouchoi. The founding of Amphipolis.-- Revolt and subjugation of Samos.

"The great aim of Perikles was to strengthen the power of Athens over the whole area occupied by her confederacy. The establishment of settlers or Klerouchoi [see KLERUCHS]. who retained their rights as Athenian citizens, had answered so well in the Lelantian plain of Euboia that it was obviously good policy to extend the system. The territory of Hestiaia in the north of Euboia and the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and Skyros, were thus occupied; and Perikles himself led a body of settlers to the Thrakian Chersonesos where he repaired the old wall at the neck of the peninsula, and even to Sinope which now became a member of the Athenian alliance. A generation had passed from the time when Athens lost 10,000 citizens in the attempt to found a colony at the mouth of the Strymon. The task was now undertaken successfully by Hagnon, and the city came into existence which was to be the cause of disaster to the historian Thucydides and to witness the death of Brasidas and of Kleon [see AMPHIPOLIS]. ... Two years before the founding of Amphipolis, Samos revolted from Athens. ... In this revolt of Samos the overt action comes from the oligarchs who had seized upon the Ionian town of Priene, and defeated the Milesians who opposed them. The latter appealed to the Athenians, and received not only their aid but that of the Samian demos. The latter now became the ruling body in the island, fifty men and fifty boys being taken from the oligarchic families and placed as hostages in Lemnos, which, as we have seen, was now wholly occupied by Athenian Klerouchoi. But the Samian exiles (for many had fled rather than live under a democracy) entered into covenant with Pissouthnes, the Sardian satrap, crossed over to Samos and seized the chief men of the demos, then falling on Lemnos succeeded in stealing away the hostages; and, having handed over to Pissouthnes the Athenian garrison at Samos, made ready for an expedition against Miletos. The tidings that Byzantion had joined in this last revolt left to the Athenians no room to doubt the gravity of the crisis. A fleet of sixty ships was dispatched to Samos under Perikles and nine other generals, of whom the poet Sophokles is said to have been one. Of these ships sixteen were sent, some to gather the allies, others to watch for the Phenician fleet which they believed to be off the Karian coast advancing to the aid of the Samian oligarchs. With the remainder Perikles did not hesitate to engage the Samian fleet of seventy ships which he encountered on its return from Miletos off the island of Tragia. The Athenians gained the day; and Samos was blockaded by land and sea. But no sooner had Perikles sailed with sixty ships to meet the Phenician fleet, than the Samians, making a vigorous sally, broke the lines of the besiegers and for fourteen days remained masters of the sea. {167} The return of Perikles changed the face of things. Soon after the resumption of the siege the arrival of sixty fresh ships from Athens under five Strategoi in two detachments, with thirty from Chios and Lesbos, damped the energy of the Samian oligarchs; and an unsuccessful effort at sea was followed by their submission in the ninth month after the beginning of the revolt, the terms being that they should raze their walls, give hostages, surrender their ships, and pay the expenses of the war. Following their example, the Byzantines also made their peace with Athens. The Phenician fleet never came. ... The Athenians escaped at the same time a far greater danger nearer home. The Samians, like the men of Thasos, had applied for aid to the Spartans, who, no longer pressed by the Helot war, summoned a congress of their allies to discuss the question. For the truce which had still five-and-twenty years to run Sparta cared nothing: but she encountered an opposition from the Corinthians which perhaps she now scarcely expected. ... The Spartans were compelled to give way; and there can be no doubt that when some years later the Corinthians claimed the gratitude of the Athenians for this decision, they took credit for an act of good service singularly opportune. Had they voted as Sparta wished, Athens might by the extension of revolt amongst her allied cities have been reduced now to the condition to which, in consequence perhaps of this respite, she was not brought until the lifetime of a generation had been spent in desperate warfare."

G. W. Cox, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

ATHENS: B. C. 431. Beginning of the Peloponnesian War. Its Causes.

"In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel between Corinth and Kerkyra, in which Athens assisted Kerkyra. A congress was held at Sparta; Corinth and other States complained of the conduct of Athens, and war was decided on. The real cause of the war was that Sparta and its allies were jealous of the great power that Athens had gained [see GREECE: B. C. 435-132 and 432-431]. A far greater number of Greek States were engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in a single undertaking before. States that had taken no part in the Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other. Sparta was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles everywhere; Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the common people; so that the war was to some extent a struggle between these classes all over Greece, and often within the same city walls the nobles and the people attacked one another, the nobles being for Sparta and the people for Athens. On the side of Sparta, when the war began, there was all Peloponnesus except Argos and Achæa, and also the oligarchical Bœotian League under Thebes besides Phokis, Lokris, and other States west of them. They were very strong by land, but the Corinthians alone had a good fleet. Later on we shall see the powerful State of Syracuse with its navy, acting with Sparta. On the side of Athens there were almost all the Ægæan islands, and a great number of the Ægæan coast towns as well as Kerkyra and certain States in the west of Greece. The Athenians had also made alliance with Sitalkes, the barbarian king of the interior of Thrace. Athens was far stronger by sea than Sparta, but had not such a strong land army. On the other hand it had a large treasure, and a system of taxes, while the Spartan League had little or no money."

C. A. Fyffe, History of Greece (History Primers), page 84.

The Ionian cities, called "allies" of Athens, were subjects in reality, and held in subjection by tyrannical measures which made the yoke odious, as is plainly explained by Xenophon, who says: "Some person might say, that it is a great support to the Athenians that their allies should be in a condition to contribute money to them. To the plebeians, however, it seems to be of much greater advantage that every individual of the Athenians should get some of the property of the allies, and that the allies themselves should have only so much as to enable them to live and to till the ground, so that they may not be in a condition to form conspiracies. The people of Athens seem also to have acted injudiciously in this respect, that they oblige their allies to make voyages to Athens for the decision of their lawsuits. But the Athenians consider only, on the other hand, what benefits to the state of Athens are attendant on this practice; in the first place they receive their dues throughout the year from the prytaneia; in the next place, they manage the government of the allied states while sitting at home, and without sending out ships; they also support suitors of the lower orders, and ruin those of an opposite character in their courts of law; but if each state had its own courts, they would, as being hostile to the Athenians, be the ruin of those who were most favourable to the people of Athens. In addition to these advantages, the Athenian people have the following profits from the courts of justice for the allies being at Athens; first of all the duty of the hundredth on what is landed at the Peiræeus affords a greater revenue to the city; next, whoever has a lodging-house makes more money by it, as well as whoever has cattle or slaves for hire; and the heralds, too, are benefited by the visits of the allies to the city. Besides, if the allies did not come to Athens for law, they would honour only such of the Athenians as were sent over the sea to them, as generals, and captains of vessels, and ambassadors; but now every individual of the allies is obliged to flatter the people of Athens, knowing that on going to Athens he must gain or lose his cause according to the decision, not of other judges, but of the people, as is the law of Athens; and he is compelled, too, to use supplication before the court, and, as anyone of the people enters, to take him by the hand. By these means the allies are in consequence rendered much more the slaves of the Athenian people."

Xenophon, On the Athenian Government (Minor Works, translated by Reverend J. S. Watson), page 235.

The revolt of these coerced and hostile "allies," upon the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, was inevitable.--The prominent events of the Peloponnesian war, in which most of the Greek States were involved, are properly narrated in their connection with Greek history at large (see GREECE: B. C. 431-429, and after). In this place it will only be necessary to take account of the consequences of the war as they affected the remarkable city and people whose superiority had occasioned it by challenging and somewhat offensively provoking the jealousy of their neighbors.

{168}

ATHENS: B. C. 431. Peloponnesian invasions of Attica. Siege of Athens.

"While the Peloponnesians were gathering at the Isthmus, and were still on their way, but before they entered Attica, Pericles, the son of Xanthippus, who was one of the ten Athenian generals, ... repeated [to the Athenians] his previous advice; they must prepare for war and bring their property from the country into the city; they must defend their walls but not go out to battle; they should also equip for service the fleet in which lay their strength. ... The citizens were persuaded, and brought into the city their children and wives, their household goods, and even the wood-work of their houses, which they took down. Their flocks and beasts of burden they conveyed to Euboea and the adjacent islands. The removal of the inhabitants was painful; for the Athenians had always been accustomed to reside in the country. Such a life had been characteristic of them more than of any other Hellenic people, from very early times. ... When they came to Athens, only a few of them had houses or could find homes among friends or kindred. The majority took up their abode in the vacant spaces of the city, and in the temples and shrines of heroes. ... Many also established themselves in the turrets of the walls, or in any other place which they could find; for the city could not contain them when they first came in. But afterwards they divided among them the Long Walls and the greater part of the Piraeus. At the same time the Athenians applied themselves vigorously to the war, summoning their allies, and preparing an expedition of 100 ships against the Peloponnese. While they were thus engaged, the Peloponnesian army was advancing: it arrived first of all at Oenoe," where Archidamus, the Spartan king, wasted much time in a fruitless siege and assault. "At last they marched on, and about the eightieth day after the entry of the Thebans into Plataea, in the middle of the summer, when the corn was in full ear, invaded Attica: ... They encamped and ravaged, first of all, Eleusis and the plain of Thria. ... At Acharnae they encamped, and remained there a considerable time, ravaging the country." It was the expectation of Archidamus that the Athenians would be provoked to come out and meet him in the open field; and that, indeed, they were eager to do; but the prudence of their great leader held them back. "The people were furious with Pericles, and, forgetting all his previous warnings, they abused him for not leading them to battle." But he was vindicated by the result. "The Peloponnesians remained in Attica as long as their provisions lasted, and then, taking a new route, retired through Boeotia. ... On their return to Peloponnesus the troops dispersed to their several cities." Meantime the Athenian and allied fleets were ravaging the Peloponnesian coast. "In the same summer [B. C. 431] the Athenians expelled the Aeginetans and their families from Aegina, alleging that they had been the main cause of the war. ... The Lacedaemonians gave the Aeginetan exiles the town of Thyrea to occupy and the adjoining country to cultivate. ... About the end of the summer the entire Athenian force, including the metics, invaded the territory of Megara. ... After ravaging the greater part of the country they retired. They repeated the invasion, sometimes with cavalry, sometimes with the whole Athenian army, every year during the war until Nisaea was taken [B. C. 424]."

Thucydides, History; translated by B. Jowett, book 2; section 13-31 (volume 1).

ATHENS: B. C. 430. The funeral oration of Pericles.

During the winter of the year B. C. 431-430, "in accordance with an old national custom, the funeral of those who first fell in this war was celebrated by the Athenians at the public charge. The ceremony is as follows: Three days before the celebration they erect a tent in which the bones of the dead are laid out, and everyone brings to his own dead any offering which he pleases. At the time of the funeral the bones are placed in chests of cypress wood, which are conveyed on hearses; there is one chest for each tribe. They also carry a single empty litter decked with a pall for all whose bodies are missing, and cannot be recovered after the battle. The procession is accompanied by anyone who chooses, whether citizen or stranger, and the female relatives of the deceased are present at the place of interment and make lamentation. The public sepulchre is situated in the most beautiful spot outside the walls; there they always bury those who fall in war; only after the battle of Marathon the dead, in recognition of their pre-eminent valour, were interred on the field. When the remains have been laid in the earth, some man of known ability and high reputation, chosen by the city, delivers a suitable oration over them; after which the people depart. Such is the manner of interment; and the ceremony was repeated from time to time throughout the war. Over those who were the first buried Pericles was chosen to speak. At the fitting moment he advanced from the sepulchre to a lofty stage, which had been erected in order that he might be heard as far as possible by the multitude, and spoke as follows:

'Most of those who have spoken here before me have commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other funeral customs; it seemed to them a worthy thing that such an honour should be given at their burial to the dead who have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they should be honoured in deed only, and with such an honour as this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the reputation of many would not have been imperilled on the eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even moderation is apt not to give the impression of truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration. Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice, I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavour to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me. I will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and becoming that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by their valour they have handed down from generation to generation, and we have received from them a free state. {169} But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our fathers who added to their inheritance, and after many a struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire. And we ourselves assembled here to-day, who are still most of us in the vigour of life, have chiefly done the work of improvement, and have richly endowed our city with all things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace and war. Of the military exploits by which our various possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should like to point out by what principles of action we rose to power, and under what institutions and through what manner of life our empire became great. For I conceive, that such thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably listen to them. Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our neighbours, but are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognised; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private intercourse we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbour if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private intercourse, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for authority and for the laws, having an especial regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as to those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment. And we have not forgotten to provide for our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; at home the style of our life is refined; and the delight which we daily feel in all these things helps to banish melancholy. Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as freely as of our own. Then, again, our military training is in many respects superior to that of our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, and we never expel a foreigner or prevent him from seeing or learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the matter of education, whereas they from early youth are always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to face the Lacedaemonians come into Attica not by themselves, but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone into a neighbour's country; and although our opponents are fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil we have seldom any difficulty in overcoming them. Our enemies have never yet felt our united strength; the care of a navy divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and defeat a part of our army, are as proud as if they had routed us all, and when defeated they pretend to have been vanquished by us all. If then we prefer to meet danger with a light heart but without laborious training, and with a courage which is gained by habit and not enforced by law, are we not greatly the gainers? Since we do not anticipate the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as brave as those who never allow themselves to rest; and thus too our city is equally admirable in peace and in war. For we are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we employ, not for talk and ostentation, but when there is a real use for it. To avow poverty with us is no disgrace; the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid it. An Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he takes care of his own household; and even those of us who are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics. We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character; and if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a policy. The great impediment to action is, in our opinion, not discussion, but the want of that knowledge which is gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act and of acting too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection. And they are surely to be esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that account shrink from danger. In doing good, again, we are unlike others; we make our friends by conferring, not by receiving favours. Now he who confers a favour is the firmer friend, because he would fain by kindness keep alive the memory of an obligation; but the recipient is colder in his feelings, because he knows that in requiting another's generosity he will not be winning gratitude but only paying a debt. We alone do good to our neighbours not upon a calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom and in a frank and fearless spirit. To sum up; I say that Athens is the school of Hellas, and that the individual Athenian in his own person seems to have the power of adapting himself to the most varied forms of action with the utmost versatility and grace. This is no passing and idle word, but truth and fact; and the assertion is verified by the position to which these qualities have raised the state. For in the hour of trial Athens alone among her contemporaries is superior to the report of her. No enemy who comes against her is indignant at the reverses which he sustains at the hands of such a city; no subject complains that his masters are unworthy of him. And we shall assuredly not be without witnesses; there are mighty monuments of our power which will make us the wonder of this and of succeeding ages; we shall not need the praises of Homer or of any other panegyrist whose poetry may please for the moment, although his representation of the facts will not bear the light of day. {170} For we have compelled every land and every sea to open a path for our valour, and have everywhere planted eternal memorials of our friendship and of our enmity. Such is the city for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they could not bear the thought that she might be taken from them; and everyone of us who survive should gladly toil on her behalf. I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens because I want to show you that we are contending for a higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges, and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious. And of how few Hellenes can it be said as of them, that their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found equal to their fame! Methinks that a death such as theirs has been gives the true measure of a man's worth; it may be the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate their final seal. For even those who come short in other ways may justly plead the valour with which they have fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil with the good, and have benefited the state more by their public services than they have injured her by their private actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be honourably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer, rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from the word of dishonour, but on the battle-field their feet stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their fear, but of their glory. Such was the end of these men; they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire to have a more heroic spirit although they may pray for a less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be expressed in words. Anyone can discourse to you for ever about the advantages of a brave defence which you know already. But instead of listening to him I would have you day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens, until you become filled with the love of her; and when you are impressed by the spectacle of her glory reflect that this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it; who in the hour of conflict had the fear of dishonour always present to them, and who, if ever they failed in an enterprize, would not allow their virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their lives to her as the fairest offering which they could present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively made was individually repaid to them; for they received again each one for himself a praise which grows not old, and the noblest of all sepulchres--I speak not of that in which their remains are laid, but of that in which their glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every fitting occasion both in word and deed. For the whole earth is the sepulchre of famous men; not only are they commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the hearts of men. Make them your examples, and esteeming courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate who has no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw away his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is always liable to a change for the worse, and to whom any accidental fall makes the most serious difference. To a man of spirit, cowardice and disaster coming together are far more bitter than death striking him unperceived at a time when he is full of courage and animated by the general hope. Wherefore I do not now commiserate the parents of the dead who stand here; I would rather comfort them. You know that your life has been passed amid manifold vicissitudes; and that they may be deemed fortunate who have gained most honour, whether an honourable death like theirs, or an honourable sorrow like yours, and whose days have been so ordered that the term of their happiness is likewise the term of their life. I know how hard it is to make you feel this, when the good fortune of others will too often remind you of the gladness which once lightened your hearts. And sorrow is felt at the want of those blessings, not which a man never knew, but which were a part of his life before they were taken from him. Some of you are of an age at which they may hope to have other children, and they ought to bear their sorrow better; not only will the children who may hereafter be born make them forget their own lost ones, but the city will be doubly a gainer. She will not be left desolate, and she will be safer. For a man's counsel cannot have equal weight or worth, when he alone has no children to risk in the general danger. To those of you who have passed their prime I say: "Congratulate yourselves that you have been happy during the greater part of those days; remember that your life of sorrow will not last long, and be comforted by the glory of those who are gone. For the love of honour alone is ever young, and not riches, as some say, but honour is the delight of men when they are old and useless." To you who are the sons and brothers of the departed, I see that the struggle to emulate them will be an arduous one. For all men praise the dead, and, however pre-eminent your virtue may be, hardly will you be thought, I do not say to equal, but even to approach them. The living have their rivals and detractors, but when a man is out of the way, the honour and good-will which he receives is unalloyed. And, if I am to speak of womanly virtues to those of you who will henceforth be widows, let me sum them up in one short admonition: To a woman not to show more weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and not to be talked about for good or for evil among men. I have paid the required tribute, in obedience to the law, making use of such fitting words as I had. The tribute of deeds has been paid in part; for the dead have been honourably interred, and it remains only that their children should be maintained at the public charge until they are grown up: this is the solid prize with which, as with a garland, Athens crowns her sons living and dead, after a struggle like theirs. For where the rewards of virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are enlisted in the service of the state. And now, when you have duly lamented, everyone his own dead, you may depart.'

Such was the order of the funeral celebrated in this winter, with the end of which ended the first year of the Peloponnesian War."

Thucydides, History, translated by B. Jowett, volume 1, book 2, section 34-47.

{171}

ATHENS: B. C. 130-429. The Plague in the city. Death of Pericles. Capture of Potidæa.

"As soon as the summer returned [B. C. 430] the Peloponnesians ... invaded Attica, where they established themselves and ravaged the country. They had not been there many days when the plague broke out at Athens for the first time. ... The disease is said to have begun south of Egypt in Æthiopia; thence it descended into Egypt and Libya, and after spreading over the greater part of the Persian Empire, suddenly fell upon Athens. It first attacked the inhabitants of the Piæeus, and it was supposed that the Peloponnesians had poisoned the cisterns, no conduits having as yet been made there. It afterwards reached the upper city, and then the mortality became far greater. As to its probable origin or the causes which might or could have produced such a disturbance of nature, every man, whether a physician or not, will give his own opinion. But I shall describe its actual course, and the symptoms by which anyone who knows them beforehand may recognize the disorder should it ever reappear. For I was myself attacked, and witnessed the sufferings of others. The season was admitted to have been remarkably free from ordinary sickness; and if anybody was already ill of any other disease, it was absorbed in this. Many who were in perfect health, all in a moment, and without any apparent reason, were seized with violent heats in the head and with redness and inflammation of the eyes. Internally the throat and tongue were quickly suffused with blood and the breath became unnatural and fetid. There followed sneezing and hoarseness; in a short time the disorder, accompanied by a violent cough, reached the chest; then fastening lower down, it would move the stomach and bring on all the vomits of bile to which physicians have ever given names; and they were very distressing. ... The body externally was not so very hot to the touch, nor yet pale; it was a livid colour inclining to red, and breaking out in pustules and ulcers. But the internal fever was intense. ... The disorder which had originally settled in the head passed gradually through the whole body, and, if a person got over the worst, would often seize the extremities and leave its mark, attacking the privy parts and the fingers and toes; and some escaped with the loss of these, some with the loss of their eyes. ... The crowding of the people out of the country into the city aggravated the misery; and the newly-arrived suffered most. ... The mortality among them was dreadful and they perished in wild disorder. The dead lay as they had died, one upon another, while others hardly alive wallowed in the streets and crawled about every fountain craving for water. The temples in which they lodged were full of the corpses of those who died in them; for the violence of the calamity was such that men, not knowing where to turn, grew reckless of all law, human and divine. ... The pleasure of the moment and any sort of thing which conduced to it took the place both of honour and of expediency. No fear of God or law of man deterred a criminal." Terrified by the plague, when they learned of it, the Peloponnesians retreated from Attica, after ravaging it for forty days; but, in the meantime, their own coasts had been ravaged, as before, by the Athenian fleet. And now, being once more relieved from the presence of the enemy, though still grievously afflicted by the plague, the Athenians turned upon Pericles with complaints and reproaches, and imposed a fine upon him. They also sent envoys to Sparta, with peace proposals which received no encouragement. But Pericles spoke calmly and wisely to the people, and they acknowledged their sense of dependence upon him by re-electing him general and committing again "all their affairs to his charge." But he was stricken next year with the plague, and, lingering for some weeks in broken health, he died in the summer of 429 B. C. By his death the republic was given over to striving demagogues and factions, at just the time when a capable brain and hand were needed in its government most. The war went on, acquiring more ferocity of temper with every campaign. It was especially embittered in the course of the second summer by the execution, at Athens, of several Lacedaemonian envoys who were captured while on their way to solicit help from the Persian king. One of these unfortunate envoys was Aristeus, who had organized the defence of Potidaea. That city was still holding out against the Athenians, who blockaded it obstinately, although their troops suffered frightfully from the plague. But in the winter of 430-429 B. C. they succumbed to starvation and surrendered their town, being permitted to depart in search of a new home. Potidaea was then peopled anew, with colonists.

Thucydides, History, translated by Jowett, book 2, section 8-70.

ALSO IN: E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens, chapter 13-15.

W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles, chapter 64 (volume 2).

L. Whibley, Political Parties in Athens during the Peloponnesian War.

W. Wachsmuth, History Antiquities of the Greeks, sections 62-64 (volume 2).

ATHENS: B. C. 429-421. After Pericles. The rise of the Demagogues.

"When Pericles rose to power it would have been possible to frame a Pan-Hellenic union, in which Sparta and Athens would have been the leading states; and such a dualism would have been the best guarantee for the rights of the smaller cities. When he died there was no policy left but war with Sparta, and conquest in the West. And not only so, but there was no politician who could adjust the relations of domestic war and foreign conquest. The Athenians passed from one to the other, as they were addressed by Cleon or Alcibiades. We cannot wonder that the men who lived in those days of trouble spoke bitterly of Pericles, holding him accountable for the miseries which fell upon Athens. Other statesmen had bequeathed good laws, as Solon and Clisthenes, or the memory of great achievements, as Themistocles or Cimon, but the only changes which Pericles had introduced were thought, not without reason, to be changes for the worse; and he left his country involved in a ruinous war.".

E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens, pages 362-363.

{172}

"The moral change which had ... befallen the Attic community had, it is true, even during the lifetime of Pericles, manifested itself by means of sufficiently clear premonitory signs; but Pericles had, notwithstanding, up to the days of his last illness, remained the centre of the state; the people had again and again returned to him, and by subordinating themselves to the personal authority of Pericles had succeeded in recovering the demeanor which befitted them. But now the voice was hushed, which had been able to sway the unruly citizens, even against their will. No other authority was in existence--no aristocracy, no official class, no board of experienced statesmen--nothing, in fact, to which the citizens might have looked for guidance and control. The multitude had recovered absolute independence, and in proportion as, in the interval, readiness of speech and sophistic versatility had spread in Athens, the number had increased of those who now put themselves forward as popular speakers and leaders. But as, among all these, none was capable of leading the multitude after the fashion of Pericles, another method of leading the people, another kind of demagogy, sprung into existence. Pericles stood above the multitude. ... His successors were obliged to adopt other means; in order to acquire influence, they took advantage not so much of the strong as of the weak points in the character of the citizens, and achieved popularity by flattering their inclinations, and endeavoring to satisfy the cravings of their baser nature. ... Now for the first time, men belonging to the lower class of citizens thrust themselves forward to play a part in politics,--men of the trading and artisan class, the culture and wealth of which had so vigorously increased at Athens. ... The office of general frequently became a post of martyrdom; and the bravest men felt that the prospect of being called to account as to their campaigns by cowardly demagogues, before a capricious multitude, disturbed the straightforward joyousness of their activity, and threw obstacles in the way of their successes. ... On the orators' tribune the contrast was more striking. Here the first prominent successor of Pericles was a certain Eucrates, a rude and uneducated man, who was ridiculed on the comic stage as the 'boar' or 'bear of Melite' (the name of the district to which he belonged), a dealer in tow and mill-owner, who only for a short space of time took the lead in the popular assembly. His place was taken by Lysicles, who had acquired wealth by the cattle-trade. ... It was not until after Lysicles, that the demagogues attained to power who had first made themselves a name by their opposition against Pericles, and, among them, Cleon was the first who was able to maintain his authority for a longer period of time; so that it is in his proceedings during the ensuing years of the war that the whole character of the new demagogy first thoroughly manifests itself."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, volume 3, chapter 2.

"The characters of the military commander and the political leader were gradually separated. The first germs of this division we find in the days of Kimôn and Periklês. Kimôn was no mean politician; but his real genius clearly called him to warfare with the Barbarian. Periklês was an able and successful general; but in him the military character was quite subordinate to that of the political leader. It was a wise compromise which entrusted Kimôn with the defence of the state abroad and Periklês with its management at home. After Periklês the separation widened. We nowhere hear of Dêmosthenes and Phormiôn as political leaders; and even in Nikias the political is subordinate to the military character. Kleôn, on the other hand, was a politician but not a soldier. But the old notion of combining military and political position was not quite lost. It was still deemed that he who proposed a warlike expedition should himself, if it were needful, be able to conduct it. Kleôn in an evil hour was tempted to take on himself military functions; he was forced into command against Sphaktêria; by the able and loyal help of Dêmosthenês he acquitted himself with honour. But his head was turned by success; he aspired to independent command; he measured himself against the mighty Brasidas; and the fatal battle of Amphipolis was the result. It now became clear that the Demagogue and the General must commonly be two distinct persons. The versatile genius of Alkibiadês again united the two characters; but he left no successor. ... A Demagogue then was simply an influential speaker of popular politics. Dêmosthenês is commonly distinguished as an orator, while Kleôn is branded as a Demagogue; but the position of the one was the same as the position of the other. The only question is as to the wisdom and honesty of the advice given either by Kleôn or by Dêmosthenês."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays, 2d ser., pages 138-140.

ATHENS: B. C. 429-427. Fate of Platæa. Phormio's Victories. Revolt of Lesbos. Siege of Mitylene. Cleon's bloody decree and its reversal.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

ATHENS: B. C. 425. Seizure of Pylus by Demosthenes, the general. Spartans entrapped and captured at Sphacteria. Peace pleaded for and refused.

See GREECE: B. C. 425.

ATHENS: B. C. 424-406. Socrates as soldier and citizen. The trial of the Generals.

"Socrates was born very shortly before the year 469 B. C. His father, Sophroniscus, was a sculptor, his mother, Phænarete, a midwife. Nothing definite is known of his moral and intellectual development. There is no specific record of him at all until he served at the siege of Potidæa (432 B. C.-429 B. C.) when he was nearly forty years old. All that we can say is that his youth and manhood were passed in the most splendid period of Athenian or Greek history. ... As a boy he received the usual Athenian liberal education, in music and gymnastic, an education, that is to say, mental and physical. He was fond of quoting from the existing Greek literature, and he seems to have been familiar with it, especially with Homer. He is represented by Xenophon as repeating Prodieus' fable of the choice of Heracles at length. He says that he was in the habit of studying with his friends 'the treasures which the wise men of old have left us in their books:' collections, that is, of the short and pithy sayings of the seven sages, such as 'know thyself'; a saying, it may be noticed, which lay at the root of his whole teaching. And he had some knowledge of mathematics, and of science, as it existed in those days. He understood something of astronomy and of advanced geometry; and he was acquainted with certain, at any rate, of the theories of his predecessors in philosophy, the Physical or Cosmical philosophers, such as Heraclitus and Parmenides, and, especially, with those of Anaxagoras. {173} But there is no trustworthy evidence which enables us to go beyond the bare fact that he had such knowledge. ... All then that we can say of the first forty years of Socrates' life consists of general statements like these. During these years there is no specific record of him. Between 432 B. C. and 429 B. C. he served as a common soldier at the siege of Potidæa, an Athenian dependency which had revolted, and surpassed everyone in his powers of enduring hunger, thirst, and cold, and all the hardships of a severe Thracian winter. At this siege we hear of him for the first time in connection with Alcibiades, whose life he saved in a skirmish, and to whom he eagerly relinquished the prize of valour. In 431 B. C. the Peloponnesian War broke out, and in 424 B. C. the Athenians were disastrously defeated and routed by the Thebans at the battle of Delium. Socrates and Laches were among the few who did not yield to panic. They retreated together steadily, and the resolute bearing of Socrates was conspicuous to friend and foe alike. Had all the Athenians behaved as he did, says Laches, in the dialogue of that name, the defeat would have been a victory. Socrates fought bravely a third time at the battle of Amphipolis [422 B. C.] against the Peloponnesian forces, in which the commanders on both sides, Cleon and Brasidas, were killed: but there is no record of his specific services on that occasion. About the same time that Socrates was displaying conspicuous courage in the cause of Athens at Delium and Amphipolis, Aristophanes was holding him up to hatred, contempt, and ridicule in the comedy of the Clouds [13. C. 423]. ... The Clouds is his protest against the immorality of free thought and the Sophists. He chose Socrates for his central figure, chiefly, no doubt, on account of Socrates' well-known and strange personal appearance. The grotesque ugliness, and flat nose, and prominent eyes, and Silenus-like face, and shabby dress, might be seen every day in the streets, and were familiar to every Athenian. Aristophanes cared little--probably he did not take the trouble to find out--that Socrates' whole life was spent in fighting against the Sophists. It was enough for him that Socrates did not accept the traditional beliefs, and was a good centre-piece for a comedy. ... The Clouds, it is needless to say, is a gross and absurd libel from beginning to end: but Aristophanes hit the popular conception. The charges which he made in 423 B. C. stuck to Socrates to the end of his life. They are exactly the charges made by popular prejudice, against which Socrates defends himself in the first ten chapters of the Apology, and which he says have been so long 'in the air.' He formulates them as follows: 'Socrates is an evil doer who busies himself with investigating things beneath the earth and in the sky, and who makes the worse appear the better reason, and who teaches others these same things.' ... For sixteen years after the battle of Amphipolis we hear nothing of Socrates. The next events in his life, of which there is a specific record, are those narrated by himself in the twentieth chapter of the Apology. They illustrate, as he meant them to illustrate, his invincible moral courage. ... In 406 B. C. the Athenian fleet defeated the Lacedæmonians at the battle of Arginusæ, so called from some small islands off the south-east point of Lesbos. After the battle the Athenian commanders omitted to recover the bodies of their dead, and to save the living from off their disabled enemies. The Athenians at home, on hearing of this, were furious. The due performance of funeral rites was a very sacred duty with the Greeks; and many citizens mourned for friends and relatives who had been left to drown. The commanders were immediately recalled, and an assembly was held in which they were accused of neglect of duty. They defended themselves by saying that they had ordered certain inferior officers (amongst others, their accuser Theramenes) to perform the duty, but that a storm had come on which had rendered the performance impossible. The debate was adjourned, and it was resolved that the Senate should decide in what way the commanders should be tried. The Senate resolved that the Athenian people, having heard the accusation and the defence, should proceed to vote forthwith for the acquittal or condemnation of the eight commanders collectively. The resolution was grossly unjust, and it was illegal. It substituted a popular vote for a fair and formal trial. ... Socrates was at that time a member of the Senate, the only office that he ever filled. The Senate was composed of five hundred citizens, elected by lot, fifty from each of the ten tribes, and holding office for one year. The members of each tribe held the Prytany, that is, were responsible for the conduct of business, for thirty-five days at a time, and ten out of the fifty were proedri or presidents every seven days in succession. Every bill or motion was examined by the proedri before it was submitted to the Assembly, to see if it were in accordance with law; if it was not, it was quashed: one of the proedri presided over the Senate and the Assembly each day, and for one day only: he was called the Epistates: it was his duty to put the question to the vote. In short he was the speaker. ... On the day on which it was proposed to take a collective vote on the acquittal or condemnation of the eight commanders, Socrates was Epistates. The proposal was, as we have seen, illegal: but the people were furious against the accused, and it was a very popular one. Some of the proedri opposed it before it was submitted to the Assembly, on the ground of its illegality; but they were silenced by threats and subsided. Socrates alone refused to give way. He would not put a question which he knew to be illegal, to the vote. Threats of suspension and arrest, the clamour of an angry people, the fear of imprisonment or death, could not move him. ... But his authority lasted only for a day; the proceedings were adjourned, a more pliant Epistates succeeded him, and the generals were condemned and executed."

F. J. Church, Introduction to Trial and Death of Socrates, pages 9-23.

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 406.

{174}

ATHENS: B. C. 421. End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War. The Peace of Nicias.

"The first stage of the Peloponnesian war came to an end just ten years after the invasion of Attica by Archidamus in 431 B. C. Its results had been almost purely negative; a vast quantity of blood and treasure had been wasted on each side, but to no great purpose. The Athenian naval power was unimpaired, and the confederacy of Delos, though shaken by the successful revolt of Amphipolis and the Thraceward towns, was still left subsisting. On the other hand, the attempts of Athens to accomplish anything on land had entirely failed, and the defensive policy of Pericles had been so far justified. Well would it have been for Athens if her citizens had taken the lesson to heart, and contented themselves with having escaped so easily from the greatest war they had ever known."

C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, page 341.

"The treaty called since ancient times the Peace of Nicias ... put an end to the war between the two Greek confederations of states, after it had lasted for rather more than ten years, viz., from the attack of the Bœotians upon Platææ, Ol. lxxxvii. 1 (beginning of April B. C. 431) to Ol. lxxxix. 3 (towards the middle of April B. C. 421). The war was for this reason known under the name of the Ten Years' War, while the Peloponnesians called it the Attic War. Its end constituted a triumph for Athens; for all the plans of the enemies who had attacked her had come to naught; Sparta had been unable to fulfil a single one of the promises with which she had entered upon the war, and was ultimately forced to acknowledge the dominion of Athens in its whole extent,--notwithstanding all the mistakes and misgivings, notwithstanding all the calamities attributable, or not, to the Athenians themselves: the resources of offence and defence which the city owed to Pericles had therefore proved their excellence, and all the fury of her opponents had wasted itself against her in vain. Sparta herself was satisfied with the advantages which the peace offered to her own city and citizens; but great was the discontent among her confederates, particularly among the secondary states, who had originally occasioned the war and obliged Sparta to take part in it. Even after the conclusion of the peace, it was impossible to induce Thebes and Corinth to accede to it. The result of the war to Sparta was therefore the dissolution of the confederation at whose head she had begun the war; she felt herself thereby placed in so dangerously isolated a position, that she was obliged to fall back upon Athens in self-defence against her own confederates. Accordingly the Peace of Nicias was in the course of the same year converted into a fifty years' alliance, under the terms of which Sparta and Athens contracted the obligation of mutual assistance against any hostile attack."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3).

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

ATHENS: B. C. 421-418. New combinations. Conflicting alliances with Sparta and the Argive Confederacy. Rising influence of Alcibiades. War in Argos and Arcadia. Battle of Mantinea.

See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

ATHENS: B. C. 416. Siege and conquest of Melos. Massacre of the inhabitants.

See GREECE: B. C. 416.

ATHENS: B. C. 415. The expedition against Syracuse. Mutilation of the Hermæ (Hermai).

A quarrel having broken out in Sicily, between the cities of Segesta and Selinous, "the latter obtained aid from Syracuse. Upon this, Segesta, having vainly sought help from Carthage, appealed to Athens, where the exiled Sicilians were numerous. Alkibiades had been one of the most urgent for the attack upon Melos, and he did not lose the present opportunity to incite the Athenians to an enterprise of much greater importance, and where he hoped to be in command. ... All men's minds were filled with ambitious hopes. Everywhere, says Plutarch, were to be seen young men in the gymnasia, old men in workshops and public places of meeting, drawing the map of Sicily, talking about the sea that surrounds it, the goodness of its harbors, its position opposite Africa. Established there, it would be easy to cross over and subjugate Carthage, and extend their sway as far as the Pillars of Hercules. The rich did not approve of this rashness, but feared if they opposed it that the opposite faction would accuse them of wishing to avoid the service and costs of arming galleys. Nikias had more courage; even after the Athenians had appointed him general, with Alkibiades and Lamachos, he spoke publicly against the enterprise, showed the imprudence of going in search of new subjects when those they already had were at the moment in a state of revolt, as in Chalkidike, or only waited for a disaster to break the chain which bound them to Athens. He ended by reproaching Alkibiades for plunging the republic, to gratify his personal ambition, into a foreign war of the greatest danger. ... One of the demagogues, however, replied that he would put an end to all this hesitation, and he proposed and secured the passage of a decree giving the generals full power to use all the resources of the city in preparing for the expedition (March 24, 415 B. C.) Nikias was completely in the right. The expedition to Sicily was impolitic and foolish. In the Ægæan Sea lay the empire of Athens, and there only it could lie, within reach, close at hand. Every acquisition westward of the Peloponnesos was a source of weakness. Syracuse, even if conquered, would not long remain subject. Whatever might be the result of the expedition, it was sure to be disastrous in the end. ... An event which took place shortly before the departure of the fleet (8-9 June) threw terror into the city: one morning the hermai throughout the city were seen to have been mutilated. ... 'These Hermæ, or half-statues of the god Hermês, were blocks of marble about the height of the human figure. The upper part was cut into a head, face, neck and bust; the lower part was left as a quadrangular pillar, broad at the base, without arms, body, or legs, but with the significant mark of the male sex in front. They were distributed in great numbers throughout Athens, and always in the most conspicuous situations; standing beside the outer doors of private houses as well as of temples, near the most frequented porticos, at the intersection of cross ways, in the public agora. ... The religious feelings of the Greeks considered the god to be planted or domiciled where his statue stood, so that the companionship, sympathy, and guardianship of Hermês became associated with most of the manifestations of conjunct life at Athens,--political, social, commercial, or gymnastic.' ... To all pious minds the city seemed menaced with great misfortunes unless the anger of Heaven should be appeased by a sufficient expiation. {175} While Alkibiades had many partisans, he had also violent enemies. Not long before this time Hyperbolos, a contemptible man, had almost succeeded in obtaining his banishment; and he had escaped this danger only by uniting his party with that of Nikias, and causing the demagogue himself to suffer ostracism. The affair of the hermai appeared to his adversaries a favourable occasion to repeat the attempt made by Hyperbolos, and we have good reason to believe in a political machination, seeing this same populace applaud, a few months later, the impious audacity of Aristophanes in his comedy of The Birds. An inquiry was set on foot, and certain metoikoi and slaves, without making any deposition as to the hermai, recalled to mind that before this time some of these statues had been broken by young men after a night of carousal and intoxication, thus indirectly attacking Alkibiades. Others in set terms accused him of having at a banquet parodied the Eleusinian Mysteries; and men took advantage of the superstitious terrors of the people to awake their political anxieties. It was repeated that the breakers of sacred statues, the profaners of mysteries, would respect the government even less than they had respected the gods, and it was whispered that not one of these crimes had been committed without the participation of Alkibiades; and in proof of this men spoke of the truly aristocratic license of his life. Was he indeed the author of this sacrilegious freak? To believe him capable of it would not be to calumniate him. Or, on the other hand, was it a scheme planned to do him injury? Although proofs are lacking, it is certain that among the rich, upon whom rested the heavy burden of the naval expenses, a plot had been formed to destroy the power of Alkibiades, and perhaps to prevent the sailing of the fleet. The demagogues, who had intoxicated the people with hope, were for the expedition; but the popularity of Alkibiades was obnoxious to them: a compromise was made between the two factions, as is often done in times when public morality is enfeebled, and Alkibiades found himself threatened on all sides. ... Urging as a pretext the dangers of delay in sending off the expedition, they obtained a decree that Alkibiades should embark at once; and that the question of his guilt or innocence should be postponed until after his return. It was now the middle of summer. The day appointed for departure, the whole city, citizens and foreigners, went out to Peiraieus at daybreak. ... At that moment the view was clearer as to the doubts and dangers, and also the distance of the expedition; but all eyes were drawn to the immense preparations that had been made, and confidence and pride consoled those who were about to part."

V. Duruy, History of the Greek People, chapter 25, section 2 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: Thucydides, History, book 6, section 27-28.

G. W. Cox, The Athenian Empire, chapter 5.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 58 (volume 7).

ATHENS: B. C. 415-413. Fatal end of the expedition against Syracuse.

"Alkibiades was called back to Athens, to take his trial on a charge of impiety. ... He did not go back to Athens for his trial, but escaped to Peloponnesos, where we shall hear from him again. Meanwhile the command of the Athenian force in Sicily was left practically in the hands of Nikias. Now Nikias could always act well when he did act; but it was very hard to make him act; above all on an errand which he hated. One might say that Syracuse was saved through the delays of Nikias. He now went off to petty expeditions in the west of Sicily, under cover of settling matters at Segesta. ... The Syracusans by this time quite despised the invaders. Their horsemen rode up to the camp of the Athenians at Katanê, and asked them if they had come into Sicily merely to sit down there as colonists. ... The winter (B. C. 415-414) was chiefly spent on both sides in sending embassies to and fro to gain allies. Nikias also sent home to Athens, asking for horsemen and money, and the people, without a word of rebuke, voted him all that he asked. ... But the most important embassy of all was that which the Syracusans sent to Corinth and Sparta. Corinth zealously took up the cause of her colony and pleaded for Syracuse at Sparta. And at Sparta Corinth and Syracuse found a helper in the banished Athenian Alkibiadês, who was now doing all that he could against Athens. ... He told the Spartans to occupy a fortress in Attica, which they soon afterwards did, and a great deal came of it. But he also told them to give vigorous help to Syracuse, and above all things to send a Spartan commander. The mere name of Sparta went for a great deal in those days; but no man could have been better chosen than the Spartan who was sent. He was Gylippos, the deliverer of Syracuse. He was more like an Athenian than a Spartan, quick and ready of resource, which few Spartans were. ... And now at last, when the spring came (414) Nikias was driven to do something. ... The Athenians ... occupied all that part of the hill which lay outside the walls of Syracuse. They were joined by their horsemen, Greek and Sikel, and after nearly a year, the siege of Syracuse really began. The object of the Athenians now was to build a wall across the hill and to carry it down to the sea on both sides. Syracuse would thus be hemmed in. The object of the Syracusans was to build a cross-wall of their own, which should hinder the Athenian wall from reaching the two points it aimed at; This they tried more than once; but in vain. There were several fights on the hill, and at last there was a fight of more importance on the lower ground by the Great Harbour. ... The Syracusans were defeated, as far as fighting went; but they gained far more than they lost. For Lamachos was killed, and with him all vigour passed away from the Athenian camp. At the same moment the Athenian fleet sailed into the Great Harbour, and a Syracusan attack on the Athenian works on the hill was defeated. Nikias remained in command of the invaders; but he was grievously sick, and for once in his life his head seems to have been turned by success. He finished the wall on the south side; but he neglected to finish it on the north side also, so that Syracuse was not really hemmed in. But the hearts of the Syracusans sank. ... It was at this darkest moment of all that deliverance came. ... A Corinthian ship, under its captain Gongylos, sailed into the Little Harbour. He brought the news that other ships were on their way from Peloponnesos to the help of Syracuse, and, yet more, that a Spartan general was actually in Sicily, getting together a land force for the same end. As soon as the good news was heard, there was no more talk of surrender. ... And one day the Athenian camp was startled by the appearance of a Lacedæmonian herald, offering them a truce of five days, that they might get them out of Sicily with bag and baggage. {176} Gylippos was now on the hill. He of course did not expect that the Athenian army would really go away in five days. But it was a great thing to show both to the besiegers and to the Syracusans that the deliverer had come, and that deliverance was beginning. Nikias had kept such bad watch that Gylippos and his troops had come up the hill and the Syracusans had come out and met them, without his knowledge. The Spartan, as a matter of course, took the command of the whole force; he offered battle to the Athenians, which they refused; he then entered the city. The very next day he began to carry out his scheme. This was to build a group of forts near the western end of the hill, and to join them to the city by a wall running east and west, which would hinder the Athenians from ever finishing their wall to the north. Each side went on building, and some small actions took place. ... Another winter (B. C. 414-413) now came on, and with it much sending of envoys. Gylippos went about Sicily collecting fresh troops. ... Meanwhile Nikias wrote a letter to the Athenian people. ... This letter came at a time when the Lacedæmonian alliance had determined to renew the war with Athens, and when they were making everything ready for an invasion of Attica. To send out a new force to Sicily was simple madness. We hear nothing of the debates in the Athenian assembly, whether anyone argued against going on with the Sicilian war, and whether any demagogue laid any blame on Nikias. But the assembly voted that a new force equal to the first should be sent out under Dêmosthenês, the best soldier in Athens, and Eurymedon. ... Meanwhile the Syracusans were strengthened by help both in Sicily and from Peloponnesos. Their main object now was to strike a blow at the fleet of Nikias before the new force came. ... It had been just when the Syracusans were most downcast that they were cheered by the coming of the Corinthians and of Gylippos. And just now that their spirits were highest, they were dashed again by the coming of Dêmosthenês and Eurymedon. A fleet as great as the first, seventy-five ships, carrying 5,000 heavy-armed and a crowd of light troops of every kind, sailed into the Great Harbour with all warlike pomp. The Peloponnesians were already in Attica; they had planted a Peloponnesian garrison there, which brought Athens to great straits; but the fleet was sent out to Syracuse all the same. Dêmosthenês knew what to do as well as Lamachos had known. He saw that there was nothing to be done but to try one great blow, and, if that failed, to take the fleet home again. ... The attack was at first successful, and the Athenians took two of the Syracusan forts. But the Thespian allies of Syracuse stood their ground, and drove the assailants back. Utter confusion followed. ... The last chance was now lost, and Dêmosthenês was eager to go home. But Nikias would stay on. ... When sickness grew in the camp, when fresh help from Sicily and the great body of the allies from Peloponnesos came into Syracuse, he at last agreed to go. Just at that moment the moon was eclipsed. ... Nikias consulted his soothsayers, and he gave out that they must stay twenty-nine days, another full revolution of the moon. This resolve was the destruction of the besieging army. ... It was felt on both sides that all would turn on one more fight by sea, the Athenians striving to get out of the harbour, and the Syracusans striving to keep them in it. The Syracusans now blocked up the mouth of the harbour by mooring vessels across it. The Athenians left their position on the hill, a sign that the siege was over, and brought their whole force down to the shore. It was no time now for any skillful manoeuvres; the chief thing was to make the sea-fight as much as might be like a land-fight, a strange need for Athenians. ... The last fight now began, 110 Athenian ships against 80 of the Syracusans and their allies. Never before did so many ships meet in so small a space. ... The fight was long and confused; at last the Athenians gave way and fled to the shore. The battle and the invasion were over. Syracuse was not only saved; she had begun to take vengeance on her enemies. ... The Athenians waited one day, and then set out, hoping to make their way to some safe place among the friendly Sikels in the inland country. The sick had to be left behind. ... On the sixth day, after frightful toil, they determined to change their course. ... They set out in two divisions, that of Nikias going first. Much better order was kept in the front division and by the time Nikias reached the river, Dêmosthenês was six miles behind. ... In the morning a Syracusan force came up with the frightful news that the whole division of Dêmosthenês were prisoners. ... The Athenians tried in vain to escape in the night. The next morning they set out, harassed as before, and driven wild by intolerable thirst. They at last reached the river Assinaros, which runs by the present town of Noto. There was the end. ... The Athenians were so maddened by thirst that, though men were falling under darts and the water was getting muddy and bloody, they thought of nothing but drinking. ... No further terms were made; most of the horsemen contrived to cut their way out; the rest were made prisoners. Most of them were embezzled by Syracusans as their private slaves; but about 7,000 men out of the two divisions were led prisoners into Syracuse. They were shut up in the stone-quarries, with no further heed than to give each man daily half a slave's allowance of food and drink. Many died; many were sold; some escaped, or were set free; the rest were after a while taken out of the quarries and set to work. The generals had made no terms for themselves. Hermokratês wished to keep them as hostages against future Athenian attempts against Sicily. Gylippos wished to take them in triumph to Sparta. The Corinthians were for putting them to death; and so it was done. ... So ended the Athenian invasion of Sicily, the greatest attempt ever made by Greeks against Greeks, and that which came to the most utter failure."

E. A. Freeman, The Story of Sicily, pages 117-137.

ALSO IN: Thucydides, History; translated by B. Jowett, books 6-7 (volume 1).

See, also, SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

{177}

ATHENS: B. C. 413-412. Consequences of the Sicilian Expedition. Spartan alliance with the Persians. Plotting of Alcibiades. The Decelian War.

"At Athens, where, even before this, everyone had been in the most anxious suspense, the news of the loss of the expedition produced a consternation, which was certainly greater than that at Rome after the battle of Cannae, or that in our own days, after the battle of Jena. ... 'At least 40,000 citizens, allies and slaves, had perished; and among them there may easily have been 10,000 Athenian citizens, most of whom belonged to the wealthier and higher classes. The flower of the Athenian people was destroyed, as at the time of the plague. It is impossible to say what amount of public property may have been lost; the whole fleet was gone.' The consequences of the disaster soon shewed themselves. It was to be foreseen that Chios, which had long been wavering, and whose disposition could not be trusted, would avail itself of this moment to revolt; and the cities in Asia, from which Athens derived her large revenues, were expected to do the same. It was, in fact, to be foreseen, that the four islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Rhodes, would instantly revolt. The Spartans were established at Decelea, in Attica itself, and thence ravaged the country far and wide: so that it was impossible to venture to go to the coast without a strong escort. Although there were many districts in which no Spartan was seen from one year's end to the other, yet there was no safety anywhere, except in fortified places, 'and the Athenians were constantly obliged to guard the walls of their city; and this state of things had already been going on for the last twelve months.' In this fearful situation, the Athenian people showed the same firmness as the Romans after the battle of Cannae. Had they but had one great man among them, to whom the state could have been entrusted, even more might perhaps have been done; but it is astonishing that, although there was no such man, and although the leading men were only second or third-rate persons, yet so many useful arrangements were made to meet the necessities of the case. ... The most unfortunate circumstance for the Athenians was, that Alcibiades, now an enemy of his country, was living among the Spartans; for he introduced into the undertakings of the Spartans the very element which before they had been altogether deficient in, namely energy and elasticity: he urged them on to undertakings, and induced them now to send a fleet to Ionia. ... Erythrae, Teos, and Miletus, one after another, revolted to the Peloponnesians, who now concluded treaties with Tissaphernes in the name of the king of Persia--Darius was then king--and in his own name as satrap; and in this manner they sacrificed to him the Asiatic Greeks. ... The Athenians were an object of antipathy and implacable hatred to the Persians; they had never doubted that the Athenians were their real opponents in Greece, and were afraid of them; but they did not fear the Spartans. They knew that the Athenians would take from them not only the islands, but the towns on the main land, and were in great fear of their maritime power. Hence they joined the Spartans; and the latter were not ashamed of negotiating a treaty of subsidies with the Persians, in which Tissaphernes, in the king's name, promised the assistance of the Phoenician fleet; and large subsidies, as pay for the army. ... In return for this, they renounced, in the name of the Greeks, all claims to independence for the Greek cities in Asia."

E. C. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, volume 2, lectures. 53 and 54.

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

ALSO IN: G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 61 (volume 7).

ATHENS: B. C. 413-412. Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos and Rhodes from Athens. Revolution of Samos.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.- The Probuli. Intrigues of Alcibiades. Conspiracy against the Constitution. The Four Hundred and the Five Thousand.

Immediately after the dreadful calamity at Syracuse became known, "extraordinary measures were adopted by the people; a number of citizens of advanced age were formed into a deliberative and executive body under the name of Probuli, and empowered to fit out a fleet. Whether this laid the foundation for oligarchical machinations or not, those aged men were unable to bring back men's minds to their former course; the prosecution of the Hermocopidæ had been most mischievous in its results; various secret associations had sprung up and conspired to reap advantage to themselves from the distress and embarrassment of the state; the indignation caused by the infuriated excesses of the people during that trial, possibly here, as frequently happened in other Grecian states, determined the more respectable members of the community to guard against the recurrence of similar scenes in future, by the establishment of an aristocracy. Lastly, the watchful malice of Alcibiades, who was the implacable enemy of that populace, to whose blind fury he had been sacrificed, baffled all attempts to restore confidence and tranquillity, and there is no doubt that, whilst he kept up a correspondence with his partisans at home, he did everything in his power to increase the perplexity and distress of his native city from without, in order that he might be recalled to provide for its safety and defence. A favourable opportunity for the execution of his plans presented itself in the fifth year of his exile, Ol. 92. 1; 411. B. C.; as he had incurred the suspicion of the Spartans, and stood high in the favour of Tissaphernes, the Athenians thought that his intercession might enable them to obtain assistance from the Persian king. The people in Athens were headed by one of his most inveterate enemies, Androcles; and he well knew that all attempts to effect his return would be fruitless, until this man and the other demagogues were removed. Hence Alcibiades entered into negotiations with the commanders of the Athenian fleet at Samos, respecting the establishment of an oligarchical constitution, not from any attachment to that form of government in itself, but solely with the view of promoting his own ends. Phrynichus and Pisander were equally insincere in their co-operation with Alcibiades. ... Their plan was that the latter should reconcile the people to the change in the constitution which he wished to effect, by promising to obtain them the assistance of the great king; but they alone resolved to reap the benefit of his exertions. Pisander took upon himself to manage the Athenian populace. It was in truth no slight undertaking to attempt to overthrow a democracy of a hundred and twenty years' standing, and of intense development; but most of the able bodied citizens were absent with the fleet, whilst such as were still in the city were confounded by the imminence of the danger from without; on the other hand, the prospect of succour from the Persian king doubtless had some weight with them, and they possibly felt some symptoms of returning affection for their former favourite Alcibiades. Nevertheless, Pisander and his accomplices employed craft and perfidy to accomplish their designs; the people were not persuaded or convinced, but entrapped into compliance with their measures. Pisander gained over to his purpose the above named clubs, and induced the people to send him with ten plenipotentiaries to the navy at Samos. In the mean time the rest of the conspirators prosecuted the work of remodelling the constitution."

W. Wachsmuth, History Antiquities of the Greeks, volume 2, pages 252-255.

{178}

The people, or an assembly cleverly made up and manipulated to represent the people, were induced to vote all the powers of government into the hands of a council of Four Hundred, of which council the citizens appointed only five members. Those five chose ninety-five more, to make one hundred, and each of that hundred then chose three colleagues. The conspirators thus easily made up the Four Hundred to their liking, from their own ranks. This council was to convene an assembly of Five Thousand citizens, whenever it saw fit to do so. But when news of this constitutional change reached the army at Samos, where the Athenian headquarters for the Ionian war were fixed, the citizen soldiers refused to submit to it--repudiated it altogether--and organized themselves as an independent state. The ruling spirit among them was Thrasybulus, and his influence brought about a reconciliation with Alcibiades, then an exile sheltered at the Persian court. Alcibiades was recalled by the army and placed at its head. Presently a reaction at Athens ensued, after the oligarchical party had given signs of treasonable communication with Sparta, and in June the people assembled in the Pnyx and reasserted their sovereignty. "The Council was deposed, and the supreme sovereignty of the state restored to the people--not, however, to the entire multitude; for the principle was retained of reserving full civic rights to a committee of men of a certain amount of property; and, as the lists of the Five Thousand had never been drawn up, it was decreed, in order that the desired end might be speedily reached, to follow the precedent of similar institutions in other states and to constitute all Athenians able to furnish themselves with a complete military equipment from their own resources, full citizens, with the rights of voting and participating in the government. Thus the name of the Five Thousand had now become a very inaccurate designation; but it was retained, because men had in the last few months become habituated to it. At the same time, the abolition of pay for civic offices and functions was decreed, not merely as a temporary measure, but as a fundamental principle of the new commonwealth, which the citizens were bound by a solemn oath to maintain. This reform was, upon the whole, a wise combination of aristocracy and democracy; and, according to the opinion of Thucydides, the best constitution which the Athenians had hitherto possessed. On the motion of Critias, the recall, of Alcibiades was decreed about the same time; and a deputation was despatched to Samos, to accomplish the union between army and city."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5.

Most of the leaders of the Four Hundred fled to the Spartan camp at Decelia. Two were taken, tried and executed.

Thucydides, History, book 8, section 48-97.

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

ALSO IN: V. Duruy, History of Greece, chapter 26 (volume 3).

ATHENS: B. C. 411-407. Victories at Cynossema and Abydos. Exploits of Alcibiades. His triumphal return. His appointment to command. His second deposition and exile.

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

ATHENS: B. C. 406. The Peloponnesian War: Battle and victory of Arginusae. Condemnation and execution of the Generals.

See GREECE: B. C. 406; and above: B. C. 424-406.

ATHENS: B. C. 405. The Peloponnesian War: Decisive defeat at Aigospotamoi.

See GREECE: B. C. 405.

ATHENS: B. C. 404. The Surrender to Lysander.

After the battle of Ægospotami (August, B. C. 405), which destroyed their navy, and cut off nearly all supplies to the city by sea, as the Spartans at Decelea had long cut off supplies upon the land side, the Athenians had no hope. They waited in terror and despair for their enemies to close in upon them. The latter were in no haste, for they were sure of their prey. Lysander, the victor at Ægospotami, came leisurely from the Hellespont, receiving on his way the surrender of the cities subject or allied to Athens, and placing Spartan harmosts and garrisons in them, with the local oligarchs established uniformly in power. About November he reached the Saronic gulf and blockaded the Athenian harbor of Piræus, while an overwhelming Peloponnesian land force, under the Lacedæmonian king Pausanias, arrived simultaneously in Attica and encamped at the gates of the city. The Athenians had no longer any power except the power to endure, and that they exercised for more than three months, mainly resisting the demand that their Long Walls--the walls which protected the connection of the city with its harbors--should be thrown down. But when famine had thinned the ranks of the citizens and broken the spirit of the survivors, they gave up. "There was still a high-spirited minority who entered their protest and preferred death by famine to such insupportable disgrace. The large majority, however, accepted them [the terms] and the acceptance was made known to Lysander. It was on the 16th day of the Attic month Munychion,--about the middle or end of March,--that this victorious commander sailed into the Peiræus, twenty-seven years, almost exactly, after the surprise of Platæa by the Thebans, which opened the Peloponnesian War. Along with him came the Athenian exiles, several of whom appear to have been serving with his army and assisting him with their counsel."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 65 (volume 8).

The Long Walls and the fortifications of Piræus were demolished, and then followed the organization of an oligarchical government at Athens, resulting in the reign of terror under "The Thirty."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: Xenophon, Hellenics, book 2, chapter 2.

Plutarch, Lysander.

{179}

ATHENS: B. C. 404-403. The tyranny of the Thirty. The Year of Anarchy.

In the summer of B. C. 404, following the siege and surrender of Athens, and the humiliating close of the long Peloponnesian War, the returned leaders of the oligarchical party, who had been in exile, succeeded with the help of their Spartan friends, in overthrowing the democratic constitution of the city and establishing themselves in power. The revolution was accomplished at a public assembly of citizens, in the presence of Lysander, the victorious Lacedæmonian admiral, whose fleet in the Piraeus lay ready to support his demands. "In this assembly, Dracontidas, a scoundrel upon whom repeated sentences had been passed, brought forward a motion, proposing the transfer of the government into the hands of Thirty persons; and Theramenes supported this proposal which he declared to express the wishes of Sparta. Even now, these speeches produced a storm of indignation; after all the acts of violence which Athens had undergone, she yet contained men outspoken enough to venture to defend the constitution, and to appeal to the fact that the capitulation sanctioned by both parties contained no provision as to the internal affairs of Athens. But, hereupon, Lysander himself came forward and spoke to the citizens without reserve, like one who was their absolute master. ... By such means the motion of Dracontidas was passed; but only a small number of unpatriotic and cowardly citizens raised their hands in token of assent. All better patriots contrived to avoid participation in this vote. Next, ten members of the government were chosen by Critias and his colleagues [the Critias of Plato's Dialogues, pupil of Socrates, and now the violent and blood-thirsty leader of the anti-democratic revolution], ten by Theramenes, the confidential friend of Lysander, and finally ten out of the assembled multitude, probably by a free vote; and this board of Thirty was hereupon established as the supreme government authority by a resolution of the assembly present. Most of the members of the new government had formerly been among the Four Hundred, and had therefore long pursued a common course of action." The Thirty Tyrants so placed in power were masters of Athens for eight months, and executed their will without conscience or mercy, having a garrison of Spartan soldiers in the Acropolis to support them. They were also sustained by a picked body of citizens, "the Three Thousand," who bore arms while other citizens were stripped of every weapon. Large numbers of the more patriotic and high-spirited Athenians had escaped from their unfortunate city and had taken refuge, chiefly at Thebes, the old enemy of Athens, but now sympathetic in her distress. At Thebes these exiles organized themselves under Thrasybulus and Anytus, and determined to expel the tyrants and to recover their homes. They first seized a strong post at Phyle, in Attica, where they gained in numbers rapidly, and from which point they were able in a few weeks to advance and occupy the Piræus. When the troops of The Thirty came out to attack them, they drew back to the adjacent height of Munychia and there fought a battle which delivered their city from the Tyrants. Critias, the master-spirit of the usurpation, was slain; the more violent of his colleagues took refuge at Eleusis, and Athens, for a time, remained under the government of a new oligarchical Board of Ten; while Thrasybulus and the democratic liberators maintained their headquarters at Munychia. All parties waited the action of Sparta. Lysander, the Spartan general, marched an army into Attica to restore the tyranny which was of his own creating; but one of the two Spartan kings, Pausanias, intervened, assumed the command in his own person, and applied his efforts to the arranging of peace between the Athenian parties. The result was a restoration of the democratic constitution of the Attic state, with some important reforms. Several of The Thirty were put to death,--treacherously, it was said,--but an amnesty was extended to all their partisans. The year in which they and The Ten controlled affairs was termed in the official annals of the city the Year of Anarchy, and its magistrates were not recognized.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5, and book 5, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: Xenophon, Hellenics, book 2, chapter 3-4.

C. Sankey, The Spartan and Theban Supremacies. chapter 2-3.

ATHENS: B. C. 395-387. Confederacy against Sparta. Alliance with Persia. The Corinthian War. Conon's rebuilding of the Long Walls. Athenian independence restored. The Peace of Antalcidas.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ATHENS: B. C. 378-371. Brief alliance with Thebes against Sparta.

See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

ATHENS: B. C. 378-357. The New Confederacy and the Social War.

Upon the Liberation of Thebes and the signs that began to appear of the decline of Spartan power--during the year of the archonship of Nausinicus, B. C. 378-7, which was made memorable at Athens by various movements of political regeneration,--the organization of a new Confederacy was undertaken, analogous to the Confederacy of Delos, formed a century before. Athens was to be, "not the ruling capital, but only the directing city in possession of the primacy, the seat of the federal council. ... Callistratus was in a sense the Aristides of the new confederation and doubtless did much to bring about an agreement; it was likewise his work that, in place of the 'tributes' of odious memory, the payments necessary to the existence of the confederation were introduced under the gentler name of 'contributions.' ... Amicable relations were resumed with the Cyclades, Rhodes and Perinthus; in other words, the ancient union of navies was at once renewed upon a large scale and in a wide extent. Even such states joined it as had hitherto never stood in confederate relations with Athens, above all Thebes."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 1.

This second confederacy renewed much of the prosperity and influence of Athens for a brief period of about twenty years. But in 357 B. C., four important members of the Confederacy, namely, Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and Byzantium leagued themselves in revolt, with the aid of Mausolus, prince of Caria, and an inglorious war ensued, known as the Social War, which lasted three years. Athens was forced at last to assent to the secession of the four revolted cities and to recognize their independence, which greatly impaired her prestige and power, just at the time when she was called upon to resist the encroachments of Philip of Macedonia.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 42.

ATHENS: B. C. 370-362. Alliance with Sparta against Thebes. Battle of Mantinea.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

{180}

ATHENS: B. C. 359-338. The collision with Philip of Macedon. The Policy of Demosthenes and Policy of Phocion.

"A new period opens with the growth of the Macedonian power under Philip (359-336 B. C.) We are here chiefly concerned to notice the effect on the City-State [of Athens], not only of the strength and policy of this new power, but also of the efforts of the Greeks themselves to counteract it. At the time of Philip's accession the so-called Theban supremacy had just practically ended with the death of Epaminondias. There was now a kind of balance of power between the three leading States, Sparta, Athens, and Thebes, no one of which was greatly stronger than the others; and such a balance could easily be worked upon by any great power from without. Thus when Macedon came into the range of Greek politics, under a man of great diplomatic as well as military capacity, who, like a Czar of to-day, wished to secure a firm footing on the sea-board of the Ægean [see GREECE: B. C. 359-358], she found her work comparatively easy. The strong imperial policy of Philip found no real antagonist except at Athens. Weak as she was, and straitened by the break-up of her new confederacy, Athens could still produce men of great talent and energy; but she was hampered by divided counsels. Two Athenians of this period seem to represent the currents of Greek political thought, now running in two different directions. Demosthenes represents the cause of the City-State in this age, of a union, that is, of perfectly free Hellenic cities against the common enemy. Phocion represents the feeling, which seems to have been long growing up among thinking men at Athens, that the City-State was no longer what it had been, and could no longer stand by itself; that what was needed was a general Hellenic peace, and possibly even an arbiter from without, an arbiter not wholly un-Hellenic like the Persian, yet one who might succeed in stilling the fatal jealousies of the leading States. ... The efforts of Demosthenes to check Philip fall into two periods divided by the peace of Philocrates in 346 B. C. In the first of these he is acting chiefly with Athens alone; Philip is to him not so much the common enemy of Greece as the dangerous rival of Athens in the north. His whole mind was given to the internal reform of Athens so as to strengthen her against Philip. In her relation to other Greek States he perhaps hardly saw beyond a balance of power. ... After 346 his Athenian feeling seems to become more distinctly Hellenic. But what could even such a man as Demosthenes do with the Hellas of that day? He could not force on the Greeks a real and permanent union; he could but urge new alliances. His strength was spent in embassies with this object, embassies too often futile. No alliance could save Greece from the Macedonian power, as subsequent events plainly showed. What was needed was a real federal union between the leading States, with a strong central controlling force; and Demosthenes' policy was hopeless just because Athens could never be the centre of such a union, nor could any other city. Demosthenes is thus the last, and in some respects the most heroic champion of the old Greek instinct for autonomy. He is the true child of the City-State, but the child of its old age and decrepitude. He still believes in Athens, and it is on Athens that all his hopes are based. He looks on Philip as one who must inevitably be the foe alike of Athens and of Greece. He seems to think that he can be beaten off as Xerxes was, and to forget that even Xerxes almost triumphed over the divisions of the Greek States, and that Philip is a nearer, a more prominent, and a far less barbarian foe. ... Phocion was the somewhat odd exponent of the practical side of a school of thought which had been gaining strength in Greece for some time past. This school was now brought into prominence by the rise of Macedon, and came to have a marked influence on the history of the City-State. It began with the philosophers, and with the idea that the philosopher may belong to the world as well as to a particular city. ... Athens was far more open to criticism now than in the days of Pericles; and a cynical dislike betrays itself in the Republic for the politicians of the day and their tricks, and a longing for a strong government of reason. ... Aristotle took the facts of city life as they were and showed how they might be made the most of. ... To him Macedon was assuredly not wholly barbarian; and war to the death with her kings could not have been to him as natural or desirable as it seemed to Demosthenes. And though he has nothing to tell us of Macedon, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that his desire was for peace and internal reform, even if it were under the guarantee of the northern power. ... Of this philosophical view of Greek politics Phocion was in a manner the political exponent. But his policy was too much a negative one; it might almost be called one of indifferentism, like the feeling of Lessing and Goethe in Germany's most momentous period. So far as we know, Phocion never proposed an alliance of a durable kind, either Athenian or Hellenic, with Macedon; he was content to be a purely restraining influence. Athens had been constantly at war since 432; her own resources were of the weakest; there was little military skill to be found in her, no reserve force, much talk, but little solid courage. Athens was vulnerable at various points, and could not possibly defend more than one at a time, therefore Phocion despaired of war, and the event proved him right. The faithfulness of the Athenians towards him is a proof that they also instinctively felt that he was right. But he was wanting on the practical and creative side, and never really dominated either Athens, Greece, or Philip. ... A policy of resistance found the City-State too weak to defend itself; a policy of inaction would land it in a Macedonian empire which would still further weaken its remaining vitality. The first policy, that of Demosthenes, did actually result in disaster and the presence of Macedonian garrisons in Greek cities. The second policy then took its place, and initiated a new era for Greece. After the fatal battle of Chæronea (338 B. C.) Philip assumed the position of leader of the Greek cities."

W. W. Fowler, The City-State of the Greeks and Romans, chapter 10.

See, also, GREECE: 357-336.

ATHENS: B. C. 340. Alliance with Byzantium against Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

{181}

ATHENS: B. C. 336-322. End of the Struggle with the Macedonians. Fall of Democracy. Death of Demosthenes. Athenian decline.

"An unexpected incident changes the whole aspect of things. Philip falls the victim of assassination; and a youth, who as yet is but little known, is his successor. Immediately Demosthenes institutes a second alliance of the Greeks; but Alexander suddenly appears before Thebes; the terrible vengeance which he here takes, instantly destroys the league; Demosthenes, Lycurgus, and several of their supporters, are required to be delivered up: but Demades is at that time able to settle the difficulty and to appease the king. His strength was therefore enfeebled as Alexander departed for Asia; he begins to raise his head once more when Sparta attempts to throw off the yoke: but under Antipater he is overpowered. Yet it was about this very time that by the most celebrated of his discourses he gained the victory over the most eloquent of his adversaries; and Æschines was forced to depart from Athens. But this seems only to have the more embittered his enemies, the leaders of the Macedonian party; and they soon found an opportunity of preparing his downfall. When Harpalus, a fugitive from the army of Alexander, came with his treasures to Athens, and the question arose, whether he could be permitted to remain there, Demosthenes was accused of having been corrupted by his money, at least to be silent. This was sufficient to procure the imposition of a fine; and as this was not paid, he was thrown into prison. From thence he succeeded in escaping; but to the man who lived only for his country, exile was no less an evil than imprisonment. He resided for the most part in Ægina and at Trœzen, from whence he looked with moist eyes toward the neighbouring Attica. Suddenly and unexpectedly a new ray of light broke through the clouds. Tidings were brought, that Alexander was dead. The moment of deliverance seemed at hand; the excitement pervaded every Grecian state; the ambassadors of the Athenians passed through the cities; Demosthenes joined himself to the number and exerted all his eloquence and power to unite them against Macedonia. In requital for such services, the people decreed his return; and years of sufferings were at last followed by a day of exalted compensation. A galley was sent to Ægina to bring back the advocate of liberty. ... It was a momentary glimpse of the sun, which still darker clouds were soon to conceal. Antipater and Craterus were victorious; and with them the Macedonian party in Athens: Demosthenes and his friends were numbered among the accused, and at the instigation of Demades were condemned to die. ... Demosthenes had escaped to the island Calauria in the vicinity of Trœzen; and took refuge in the temple of Neptune. It was to no purpose that Archias, the satellite of Antipater, urged him to surrender himself under promise of pardon. He pretended he wished to write something; bit the quill, and swallowed the poison contained in it."

A. H. L. Heeren, Reflections on the Politics of Ancient Greece, translated by G. Bancroft, pages 278-280.

See, also, on the "Lamian War," the suppression of Democracy at Athens, and the expulsion of poor citizens, GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

"With the decline of political independence, ... the mental powers of the nation received a fatal blow. No longer knit together by a powerful esprit de corps, the Greeks lost the habit of working for the common weal; and, for the most part, gave themselves up to the petty interests of home life and their own personal troubles. Even the better disposed were too much occupied in opposing the low tone and corruption of the times, to be able to devote themselves, in their moments of relaxation, to a free and speculative consideration of things. What could be expected in such an age, but that philosophy would take a decidedly practical turn, if indeed it were studied at all? And yet such were the political antecedents of the Stoic and Epicurean systems of philosophy. ... Stoic apathy, Epicurean self-satisfaction, and Sceptic imperturbability, were the doctrines which responded to the political helplessness of the age. They were the doctrines, too, which met with the most general acceptance. The same political helplessness produced the sinking of national distinctions in the feeling of a common humanity, and the separation of morals from politics which characterise the philosophy of the Alexandrian and Roman period. The barriers between nations, together with national independence, had been swept away. East and West, Greeks and barbarians, were united in large empires, being thus thrown together, and brought into close contact on every possible point. Philosophy might teach that all men were of one blood, that all were equally citizens of one empire, that morality rested on the relation of man to his fellow men, independently of nationalities and of social ranks; but in so doing she was only explicitly stating truths which had been already realised in part, and which were in part corollaries from the existing state of society."

E. Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, pages 16-18.

"What we have said concerning the evidence of comedy about the age of the first Diadochi amounts to this: Menander and his successors--they lasted barely two generations--printed in a few stereotypes a small and very worthless society at Athens. There was no doubt a similar set of people at Corinth, at Thebes, possibly even in the city of Lycurgus. These people, idle, for the most part rich, and in good society, spent their earlier years in debauchery, and their later in sentimental reflections and regrets. They had no serious object in life, and regarded the complications of a love affair as more interesting than the rise and fall of kingdoms or the gain and loss of a nation's liberty. They were like the people of our day who spend all their time reading novels from the libraries, and who can tolerate these eternal variations in twaddle not only without disgust but with interest. They were surrounded with slaves, on the whole more intelligent and interesting, for in the first place slaves were bound to exercise their brains, and in the second they had a great object--liberty--to give them a keen pursuit in life. The relations of the sexes in this set or portion of society were bad, owing to the want of education in the women, and the want of earnestness in the men. As a natural consequence a class was found, apart from household slaves, who took advantage of these defects, and, bringing culture to fascinate unprincipled men, established those relations which brought estragements, if not ruin, into the home life of the day."

J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, pages 123-124.

{182}

"The amount of Persian wealth poured into Greece by the accidents of the conquest, not by its own industries, must have produced a revolution in prices not since equalled except by the influx of the gold of the Aztecs and Incas into Spain. I have already pointed out how this change must have pressed upon poor people in Greece who did not share in the plunder. The price of even necessary and simple things must have often risen beyond their means. For the adventurers brought home large fortunes, and the traders and purveyors of the armies made them; and with these Eastern fortunes must have come in the taste for all the superior comforts and luxuries which they found among the Persian grandees. Not only the appointments of the table, in the way of plate and pottery, but the very tastes and flavours of Greek cookery must have profited by comparison with the knowledge of the East. So also the furniture, especially in carpets and hangings, must have copied Persian fashion, just as we still affect oriental stuffs and designs. It was not to be expected that the example of so many regal courts and so much royal ceremony should not affect those in contact with them. These influences were not only shown in the vulgar 'braggart captain,' who came to show off his sudden wealth in impudent extravagance among his old townspeople, but in the ordinary life of rich young men. So I imagine the personal appointments of Alcibiades, which were the talk of Greece in his day, would have appeared poor and mean beside those of Aratus, or of the generation which preceded him. Pictures and statues began to adorn private houses, and not temples and public buildings only--a change beginning to show itself in Demosthenes's day, but coming in like a torrent with the opening of Greece to the Eastern world. It was noticed that Phocion's house at Athens was modest in size and furniture, but even this was relieved from shabbiness by the quaint wall decoration of shining plates of bronze--a fashion dating from prehistoric times, but still admired for its very antiquity."

J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, pages 105-106.

"The modern historians of Greece are much divided on the question where a history of Hellas ought to end. Curtius stops with the battle of Chaeroncia and the prostration of Athens before the advancing power of Macedon. Grote narrates the campaigns of Alexander, but stops short at the conclusion of the Lamian War, when Greece had in vain tried to shake off the supremacy of his generals. Thirlwall brings his narrative down to the time of Mummius, the melancholy sack of Corinth and the constitution of Achaia as a Roman province. Of these divergent views we regard that of the German historian as the most correct. ... The historic sense of Grote did not exclude prejudices, and in this case he was probably led astray by political bias. At the close of his ninety-sixth chapter, after mentioning the embassies sent by the degenerate Athenians to King Ptolemy, King Lysimachus, and Antipater, he throws down his pen in disgust, 'and with sadness and humiliation brings his narrative to a close.' Athens was no longer free and no longer dignified, and so Mr. Grote will have done with Greece at the very moment when the new Comedy was at its height, when the Museum was founded at Alexandria, when the plays of Euripides were acted at Babylon and Cabul, and every Greek soldier of fortune carried a diadem in his baggage. Surely the historian of Greece ought either to have stopped when the iron hand of Philip of Macedon put an end to the liberties and the political wranglings of Hellas, or else persevered to the time when Rome and Parthia crushed Greek power between them, like a ship between two icebergs. No doubt his reply would be, that he declined to regard the triumph abroad of Macedonian arms as a continuation of the history of Hellas. ... The truth is, that the history of Greece consists of two parts, in every respect contrasted one with the other. The first recounts the stories of the Persian and Peloponnesian wars, and ends with the destruction of Thebes and the subjugation of Athens and Sparta. The Hellas of which it speaks is a cluster of autonomous cities in the Peloponnesus, the Islands, and Northern Greece, together with their colonies scattered over the coasts of Italy, Sicily, Thrace, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, and Africa. These cities care only to be independent, or at most to lord it over one another. Their political institutions, their religious ceremonies, their customs, are civic and local. Language, commerce, a common Pantheon, and a common art and poetry are the ties that bind them together. In its second phase, Greek history begins with the expedition of Alexander. It reveals to us the Greek as everywhere lord of the barbarian, as foundling kingdoms and federal systems, as the instructor of all mankind in art and science, and the spreader of civil and civilized life over the known world. In the first period of her history Greece is forming herself, in her second she is educating the world. We will venture to borrow from the Germans a convenient expression, and call the history of independent Greece the history of Hellas, that of imperial Greece the history of Hellenism. ... The Athens of Pericles was dictator among the cities which had joined her alliance. Corinth, Sparta, Thebes, were each the political head of a group of towns, but none of the three admitted these latter to an equal share in their councils, or adopted their political views. Even in the Olynthian League, the city of Olynthus occupied a position quite superior to that of the other cities. But the Greek cities had not tried the experiment of an alliance on equal terms. This was now attempted by some of the leading cities of the Peloponnese, and the result was the Achaean League, whose history sheds a lustre on the last days of independent Greece, and whose generals will bear comparison with the statesmen of any Greek Republic [sec GREECE: B. C. 280-146]. ... On the field of Sellasia the glorious hopes of Cleomenes were wrecked, and the recently reformed Sparta was handed over to a succession of bloodthirsty tyrants, never again to emerge from obscurity. But to the Achaeans themselves the interference of Macedon was little less fatal. Henceforth a Macedonian garrison occupied Corinth, which had been one of the chief cities of the League; and King Antigonus Doson was the recognized arbiter in all disputes of the Peloponnesian Greeks. ... In Northern Greece a strange contrast presented itself. The historic races of the Athenians and Boeotians languished in peace, obscurity, and luxury. With them every day saw something added to the enjoyments and elegancies of life, and every day politics drifted more and more into the background. On the other hand, the rude semi-Greeks of the West, Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Epirotes, to whose manhood the repulse of the Gauls was mainly due, came to the front and showed the bold spirit of Greeks divorced from the finer faculties of the race. The Acarnanians formed a league somewhat on the plan of the Achaean. {183} But they were overshadowed by their neighbors the Aetolians, whose union was of a different character. It was the first time that there had been formed in Hellas a state framed in order to prey upon its neighbours. ... In the course of the Peloponnesian War Greek religion began to lose its hold on the Greeks. This was partly the work of the sophists and philosophers, who sought more lofty and moral views of Deity than were furnished by the tales of popular mythology. Still more it resulted from growing materialism among the people, who saw more and more of their immediate and physical needs, and less and less of the underlying spiritual elements in life. But though philosophy and materialism had made the religion of Hellas paler and feebler, they had not altered its nature or expanded it. It still remained essentially national, almost tribal. When, therefore, Greeks and Macedonians suddenly found themselves masters of the nations of the East, and in close contact with a hundred forms of religion, an extraordinary and rapid change took place in their religions ideas. In religion, as in other matters, Egypt set to the world the example of prompt fusion of the ideas of Greeks and natives. ... Into Greece proper, in return for her population which flowed out, there flowed in a crowd of foreign deities. Isis was especially welcomed at Athens, where she found many votaries. In every cult the more mysterious elements were made more of, and the brighter and more materialistic side passed by. Old statues which had fallen somewhat into contempt in the days of Pheidias and Praxiteles were restored to their places and received extreme veneration, not as beautiful, but as old and strange. On the coins of the previous period the representations of deities had been always the best that the die-cutter could frame, taking as his models the finest contemporary sculpture; but henceforth we often find them strange, uncouth figures, remnants of a period of struggling early art, like the Apollo at Amyclae, or the Hera of Samos. ... In the intellectual life of Athens there was still left vitality enough to formulate the two most complete expressions of the ethical ideas of the times, the doctrines of the Stoics and the Epicureans, towards one or the other of which all educated minds from that day to this have been drawn. No doubt our knowledge of these doctrines, being largely drawn from the Latin writers and their Greek contemporaries, is somewhat coloured and unjust. With the Romans a system of philosophy was considered mainly in its bearing upon conduct, whence the ethical elements in Stoicism and Epicureanism have been by their Roman adherents so thrust into the foreground, that we have almost lost sight of the intellectual elements, which can have had little less importance in the eyes of the Greeks. Notwithstanding, the rise of the two philosophies must be held to mark a new era in the history of thought, an era when the importance of conduct was for the first time recognized by the Greeks. It is often observed that the ancient Greeks were more modern than our own ancestors of the Middle Ages. But it is less generally recognized how far more modern than the Greeks of Pericles were the Greeks of Aratus. In very many respects the age of Hellenism and our own age present remarkable similarity. In both there appears a sudden increase in the power over material nature, arising alike from the greater accessibility of all parts of the world and from the rapid development of the sciences which act upon the physical forces of the world. In both this spread of science and power acts upon religion with a dissolving and, if we may so speak, centrifugal force, driving some men to take refuge in the most conservative forms of faith, some to fly to new creeds and superstitions, some to drift into unmeasured scepticism. In both the facility of moving from place to place, and finding a distant home, tends to dissolve the closeness of civic and family life, and to make the individual rather than the family or the city the unit of social life. And in the family relations, in the character of individuals, in the state of morality, in the condition of art, we find at both periods similar results from the similar causes we have mentioned."

P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 15.

ATHENS: B. C. 317-316. Siege by Polysperchon. Democracy restored. Execution of Phocion. Demetrius of Phaleron at the head of the government.

See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

ATHENS: B.C. 307-197. Under Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Antigonids.

See GREECE: B. C.307-197.

ATHENS: B. C. 288-263. Twenty years of Independence. Siege and subjugation by Antigonus Gonatas.

When Demetrius Poliorcetes lost the Macedonian throne, B. C. 288, his fickle Athenian subjects and late worshippers rose against his authority, drove his garrisons from the Museum and the Piræus and abolished the priesthood they had consecrated to him. Demetrius gathered an army from some quarter and laid siege to the city, but without success. The Athenians went so far as to invite Pyrrhus, the warrior king of Epirus, to assist them against him. Pyrrhus came and Demetrius retired. The dangerous ally contented himself with a visit to the Acropolis as a worshipper, and left Athens in possession, undisturbed, of her freshly gained freedom. It was enjoyed after a fashion for twenty years, at the end of which period, B. C. 268, Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius, having regained the Macedonian crown, reasserted his claim on Athens, and the city was once more besieged. The Lacedæmonians and Ptolemy of Egypt both gave some ineffectual aid to the Athenians, and the siege, interrupted on several occasions, was prolonged until B. C. 263, when Antigonus took possession of the Acropolis, the fortified Museum and the Piræus as a master (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244). This was sometimes called the Chremonidean War, from the name of a patriotic Athenian who took the most prominent part in the long defence of his city.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 61.

ATHENS: B. C. 229. Liberation by the Achaian League.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ATHENS: B. C. 200. Vandalism of the second Macedonian Philip.

In the year B. C. 200 the Macedonian king, Philip, made an attempt to surprise Athens and failed. "He then encamped in the outskirts, and proceeded to wreak his vengeance on the Athenians, as he had indulged it at Thermus and Pergamus. He destroyed or defaced all the monuments of religion and of art, all the sacred and pleasant places which adorned the suburbs. The Academy, the Lycenm, and Cynosarges, with their temples, schools, groves and gardens, were all wasted with fire. Not even the sepulchres were spared."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 64.

{184}

ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138. Under Roman rule.

"Athens ... affords the disheartening picture of a commonwealth pampered by the supreme power, and financially as well us morally ruined. By rights it ought to have found itself in a flourishing condition. ... No city of antiquity elsewhere possessed a domain of its own, such as was Attica, of about 700 square miles. ... But even beyond Attica they retained what they possessed, as well after the Mithridatic War, by favour of Sulla, as after the Pharsalian battle, in which they had taken the side of Pompeius, by the favour of Cæsar;--he asked them only how often they would still ruin themselves and trust to be saved by the renown of their ancestors. To the city there still belonged not merely the territory, formerly possessed by Haliartus, in Boeotia, but also on their own coast Salamis, the old starting-point of their dominion of the sea, and in the Thracian Sea the lucrative islands Scyros, Lemnos, and Imbros, as well as Delos in the Aegean. ... Of the further grants, which they had the skill to draw by flattery from Antoninus, Augustus, against whom they had taken part, took from them certainly Aegina and Eretria in Euboea, but they were allowed to retain the smaller islands of the Thracian Sea. ... Hadrian, moreover, gave to them the best part of the great island of Cephallenia in the Ionian Sea. It was only by the Emperor Severus, who bore them no good will, that a portion of these extraneous possessions was withdrawn from them. Hadrian further granted to the Athenians the delivery of a certain quantity of grain at the expense of the empire, and by the extension of this privilege, hitherto reserved for the capital, acknowledged Athens, as it were, as another metropolis. Not less was the blissful institute of alimentary endowments, which Italy had enjoyed since Trajan's time, extended by Hadrian to Athens, and the capital requisite for this purpose certainly presented to the Athenians from his purse. ... Yet the community was in constant distress."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: J. P. Mahaffy, The Greek World under Roman Sway.

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.

ATHENS: B. C. 87-86. Siege and capture by Sulla. Massacre of citizens. Pillage and depopulation. Lasting injuries.

The early successes of Mithridates of Pontus, in his savage war with the Romans, included a general rising in his favor among the Greeks [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], supported by the fleets of the Pontic king and by a strong invading army. Athens and the Piræus were the strongholds of the Greek revolt, and at Athens an adventurer named Aristion, bringing from Mithridates a body-guard of 2,000 soldiers, made himself tyrant of the city. A year passed before Rome, distracted by the beginnings of civil war, could effectively interfere. Then Sulla came (B. C. 87) and laid siege to the Piræus, where the principal Pontic force was lodged, while he shut up Athens by blockade. In the following March, Athens was starved to such weakness that the Romans entered almost unopposed and killed and plundered with no mercy; but the buildings of the city suffered little harm at their hands. The siege of the Piræus was carried on for some weeks longer, until Sulla had driven the Pontic forces from every part except Munychia, and that they evacuated in no long time.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 17.

"Athens was ... taken by assault. ... The majority of the citizens was slain; the carnage was so fearfully great as to become memorable even in that age of bloodshed; the private movable property was seized by the soldiery, and Sylla assumed some merit to himself for not committing the rifled houses to the flames. ... The fate of the Piræus, which he utterly destroyed, was more severe than that of Athens. From Sylla's campaign in Greece the commencement of the ruin and depopulation of the country is to be dated. The destruction of property caused by his ravages in Attica was so great that Athens from that time lost its commercial as well as its political importance. The race of Athenian citizens was almost extirpated, and a new population, composed of a heterogeneous mass of settlers, received the right of citizenship."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 1.

ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?). The Visit of St. Paul. Planting of Christianity.

"When the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed of Paul at Berea also, they came thither likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitude. And then immediately the brethren sent forth Paul to go as far as to the sea: and Silas and Timotheus abode there still. But they that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus that they should come to him with all speed, they departed. Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him, as he beheld the city full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews, and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with them that met with him. And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, what would this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. And they took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. (Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.) And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are somewhat superstitious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To an Unknown God.' What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this set I forth unto you. ... Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them."

Acts of the Apostles, Revised Version, chapter 17.

{185}

"Consider the difficulties which must have beset the planting of the Church in Athens. If the burning zeal of the great Apostle ever permitted him to feel diffidence in addressing an assembly, he may well have felt it when he addressed on Mars' Hill for the first time an Athenian crowd. No doubt the Athens of his time was in her decay, inferior in opulence and grandeur to many younger cities. Yet even to a Jew, provided he had received some educational impressions beyond the fanatical shibboleths of Pharisaism, there was much in that wonderful centre of intelligence to shake his most inveterate prejudices and inspire him with unwilling respect. Shorn indeed of her political greatness, deprived even of her philosophical supremacy, she still shone with a brilliant afterglow of æsthetic and intellectual prestige. Her monuments flashed on the visitor memories recent enough to dazzle his imagination. Her schools claimed and obtained even from Emperors the homage due to her unique past. Recognising her as the true nurse of Hellenism and the chief missionary of human refinement, the best spirits of the age held her worthy of admiring love not unmixed with awe. As the seat of the most brilliant and popular university, young men of talent and position flocked to her from every quarter, studied for a time within her colonnades, and carried thence the recollection of a culture which was not always deep, not always erudite, but was always and genuinely Attic. To subject to the criticism of this people a doctrine professing to come direct from God, a religion and not a philosophy, depending not on argument but on revelation, was a task of which the difficulties might seem insuperable. When we consider what the Athenian character was, this language will not seem exaggerated. Keen, subtle, capricious, satirical, sated with ideas, eager for novelty, yet with the eagerness of amused frivolity, not of the truth-seeker: critical by instinct, exquisitely sensitive to the ridiculous or the absurd, disputatious, ready to listen, yet impatient of all that was not wit, satisfied with everything in life except its shortness, and therefore hiding all references to this unwelcome fact under a veil of complacent euphemism--where could a more uncongenial soil be found for the seed of the Gospel? ... To an Athenian the Jew was not so much an object of hatred (as to the Roman), nor even of contempt (as to the rest of mankind), as of absolute indifference. He was simply ignored. To the eclectic philosophy which now dominated the schools of Athens, Judaism alone among all human opinions was as if non-existent. That Athenians should be convinced by the philosophy of a Jew would be a proposition expressible in words but wholly destitute of meaning. On the other hand, the Jew was not altogether uninfluenced by Greek thought. Wide apart as the two minds were, the Hebraic proved not insensible to the charm of the Hellenic; witness the Epistle to the Hebrews, witness Philo, witness the intrusion of Greek methods of interpretation even into the text-books of Rabbinism. And it was Athens, as the quintessence of Hellas, Athens as represented by Socrates, and still more by Plato, which had gained this subtle power. And just as Judæa alone among all the Jewish communities retained its exclusiveness wholly unimpaired by Hellenism, so Athens, more than any Pagan capital, was likely to ignore or repel a faith coming in the garb of Judaism. And yet within less than a century we find this faith so well established there as to yield to the Church the good fruits of martyrdom in the person of its bishop, and of able defences in the person of three of its teachers. The early and the later fortunes of the Athenian Church are buried in oblivion; it comes but for a brief period before the scene of history. But the undying interest of that one dramatic moment when Paul proclaimed a bodily resurrection to the authors of the conception of a spiritual immortality, will always cause us to linger with a strange sympathy over every relic of the Christianity of Athens."

_C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early Christianity, volume 1, book 3, chapter 4._

ALSO IN: _W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, Life and Letters of St. Paul, volume 1, chapter 10._

F. C. Baur, Paul, part 1, chapter 7 (volume l).

On the inscription,

See _E. de Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity: The Apostolic Era, book 2, chapter 1._

ATHENS: A. D. 125-134. The works of Hadrian.

The Emperor Hadrian interested himself greatly in the venerable decaying capital of the Greeks, which he visited, or resided in, for considerable periods, several times, between A. D. 125 and 134. These visits were made important to the city by the great works of rebuilding which he undertook and supervised. Large parts of the city are thought to have been reconstructed by him, "in the open and luxurious style of Antioch and Ephesus." One quarter came to be called "Hadrianapolis," as though he had created it. Several new temples were erected at his command; but the greatest of the works of Hadrian at Athens was the completing of the vast national temple, the Olympieum, the beginning of which dated back to the age of Pisistratus, and which Augustus had put his hand to without finishing.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 66.

ATHENS: A. D. 267. Capture of, by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ATHENS: A. D. 395. Surrender to Alaric and the Goths.

When the Goths under Alaric invaded and ravaged Greece, A. D. 395, Athens was surrendered to them, on terms which saved the city from being plundered. "The fact that the depredations of Alaric hardly exceeded the ordinary license of a rebellious general, is ... perfectly established. The public buildings and monuments of ancient splendour suffered no wanton destruction from his visit; but there can be no doubt that Alaric and his troops levied heavy contributions on the city and its inhabitants."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 2, section 8.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 30 https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717.

See, also, GOTHS: A. D. 395, ALARIC'S INVASION OF GREECE.

ATHENS: A. D. 529. Suppression of the Schools by Justinian.

"The Attic schools of rhetoric and philosophy maintained their superior reputation from the Peloponnesian War to the reign of Justinian. Athens, though situate in a barren soil, possessed a pure air, a free navigation, and the monuments of ancient art. That sacred retirement was seldom disturbed by the business of trade or government; and the last of the Athenians were distinguished by their lively wit, the purity of their taste and language, their social manners, and some traces, at least in discourse, of the magnanimity of their fathers. In the suburbs of the city, the Academy of the Platonists, the Lycæum of the Peripatetics, the Portico of the Stoics and the Garden of the Epicureans were planted with trees and decorated with statues; and the philosophers, instead of being immured in a cloister, delivered their instructions in spacious and pleasant walks, which, at different hours, were consecrated to the exercises of the mind and body. The genius of the founders still lived in those venerable seats. ... {186} The schools of Athens were protected by the wisest and most virtuous of the Roman princes. ... Some vestige of royal bounty may be found under the successors of Constantine. ... The golden chain, as it was fondly styled, of the Platonic succession, continued ... to the edict of Justinian [A. D. 529] which imposed a perpetual silence on the schools of Athens, and excited the grief and indignation of the few remaining votaries of Greek science and superstition."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ATHENS: A. D. 1205. The founding of the Latin Dukedom.

"The portion of Greece lying to the south of the kingdom of Saloniki was divided by the Crusaders [after their conquest of Constantinople, A. D. 1204--see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204] among several great feudatories of the Empire of Romania. ... The lords of Boudonitza, Salona, Negropont, and Athens are alone mentioned as existing to the north of the isthmus of Corinth, and the history of the petty sovereigns of Athens can alone be traced in any detail. ... Otho de la Roche, a Burgundian nobleman, who had distinguished himself during the siege of Constantinople, marched southward with the army of Boniface the king-marquis, and gained possession of Athens in 1205. Thebes and Athens had probably fallen to his share in the partition of the Empire, but it is possible that the king of Saloniki may have found means to increase his portion, in order to induce him to do homage to the crown of Saloniki for this addition. At all events, it appears that Otho de la Roche did homage to Boniface, either as his immediate superior, or as viceroy for the Emperor of Romania. ... Though the Byzantine aristocracy and dignified clergy were severe sufferers by the transference of the government into the hands of the Franks, the middle classes long enjoyed peace and security. ... The social civilization of the inhabitants, and their ample command of the necessaries and many of the luxuries of life, were in those days as much superior to the condition of the citizens of Paris and London as they are now inferior. ... The city was large and wealthy, the country thickly covered with villages, of which the ruins may still be traced in spots affording no indications of Hellenic sites. ... The trade of Athens was considerable, and the luxury of the Athenian ducal court was celebrated in all the regions of the West where chivalry flourished."

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern: 4th Course. lecture 5.

ATHENS: A. D. 1311-1456. Under the Catalans and the Florentines.

See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

ATHENS: A. D. 1456. The Turks in possession.

Athens was not occupied by the Turks until three years after the conquest of Constantinople (see CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453). In the meantime the reign of the Florentine dukes of the house of Acciaioli came to a tragical close. The last of the dukes, Maurice Acciaioli died, leaving a young son and a young widow, the latter renowned for her beauty and her talents. The duchess, whom the will of her husband had made regent, married a comely Venetian named Palmerio, who was said to have poisoned his wife in order to be free to accept her hand. Thereupon a nephew of the late duke, named Franco, stirred up insurrections at Athens and fled to Constantinople to complain to the sultan, Mahomet II. "The sultan, glad of all pretexts that coloured his armed intervention in the affairs of these principalities, ordered Omar, son of Tourakhan, chief of the permanent army of the Peloponnesus, to take possession of Athens, to dethrone the duchess and to confine her sons in his prisons of the citadel of Megara." This was done; but Palmerio, the duchess's husband, made his way to the sultan and interceded in her behalf. "Mahomet, by the advice of his viziers, feigned to listen equally to the complaints of Palmerio, and to march to reestablish the legitimate sovereignty. But already Franco, entering Megara under the auspices of the Ottomans, had strangled both the duchess and her son. Mahomet, advancing in turn to punish him for his vengeance, expelled Franco from Athens on entering it, and gave him, in compensation, the inferior and dependent principality of Thebes, in Boeotia. The sultan, as lettered as he was warlike, evinced no less pride and admiration than Sylla at the sight of the monuments of Athens. 'What gratitude,' exclaimed he before the Parthenon and the temple of Theseus, 'do not religion and the Empire owe to the son of Tourakhan, who has made them a present of these spoils of the genius of the Greeks.'"

A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 13, section 10-12.

ATHENS: A. D. 1466. Capture and plundering by the Venetians.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

ATHENS: A. D. 1687. Siege, bombardment and capture by the Venetians. Destructive explosion in the Parthenon.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

ATHENS: A. D. 1821-1829. The Greek revolution and war of independence. Capture by the Turks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------ATHENS: End--------------

ATHERTON GAG, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

ATHLONE, Siege of (A. D. 1691).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

ATHRAVAS.

See MAGIANS.

ATIMIA. The penalty of Atimia, under ancient Athenian law, was the loss of civic rights.

G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3.

ATIMUCA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUCUA.

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (May-September). Sherman's advance to the city. Its siege and capture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA); and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (September). Exclusive military occupation of the city. Removal of inhabitants.

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

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (November). Destruction of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

----------ATLANTA: End----------

ATLANTIC OCEAN: The name.

The Atlantic Ocean is mentioned by that name in a single passage of Herodotus; "but it is clear, from the incidental way in which it [the name] is here introduced, that it was one well known in his day."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 7, section 1, note.

For a sketch of the history of the modern use of the name,

See PACIFIC OCEAN.

{187}

ATREBATES, The. This name was borne by a tribe in ancient Belgic Gaul, which occupied modern Artois and part of French Flanders, and, also, by a tribe or group of tribes in Britain, which dwelt in a region between the Thames and the Severn. The latter was probably a colony from the former.

See BELGÆ; also BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

ATROPATENE.--MEDIA ATROPATENE.

"Atropatene, as a name for the Alpine land in the northwest of Iran (now Aderbeijan), came into use in the time of the Greek Empire [Alexander's]; at any rate we cannot trace it earlier. 'Athrapaiti' means 'lord of fire;' 'Athrapata,' 'one protected by fire;' in the remote mountains of this district the old fire worship was preserved with peculiar zeal under the Seleucids."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 4.

Atropatene "comprises the entire basin of Lake Urumiyeh, together with the country intervening between that basin and the high mountain chain which curves round the southwestern corner of the Caspian."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.

Atropatene was "named in honour of the satrap Atropates, who had declared himself king after Alexander's death."

J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 13.

ATSINAS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

ATTABEGS.

See ATABEGS.

ATTACAPAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATTACAPAN FAMILY.

ATTAMAN, or HETMAN.

See COSSACKS.

ATTECOTTI, The.

See OTADENI; also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

ATTIC SALT.

Thyme was a favorite condiment among the ancient Greeks, "which throve nowhere else so well as in Attica. Even salt was seasoned with thyme. Attic salt, however, is famed rather in the figurative than in the literal sense, and did not form an article of trade."

G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3, chapter 3.

ATTIC TALENT.

See TALENT.

ATTIC WAR, The.

See TEN YEARS' WAR.

ATTICA.

"It forms a rocky peninsula, separated from the mainland by trackless mountains, and jutting so far out into the Eastern Sea that it lay out of the path of the tribes moving from north to south. Hence the migratory passages which agitated the whole of Hellas left Attica untouched, and for this reason Attic history is not divided into such marked epochs as that of Peloponnesus; it possesses a superior unity, and presents an uninterrupted development of coalitions of life native in their origin to the land. ... On the other hand Attica was perfectly adapted by nature for receiving immigrants from the sea. For the whole country, as its name indicates, consists of coast-land; and the coast abounds in harbours, and on account of the depth of water in the roads is everywhere accessible; while the best of its plains open towards the coast and invite the mariner to land. The first landings by which the monotonous conditions of the age of the Pelasgians were interrupted where those of the Phoenicians, who domesticated the worship of Aphrodite, as well as that of the Tyrian Melcar on the coasts. Afterwards the tribes of the shores of Asia Minor came across; in the first place the Carians, who introduced the worship of the Carian Zeus and Posidon, and were followed by Cretans, Lycians, Dardanians and Old Ionians. The population became mixed. ... This first epoch of the national history the ancients connected with the name of Cecrops. It forms the transition from the life of rural districts and villages to that of a state. Attica has become a land with twelve citadels, in each of which dwells a chieftain or king, who has his domains, his suite, and his subjects. Every twelfth is a state by itself, with its separate public hall and common hearth. If under these circumstances a common national history was to be attained to, one of the twelve towns, distinguished by special advantages of situation, would have to become the capital. And to such a position undeniable advantages entitled the city whose seat was in the plain of the Cephisus. ... Into the centre of the entire plain advances from the direction of Hymettus a group of rocky heights, among them an entirely separate and mighty block which, with the exception of a narrow access from the west, offers on all sides vertically precipitous walls, surmounted by a broad level sufficiently roomy to afford space for the sanctuaries of the national gods and the habitations of the national rulers. It seems as if nature had designedly placed this rock in this position as the ruling castle and the centre of the national history. This is the Acropolis of Athens, among the twelve castles of the land that which was preëminently named after the national king Cecrops. ... So far from being sufficiently luxuriant to allow even the idle to find easy means of sustenance, the Attic soil was stony, devoid of a sufficient supply of water, and for the most part only adapted to the cultivation of barley; everywhere ... labour and a regulated industry were needed. But this labour was not unremunerative. Whatever orchard and garden fruits prospered were peculiarly delicate and agreeable to the taste; the mountain-herbs were nowhere more odourous than on Hymettus; and the sea abounded with fish. The mountains, not only by the beauty of their form invest the whole scenery with a certain nobility, but in their depths lay an abundance of the most excellent building-stone and silver ore; in the lowlands was to be found the best kind of clay for purposes of manufacture. The materials existed for all arts and handicrafts; and finally Attica rejoiced in what the ancients were wise enough to recognize as a special favour of Heaven, a dry and transparent atmosphere, by its peculiar clearness productive of bodily freshness, health and elasticity, while it sharpened the senses, disposed the soul to cheerfulness and aroused and animated the powers of the mind. Such were the institutions of the land which was developing the germs of its peculiar history at the time when the [Dorian] migrations were agitating the whole mainland. Though Attica was not herself overrun by hostile multitudes, yet about the same time she admitted manifold accessions of foreign population in smaller groups. By this means she enjoyed all the advantages of an invigorating impulse without exposing herself to the evils of a violent revolution. ... The immigrants who domesticated themselves in Attica were ... chiefly families of superior eminence, so that Attica gained not only in numbers of population, but also in materials of culture of every description."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: J. I. Lockhart, Attica and Athens.

See also. ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.

{188}

ATTILA'S CONQUESTS AND EMPIRE.

See HUNS.

ATTIOUANDARONK, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS. &c.

ATTYADÆ, The.

The first dynasty of the kings of Lydia, claimed to be sprung from Attys, son of the god Manes.

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 4, chapter 17.

AUBAINE, The right of.

"A prerogative by which the Kings of France claimed the property of foreigners who died in their kingdom without being naturalized." It was suppressed by Colbert, in the reign of Louis XIV.

J. A. Blanqui, History of Political Economy in Europe, page 285.

AUCH: Origin of the name.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

AUCKLAND, Lord, The Indian Administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

AUDENARDE.

See OUDINARDE.

AUDIENCIAS.

"For more than two centuries and a half the whole of South America, except Brazil, settled down under the colonial government of Spain, and during the greater part of that time this vast territory was under the rule of the Viceroys of Peru residing at Lima. The impossibility of conducting an efficient administration from such a centre ... at once became apparent. Courts of justice called Audiencias were, therefore, established in the distant provinces, and their presidents, sometimes with the title of captains-general, had charge of the executive under the orders of the Viceroys. The Audiencia of Charcas (the modern Bolivia) was established in 1559. Chile was ruled by captains-general, and an Audiencia was established at Santiago in 1568. In New Grenada the president of the Audiencia, created in 1564, was also captain-general. The Audiencia of Quito, also with its president as captain-general, dated from 1542; and Venezuela was under a captain-general."

C. R. Markham, Colonial History of South America. (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 8, page 295).

AUERSTADT, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).

AUGEREAU, Marshal, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER); GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE); and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER); 1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

AUGHRIM, OR AGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

AUGSBURG: Origin.

See AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 955. Great defeat of the Hungarians.

See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1530. Sitting of the Diet. Signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith. The Imperial Decree condemning the Protestants.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1555. The Religious Peace concluded.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1646. Unsuccessful siege by Swedes and French.

See GERMANY; A. D. 1646-1648.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1686-1697. The League and the War of the League.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686; and FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1703. Taken by the French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.

One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1806. Loss of municipal freedom. Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

----------AUGSBURG: End----------

AUGURS.--PONTIFICES.--FETIALES.

"There was ... enough of priesthood and of priests in Rome. Those, however, who had business with a god resorted to the god, and not to the priest. Every suppliant and inquirer addressed himself directly to the divinity; ... no intervention of a priest was allowed to conceal or to obscure this original and simple relation. But it was no easy matter to hold converse with a god. The god had his own way of speaking, which was intelligible only to those acquainted with it; but one who did rightly understand it knew not only how to ascertain, but also how to manage, the will of the god, and even in case of need to overreach or to constrain him. It was natural, therefore, that the worshipper of the god should regularly consult such men of skill and listen to their advice; and thence arose the corporations or colleges of men specially skilled in religious lore, a thoroughly national Italian institution, which had a far more important influence on political development than the individual priests or priesthoods. These colleges have been often, but erroneously, confounded with the priesthoods. The priesthoods were charged with the worship of a specific divinity. ... Under the Roman constitution and that of the Latin communities in general there were originally but two such colleges: that of the augurs and that of the pontifices. The six augurs were skilled in interpreting the language of the gods from the flight of birds; an art which was prosecuted with great earnestness and reduced to a quasi-scientific system. The five 'bridge builders' (pontifices) derived their name from their function, as sacred as it was politically important, of conducting the building and demolition of the bridge over the Tiber. They were the Roman engineers, who understood the mystery of measures and numbers; whence there devolved upon them also the duties of managing the calendar of the state, of proclaiming to the people the time of new and full moon and the days of festivals, and of seeing that every religious and every judicial act took place on the right day. ... Thus they acquired (although not probably to the full extent till after the abolition of the monarchy) the general oversight of Roman worship and of whatever was connected with it. [The president of their college was called the Pontifex Maximus.] ... They themselves described the sum of their knowledge as 'the science of things divine and human.' ... By the side of these two oldest and most eminent corporations of men versed in spiritual lore may be to some extent ranked the college of the twenty state-heralds (fetiales, of uncertain derivation) destined as a living repository to preserve traditionally the remembrance of the treaties concluded with neighboring communities, to pronounce an authoritative opinion on alleged infractions of treaty rights, and in case of need to demand satisfaction and declare war."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book I, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, section 103.

See, also, AUSPICES, and FETIALES.

{189}

AUGUSTA TREVIRORUM.

See TUÈVES, ORIGIN OF.

AUGUSTA VEROMANDUORUM. Modern St. Quentin.

See BELGÆ.

AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.

"Augusta Vindelicorum is the modern Augsburg, founded, it may be supposed, about the year 740 [B. C. 14] after the conquest of Rhætia by Drusus. ... The Itineraries represent it as the centre of the roads from Verona, Sirmium, and Treviri."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 36, note.

AUGUSTODUNUM.

The Emperor Augustus changed the name of Bibracte in Gaul to Augustodunum, which time has corrupted, since to Autun.

AUGUSTONEMETUM.

See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

AUGUSTUS.--AUGUSTA: The Title.

"Octavius [see ROME: B. C. 31-14] had warily declined any of the recognized designations of sovereign rule. Antonius had abolished the dictatorship; his successor respected the acclamations with which the people had greeted this decree. The voices which had saluted Cæsar with the title of king were peremptorily commanded to be dumb. Yet Octavius was fully aware of the influence which attached to distinctive titles of honour. While he scrupulously renounced the names upon which the breath of human jealousy had blown, he conceived the subtler policy of creating another for himself, which borrowing its original splendour from his own character, should reflect upon him an untarnished lustre. ... The epithet Augustus ... had never been borne by any man before. ... But the adjunct, though never given to a man, had been applied to things most noble, most venerable and most divine. The rites of the gods were called august, the temples were august; the word itself was derived from the holy auguries by which the divine will was revealed; it was connected with the favour and authority of Jove himself. ... The illustrious title was bestowed upon the heir of the Cæsarian Empire in the middle of the month of January, 727 [B. C. 27], and thenceforth it is by the name of Augustus that he is recognized in Roman history."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 30.

"When Octavianus had firmly established his power and was now left without a rival, the Senate, being desirous of distinguishing him by some peculiar and emphatic title, decreed, in B. C. 27, that he should be styled Augustus, an epithet properly applicable to some object demanding respect and veneration beyond what is bestowed upon human things. ... This being an honorary appellation ... it would, as a matter of course, have been transmitted by inheritance to his immediate descendants. ... Claudius, although he could not be regarded as a descendant of Octavianus, assumed on his accession the title of Augustus, and his example was followed by all succeeding rulers ... who communicated the title of Augusta to their consorts."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity., chapter 5.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

AULA REGIA, The.

See CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.

AULDEARN, Battle of (A. D. 1645).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

AULERCI, The.

The Aulerci were an extensive nation in ancient Gaul which occupied the country from the lower course of the Seine to the Mayenne. It was subdivided into three great tribes--the Aulerci Cenomanni, Aulerci Diablintes and Aulerci Eburovices.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2.

AULIC COUNCIL, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

AUMALE, Battle of (1592).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

AUNEAU, Battle of (1587).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

AURANGZEB, Moghul Emperor, or Padischah of India, A. D. 1658-1707.

AURAY, Battle of (1365).

See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.

AURELIAN, Roman Emperor. A. D.270-275.

AURELIAN ROAD, The.

One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from Rome to Pisa and Luna.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 11.

AURELIO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 768-774.

AURUNCANS, The.

See AUSONIANS; also OSCANS.

AUSCI, The.

See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

AUSGLEICH, The.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

AUSONIANS, OR AURUNCANS, The.

A tribe of the ancient Volscians, who dwelt in the lower valley of the Liris, and who are said to have been exterminated by the Romans, B. C. 314.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 3, chapter 10.

See, also, OSCANS.

AUSPICES, Taking the.

"The Romans, in the earlier ages of their history, never entered upon any important business whatsoever, whether public or private, without endeavouring, by means of divination, to ascertain the will of the gods in reference to the undertaking. ... This operation was termed 'sumere auspicia;' and if the omens proved unfavourable the business was abandoned or deferred. ... No meeting of the Comitia Curiata nor of the Comitia Centuriata could be held unless the auspices had been previously taken. ... As far as public proceedings were concerned, no private individual, even among the patricians, had the right of taking auspices. This duty devolved upon the supreme magistrate alone. ... In an army this power belonged exclusively to the commander-in-chief; and hence all achievements were said to be performed under his auspices, even although he were not present. ... The objects observed in taking these auspices were birds, the class of animals from which the word is derived ('Auspicium ab ave spicienda'). Of these, some were believed to give indications by their flight ... others by their notes or cries ... while a third class consisted of chickens ('pulli') kept in cages. When it was desired to obtain an omen from these last, food was placed before them, and the manner in which they comported themselves was closely watched. ... The manner of taking the auspices previous to the Comitia was as follows:--The magistrate who was to preside at the assembly arose immediately after midnight on the day for which it had been summoned, and called upon an augur to assist him. ... With his aid a region of the sky and a space of ground, within which the auspices were observed, were marked out by the divining staff ('lituus') of the augur. ... This operation was performed with the greatest care. ... In making the necessary observations, the president was guided entirely by the augur, who reported to him the result."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity., chapter 4.

ALSO IN: W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 13.

See, also, AUGUR.

{190}

AUSTERLITZ, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

AUSTIN, Stephen F., and the settlement of Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

AUSTIN CANONS, OR CANONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

"About the middle of the 11th century an attempt had been made to redress the balance between the regular and secular clergy, and restore to the latter the influence and consideration in spiritual matters which they had, partly by their own fault, already to a great extent lost. Some earnest and thoughtful spirits, distressed at once by the abuse of monastic privileges and by the general decay of ecclesiastical order, sought to effect a reform by the establishment of a stricter and better organized discipline in those cathedral and other churches which were served by colleges of secular priests. ... Towards the beginning of the twelfth century the attempts at canonical reform issued in the form of what was virtually a new religious order, that of the Angustinians, or Canons Regular of the order of S. Angustine. Like the monks and unlike the secular canons, from whom they were carefully distinguished, they had not only their table and dwelling but all things in common, and were bound by a vow to the observance of their rule, grounded upon a passage in one of the letters of that great father of the Latin Church from whom they took their name. Their scheme was a compromise between the old fashioned system of canons and that of the monastic confraternities; but a compromise leaning strongly towards the monastic side. ... The Austin canons, as they were commonly called, made their way across the channel in Henry's reign."

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Age., chapter 3.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800. Discovery and early exploration. The founding of the penal colonies at Sydney and Norfolk Island.

"Australia has had no Columbus. It is even doubtful if the first navigators who reached her shores set out with any idea of discovering a great south land. At all events, it would seem, their achievements were so little esteemed by themselves and their countrymen that no means were taken to preserve their names in connexion with their discoveries. Holland long had the credit of bringing to light the existence of that island-continent, which until recent years was best known by her name. In 1861, however, Mr. Major, to whom we are indebted for more recent research upon the subject, produced evidence which appeared to demonstrate that the Portuguese had reached the shores of Australia in 1601, five years before the Dutch yacht Duyphen, or Dove,--the earliest vessel whose name has been handed down,--sighted, about March, 1606, what is believed to have been the coast near Cape York, Mr. Major, in a learned paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1872, indicated the probability that the first discovery was made 'in or before the year 1531.' The dates of two of the six maps from which Mr. Major derives his information are 1531 and 1542. The latter clearly indicates Australia, which is called Jave la Grande. New Zealand is also marked."

F. P. Labilliere, Early History of the Colony of Victoria, chapter 1.

In 1606, De Quiros, a Spanish navigator, sailing from Peru, across the Pacific, reached a shore which stretched so far that he took it to be a continent. "He called the place 'Tierra Australis de Espiritu Santo,' that is 'Southern Land of the Holy Spirit.' It is now known that this was not really a continent, but merely one of the New Hebrides Islands, and more than a thousand miles away from the mainland. ... In after years, the name he had invented was divided into two parts; the island he had really discovered being called Espiritu Santo, while the continent he thought he had discovered was called Terra Australis. This last name was shortened by another discoverer--Flinders--to the present term Australia." After the visit to the Australian coast of the small Dutch ship, the "Dove," it was touched, during the next twenty years, by a number of vessels of the same nationality. "In 1622 a Dutch ship, the 'Leeuwin,' or 'Lioness,' sailed along the southern coast, and its name was given to the southwest cape of Australia. ... In 1628 General Carpenter sailed completely round the large Gulf to the north, which has taken its name from this circumstance. Thus, by degrees, all the northern and western, together with part of the southern shores, came to be roughly explored, and the Dutch even had some idea of colonizing this continent. ... During the next fourteen years we hear no more of voyages to Australia; but in 1642 Antony Van Diemen, the Governor of the Dutch possessions in the East Indies, sent out his friend Abel Jansen Tasman, with two ships, to make discoveries in the South Seas." Tasman discovered the island which he called Van Diemen's Land, but which has since been named in his own honor--Tasmania. "This he did not know to be an island; he drew it on his maps as if it were a peninsula belonging to the mainland of Australia." In 1699, the famous buccaneer, William Dampier, was given the command of a vessel sent out to the southern seas, and he explored about 900 miles of the northwestern coast of Australia; but the description which he gave of the country did not encourage the adventurous to seek fortune in it. "We hear of no further explorations in this part of the world until nearly a century after; and, even then, no one thought of sending out ships specially for the purpose. But in the year 1770 a series of important discoveries were indirectly brought about. The Royal Society of London, calculating that the planet Venus would cross the disc of the sun in 1769, persuaded the English Government to send out an expedition to the Pacific Ocean for the purpose of making observations on this event which would enable astronomers to calculate the distance of the earth from the sun. A small vessel, the 'Endeavour,' was chosen; astronomers with their instruments embarked, and the whole placed under the charge of" the renowned sailor, Captain James Cook. The astronomical purposes of the expedition were satisfactorily accomplished at Otaheite, and Captain Cook then proceeded to an exploration of the shores of New Zealand and Australia. {191} Having entered a fine bay on the south-eastern coast of Australia, "he examined the country for a few miles inland, and two of his scientific friends--Sir Joseph Banks and Dr. Solander--made splendid collections of botanical specimens. From this circumstance the place was called Botany Bay, and its two head-lands received the names of Cape Banks and Cape Solander. It was here that Captain Cook ... took possession of the country on behalf of His Britannic Majesty, giving it the name 'New South Wales,' on account of the resemblance of its coasts to the southern shores of Wales. Shortly after they had set sail from Botany Bay they observed a small opening in the land, but Cook did not stay to examine it, merely marking it on his chart as Port Jackson, in honour of his friend Sir George Jackson. ... The reports brought home by Captain Cook completely changed the beliefs current in those days with regard to Australia. ... It so happened that, shortly after Cook's return, the English nation had to deal with a great difficulty in regard to its criminal population. In 1776 the United States declared their independence, and the English then found they could no longer send their convicts over to Virginia, as they had formerly done. In a short time the gaols of England were crowded with felons. It became necessary to select a new place of transportation; and, just as this difficulty arose, Captain Cook's voyages called attention to a land in every way suited for such a purpose, both by reason of its fertility and of its great distance. Viscount Sydney, therefore, determined to send out a party to Botany Bay, in order to found a convict settlement there; and in May, 1787, a fleet was ready to sail." After a voyage of eight months the fleet arrived at Botany Bay, in January, 1788. The waters of the Bay were found to be too shallow for a proper harbour, and Captain Phillip, the appointed Governor of the settlement, set out, with three boats, to search for something better. "As he passed along the coast he turned to examine the opening which Captain Cook had called Port Jackson, and soon found himself in a winding channel of water, with great cliffs frowning overhead. All at once a magnificent prospect opened on his eyes. A harbour, which is, perhaps, the most beautiful and perfect in the world, stretched before him far to the west, till it was lost on the distant horizon. It seemed a vast maze of winding waters, dotted here and there with lovely islets. ... Captain Phillip selected, as the place most suitable to the settlement, a small inlet, which, in honour of the Minister of State, he called Sydney Cove. It was so deep as to allow vessels to approach within a yard or two of the shore." Great difficulties and sufferings attended the founding of the penal settlement, and many died of actual starvation as well as of disease; but in twelve years the population had risen to between 6,000 and 7,000 persons. Meantime a branch colony had been established on Norfolk Island. In 1702 Governor Phillip, broken in health, had resigned, and in 1795 he had been succeeded by Governor Hunter. "When Governor Hunter arrived, in 1795, he brought with him, on board his ship, the 'Reliance,' It young surgeon, George Bass, and a midshipman called Matthew Flinders. They were young men of the most admirable character. ... Within a month after their arrival they purchased a small boat about eight feet in length, which they christened the 'Tom Thumb.' Its crew consisted of themselves and a boy to assist." In this small craft they began a survey of the coast, usefully charting many miles of it. Soon afterwards, George Bass, in an open whale-boat, pursued his explorations southwards, to the region now called Victoria, and through the straits which bear his name, thus discovering the fact that Van Diemen's Land, or Tasmania, is an island, not a peninsula. In 1798, Bass and Flinders, again associated and furnished with a small sloop, sailed round and surveyed the entire coast of Van Diemen's Land. Bass now went to South America and there disappeared. Flinders was commissioned by the British Government in 1800 to make an extensive survey of the Australian coasts, and did so. Returning to England with his maps, he was taken prisoner on the way by the French and held in captivity for six years, while the fruits of his labor were stolen. He died a few years after being released.

A. and G. Sutherland, History of Australia, chapter 1-3.

ALSO IN: G. W. Rusden, History of Australia, chapter 1-3 (volume 1).

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840. Beginning of the Prosperity of New South Wales. Introduction of sheep-farming. The founding of Victoria and South Australia.

"For twenty years and more no one at home gave a thought to New South Wales, or 'Botany Bay,' as it was still erroneously called, unless in vague horror and compassion for the poor creatures who lived there in exile and starvation. The only civilizing element in the place was the presence of a devoted clergyman named Johnson, who had voluntarily accompanied the first batch of convicts. ... Colonel Lachlan Macquarie entered on the office of governor in 1810, and ruled the settlement for twelve years. His administration was the first turning point in its history. ... Macquarie saw that the best and cheapest way of ruling the convicts was to make them freemen as soon as possible. Before his time, the governors had looked on the convicts as slaves, to be worked for the profit of the government and of the free settlers. Macquarie did all he could to elevate the class of emancipists, and to encourage the convicts to persevere in sober industry in the hope of one day acquiring a respectable position. He began to discontinue the government farms, and to employ the convicts in road-making so as to extend the colony in all directions. When he came to Sydney, the country more than a day's ride from the town was quite unknown. The growth of the settlement was stopped on the west by a range called the Blue Mountains, which before his time no one had succeeded in crossing. But in 1813, there came a drought upon the colony: the cattle, on which everything depended, were unable to find food. Macquarie surmised that there must be plenty of pasture on the plains above the Blue Mountains: he sent an exploring party, telling them that a pass must be discovered. In a few months, not only was this task accomplished, and the vast and fertile pastures of Bathurst reached, but a road 130 miles long was made, connecting them with Sydney. The Lachlan and Macquarie rivers were traced out to the west of the Blue Mountains. {192} Besides this, coal was found at the mouth of the Hunter river, and the settlement at Newcastle formed. ... When it became known that the penal settlement was gradually becoming a free colony, and that Sydney and its population were rapidly changing their character, English and Scotch people soon bethought them of emigrating to the new country. Macquarie returned home in 1822, leaving New South Wales four times as populous, and twenty times as large as when he went out, and many years in advance of what it might have been under a less able and energetic governor. The discovery of the fine pastures beyond the Blue Mountains settled the destiny of the colony. The settlers came up thither with their flocks long before Macquarie's road was finished; and it turned out that the downs of Australia were the best sheep-walks in the world. The sheep thrives better there, and produces finer and more abundant wool, than anywhere else. John Macarthur, a lieutenant in the New South Wales corps, had spent several years in studying the effect of the Australian climate upon the sheep; and he rightly surmised that the staple of the colony would be its fine wool. In 1803, he went to England and procured some pure Spanish merino sheep from the flock of George III. ... The Privy Council listened to his wool projects, and he received a large grant of land. Macarthur had found out the true way to Australian prosperity. When the great upland pastures were discovered, the merino breed was well established in the colony; and the sheep-owners, without waiting for grants, spread with their flocks over immense tracts of country. This was the beginning of what is called squatting. The squatters afterwards paid a quit-rent to the government and thus got their runs, as they called the great districts where they pastured their flocks, to a certain extent secured to them. ... Hundreds upon hundreds of square miles of the great Australian downs were now explored and stocked with sheep for the English wool-market. ... It was in the time of Macquarie's successor, Sir Thomas Brisbane, that the prospects of New South Wales became generally known in England. Free emigrants, each bringing more or less capital with him, now poured in; and the demand for labour became enormous. At first the penal settlements were renewed as depots for the supply of labour, and it was even proposed that the convicts should be sold by auction on their arrival; but in the end the influx of free labourers entirely altered the question. In Brisbane's time, and that of his successor, Sir Ralph Darling, wages fell and work became scarce in England; and English working men now turned their attention to Australia. Hitherto the people had been either convicts or free settlers of more or less wealth, and between these classes there was great bitterness of feeling, each, naturally enough, thinking that the colony existed for their own exclusive benefit. The free labourers who now poured in greatly contributed in course of time to fusing the population into one. In Brisbane's time, trial by jury and a free press were introduced. The finest pastures in Australia, the Darling Downs near Moreton Bay, were discovered and settled [1825]. The rivers which pour into Moreton Bay were explored: one of them was named the Brisbane, and a few miles from its mouth the town of the same name was founded. Brisbane is now the capital of the colony of Queensland: and other explorations in his time led to the foundation of a second independent colony. The Macquarie was traced beyond the marshes, in which it was supposed to lose itself, and named the Darling: and the Murray river was discovered [1829]. The tracing out of the Murray river by the adventurous traveller Sturt, led to a colony on the site which he named South Australia. In Darling's time, the Swan River Colony, now called Western Australia, was commenced. Darling ... was the first to sell the land at a small fixed price, on the system adopted in America. ... Darling returned to England in 1831; and the six-years administration of his successor, Sir Richard Bourke, marks a fresh turning-point in Australian history. In his time the colony threw off two great offshoots. Port Phillip, on which now stands the great city of Melbourne, had been discovered in 1802, and in the next year the government sent hither a convict colony. This did not prosper, and this fine site was neglected for thirty years. When the sudden rise of New South Wales began, the squatters began to settle to the west and north of Port Phillip; and the government at once sent an exploring party, who reported most favourably of the country around. In 1836, Governor Bourke founded a settlement in this new land, which had been called, from its rich promise, Australia Felix: and under his directions the site of a capital was laid out, to be called Melbourne, in honour of the English Prime Minister. This was in 1837, so that the beginning of the colony corresponds nearly with that of Queen Victoria's reign; a circumstance which afterwards led to its being named Victoria. Further west still, a second new colony arose about this time on the site discovered by Sturt in 1829. This was called South Australia, and the first governor arrived there at the end of the year 1836. The intended capital was named Adelaide, in honour of the Queen of William IV. Both the new colonies were commenced on a new system, called from its inventor the Wakefield system, but the founders of South Australia were able to carry it out most effectually, because they were quite independent of the experience and the prejudices of the Sydney government. Mr. Wakefield was an ingenious man and a clever writer. ... His notion was that the new colonies ought to be made 'fairly to represent English society.' His plan was to arrest the strong democratic tendencies of the new community, and to reproduce in Australia the strong distinction of classes which was found in England. He wanted the land sold as dear as land-owners: and the produce of the land was to be applied in tempting labourers to emigrate with the prospect of better wages than they got at home. A Company was easily formed to carry out these ideas in South Australia. ... Like the settlement of Carolina as framed by Locke and Somers, it was really a plan for getting the advantages of the colony into the hands of the non-labouring classes: and by the natural laws of political economy, it failed everywhere. Adelaide became the scene of an Australian 'bubble.' The land-jobbers and money-lenders made fortunes: but the people who emigrated, mostly belonging to the middle and upper classes, found the scheme to be a delusion. Land rapidly rose in value, and as rapidly sank; and lots for which the emigrants had paid high prices became almost worthless. The labourers emigrated elsewhere, and so did those of the capitalists who had anything left. ... The depression of South Australia, however, was but temporary. It contains the best corn land in the whole island: and hence it of course soon became the chief source of the food supply of the neighbouring colonies, besides exporting large quantities of corn to England. It contains rich mines of copper, and produces large quantities of wool."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: G. W. Rusden, History of Australia, volume 1-2.

{193}

AUSTRALIA: A.D. 1839-1855. Progress of the Port Phillip District. Its Separation from New South Wales and erection into the colony of Victoria. Discovery of Gold. Constitutional organization of the colony.

"In 1839 the population of Port Phillip amounted to nearly 6,000, and was being rapidly augmented from without. The sheep in the district exceeded half a million, and of cattle and horses the numbers were in proportion equally large. The place was daily growing in importance. The Home Government therefore decided to send an officer, with the title of Superintendent, to take charge of the district, but to act under the Governor of New South Wales. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Esq., was appointed to this office. ... He arrived at Melbourne on the 30th September, 1839. Soon after this all classes of the new community appear to have become affected by a mania for speculation. ... As is always the case when speculation takes the place of steady industry, the necessaries of life became fabulously dear. Of money there was but little, in consideration of the amount of business done, and large transactions were effected by means of paper and credit. From highest to lowest, all lived extravagantly. ... Such a state of things could not last forever. In 1842, by which time the population had increased to 24,000, the crash came. ... From this depression the colony slowly recovered, and a sounder business system took the place of the speculative one. ... All this time, however, the colony was a dependency of New South Wales, and a strong feeling had gained ground that it suffered in consequence. ... A cry was raised for separation. The demand was, as a matter of course, resisted by New South Wales, but as the agitation was carried on with increased activity, it was at last yielded to by the Home authorities. The vessel bearing the intelligence arrived on the 11th November, 1850. The news soon spread, and great was the satisfaction of the colonists. Rejoicings were kept up in Melbourne for five consecutive days. ... Before, however, the separation could be legally accomplished, it was necessary that an Act should be passed in New South Wales to settle details. ... The requisite forms were at length given effect to, and, on the 1st July, 1851, a day which has ever since been scrupulously observed as a public holiday, it was proclaimed that the Port Phillip district of New South Wales had been erected into a separate colony to be called Victoria, after the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty. At the same time the Superintendent, Mr. C. J. La Trobe, was raised to the rank of Lieutenant-Governor. At the commencement of the year of separation the population of Port Phillip numbered 76,000, the sheep 6,000,000, the cattle 380,000. ... In a little more than a month after the establishment of Victoria as an independent colony, it became generally known that rich deposits of gold existed within its borders. ... The discovery of gold ... in New South Wales, by Hargreaves, in February, 1851, caused numbers to emigrate to that colony. This being considered detrimental to the interests of Victoria, a public meeting was held in Melbourne on the 9th of June, at which a 'gold-discovery committee' was appointed, which was authorized to offer rewards to any that should discover gold in remunerative quantities within the colony. The colonists were already on the alert. At the time this meeting was held, several parties were out searching for, and some had already found gold. The precious metal was first discovered at Clunes, then in the Yarra ranges at Anderson's Creek, soon after at Buninyong and Ballarat, shortly afterwards at Mount Alexander, and eventually at Bendigo. The deposits were found to be richer and to extend over a wider area than any which had been discovered in New South Wales. Their fame soon spread to the adjacent colonies, and thousands hastened to the spot. ... When the news reached home, crowds of emigrants from the United Kingdom hurried to our shores. Inhabitants of other European countries quickly joined in the rush. Americans from the Atlantic States were not long in following. Stalwart Californians left their own gold-yielding rocks and placers to try their fortunes at the Southern Eldorado. Last of all, swarms of Chinese arrived, eager to unite in the general scramble for wealth. ... The important position which the Australian colonies had obtained in consequence of the discovery of gold, and the influx of population consequent thereon, was the occasion of the Imperial Government determining in the latter end of 1852 that each colony should be invited to frame such a Constitution for its government as its representatives might deem best suited to its own peculiar circumstances. The Constitution framed in Victoria, and afterwards approved by the British Parliament, was avowedly based upon that of the United Kingdom. It provided for the establishment of two Houses of Legislature, with power to make laws, subject to the assent of the Crown as represented generally by the Governor of the colony; the Legislative Council, or Upper House, to consist of 30, and the Legislative Assembly, or Lower House, to consist of 60 members. Members of both Houses to be elective and to possess property qualifications. Electors of both Houses to possess either property or professional qualifications [the property qualification of members and electors of the Lower House has since been abolished]. ... The Upper House not to be dissolved, but five members to retire every two years, and to be eligible for re-election. The Lower House to be dissolved every five years [since reduced to three], or oftener, at the discretion of the Governor. Certain officers of the Government, four at least of whom should have seats in Parliament, to be deemed 'Responsible Ministers.' ... This Constitution was proclaimed in Victoria on the 23d November, 1855."

H. H. Hayter, Notes on the Colony of Victoria, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: _F. P. Labilliere, Early History of the Colony of Victoria, volume 2._

W. Westgarth, First Twenty Years of the Colony of Victoria.

{194}

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859. Separation of the Moreton Bay District from New South Wales. Its erection into the colony of Queensland.

"Until December, 1859, the north-west portion of the Fifth Continent was known as the Moreton Bay district, and belonged to the colony of New South Wales; but at that date it had grown so large that it was erected into a separate and independent colony, under the name of Queensland. It lies between latitude 10° 43' South and 29° South, and longitude 138° and 153° East, bounded on the north by Torres Straits; on the north-east by the Coral Sea; on the east by the South Pacific; on the south by New South Wales and South Australia; on the west by South Australia and the Northern Territory; and on the north-west by the Gulf of Carpentaria. It covers an area ... twenty times as large as Ireland, twenty-three times as large as Scotland, and eleven times the extent of England. ... Numerous good harbours are found, many of which form the outlets of navigable rivers. The principal of these [is] Moreton Bay, at the head of which stands Brisbane, the capital of the colony. ... The mineral wealth of Queensland is very great, and every year sees it more fully developed. ... Until the year 1867, when the Gympie field was discovered, gold mining as an industry was hardly known."

C. H. Eden, The Fifth Continent, chapter 10.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892. Proposed Federation of the Colonies.

"It has been a common saying in Australia that our fellow countrymen in that part of the world did not recognise the term 'Australian;' each recognised only his own colony and the empire. But the advocates of combination for certain common purposes achieved a great step forward in the formation of a 'Federal Council' in 1885. It was to be only a 'Council,' its decisions having no force over any colony unless accepted afterwards by the colonial Legislature. Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, and West Australia joined, New South Wales, South Australia, and New Zealand standing out, and, so constituted, it met twice. The results of the deliberations were not unsatisfactory, and the opinion that the move was in the right direction rapidly grew. In February of 1890 a Federation Conference, not private but representative of the different Governments, was called at Melbourne. It adopted an address to the Queen declaring the opinion of the conference to be that the best interests of the Australian colonies require the early formation of a union under the Crown into one Government, both legislative and executive. Events proceed quickly in Colonial History. In the course of 1890 the hesitation of New South Wales was finally overcome; powerful factors being the weakening of the Free Trade position at the election of 1890, the report of General Edwards on the Defences, and the difficulties about Chinese immigration. A Convention accordingly assembled at Sydney in March, 1891, which agreed upon a Constitution to be recommended to the several Colonies."

A. Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire, chapter 7, section 2.

"On Monday, March 2nd, 1891, the National Australasian Convention met at the Parliament House, Sydney, New South Wales, and was attended by seven representatives from each Colony, except New Zealand, which only sent three. Sir Henry Parkes (New South Wales) was elected President of the Convention, and Sir Samuel Griffith (Queensland), Vice-President. A series of resolutions, moved by Sir Henry Parkes, occupied the attention of the Convention for several days. These resolutions set forth the principles upon which the Federal Government should be established, which were to the effect that the powers and privileges of existing Colonies should be kept intact, except in cases where surrender would be necessary in order to form a Federal Government; that intercolonial trade and intercourse should be free; that power to impose Customs duties should rest with the Federal Government and Parliament; and that the naval and military defence of Australia should be entrusted to the Federal Forces under one command. The resolutions then went on to approve of a Federal Constitution which should establish a Federal Parliament to consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives; that a Judiciary, to consist of a Federal Supreme Court, to be a High Court of Appeal for Australia, should be established; and that a Federal Executive, consisting of a Governor-General, with responsible advisers, should be constituted. These resolutions were discussed at great length, and eventually were adopted. The resolutions were then referred to three Committees chosen from the delegates, one to consider Constitutional Machinery and the distribution of powers and functions; one to deal with matters relating to Finance, Taxation, and Trade Regulations; and the other to consider the question of the establishment of a Federal Judiciary. A draft Bill, to constitute the 'Commonwealth of Australia,' was brought up by the first mentioned of these Committees, and after full consideration was adopted by the Convention, and it was agreed that the Bill should be presented to each of the Australian Parliaments for approval and adoption. On Thursday, April 9th. the Convention closed its proceedings. The Bill to provide for the Federation of the Australasian colonies entitled 'A Bill to constitute a Commonwealth of Australia,' which was drafted by the National Australasian Convention, has been introduced into the Parliaments of most of the colonies of the group, and is still (October, 1892), under consideration. In Victoria it has passed the Lower House with some amendments."

Statesman's Year-book, 1893, page 308.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890. New South Wales and Victoria.

"New South Wales bears to Victoria a certain statistical resemblance. The two colonies have [1890] about the same population, and, roughly speaking, about the same revenues, expenditure, debt and trade. In each, a great capital collects in one neighbourhood more than a third of the total population. ... But ... considerable differences lie behind and are likely to develop in the future. New South Wales, in the opinion of her enemies, is less enterprising than Victoria, and has less of the go-ahead spirit which distinguishes the Melbourne people. On the other hand she possesses a larger territory, abundant supplies of coal, and will have probably, in consequence, a greater future. Although New South Wales is three and a half times as large as Victoria, and has the area of the German Empire and Italy combined, she is of course much smaller than the three other but as yet less important colonies of the Australian continent [namely Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia]. {195} As the country was in a large degree settled by assisted emigrants, of whom something like half altogether have been Irish, while the English section was largely composed of Chartists, ... the legislation of New South Wales has naturally shown signs of its origin. Manhood suffrage was carried in 1858; the abolition of primogeniture in 1862; safe and easy transfer of land through the machinery of the Torrens Act in the same year; and also the abolition of state aid to religion. A public system of education was introduced, with other measures of democratic legislation. ... Public education, which in Victoria is free, is still paid for by fees in New South Wales, though children going to or returning from school are allowed to travel free by railway. In general it may be said that New South Wales legislation in recent times has not been so bold as the legislation of Victoria. ... The land of New South Wales has to a large extent come into the hands of wealthy persons who are becoming a territorial aristocracy. This has been the effect firstly of grants and of squatting legislation, then of the perversion of the Act of 1861 [for 'Free Selection before Survey'] to the use of those against whom it had been aimed, and finally of natural causes--soil, climate and the lack of water. ... The traces of the convict element in New South Wales have become very slight in the national character. The prevailing cheerfulness, running into fickleness and frivolity, with a great deal more vivacity than exists in England, does not suggest in the least the intermixture of convict blood. It is a natural creation of the climate, and of the full and varied life led by colonists in a young country. ... A population of an excellent type has swallowed up not only the convict element, but also the unstable and thriftless element shipped by friends in Britain to Sydney or to Melbourne. The ne'er-do-weels were either somewhat above the average in brains, as was often the case with those who recovered themselves and started life afresh, or people who drank themselves to death and disappeared and left no descendants. The convicts were also of various classes; some of them were men in whom crime was the outcome of restless energy, as, for instance, in many of those transported for treason and for manslaughter; while some were people of average morality ruined through companions, wives, or sudden temptation, and some persons of an essentially depraved and criminal life. The better classes of convicts, in a new country, away from their old companions and old temptations, turned over a new leaf, and their abilities and their strong vitality, which in some cases had wrought their ruin in the old world, found healthful scope in subduing to man a new one. Crime in their cases was an accident, and would not be transmitted to the children they left behind them. On the other hand, the genuine criminals, and also the drunken ne'er-do-weels, left no children. Drink and vice among the 'assigned servants' class of convicts, and an absence of all facilities for marriage, worked them off the face of the earth, and those who had not been killed before the gold discovery generally drank themselves to death upon the diggings."

Sir C. W. Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain, part 2, chapter 2.

AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, OR NEUSTRASIA.

"It is conjectured by Luden, with great probability, that the Ripuarians were originally called the 'Eastern' people to distinguish them from the Salian Franks who lived to the West. But when the old home of the conquerors on the right bank of the Rhine was united with their new settlements in Gaul, the latter, as it would seem, were called Neustria or Neustrasia (New Lands); while the term Austrasia came to denote the original seats of the Franks, on what we now call the German bank of the Rhine. The most important difference between them (a difference so great as to lead to their permanent separation into the kingdoms of France and Germany by the treaty of Verdun) was this: that in Neustria the Frankish element was quickly absorbed by the mass of Gallo-Romanism by which it was surrounded; while in Austrasia, which included the ancient seats of the Frankish conquerors, the German element was wholly predominant. The import of the word Austrasia (Austria, Austrifrancia) is very fluctuating. In its widest sense it was used to denote all the countries incorporated into the Frankish Empire, or even held in subjection to it, in which the German language and population prevailed; in this acceptation it included therefore the territory of the Alemanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, and even that of the Saxons and Frises. In its more common and proper sense it meant that part of the territory of the Franks themselves which was not included in Neustria. It was subdivided into Upper Austrasia on the Moselle, and Lower Austrasia on the Rhine and Meuse. Neustria (or, in the fulness of the monkish Latinity, Neustrasia) was bounded on the north by the ocean, on the south by the Loire, and on the southwest [southeast?] towards Burgundy by a line which, beginning below Gien on the Loire, ran through the rivers Loing and Yonne, not far from their sources, and passing north of Auxerre and south of Troyes, joined the river Aube above Arcis."

W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.

"The northeastern part of Gaul, along the Rhine, together with a slice of ancient Germany, was already distinguished, as we have seen, by the name of the Eastern Kingdom, or Oster-rike, Latinized into Austrasia. It embraced the region first occupied by the Ripumarian Franks, and where they still lived the most compactly and in the greatest number. ... This was, in the estimation of the Franks, the kingdom by eminence, while the rest of the north of Gaul was simply not it--'ne-oster-rike,' or Neustria. A line drawn from the mouth of the Scheldt to Cambrai, and thence across the Marne at Chateau-Thierry to the Aube of Bar-sur-Aube, would have separated the one from the other, Neustria comprising all the northwest of Gaul, between the Loire and the ocean, with the exception of Brittany. This had been the first possession of the Salian Franks in Gaul. ... To such an extent had they been absorbed and influenced by the Roman elements of the population, that the Austrasians scarcely considered them Franks, while they, in their turn, regarded the Austrasians as the merest untutored barbarians."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 3, chapter 13, with note.

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 5, section 5.

See, also, FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752. </pre> [Image: HABSBURG POSSESSIONS]

[Image: HABSBURG POSSESSIONS]

[Image: AUSTRIA-HUNGARY]

{196}

AUSTRIA: The Name.

"The name of Austria, Oesterreich--Ostrich as our forefathers wrote it---is, naturally enough, a common name for the eastern part of any kingdom. The Frankish kingdom of the Merwings had its Austria; the Italian kingdom of the Lombards had its Austria also. We are half inclined to wonder that the name was never given in our own island either to Essex or to East-Anglia. But, while the other Austrias have passed away, the Oesterreich, the Austria, the Eastern mark, of the German kingdom, its defence against the Magyar invader, has lived on to our own times. It has not only lived on, but it has become one of the chief European powers. And it has become so by a process to which it would be hard to find a parallel."--

E. A. Freeman, The Historical Geography of Europe, volume 1, chapter 8, page 305.

AUSTRIA: The birthplace.

"On the disputed frontier, in the zone of perpetual conflict, were formed and developed the two states which, in turn, were to dominate over Germany, namely, Austria and Prussia. Both were born in the midst of the enemy. The cradle of Austria was the Eastern march, established by Charlemagne on the Danube, beyond Bavaria, at the very gate through which have passed so many invaders from the Orient. ... The cradle of Prussia was the march of Brandenburg, between the Elbe and the Oder, in the region of the exterminated Slavs."

_E. Lavisse, General View of the Political History of Europe, chapter 3, section 13._

AUSTRIA: The Singularity of Austrian history. A power which is not a national power.

"It is by no means an easy task to tell the story of the various lands which have at different times come under the dominion of Austrian princes, the story of each land by itself, and the story of them all in relation to the common power. A continuous narrative is impossible. ... Much mischief has been done by one small fashion of modern speech. It has within my memory become usual to personify nations and powers on the smallest occasions in a way which was formerly done only in language more or less solemn, rhetorical or poetical. We now talk every moment of England, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, as if they were persons. And as long as it is only England, France, Germany, Russia, or Italy of which we talk in this way, no practical harm is done; the thing is a mere question of style. For those are all national powers. ... But when we go on to talk in this way of 'Austria,' of 'Turkey,' direct harm is done; thought is confused, and facts are misrepresented. ... I have seen the words 'Austrian national honour;' I have come across people who believed that 'Austria' was one land inhabited by 'Austrians,' and that 'Austrians' spoke the 'Austrian' language. All such phrases are misapplied. It is to be presumed that in all of them 'Austria' means something more than the true Austria, the archduchy; what is commonly meant by them is the whole dominions of the sovereign of Austria. People fancy that the inhabitants of those dominions have a common being, a common interest, like that of the people of England, France, or Italy. ... There is no Austrian language, no Austrian nation; therefore there can be no such thing as 'Austrian national honour.' Nor can there be an 'Austrian policy' in the same sense in which there is an English or a French policy, that is, a policy in which the English or French government carries out the will of the English or French nation. ... Such phrases as 'Austrian interests,' 'Austrian policy,' and the like, do not mean the interests or the policy of any land or nation at all. They simply mean the interests and policy of a particular ruling family, which may often be the same as the interests and wishes of particular parts of their dominions, but which can never represent any common interest or common wish on the part of the whole. ... We must ever remember that the dominions of the House of Austria are simply a collection of kingdoms, duchies, etc., brought together by various accidental causes, but which have nothing really in common, no common speech, no common feeling, no common interest. In one case only, that of the Magyars in Hungary, does the House of Austria rule over a whole nation; the other kingdoms, duchies, etc., are only parts of nations, having no tie to one another, but having the closest ties to other parts of their several nations which lie close to them, but which are under other governments. The only bond among them all is that a series of marriages, wars, treaties, and so forth, have given them a common sovereign. The same person is king of Hungary, Archduke of Austria, Count of Tyrol, Lord of Trieste, and a hundred other things. That is all. ... The growth and the abiding dominion of the House of Austria is one of the most remarkable phænomena in European history. Powers of the same kind have arisen twice before; but in both cases they were very short-lived, while the power of the House of Austria has lasted for several centuries. The power of the House of Anjou in the twelfth century, the power of the House of Burgundy in the fifteenth century, were powers of exactly the same kind. They too were collections of scraps, with no natural connexion, brought together by the accidents of warfare, marriage, of diplomacy. Now why is it that both these powers broke in pieces almost at once, after the reigns of two princes in each case, while the power of the House of Austria has lasted so long? Two causes suggest themselves. One is the long connexion between the House of Austria and the Roman Empire and kingdom of Germany. So many Austrian princes were elected Emperors as to make the Austrian House seem something great and imperial in itself. I believe that this cause has done a good deal towards the result; but I believe that another cause has done yet more. This is that, though the Austrian power is not a national power, there is, as has been already noticed, a nation within it. While it contains only scraps of other nations, it contains the whole of the Magyar nation. It thus gets something of the strength of a national power. ... The kingdom of Hungary is an ancient kingdom, with known boundaries which have changed singularly little for several centuries; and its connexion with the archduchy of Austria and the kingdom of Bohemia is now of long standing. Anything beyond this is modern and shifting. The so-called 'empire of Austria' dates only from the year 1804. This is one of the simplest matters in the world, but one which is constantly forgotten. ... A smaller point on which confusion also prevails is this. {197} All the members of the House of Austria are commonly spoken of as archdukes and archduchesses. I feel sure that many people, if asked the meaning of the word archduke, would say that it was the title of the children of the 'Emperor of Austria,' as grand-duke is used in Russia, and prince in most countries. In truth, archduke is the title of the sovereign of Austria. He has not given it up; for he calls himself Archduke of Austria still, though he calls himself 'Emperor of Austria' as well. But by German custom, the children of a duke or count are all called dukes and counts for ever and ever. In this way the Prince of Wales is called 'Duke of Saxony,' and in the same way all the children of an Archduke of Austria are archdukes and archduchesses. Formally and historically then, the taking of an hereditary imperial title by the Archduke of Austria in 1804, and the keeping of it after the prince who took it had ceased in 1806 to be King of Germany and Roman Emperor-elect, was a sheer and shameless imposture. But it is an imposture which has thoroughly well served its ends."

E. A. Freeman, Preface to Leger's History of Austria-Hungary.

"Medieval History is a history of rights and wrongs; modern History as contrasted with medieval divides itself into two portions; the first a history of powers, forces, and dynasties; the second, a history in which ideas take the place of both rights and forces. ... Austria may be regarded as representing the more ancient form of right. ... The middle ages proper, the centuries from the year 1000 to the year 1500, from the Emperor Henry II. to the Emperor Maximilian, were ages of legal growth, ages in which the idea of right, as embodied in law, was the leading idea of statesmen, and the idea of rights justified or justifiable by the letter of law, was a profound influence with politicians. ... The house of Austria ... lays thus the foundation of that empire which is to be one of the great forces of the next age; not by fraud, not by violence, but here by a politic marriage, here by a well advocated inheritance, here by a claim on an imperial fief forfeited or escheated: honestly where the letter of the law is in her favour, by chicanery it may be here and there, but that a chicanery that wears a specious garb of right. The imperial idea was but a small influence compared with the super-structure of right, inheritance, and suzerainty, that legal instincts and a general acquiescence in legal forms had raised upon it."

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History, pages 209-215.

[Image]

ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

NOTE: The shaded parts denote the distribution of the Germans.

AUSTRIA: The Races.

"The ethnical elements of the population are as follows (1890 for Austria and 1880 for Hungary) on the basis of language;-- Austria (1890): German 8,461,580; Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 5,472,871; Polish 3,719,232; Ruthenian 3,105,221; Slovene 1,176,672; Servian and Croatian 644,926; Italian and Latin 675,305; Roumanian 209,110; Magyar 8,139.

Hungary (1880): German 1,972,115; Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 1,892,806; Ruthenian 360,051; Slovene 86,401; Servian and Croatian 2,359,708; Roumanian 2,423,387; Magyar 6,478,711; Gipsies 82,256; Others 83,940,"

Statesman's Year-Book, 1893; edited by J. S, Keltie.

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

A Logical Outline of Austrian History

In Which The Dominant Conditions And Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.

[Red] Physical or material. [Blue] Ethnological. [Green] Social and political. [Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious. [Black] Foreign.

The history of Austria, so far as it has importance, is unique in being the history of a Family and not the history of a State,-- the history of a Dynastic and not of a National Power. Territorially, the name was attached, until 1806, to an inconsiderable arch-duchy, on the Danube, in that corner of Teutonic Europe where the Germans of the Middle Ages fought back the Turanian races and the Slaves. Dynastically, it became connected, in the 13th century, with a House, then insignificant, in Alsace, and to the future remarkable fortunes of that House the territory so named contributed little more than a strong central position and a capital town.

Rodolph, Count of Hapsburg, with whom the importance of Austrian history begins, was elected Emperor in 1272, for the reason that his possessions were small and the resoluteness of his character was unknown. He disappointed the Electors by increasing the weight and reviving the power of the Imperial office, which they had not at all desired, and he used its power vigorously for the benefit of himself and his own. The King of Bohemia resisted him and was defeated and slain; and a part of the dominions which the Bohemian king had acquired, including Austria (then a duchy), Carniola and Styria, was appropriated by Rodolph, for his sons. The House of Hapsburg thus became the House of Austria, and its history is what bears the name of Austrian history from that time until 1806. The Hapsburg family has never produced men of the higher intellectual powers, or the higher qualities of any kind; but a remarkable vitality has been proved in it, and a politic self-seeking capability, which has never, perhaps, persisted through so many generations in any other line. It owes to these qualities the acquisition, again and again, of the elective Imperial crown, until that crown settled, at last, upon the heirs of the House, in practically hereditary succession, despite the wish of the princes of Germany to keep it shifting among the weaker members of their order, and despite the rivalry of greater houses with ambitions like its own. The prestige of the splendid Imperial title, and the influence derived from the theoretical functions of the Emperor--small as the actual powers that he held might be--were instruments of policy which the Austrian princes knew how to use with enormous effect. Austrian marriages and Austrian diplomacy, often alluded to as examples of luck and craft in political affairs, show, rather, it may be, the consistent calculation and sagacity with which the House of Austria has pursued its aims.

By marriages, by diplomacy, and by pressures brought to bear from the headship of the Empire, the family plucked, one by one, the coronets of Tyrol and Carinthia (1363), Franche-Comté and Flanders, with the Low Countries entire (1477), and the crowns of Spain, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia (1516), Bohemia (including Moravia), and Hungary (1526). Its many diadems were never moulded into one, but have been, from first to last, the carefully distinguished emblems of so many separate sovereignties, united in no way but by homage to a common prince.

The one most fortunate acquisition of the House, which has given most stability to the heterogeneous structure of it power, in the judgement of the ablest among modern historians is the Hungarian crown. Its Burgundian and Spanish marriages, which brought to it the rich Netherlands and the vast realm of Ferdinand and Isabella, brought also a division the Family, and the rooting of s second stem in Spain; and while its grandeur among the dynasties of Europe was augmented, the real gain of the House in its older seat was small. But the Kingdom on Hungary has been a mass of very concrete political power in its hands, and has supplied in some degree the weight of nationality that was otherwise wanting in the dominions of the House.

The mixture of races under the Austrian sovereigns is the most extraordinary in Europe. Their possessions exactly cover that part of the continent in which its earlier and later invaders fought longest and most; where the struggle between them was final, and where they mingled their settlements together. The Slavic peoples are predominant in numbers; the Germans are scarcely more than one-fourth of the whole; and yet, until recent years, the Austrian power figured chiefly as a German power in European politics, and took leadership in Germany itself. This position accrued to it through the persisting, potent influence of the Imperial title which the Archdukes of Austria bore, with mediæval fictions from Rome and from Germany woven together and clinging around it; and through the broken and divided condition of the German land, where petty courts and princelings disputed precedence with one another, and none could lead. When time raised up one strong and purely German kingdom, to rally and encourage a German sentiment of nationality, then Austria--expelled by it from the Teutonic circle--first found her true place in the politics of Europe.

For Germany the relationship was never a fortunate one. Alien interests came constantly between the Emperors and the Empire-- the proper subject of their care,--and they were drawn to alien sympathies by their connection with Spain. They imbibed the hateful temper of the Spanish Church, and fought the large majority of their German lieges, on the questions of the Reformation, for a century and a half. Among the combatants of the frightful "Thirty Years War" they were chiefly responsible for the death and ruin spread over the face of Germanic Europe. At no time did Germany find leading or strength in her nominal Emperors, nor in the states making up the hereditary possessions of their House. In the dark days when the sword of Napoleon threatened every neighbor of France, they deserted their station of command. It was the time which the head of the House of Austria chose for abdicating the crown of the Holy Roman Empire--that lingering fiction of history,--and yet assuming to be an Emperor still--the Emperor of an Empire which rested on the small duchy of Austria for its name.

The renunciation was timely; for now, when Germany rose to break the yoke of Napoleon, she found leadership within her own family of states. Then began the transformation in Germanic Europe which extinguished, after half a century, the last remains of the false relations to it of the Austrian House. Prussia opened her eyes to the new conditions of the age; set the schoolmaster at work among her children; made herself an example and a stimulus to all her neighbors. The Family which called itself Austria did otherwise. It was blind, and it preferred blindness. It read lessons in nothing but the Holy Alliance and the Treaty of Vienna. It listened to no teacher but Metternich. It made itself the resurrectionist of a dead Past in all the graveyards of Feudal Europe, and was heard for half a century as the supporter and champion of every hateful thing in government. It had won Lombardy and Venice by its double traffic with Napoleon and with those who cast Napoleon down; and it enraged the whole civilized world by the cold brutality of its oppressions there.

Events in due time brought the two "systems" of domestic polity-- the Prussian and the Austrian--to account, and weighed them together. As a consequence, it happens to-day that the House of Austria has neither place nor voice in the political organization of Germany; has no footing in Italy; has no dungeons of tyranny in its dominions; has no disciples of Metternich among its statesmen. Its face and its feet are now turned quite away from the paths of ambition and of policy which it trod so long. It has learned, and is learning, so fast that it may yet be a teacher in the school of liberal politics which it entered so late. It has set Hungary by the side of Austria, treading the one great nation of its subjects no longer under foot. It sees its interests and recognizes its duties in that quarter of Europe to which History and Geography have been pointing from Vienna and Buda-Pesth since the days of Charlemagne. Its mission in Europe is to command the precarious future of the southeastern states, so far as may be, and to guard them against the dangerous Muscovite, until they grow in civilization and strength and are united as one Power. In this mission it is the ally and the colleague of both Germany and Italy, and the three Powers are united by stronger bonds than were possible before each stood free.

[Right Margin]

9th Century. The March.

A. D. 1272. Rodolph of Hapsburg. Emperor.

A. D. 1282. The House in possession.

A. D. 1438. The Imperial Crown.

A. D. 1363-1526. Gathering of crowns and coronets.

The mixture of races.

A. D. 1521-1531. The Reformation.

A. D. 1618-1648. Thirty Years War.

A. D. 1806. End of the Holy Roman Empire.

A. D. 1815-1866. Policy of Metternich. vs. policy of Stein.

A. D. 1859. Loss of Lombardy.

A. D. 1866. Seven Weeks War. Loss of Venice.

A. D. 1867. Austro-Hungarian Empire.

A. D. 1882. The Triple Alliance.

-----End of "A Logical Outline..."-----

{198}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246. The Rise of the Margraviate, and the creation of the Duchy, under the Babenbergs. Changing relations to Bavaria. End of the Babenberg Dynasty.

"Austria, as is well known, is but the Latin form of the German Oesterreich, the kingdom of the east [see above: AUSTRASIA]. This celebrated historical name appears for the first time in 996. in a document signed by the emperor Otto III. ('in regione vulgari nomine Osterrichi'). The land to which it is there applied was created a march after the destruction of the Avar empire [805], and was governed like all the other German marches. Politically it was divided into two margraviates; that of Friuli, including Friuli properly so called, Lower Pannonia to the south of the Drave, Carinthia, Istria, and the interior of Dalmatia--the sea-coast having been ceded to the Eastern emperor;--the eastern margraviate comprising Lower Pannonia to the north of the Drave, Upper Pannonia, and the Ostmark properly so called. The Ostmark included the Traungau to the east of the Enns, which was completely German, and the Grunzvittigau. ... The early history of these countries lacks the unity of interest which the fate of a dynasty or a nation gives to those of the Magyar and the Chekh. They form but a portion of the German kingdom, and have no strongly marked life of their own. The march, with its varying frontier, had not even a geographical unity. In 876, it was enlarged by the addition of Bavaria; in 890, it lost Pannonia, which was given to Bracislav, the Croat prince, in return for his help against the Magyars, and in 937, it was destroyed and absorbed by the Magyars, who extended their frontier to the river Enns. After the battle of Lechfeld or Augsburg (955), Germany and Italy being no longer exposed to Hungarian invasions, the march was re-constituted and granted to the margrave Burkhard, the brother-in-law of Henry of Bavaria. Leopold of Babenberg succeeded him (973), and with him begins the dynasty of Babenberg, which ruled the country during the time of the Premyslides [in Bohemia] and the house of Arpad [in Hungary]. The Babenbergs derived their name from the castle of Babenberg, built by Henry, margrave of Nordgau, in honor of his wife, Baba, sister of Henry the Fowler. It reappears in the name of the town of Bamberg, which now forms part of the kingdom of Bavaria. ... Though not of right an hereditary office, the margraviate soon became so, and remained in the family of the Babenbergs; the march was so important a part of the empire that no doubt the emperor was glad to make the defence of this exposed district the especial interest of one family. ... The marriages of the Babenbergs were fortunate; in 1138 the brother of Leopold [Fourth of that name in the Margraviate] Conrad of Hohenstaufen, Duke of Franconia, was made emperor. It was now that the struggle began between the house of Hohenstaufen and the great house of Welf [or Guelf: See GUELFS AND GHIBELINES] whose representative was Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria. Henry was defeated in the unequal strife, and was placed under the ban of the Empire, while the duchy of Saxony was awarded to Albert the Bear of Brandenburg, and the duchy of Bavaria fell to the share of Leopold IV. (1138). Henry the Proud died in the following year, leaving behind him a son under age, who was known later on as Henry the Lion. His uncle Welf would not submit to the forfeiture by his house of their old dominions, and marched against Leopold to reconquer Bavaria, but he was defeated by Conrad at the battle of Weinsberg (1140). Leopold died shortly after this victory, and was succeeded both in the duchy of Bavaria and in the margraviate of Austria by his brother, Henry II." Henry II. endeavored to strengthen himself in Bavaria by marrying the widow of Henry the Proud, and by extorting from her son, Henry the Lion, a renunciation of the latter's rights. But Henry the Lion afterwards repudiated his renunciation, and in 1156 the German diet decided that Bavaria should be restored to him. Henry of Austria was wisely persuaded to yield to the decision, and Bavaria was given up. "He lost nothing by this unwilling act of disinterestedness, for he secured from the emperor considerable compensation. From this time forward, Austria, which had been largely increased by the addition of the greater part of the lands lying between the Enns and the Inn, was removed from its almost nominal subjection to Bavaria and became a separate duchy [Henry II. being the first hereditary Duke of Austria]. An imperial edict, dated the 21st of September, 1156, declares the new duchy hereditary even in the female line, and authorizes the dukes to absent themselves from all diets except those which were held in Bavarian territory. It also permits them, in case of a threatened extinction of their dynasty, to propose a successor. ... Henry II. was one of the founders of Vienna. He constructed a fortress there, and, in order to civilize the surrounding country, sent for some Scotch monks, of whom there were many at this time in Germany." In 1177 Henry II. was succeeded by Leopold V., called the Virtuous. "In his reign the duchy of Austria gained Styria, an important addition to its territory. This province was inhabited by Slovenes and Germans, and took its name from the castle of Steyer, built in 980 by Otokar III., count of the Trungau. In 1056, it was created a margraviate, and in 1150 it was enlarged by the addition of the counties of Maribor (Marburg) and Cilly. In 1180, Otokar VI. of Styria (1164-1102) obtained the hereditary title of duke from the Emperor in return for his help against Henry the Lion." Dying without children, Otokar made Leopold of Austria his heir. "Styria was annexed to Austria in 1192, and has remained so ever since. ... Leopold V. is the first of the Austrian princes whose name is known in Western Europe. He joined the third crusade," and quarrelled with Richard Coeur de Lion at the siege of St. Jean d' Acre. Afterwards, when Richard, returning home by the Adriatic, attempted to pass through Austrian territory incognito, Leopold revenged himself by seizing and imprisoning the English king, finally selling his royal captive to a still meaner Emperor for 20,000 marks. Leopold VI. who succeeded to the Austrian duchy in 1198, did much for the commerce of his country. "He made Vienna the staple town, and lent a sum of 30,000 marks of silver to the city to enable it to increase its trade. He adorned it with many new buildings, among them the Neue Burg." His son, called Frederick the Fighter (1230-1246) was the last of the Babenberg dynasty. His hand was against all his neighbors, including the Emperor Frederick II., and their hands were against him. He perished in June, 1246, on the banks of the Leitha, while at war with the Hungarians.

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: _E. F. Henderson, Select History Documents of the Middle Ages, book 2, number 7._

{199}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282. Rodolph of Hapsburg and the acquisition of the Duchy for his family.

"The House of Austria owes its origin and power to Rhodolph of Hapsburgh, son of Albert IV. count of Hapsburgh. The Austrian genealogists, who have taken indefatigable but ineffectual pains to trace his illustrious descent from the Romans, carry it with great probability to Ethico, duke of Alsace, in the seventh century, and unquestionably to Guntram the Rich, count of Alsace and Brisgau, who flourished in the tenth." A grandson of Guntram, Werner by name, "became bishop of Strasburgh, and on an eminence above Windiisch, built the castle of Hapsburgh ['Habichtsburg' 'the castle of vultures'], which became the residence of the future counts, and gave a new title to the descendants of Guntram. ... The successors of Werner increased their family inheritance by marriages, donations from the Emperors, and by becoming prefects, advocates, or administrators of the neighbouring abbeys, towns, or districts, and his great grandson, Albert III., was possessor of no inconsiderable territories in Suabia, Alsace, and that part of Switzerland which is now called the Argau, and held the landgraviate of Upper Alsace. His son, Rhodolph, received from the Emperor, in addition to his paternal inheritance, the town and district of Lauffenburgh, an imperial city on the Rhine. He acquired also a considerable accession of territory by obtaining the advocacy of Uri, Schweitz, and Underwalden, whose natives laid the foundation of the Helvetic Confederacy, by their union against the oppressions of feudal tyranny."

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 1.

"On the death of Rodolph in 1232 his estates were divided between his sons Albert IV. and Rodolph II.; the former receiving the landgraviate of Upper Alsace, and the county of Hapsburg, together with the patrimonial castle; the latter, the counties Rheinfelden and Lauffenburg, and some other territories. Albert espoused Hedwige, daughter of Ulric, count of Kyburg; and from this union sprang the great Rodolph, who was born on the 1st of May 1218, and was presented at the baptismal font by the Emperor Frederic II. On the death of his father Albert in 1240, Rodolph succeeded to his estates; but the greater portion of these were in the hands of his paternal uncle, Rodolph of Lauffenburg; and all he could call his own lay within sight of the great hall of his castle. ... His disposition was wayward and restless, and drew him into repeated contests with his neighbours and relations. ... In a quarrel with the Bishop of Basel, Rodolph led his troops against that city, and burnt a convent in the suburbs, for which he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. He then entered the service of Ottocar II. King of Bohemia, under whom he served, in company with the Teutonic Knights, in his wars against the Prussian pagans; and afterwards against Bela IV. King of Hungary." The surprising election, in 1272, of this little known count of Hapsburg, to be King of the Romans, with the substance if not the title of the imperial dignity which that election carried with it, was due to a singular friendship which he had acquired some fourteen years before. When Archbishop Werner, Elector of Mentz, was on his way to Rome in 1259, to receive the pallium, he "was escorted across the Alps by Rodolph of Hapsburg, and under his protection secured from the robbers who beset the passes. Charmed with the affability and frankness of his protector, the Archbishop conceived a strong regard for Rodolph;" and when, in 1272, after the Great Interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], the Germanic Electors found difficulty in choosing an Emperor, the Elector of Mentz recommended his friend of Hapsburg as a candidate. "The Electors are described by a contemporary as desiring an Emperor but detesting his power. The comparative lowliness of the Count of Hapsburg recommended him as one from whom their authority stood in little jeopardy; but the claims of the King of Bohemia were vigorously urged; and it was at length agreed to decide the election by the voice of the Duke of Bavaria. Lewis without hesitation nominated Rodolph. ... The early days of Rodolph's reign were disturbed by the contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia. That Prince ... persisted in refusing to acknowledge the Count of Hapsburg as his sovereign. Possessed of the dutchies of Austria, Styria, Carniola and Carinthia, he might rely upon his own resources; and he was fortified in his resistance by the alliance of Henry, Duke of Lower Bavaria. But the very possession of these four great fiefs was sufficient to draw down the envy and distrust of the other German Princes. To all these territories, indeed, the title of Ottocar was sufficiently disputable. On the death of Frederic II. fifth duke of Austria [and last of the Babenberg dynasty] in 1246, that dutchy, together with Styria and Carniola, was claimed by his niece Gertrude and his sister Margaret. By a marriage with the latter, and a victory over Bela IV. King of Hungary, whose uncle married Gertrude, Ottocar obtained possession of Austria and Styria; and in virtue of a purchase from Ulric, Duke of Carinthia and Carniola, he possessed himself of those dutchies on Ulric's death in 1269, in defiance of the claims of Philip, brother of the late Duke. Against so powerful a rival the Princes assembled at Augsburg readily voted succours to Rodolph; and Ottocar having refused to surrender the Austrian dominions, and even hanged the heralds who were sent to pronounce the consequent sentence of proscription, Rodolph with his accustomed promptitude took the field [1276], and confounded his enemy by a rapid march upon Austria. In his way he surprised and vanquished the rebel Duke of Bavaria, whom he compelled to join his forces; he besieged and reduced to the last extremity the city of Vienna; and had already prepared a bridge of boats to cross the Danube and invade Bohemia, when Ottocar arrested his progress by a message of submission. The terms agreed upon were severely humiliating to the proud soul of Ottocar," and he was soon in revolt again, with the support of the Duke of Bavaria. Rodolph marched against him, and a desperate battle was fought at Marschfeld, August 26, 1278, in which Ottocar, deserted at a critical moment by the Moravian troops, was defeated and slain. "The total loss of the Bohemians on that fatal day amounted to more than 14,000 men. In the first moments of his triumph, Rodolph designed to appropriate the dominions of his deceased enemy. {200} But his avidity was restrained by the Princes of the Empire, who interposed on behalf of the son of Ottocar; and Wenceslaus was permitted to retain Bohemia and Moravia. The projected union of the two families was now renewed: Judith of Hapsburg was affianced to the young King of Bohemia; whose sister Agnes was married to Rodolph, youngest son of the King of the Romans." In 1282, Rodolph, "after satisfying the several claimants to those territories by various cessions of lands .... obtained the consent of a Diet held at Augsburg to the settlement of Austria, Styria, and Carniola, upon his two surviving sons; who were accordingly jointly invested with those dutchies with great pomp and solemnity; and they are at this hour enjoyed by the descendants of Rodolph of Hapsburg."

Sir R. Comyn, History of the Western Empire, chapter 14.

ALSO IN: J. Planta, History of the Helvetic Confederacy. book 1. chapter 5 (volume 1).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1282-1315. Relations of the House of Hapsburg to the Swiss Forest Cantons. The Tell Legend. The Battle of Morgarten.

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1290. Beginning of Hapsburg designs upon the crown of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1291-1349. Loss and recovery of the imperial crown. Liberation of Switzerland. Conflict between Frederick and Lewis of Bavaria. The imperial crown lost once more.

Rudolf of Hapsburg desired the title of King of the Romans for his son. "But the electors already found that the new house of Austria was becoming too powerful, and they refused. On his death, in fact, in 1291, a prince from another family, poor and obscure, Adolf of Nassau, was elected after an interregnum of ten months. His reign of six years is marked by two events; he sold himself to Edward I. in 1291, against Philip the Fair, for 100,000 pounds sterling, and used the money in an attempt to obtain in Thuringia a principality for his family as Rudolf had done in Austria. The electors were displeased and chose Albert of Austria to succeed him, who conquered and killed his adversary at Göllheim, near Worms (1298). The ten years reign of the new king of the Romans showed that he was very ambitious for his family, which he wished to establish on the throne of Bohemia, where the Slavonic dynasty had lately died out, and also in Thuringia and Meissen, where he lost a battle. He was also bent upon extending his rights, even unjustly--in Alsace and Switzerland--and it proved an unfortunate venture for him. For, on the one hand, he roused the three Swiss cantons of Uri, Schweitz, and Unterwalden to revolt; on the other hand, he roused the wrath of his nephew John of Swabia, whom he defrauded of his inheritance (domains in Switzerland. Swabia, and Alsace). As he was crossing the Reuss, John thrust him through with his sword (1308). The assassin escaped. One of Albert's daughters, Agnes, dowager queen of Hungary, had more than a thousand innocent people killed to avenge the death of her father. The greater part of the present Switzerland had been originally included in the Kingdom of Burgundy, and was ceded to the empire, together with that kingdom, in 1033. A feudal nobility, lay and ecclesiastic, had gained a firm footing there. Nevertheless, by the 12th century the cities had risen to some importance. Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Freiburg had an extensive commerce and obtained municipal privileges. Three little cantons, far in the heart of the Swiss mountains, preserved more than all the others their indomitable spirit of independence. When Albert of Austria became Emperor [King?] he arrogantly tried to encroach upon their independence. Three heroic mountaineers, Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of Melchthal, and Walter Fürst, each with ten chosen friends, conspired together at Rütli, to throw off the yoke. The tyranny of the Austrian bailiff Gessler, and William Tell's well-aimed arrow, if tradition is to be believed, gave the signal for the insurrection."

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

"Albert's violent death left to Leopold, his successor in the duchy of Austria, the care of repressing the rebellion. He failed and was completely defeated at Mortgarten (1315). That was Switzerland's field of Marathon. ... When Rudolf of Hapsburg was chosen by the electors, it was because of his poverty and weakness. At his death accordingly they did not give their votes for his son Albert. ... Albert, however, succeeded in overthrowing his rival. But on his death they were firm in their decision not to give the crown for a third time to the new and ambitions house of Hapsburg. They likewise refused, for similar reasons, to accept Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair, whom the latter tried to place on the imperial throne, in order that he might indirectly rule over Germany. They supported the Count of Luxemburg, who became Henry VII. By choosing emperors [kings?] who were poor, the electors placed them under the temptation of enriching themselves at the expense of the empire. Adolf failed, it is true, in Thuringia, but Rudolf gained Austria by victory; Henry succeeded in Bohemia by means of marriage, and Bohemia was worth more than Austria at that time because, besides Moravia, it was made to cover Silesia and a part of Lusatia (Oberlausitz). Henry's son, John of Luxemburg, married the heiress to that royal crown. As for Henry himself he remained as poor as before. He had a vigorous, restless spirit, and went to try his fortunes on his own account beyond the Alps. ... He was seriously threatening Naples, when he died either from some sickness or from being poisoned by a Dominican in partaking of the host (1313). A year's interregnum followed; then two emperors [kings?] at once: Lewis of Bavaria and Frederick the Fair, son of the Emperor Albert. After eight years of war, Lewis gained his point by the victory of Mühldorf (1322), which delivered Frederick into his hands. He kept him in captivity for three years, and at the end of that time became reconciled with him, and they were on such good terms that both bore the title of King and governed in common. The fear inspired in Lewis by France and the Holy See dictated this singular agreement. Henry VII. had revived the policy of interference by the German emperors in the affairs of Italy, and had kindled again the quarrel with the Papacy which had long appeared extinguished. Lewis IV. did the same. ... While Boniface VIII. was making war on Philip the Fair, Albert allied himself with him; when, on the other hand, the Papacy was reduced to the state of a servile auxiliary to France, the Emperor returned to his former hostility. {201} When ex-communicated by Pope John XXII., who wished to give the empire to the king of France, Charles IV., Lewis IV. made use of the same weapons. . . . Tired of a crown loaded with anxieties, Lewis of Bavaria was finally about to submit to the Pope and abdicate, when the electors perceived the necessity of supporting their Emperor and of formally releasing the supreme power from foreign dependency which brought the whole nation to shame. That was the object of the Pragmatic Sanction of Frankfort, pronounced in 1338 by the Diet, on the report of the electors. . . . The king of France and Pope Clement VI., whose claims were directly affected by this declaration, set up against Lewis IV. Charles of Luxemburg, son of John the Blind, who became king of Bohemia in 1346, when his father had been killed fighting on the French side at the battle of Crécy. Lewis died the following year. He had gained possession of Brandenburg and the Tyrol for his house, but it was unable to retain possession of them. The latter county reverted to the house of Austria in 1363. The electors most hostile to the French party tried to put up, as a rival candidate to Charles of Luxemburg, Edward III., king of England, who refused the empire; then they offered it to a brave knight, Gunther of Schwarzburg, who died, perhaps poisoned, after a few months (1349). The king of Bohemia then became Emperor as Charles IV. by a second election."

V. Duruy, The History of the Middle Ages, book 9, chapter 30.

See, also, Germany: A. D. 1314-1347.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364. Forged charters of Duke Rudolf. The Privilegium Majus. His assumption of the Archducal title. Acquisition of Tyrol. Treaties of inheritance with Bohemia and Hungary.

King John, of Bohemia, had married his second son, John Henry, at the age of eight, to the afterwards notable Margaret Maultasche (Pouch mouth), daughter of the duke of Tyrol and Carinthia, who was then twelve years old. He hoped by this means to reunite those provinces to Bohemia. To thwart this scheme, the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, and the two Austrian princes, Albert the Wise and Otto the Gay, came to an understanding. "By the treaty of Hagenau (1330), it was arranged that on the death of duke Henry, who had no male heirs, Carinthia should become the property of Austria, Tyrol that of the Emperor. Henry died in 1335, whereupon the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, declared that Margaret Maultasche had forfeited all rights of inheritance, and proceeded to assign the two provinces to the Austrian princes, with the exception of some portion of the Tyrol which devolved on the house of Wittelsbach. Carinthia alone, however, obeyed the Emperor; the Tyrolese nobles declared for Margaret, and, with the help of John of Bohemia, this princess was able to keep possession of this part of her inheritance. ... Carinthia also did Dot long remain in the undisputed possession of Austria. Margaret was soon divorced from her very youthful husband (1342), and shortly after married the son of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria, who hoped to be able to invest his son, not only with Tyrol, but also with Carinthia, and once more we find the houses of Hapsburg and Luxemburg united by a common interest.. . ... When ... Charles IV. of Bohemia was chosen emperor, he consented to leave Carinthia in the possession of Austria. Albert did homage for it. ... According to the wish of their father, the four sons of Albert reigned after him; but the eldest, Rudolf IV., exercised executive authority in the name of the others [1358--1365]. ... He was only 19 when he came to the throne, but he had already married one of the daughters of the Emperor Charles IV. Notwithstanding this family alliance, Charles had not given Austria such a place in the Golden Bull [see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1492] as seemed likely to secure either her territorial importance or a proper position for her princes. They had not been admitted into the electoral college of the Empire, and yet their scattered possessions stretched from the banks of the Leitha to the Rhine. ... These grievances were enhanced by their feeling of envy towards Bohemia, which had attained great prosperity under Charles IV. It was at this time that, in order to increase the importance of his house, Rudolf, or his officers of state, had recourse to a measure which was often employed in that age by princes, religious bodies, and even by the Holy See. It was pretended that there were in existence a whole series of charters which had been granted to the house of Austria by various kings and emperors, and which secured to their princes a position entirely independent of both empire and Emperor. According to these documents, and more especially the one called the 'privilegium majus,' the duke of Austria owed no kind of service to the empire, which was, however, bound to protect him; ... he was to appear at the diets with the title of archduke, and was to have the first place among the electors. ... Rudolf pretended that these documents had just come to light, and demanded their confirmation from Charles IV., who refused it. Nevertheless on the strength of these lying charters, he took the title of palatine archduke, without waiting to ask the leave of Charles, and used the royal insignia. Charles IV., who could not fail to be irritated by these pretensions, in his turn revived the claims which he had inherited from Premysl Otokar II. to the lands of Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. These claims, however, were simply theoretical, and no attempt was made to enforce them, and the mediation of Louis the Great, King of Hungary, finally led to a treaty between the two princes, which satisfied the ambition of the Habsburgs (1364). By this treaty, the houses of Habsburg in Austria and of Luxemburg in Bohemia each guaranteed the inheritance of their lands to the other, in case of the extinction of either of the two families, and the estates of Bohemia and Austria ratified this agreement. A similar compact was concluded between Austria and Hungary, and thus the boundaries of the future Austrian state were for the first time marked out. Rudolf himself gained little by these long and intricate negotiations, Tyrol being all he added to his territory. Margaret Maultasche had married her son Meinhard to the daughter of Albert the Wise, at the same time declaring that, in default of heirs male to her son, Tyrol should once more become the possession of Austria, and it did so in 1363. Rudolf immediately set out for Botzen, and there received the homage of the Tyrolese nobles. ...The acquisition of Tyrol was most important to Austria. It united Austria Proper with the old possessions of the Habsburgs in Western Germany, and opened the way to Italy. Margaret Maultasche died at Vienna in 1369. The memory of this restless and dissolute princess still survives among the Tyrolese."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, pages 143-148.

{202}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1386-1388. Defeats by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.

SEE SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1437-1516. Contests for Hungary and Bohemia. The right of Succession to the Hungarian Crown secured.

"Europe would have had nothing to fear from the Barbarians, if Hungary had been permanently united to Bohemia, and had held them in check. But Hungary interfered both with the independence and the religion of Bohemia. In this way they weakened each other, and in the 15th century wavered between the two Sclavonic and German powers on their borders (Poland and Austria) [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458]. United under a German prince from 1455 to 1458, separated for a time under national sovereigns (Bohemia until 1471, Hungary until 1490), they were once more united under Polish princes until 1526, at which period they passed definitively into the hands of Austria. After the reign of Ladislas of Austria, who won so much glory by the exploits of John Hunniades, George Podiebrad obtained the crown of Bohemia, and Matthias Corvinus, the son of Hunniades, was elected King of Hungary (1458). These two princes opposed successfully the chimerical pretensions of the Emperor Frederick III. Podiebrad protected the Hussites and incurred the enmity of the Popes. Matthias victoriously encountered the Turks and obtained the favour of Paul II., who offered him the crown of Podiebrad, his father-in-law. The latter opposed to the hostility of Matthias the alliance of the King of Poland, whose eldest son, Ladislas, he designated as his successor. At the same time, Casimir, the brother of Ladislas, endeavoured to take from Matthias the crown of Hungary. Matthias, thus pressed on all sides, was obliged to renounce the conquest of Bohemia, and content himself with the provinces of Moravia, Silesia, and Lusatia, which were to return to Ladislas if Matthias died first (1475-1478). The King of Hungary compensated himself at the expense of Austria. On the pretext that Frederick III. had refused to give him his daughter, he twice invaded his states and retained them in his possession [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487]. With this great prince Christendom lost its chief defender, Hungary her conquests and her political preponderance (1490). The civilization which he had tried to introduce into his kingdom was deferred for many centuries. ... Ladislas (of Poland), King of Bohemia, having been elected King of Hungary, was attacked by his brother John Albert, and by Maximilian of Austria, who both pretended to that crown. He appeased his brother by the cession of Silesia (1491), and Maximilian by vesting in the House of Austria the right of succession to the throne of Hungary, in case he himself should die without male issue. Under Ladislas, and under his son Louis II., who succeeded him while still a child, in 1516 Hungary was ravaged with impunity by the Turks."

J. Michelet, A Summary of Modern History, chapter 4.

See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1438-1493. The Imperial Crown lastingly regained. The short reign of Albert II., and the long reign of Frederick III.

"After the death of Sigismund, the princes, in 1438, elected an emperor [king?] from the house of Austria, which, with scarcely any intermission, has ever since occupied the ancient throne of Germany. Albert II. of Austria, who, as son-in-law of the late Emperor Sigismund, had become at the same time King of Hungary and Bohemia, was a well-meaning, distinguished prince, and would, without doubt, have proved of great benefit to the empire; but he died ... in the second year of his reign, after his return from an expedition against the Turks. ... In the year 1431, during the reign of Sigismund, a new council was assembled at Basle, in order to carry on the work of reforming the church as already commenced at Constance. But this council soon became engaged in many perplexing controversies with Pope Eugene IV. ... The Germans, for a time, took no part in the dispute; at length, however, under the Emperor [King?] Albert II., they formally adopted the chief decrees of the council of Basle, at a diet held at Mentz in the year 1439. ... Amongst the resolutions then adopted were such as materially circumscribed the existing privileges of the pope. ... These and other decisions, calculated to give important privileges and considerable independence to the German church, were, in a great measure, annulled by Albert's cousin and successor, Duke Frederick of Austria, who was elected by the princes after him in the year 1440, as Frederick III. ... Frederick, the emperor, was a prince who meant well but, at the same time, was of too quiet and easy a nature; his long reign presents but little that was calculated to distinguish Germany or add to its renown. From the east the empire was endangered by the approach of an enemy--the Turks, against whom no precautionary measures were adopted. They, on the 29th of May, 1453, conquered Constantinople. ... They then made their way towards the Danube, and very nearly succeeded also in taking Hungary [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458]. ... The Hungarians, on the death of the son of the Emperor Albert II., Wladislas Posthumus, in the year 1457, without leaving an heir to the throne, chose Matthias, the son of John Corvinus, as king, being resolved not to elect one from amongst the Austrian princes. The Bohemians likewise selected a private nobleman for their king, George Padriabrad [or Podiebrad], and thus the Austrian house found itself for a time rejected from holding possession of either of these countries. ... In Germany, meantime, there existed numberless contests and feuds; each party considered only his own personal quarrels. ... The emperor could not give any weight to public measures: scarcely could he maintain his dignity amongst his own subjects. The Austrian nobility were even bold enough to send challenges to their sovereign; whilst the city of Vienna revolted, and his brother Albert, taking pleasure in this disorder, was not backward in adding to it. Things even went to such an extremity, that, in 1462, the Emperor Frederick, together with his consort and son, Maximilian, then four years of age, was besieged by his subjects in his own castle of Vienna. A plebeian burgher, named Holzer, had placed himself at the head of the insurgents, and was made burgomaster, whilst Duke Albert came to Vienna personally to superintend the siege of the castle, which was intrenched and bombarded. {203} ...The German princes, however, could not witness with indifference such disgraceful treatment of their emperor, and they assembled to liberate him. George Padriabrad, King of Bohemia, was the first who hastened to the spot with assistance, set the emperor at liberty, and effected a reconciliation between him and his brother. The emperor, however, was obliged to resign to him, for eight years, Lower Austria and Vienna. Albert died in the following year. ... In the Germanic empire, the voice of the emperor was as little heeded as in his hereditary lands. ... The feudal system raged under Frederick's reign to such an extent, that it was pursued even by the lower classes. Thus, in 1471, the shoeblacks in Leipsic sent a challenge to the university of that place; and the bakers of the Count Palatine Lewis, and those of the Margrave of Baden defied several imperial cities in Swabia. The most important transaction in the reign of Frederick, was the union which he formed with the house of Burgundy, and which laid the foundation for the greatness of Austria. ... In the year 1486, the whole of the assembled princes, influenced especially by the representations of the faithful and now venerable Albert, called the Achilles of Brandenburg, elected Maximilian, the emperor's son, King of Rome. Indeed, about this period a changed and improved spirit began to show itself in a remarkable degree in the minds of many throughout the empire, so that the profound contemplator of coming events might easily see the dawn of a new era. ... These last years were the best in the whole life of the emperor, and yielded to him in return for his many sufferings that tranquillity which was so well merited by his faithful generous disposition. He died on the 19th of August, 1493, after a reign of 54 years. The emperor lived long enough to obtain, in the year 1490, the restoration of his hereditary estates by the death of King Matthias, by means of a compact made with Wladislas, his successor."

F. Kohlrausch, History of Germany, chapter 14.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1468. Invasion by George Podiebrad of Bohemia. The crusade against him.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1471-1491. Hungarian invasion and capture of Vienna. Treaty of Presburg. Succession to the throne of Hungary secured.

"George, King of Bohemia, expired in 1471; and the claims of the Emperor and King of Hungary being equally disregarded, the crown was conferred on Uladislaus, son of Casimir IV. King of Poland, and grandson of Albert II. To this election Frederic long persisted in withholding his assent; but at length he determined to crush the claim of Matthias by formally investing Uladislaus with the kingdom and electorate of Bohemia, and the office of imperial cup-bearer. In revenge for this affront, Matthias marched into Austria: took possession of the fortresses of the Danube; and compelled the Emperor to purchase a cessation of hostilities by undertaking to pay an hundred thousand golden florins, one-half of which was disbursed by the Austrian states at the appointed time. But as the King of Hungary still delayed to yield up the captured fortresses, Frederic refused all further payment; and the war was again renewed. Matthias invaded and ravaged Austria; and though he experienced formidable resistance from several towns, his arms were crowned with success, and he became master of Vienna and Neustadt. Driven from his capital the terrified Emperor was reduced to the utmost distress, and wandered from town to town and from convent to convent, endeavouring to arouse the German States against the Hungarians. Yet even in this exigency his good fortune did not wholly forsake him; and he availed himself of a Diet at Frankfort to procure the election of his son Maximilian as King of the Romans. To this Diet, however, the King of Bohemia received no summons, and therefore protested against the validity of the election. A full apology and admission of his right easily satisfied Uladislaus, and he consented to remit the fine which the Golden Bull had fixed as the penalty of the omission. The death of Matthias Corvinus in 1490, left the throne of Hungary vacant, and the Hungarians, influenced by their widowed queen, conferred the crown upon the King of Bohemia, without listening to the pretensions of Maximilian. That valorous prince, however, sword in hand, recovered his Austrian dominions; and the rival kings concluded a severe contest by the treaty of Presburg, by which Hungary was for the present secured to Uladislaus; but on his death without heirs was to vest in the descendants of the Emperor."

Sir R. Comyn, The History of the Western Empire, chapter 28 (volume 2).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487, and 1487-1526.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495. Marriage of Maximilian with Mary of Burgundy. His splendid dominion. His joyous character. His vigorous powers. His ambitions and aims.

"Maximilian, who was as active and enterprising as his father was indolent and timid, married at eighteen years of age, the only daughter of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy."

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477

"She brought him Flanders, Franche-Comte, and all the Low Countries. Louis XI., who disputed some of those territories, and who, on the death of the duke, had seized Burgundy, Picardy, Ponthieu, and Artois, as fiefs of France, which could not be possessed by a woman, was defeated by Maximilian at Guinegaste; and Charles VIII., who renewed the same claims, was obliged to conclude a disadvantageous peace." Maximilian succeeded to the imperial throne on the death of his father in 1493.

W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, letter 49 (volume 1).

"Between the Alps and the Bohemian frontier, the mark Austria was first founded round and about the castles of Krems and Melk. Since then, beginning first in the valley towards Bavaria and Hungary, and coming to the House of Hapsburg, it had extended across the whole of the northern slope of the Alps until where the Slavish, Italian, and German tongues part, and over to Alsace; thus becoming an archduchy from a mark. On all sides the Archdukes had claims; on the German side to Switzerland, on the Italian to the Venetian possessions, and on the Slavish to Bohemia and Hungary. To such a pitch of greatness had Maximilian by his marriage with Maria of Burgundy brought the heritage received from Charles the Bold. True to the Netherlanders' greeting, in the inscription over their gates, 'Thou art our Duke, fight our battle for us,' war was from the first his handicraft. He adopted Charles the Bold's hostile attitude towards France; he saved the greater part of his inheritance from the schemes of Louis XI. Day and night it was his whole thought, to conquer it entirely. {204} But after Maria of Burgundy's premature death, revolution followed revolution, and his father Frederick being too old to protect himself, it came about that in the year 1488 he was ousted from Austria by the Hungarians, whilst his son was kept a prisoner in Bruges by the citizens, and they had even to fear the estrangement of the Tyrol. Yet they did not lose courage. At this very time the father denoted with the vowels, A. E. I. O. U. ('Alles Erdreich ist Oesterreich unterthan'--All the earth is subject to Austria), the extent of his hopes. In the same year, his son negotiated for a Spanish alliance. Their real strength lay in the imperial dignity of Maximilian, which they had from the German Empire. As soon as it began to bestir itself, Maximilian was set at liberty; as soon as it supported him in the persons of only a few princes of the Empire, he became lord in his Netherlands. ... Since then his plans were directed against Hungary and Burgundy. In Hungary he could gain nothing except securing the succession to his house. But never, frequently as he concluded peace, did he give up His intentions upon Burgundy. ... Now that he had allied himself with a Sforza, and had joined the Liga, now that his father was dead, and the Empire was pledged to follow him across the mountains, and now, too, that the Italian complications were threatening Charles, he took fresh hope, and in this hope he summoned a Diet at Worms. Maximilian was a prince of whom, although many portraits have been drawn, yet there is scarcely one that resembles another, so easily and entirely did he suit himself to circumstances. ... His soul is full of motion, of joy in things, and of plans. There is scarcely anything that he is not capable of doing. In his mines he is a good screener, in his armoury the best plater, capable of instructing others in new inventions. With musket in hand, he defends his best marksman, George Purkhard; with heavy cannon, which he has shown how to cast, and has placed on wheels, he comes as a rule nearest the mark. He commands seven captains in their seven several tongues; he himself chooses and mixes his food and medicines. In the open country, he feels himself happiest. ... What really distinguishes his public life is that presentiment of the future greatness of his dynasty which he has inherited of his father, and the restless striving to attain all that devolved upon him from the House of Burgundy. All his policy and all his schemes were concentrated, not upon his Empire, for the real needs of which he evinced little real care, and not immediately upon the welfare of his hereditary lands, but upon the realization of that sole idea. Of it all his letters and speeches are full. ... In March, 1495, Maximilian came to the Diet at Worms. ... At this Reichstag the King gained two momentous prospects. In Wurtemberg there had sprung of two lines two counts of quite opposite characters. ... With the elder, Maximilian now entered into a compact. Wurtemberg was to be raised to a dukedom--an elevation which excluded the female line from the succession--and, in the event of the stock failing, was to be a 'widow's portion' of the realm to the use of the Imperial Chamber. Now as the sole hopes of this family centred in a weakling of a boy, this arrangement held out to Maximilian and his successors the prospect of acquiring a splendid country. Yet this was the smaller of his two successes. The greater was the espousal of his children, Philip and Margaret, with the two children of Ferdinand the Catholic, Juana and Juan, which was here settled. This opened to his house still greater expectations,--it brought him at once into the most intimate alliance with the Kings of Spain. These matters might possibly, however, have been arranged elsewhere. What Maximilian really wanted in the Reichstag at Worms was the assistance of the Empire against the French with its world-renowned and much-envied soldiery. For at this time in all the wars of Europe, German auxiliaries were decisive. ... If Maximilian had united the whole of this power in his hand, neither Europe nor Asia would have been able to withstand him. But God disposed that it should rather be employed in the cause of freedom than oppression. What an Empire was that which in spite of its vast strength allowed its Emperor to be expelled from his heritage, and did not for a long time take steps to bring him back again? If we examine the constitution of the Empire, not as we should picture it to ourselves in Henry III. 's time, but as it had at length become--the legal independence of the several estates, the emptiness of the imperial dignity, the electiveness of a head, that afterwards exercised certain rights over the electors,--we are led to inquire not so much into the causes of its disintegration, for this concerns us little, as into the way in which it was held together. What welded it together, and preserved it, would (leaving tradition and the Pope out of the question) appear, before all else, to have been the rights of individuals, the unions of neighbours, and the social regulations which universally obtained. Such were those rights and privileges that not only protected the citizen, his guild, and his quarter of the town against his neighbours and more powerful men than himself, but which also endowed him with an inner independence. ... Next, the unions of neighbours. These were not only leagues of cities and peasantries, expanded from ancient fraternities--for who can tell the origin of the Hansa, or the earliest treaty between Uri and Schwyz?--into large associations, or of knights, who strengthened a really insignificant power by confederations of neighbours, but also of the princes, who were bound together by joint inheritances, mutual expectancies, and the ties of blood, which in some cases were very close. This ramification, dependent upon a supreme power and confirmed by it, bound neighbour to neighbour; and, whilst securing to each his privilege and his liberty, blended together all countries of Germany in legal bonds of union. But it is only in the social regulations that the unity was really perceivable. Only as long as the Empire was an actual reality, could the supreme power of the Electors, each with his own special rights, be maintained; only so long could dukes and princes, bishops and abbots hold their neighbours in due respect, and through court offices or hereditary services, through fiefs and the dignity of their independent position give their vassals a peculiar position to the whole. Only so long could the cities enjoying immediateness under the Empire, carefully divided into free and imperial cities, be not merely protected, but also assured of a participation in the government of the whole. Under this sanctified and traditional system of suzerainty and vassalage all were happy and contented, and bore a love to it such as is cherished towards a native town or a father's house. For some time past, the House of Austria had enjoyed the foremost position. It also had a union, and, moreover, a great faction on its side. The union was the Suabian League. Old Suabia was divided into three leagues--the league of the peasantry (the origin of Switzerland); the league of the knights in the Black Forest, on the Kocher, the Neckar, and the Danube; and the league of the cities. The peasantry were from the first hostile to Austria. The Emperor Frederick brought it to pass that the cities and knights, that had from time out of mind lived in feud, bound themselves together with several princes, and formed, under his protection, the league of the land of Suabia. But the party was scattered throughout the whole Empire."

L. von Ranke, History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations, book 1, chapter 3.

{205}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1493-1519. The Imperial reign of Maximilian. Formation of the Circle of Austria. The Aulic Council.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1499. The Swabian War with the Swiss Confederacy and the Graubunden, or Grey Leagues (Grisons). Practical independence of both acquired.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526. Extraordinary aggrandizement of the House of Austria by its marriages. The Heritage of Charles V. His cession of the German inheritance to Ferdinand. The division of the House into Spanish and German branches. Acquisition of Hungary and Bohemia.

In 1496, Philip the Fair, son of Maximilian, Archduke and Emperor, by his marriage with Mary of Burgundy, "espoused the Infanta of Spain, daughter of Ferdinand [of Aragon] and Isabella of Castile. They had two sons, Charles and Ferdinand, the former of whom, known in history by the name of Charles V., inherited the Low Countries in right of his father, Philip (1506). On the death of Ferdinand, his maternal grandfather (1516), he became heir to the whole Spanish succession, which comprehended the kingdoms of Spain, Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia, together with Spanish America. To these vast possessions were added his patrimonial dominions in Austria, which were transmitted to him by his paternal grandfather, the Emperor Maximilian I. About the same time (1519), the Imperial dignity was conferred on this prince by the electors [see GERMANY: A. D. 1519]; so that Europe had not seen, since the time of Charlemagne, a monarchy so powerful as that of Charles V. This Emperor concluded a treaty with his brother Ferdinand; by which he ceded to him all his hereditary possessions in Germany. The two brothers thus became the founders of the two principal branches of the House of Austria, viz., that of Spain, which began with Charles V. (called Charles I. of Spain), and ended with Charles II. (1700); and that of Germany, of which Ferdinand I. was the ancestor, and which became extinct in the male line in the Emperor Charles VI. (1740). These two branches, closely allied to each other, acted in concert for the advancement of their reciprocal interests; moreover they gained each their own separate advantages by the marriage connexions which they formed. Ferdinand I. of the German line married Anne (1521), sister of Louis King of Hungary and Bohemia, who having been slain by the Turks at the battle of Mohacs (1526), these two kingdoms devolved to Ferdinand of the House of Austria. Finally, the marriage which Charles V. contracted with the Infant Isabella, daughter of Emmanuel, King of Portugal, procured Philip II. of Spain, the son of that marriage, the whole Portuguese monarchy, to which he succeeded on the death of Henry, called the Cardinal (1580). So vast an aggrandisement of power alarmed the Sovereigns of Europe."

C. W. Koch, The Revolutions of Europe, period 6.

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 25 and 27 (volume 1).

W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., book 1.

See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519. Death of Maximilian. Election of Charles V., "Emperor of the Romans."

See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519-1555. The imperial reign of Charles V. The objects of his policy. His conflict with the Reformation and with France.

"Charles V. did not receive from nature all the gifts nor all the charms she can bestow, nor did experience give him every talent; but he was equal to the part he had to play in the world. He was sufficiently great to keep his many-jewelled diadem. ... His ambition was cold and wise. The scope of his ideas, which are not quite easy to divine, was vast enough to control a state composed of divers and distant portions, so as to make it always very difficult to amalgamate his armies, and to supply them with food, or to procure money. Indeed its very existence would have been exposed to permanent danger from powerful coalitions, had Francis I. known how to place its most vulnerable points under a united pressure from the armies of France, of England, of Venice, and of the Ottoman Empire. Charles V. attained his first object when he prevented the French monarch from taking possession of the inheritance of the house of Anjou, at Naples, and of that of the Viscontis at Milan. He was more successful in stopping the march of Solyman into Austria than in checking the spread of the Reformation in Germany. ... Charles V. had four objects very much at heart: he wished to be the master in Italy, to check the progress of the Ottoman power in the west of Europe, to conquer the King of France, and to govern the Germanic body by dividing it, and by making the Reformation a religious pretext for oppressing the political defenders of that belief. In three out of four of these objects he succeeded. Germany alone was not conquered: if she was beaten in battle, neither any political triumph nor any religious results ensued. In Germany, Charles V. began his work too late, and acted too slowly; he undertook to subdue it at a time when the abettors of the Reformation had grown strong, when he himself was growing weaker. ... Like many other brilliant careers, the career of Charles V. was more successful and more striking at the commencement and the middle than at the end, of its course. At Madrid, at Cambrai, at Nice, he made his rival bow down his head. At Crespy he again forced him to obey his will, but as he had completely made up his mind to have peace, Charles dictated it, in some manner, to his own detriment. {206} At Passau he had to yield to the terms of his enemy--of an enemy whom Charles V. encountered in his old age, and when his powers had decayed. Although it may be said that the extent and the power of the sovereignty which Charles V. left to his successor at his death were not diminished, still his armies were weakened, his finances were exhausted, and the country was weary of the tyranny of the imperial lieutenants. The supremacy of the empire in Germany, for which he had struggled so much, was as little established at the end as at the beginning of his reign; religious unity was solemnly destroyed by the 'Recess' of Augsburg. But that which marks the position of Charles V. as the representative man of his epoch, and as the founder of the policy of modern times, is that, wherever he was victorious, the effect of his success was to crush the last efforts of the spirit of the middle ages, and of the independence of nations. In Italy, in Spain, in Germany, and in the Low Countries, his triumphs were so much gain to the cause of absolute monarchy and so much loss to the liberty derived from the old state of society. Whatever was the character of liberty in the middle ages--whether it were contested or incomplete, or a mockery--it played a greater part than in the four succeeding centuries. Charles V. was assuredly one of those who contributed the most to found and consolidate the political system of modern governments. His history has an aspect of grandeur. Had Francis I. been as sagacious in the closet as he was bold in the field, by a vigorous alliance with England, with Protestant Germany, and with some of the republics of Italy, he might perhaps have balanced and controlled the power of Charles V. But the French monarch did not possess the foresight and the solid understanding necessary to pursue such a policy with success. His rival, therefore, occupies the first place in the historical picture of the epoch. Charles V. had the sentiment of his position and of the part he had to play."

J. Van Praet, Essays on the Political History of the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries, pages 190-194.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1519 to 1152-1561, and FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, to 1547-1559.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1525-1527. Successful Contest for the Hungarian and Bohemian Crowns.

In Hungary, "under King Matthias the house of Zapolya, so called from a Slavonic village near Poschega, whence it originated, rose to peculiar eminence. To this house, in particular, King Wladislas had owed his accession to the throne; whence, however, it thought itself entitled to claim a share in the sovereign power, and even a sort of prospective right to the throne. Its members were the wealthiest of all the magnates; they possessed seventy-two castles. ... It is said that a prophecy early promised the crown to the young John Zapolya. Possessed of all the power conferred by his rich inheritance, Count of Zips, and Woiwode of Transylvania, he soon collected a strong party around him. It was he who mainly persuaded the Hungarians, in the year 1505, to exclude all foreigners from the throne by a formal decree; which, though they were not always able to maintain in force, they could never be induced absolutely to revoke. In the year 1514 the Woiwode succeeded in putting down an exceedingly formidable insurrection of the peasants with his own forces; a service which the lesser nobility prized the more highly, because it enabled them to reduce the peasantry to a still harder state of servitude. His wish was, on the death of Wladislas, to become Gubernator of the kingdom, to marry the deceased king's daughter Anne, and then to await the course of events. But he was here encountered by the policy of Maximilian. Anne was married to the Archduke Ferdinand; Zapolya was excluded from the administration of the kingdom; even the vacant Palatinate was refused him and given to his old rival Stephen Bathory. He was highly incensed. ... But it was not till the year 1525 that Zapolya got the upper hand at the Rakosch. ... No one entertained a doubt that he aimed at the throne. ... But before anything was accomplished--on the contrary, just as these party conflicts had thrown the country into the utmost confusion, the mighty enemy, Soliman, appeared on the frontiers of Hungary, determined to put an end to the anarchy. ... In his prison at Madrid, Francis I. had found means to entreat the assistance of Soliman; urging that it well beseemed a great emperor to succour the oppressed. Plans were laid at Constantinople, according to which the two sovereigns were to attack Spain with a combined fleet, and to send armies to invade Hungary and the north of Italy. Soliman, without any formal treaty, was by his position an ally of the Ligue, as the king of Hungary was, of the emperor. On the 23d of April, 1526, Soliman, after visiting the groves of his forefathers and of the old Moslem martyrs, marched out of Constantinople with a mighty host, consisting of about a hundred thousand men, and incessantly strengthened by fresh recruits on its road. ... What power had Hungary, in the condition we have just described, of resisting such an attack? ... The young king took the field with a following of not more than three thousand men. ... He proceeded to the fatal plain of Mohaez, fully resolved with his small band to await in the open field the overwhelming force of the enemy. ... Personal valour could avail nothing. The Hungarians were immediately thrown into disorder, their best men fell, the others took to flight. The young king was compelled to flee. It was not even granted him to die in the field of battle; a far more miserable end a waited him. Mounted behind a Silesian soldier, who served him as a guide, he had already been carried across the dark waters that divide the plain; his horse was already climbing the bank, when he slipped, fell back, and buried himself and his rider in the morass. This rendered the defeat decisive. ... Soliman had gained one of those victories which decide the fate of nations during long epochs. ... That two thrones, the succession to which was not entirely free from doubt, had thus been left vacant, was an event that necessarily caused a great agitation throughout Christendom. It was still a question whether such a European power as Austria would continue to exist;--a question which it is only necessary to state, in order to be aware of its vast importance to the fate of mankind at large, and of Germany in particular. ... The claims of Ferdinand to both crowns, unquestionable as they might be in reference to the treaties with the reigning houses, were opposed in the nations themselves, by the right of ejection and the authority of considerable rivals. {207} In Hungary, as soon as the Turks had retired, John Zapolya appeared with the fine army which he had kept back from the conflict; the fall of the king was at the same time the fall of his adversaries. ... Even in Tokay, however, John Zapolya was saluted as king. Meanwhile, the dukes of Bavaria conceived the design of getting possession of the throne of Bohemia. ... Nor was it in the two kingdoms alone that these pretenders had a considerable party. The state of politics in Europe was such as to insure them powerful supporters abroad. In the first place, Francis I. was intimately connected with Zapolya: in a short time a delegate from the pope was at his side, and the Germans in Rome maintained that Clement assisted the faction of the Woiwode with money. Zapolya sent an agent to Venice with a direct request to be admitted a member of the Ligue of Cognac. In Bohemia, too, the French had long had devoted partisans. ... The consequences that must have resulted, had this scheme succeeded, are so incalculable, that it is not too much to say they would have completely changed the political history of Europe. The power of Bavaria would have outweighed that of Austria in both German and Slavonian countries, and Zapolya, thus supported, would have been able to maintain his station; the Ligue, and with it high ultra-montane opinions would have held the ascendency in eastern Europe. Never was there a project more pregnant with danger to the growing power of the house of Austria. Ferdinand behaved with all the prudence and energy which that house has so often displayed in difficult emergencies. For the present, the all-important object was the crown of Bohemia. ... All his measures were taken with such skill and prudence, that on the day of election, though the Bavarian agent had, up to the last moment, not the slightest doubt of the success of his negotiations, an overwhelming majority in the three estates elected Ferdinand to the throne of Bohemia. This took place on the 23d October, 1526. ... On his brother's birth-day, the 24th of February, 1527, Ferdinand was crowned at Prague. .... The affairs of Hungary were not so easily or so peacefully settled. ... At first, when Zapolya came forward, full armed and powerful out of the general desolation, he had the uncontested superiority. The capital of the kingdom sought his protection, after which he marched to Stuhlweissenburg, where his partisans bore down all attempts at opposition: he was elected and crowned (11th of November, 1526); in Croatia, too, he was acknowledged king at a diet; he filled all the numerous places, temporal and spiritual, left vacant by the disaster of Mohaez, with his friends. ... [But] the Germans advanced without interruption; and as soon as it appeared possible that Ferdinand might be successful, Zapolya's followers began to desert him. ... Never did the German troops display more bravery and constancy. They had often neither meat nor bread, and were obliged to live on such fruits as they found in the gardens: the inhabitants were wavering and uncertain--they submitted, and then revolted again to the enemy; Zapolya's troops, aided by their knowledge of the ground, made several very formidable attacks by night; but the Germans evinced, in the moment of danger, the skill and determination of a Roman legion: they showed, too, a noble constancy under difficulties and privations. At Tokay they defeated Zapolya and compelled him to quit Hungary. ... On the 3rd November, 1527, Ferdinand was crowned in Stuhlweissenburg: only five of the magnates of the kingdom adhered to Zapolya. The victory appeared complete. Ferdinand, however, distinctly felt that this appearance was delusive. ... In Bohemia, too, his power was far from secure. His Bavarian neighbours had not relinquished the hope of driving him from the throne at the first general turn of affairs. The Ottomans, meanwhile, acting upon the persuasion that every land in which the head of their chief had rested belonged of right to them, were preparing to return to Hungary; either to take possession of it themselves, or at first, as was their custom, to bestow it on a native ruler--Zapolya, who now eagerly sought an alliance with them--as their vassal."

L. Von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1564-1618. The tolerance of Maximilian II. The bigotry and tyranny of Rodolph and Ferdinand II. Prelude to the Thirty Years War.

"There is no period connected with these religious wars that deserves more to be studied than these reigns of Ferdinand I., Maximilian [the Second], and those of his successors who preceded the thirty years' war. We have no sovereign who exhibited that exercise of moderation and good sense which a philosopher would require, but Maximilian; and he was immediately followed by princes of a different complexion. ... Nothing could be more complete than the difficulty of toleration at the time when Maximilian reigned; and if a mild policy could be attended with favourable effects in his age and nation, there can be little fear of the experiment at any other period. No party or person in the state was then disposed to tolerate his neighbour from any sense of the justice of such forbearance, but from motives of temporal policy alone. The Lutherans, it will be seen, could not bear that the Calvinists should have the same religious privileges with themselves. The Calvinists were equally opinionated and unjust; and Maximilian himself was probably tolerant and wise, chiefly because he was in his real opinions a Lutheran, and in outward profession, as the head of the empire, a Roman Catholic. For twelve years, the whole of his reign, he preserved the religious peace of the community, without destroying the religious freedom of the human mind. He supported the Roman Catholics, as the predominant party, in all their rights, possessions, and privileges; but he protected the Protestants in every exercise of their religion which was then practicable. In other words, he was as tolerant and just as the temper of society then admitted, and more so than the state of things would have suggested. ... The merit of Maximilian was but too apparent the moment that his son Rodolph was called upon to supply his place. ... He had always left the education of his son and successor too much to the discretion of his bigoted consort. Rodolph, his son, was therefore as ignorant and furious on his part as were the Protestants on theirs; he had immediate recourse to the usual expedients--force, and the execution of the laws to the very letter. ... After Rodolph comes Matthias, and, unhappily for all Europe, Bohemia and the empire fell afterwards under the management of Ferdinand II. Of the different Austrian princes, it is the reign of Ferdinand II. that is more particularly to be considered. Such was the arbitrary nature of his government over his subjects in Bohemia, that they revolted. They elected for their king the young Elector Palatine, hoping thus to extricate themselves from the bigotry and tyranny of Ferdinand. This crown so offered was accepted; and, in the event, the cause of the Bohemians became the cause of the Reformation in Germany, and the Elector Palatine the hero of that cause. It is this which gives the great interest to this reign of Ferdinand II., to these concerns of his subjects in Bohemia, and to the character of this Elector Palatine. For all these events and circumstances led to the thirty years' war."

W. Smyth, Lectures on Modern History, volume I, lecture 13.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618, and GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

{208}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1567-1660. Struggles of the Hapsburg House in Hungary and Transylvania to establish rights of sovereignty. Wars with the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604, and 1606-1660.

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

Seventeenth Century: Second Half.

Contemporaneous Events.

A.D.

1651. Invasion of England by Charles II. and the Scots; Cromwell's victory at Worcester; complete conquest of Scotland.

1652. Victorious naval war of the English with the Dutch. End of the Fronde. Institution of the Liberum Veto in Poland.

1653. Expulsion of "the Rump" by Cromwell, and establishment of the Protectorate in England. Adoption of the Instrument of Government. Return of Mazarin to power in France. The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland.

1654. Incorporation of Scotland with the English Commonwealth, under Cromwell. Peace between the English and Dutch. Conquest of Nova Scotia, by the New England colonists.

1655. Alliance of England and France against Spain. English conquest of Jamaica.

1656. Beginning of the persecution of the Quakers in Massachusetts.

1658. Capture of Dunkirk from the Spaniards and possession given by the French to the English. Death of Cromwell and succession of his son Richard as Protector.

1659. Meeting of a new Parliament in England; its dissolution; resuscitation and re-expulsion of the Rump, and formation of a provisional government by the Army.

1660. March of the English army under Monk from Scotland to London. Call of a new Parliament by Monk, and restoration of the monarchy, in the person of Charles II.

1661. Restoration of the Church of England and ejection of 2,000 nonconformist ministers. Personal assumption of government by Louis XIV. in France. Beginning of the ministry of Colbert.

1662. Sale of Dunkirk to France by Charles II. Restoration of episcopacy in Scotland and persecution of the Covenanters.

1664. Seizure of New Netherland (henceforth New York) by the English from the Dutch and grant of the province to the duke of York. Grant of New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret.

1665. Outbreak of the great Plague in London. Formal declarations of war between the English and the Dutch.

1666. The great fire in London. Tremendous naval battles between Dutch and English and defeat of the former.

1667. Ravages by a Dutch fleet in the Thames. Peace treaties of Breda, between England, Holland, France and Denmark. War of Louis XIV., called the War of the Queen's Rights, in the Spanish Netherlands.

1668. Triple alliance of England, Holland and Sweden against France.

1669. First exploring journey of La Salle from the St. Lawrence to the West.

1670. Treaty of the king of England with Louis XIV. of France, betraying his allies, the Dutch, and engaging to profess himself a Catholic,

1672. Alliance of England and France against the Dutch. Restoration of the Stadtholdership in Holland to the Prince of Orange, and murder of the De Witts.

1673. Recovery of New Netherland by the Dutch from the English.

1674. Treaty of Westminster, restoring peace between the Dutch and English and ceding New Netherland to the latter.

1675. War with the Indians in New England, known as King Philip's War.

1678. Pretended Popish Plot in England. Treaties of Nimeguen.

1679. Passage of the Habeas Corpus Act in England. Oppression of Scotland and persecution of the Covenanters. Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog. Defeat of Covenanters at Bothwell Bridge.

1680. First naming of the Whig and Tory parties in England.

1681. Merciless despotism of the duke of York in Scotland. Beginning of "dragonnade" persecution of Protestants in France. Grant of Pennsylvania by Charles II. to William Penn.

1682. Exploration of the Mississippi to its mouth by La Salle.

1683. The Rye-house Plot, and execution of Lord Russell and Algernon Sidney, in England. Great invasion of Hungary and Austria by the Turks; their siege of Vienna, and the deliverance of the city by John Sobieski, king of Poland. Establishment of a penny post in London.

1685. Death of Charles II., king of England, and accession of his brother James II., an avowed Catholic. Rebellion of the duke of Monmouth. Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. of France.

1686. Consolidation of New England under a royal governor-general. League of Augsburg against Louis XIV. of France.

1688. Declaration of Indulgence by James II. of England, and imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops for refusing to publish it. Invitation to William and Mary of Orange to accept the English crown. Arrival in England of the Prince of Orange and flight of James.

1689. Completion of the English Revolution. Settlement of the crown on William and Mary. Passage of the Toleration Act and the Bill of Rights. Landing of James II. in Ireland and war in that island; siege and successful defense of Londonderry.

1690. The first congress of the American colonies. Battle of the Boyne in Ireland.

1692. The Salem Witchcraft madness in Massachusetts. Massacre of Glencoe in Scotland.

1695. Passage of the first of the Penal Laws, oppressing Catholics in Ireland.

1697. Peace of Ryswick. Cession of Strasburg and restoration of Acadia to France.

1699. Peace of Carlowitz, between Turkey, Russia, Poland, Venice, and the Emperor.

1700. Prussia raised in rank to a kingdom. First campaigns of Charles XII. of Sweden.

Seventeenth Century: First Half.

Contemporaneous Events.

A.D. 1602. Chartering of Dutch East India Company. First acting of Shakespeare's "Hamlet."

1603. Death of Queen Elizabeth of England and accession of James I.

1600. Gunpowder plot of English Catholics. Publication of Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," and part 1 of Cervantes' "Don Quixote."

1606. Charter granted to the London and Plymouth companies, for American colonization. Organization of the Independent church of Brownists at Scrooby, England.

1607. Settlement of Jamestown, Virginia. Migration of Scrooby Independents to Holland.

1609. Settlement of the exiled Pilgrims of Scrooby at Leyden. Construction of the telescope by Galileo and discovery of Jupiter's moons.

1610. Assassination of Henry IV. of France and accession of Louis XIII.

1611. Publication in England of the King James or Authorized version of the Bible.

1614. Last meeting of the States General of France before the Revolution.

1610. Appearance at Frankfort-on-the-Main of the first known weekly newspaper.

1616. Opening of war between Sweden and Poland. Death of Shakespeare and Cervantes.

1618. Rising of Protestants in Bohemia, beginning the Thirty Years War.

1619. Trial and execution of John of Barneveldt. Introduction of slavery in Virginia.

1620. Decisive defeat of the Protestants of Bohemia in the battle of the White Mountain. Rising of the French Huguenots at Rochelle. Migration of the Pilgrims from Leyden to America.

1621. Formation of the Dutch West India Company. The first Thanksgiving Day in New England.

1622. Appearance of the first known printed newspaper in England "The Weekly Newes."

1624. Beginning of Richelieu's ministry, in France.

1625. Death of James I., of England, and accession of Charles I.; beginning of the English struggle between King and Parliament. Engagement of Wallenstein and his army in the service of the Emperor against the Protestants.

1627. Alliance of England with the French Huguenots. Siege of Rochelle by Richelieu.

1628. Passage by the English Parliament of the act called the Petition of Right. Assassination of the duke of Buckingham. Surrender of Rochelle to Richelieu. Publication of Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the blood.

1629. Tumult in the English Parliament, dissolution by the king and arrest of Eliot and others.

1630. Appearance in Germany of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, as the champion of Protestantism. Settlement of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, in New England, and founding of Boston. The Day of the Dupes in France.

1631. Siege, capture and sack of Magdeburg by the imperial general, Tilly. Defeat of Tilly on the Breitenfeld, at Leipzig, by Gustavus Adolphus.

1632. Defeat and death of Tilly. Victory and death of Gustavus Adolphus at Lützen. Patent to Lord Baltimore by James I., of England, granting him the territory in America called Maryland. First Jesuit mission to Canada.

1634. Assassination of Wallenstein. Levy of Ship-money in England.

1635. First settlements in the Connecticut valley.

1636. Banishment of Roger Williams from Massachusetts, and his founding of Providence.

1637. The Pequot War in New England. Introduction of Laud's Service-book in Scotland; tumult in St. Giles' church.

1638. Banishment of Anne Hutchinson from Massachusetts. Rising in Scotland against the Service-book; organization of the Tables; signing of the National Covenant.

1639. The First Bishops' War of the Scotch with King Charles I.

1640. Meeting of the Long Parliament in England. Recovery of independence by Portugal.

1641. Impeachment and execution of Strafford and adoption of the Grand Remonstrance by the English Parliament. Catholic rising in Ireland and alleged massacres of Protestants.

1642. King Charles' attempt, in England, to arrest the Five Members, and opening of the Civil War at Edgehill. Conspiracy of Cinq Mars in France. Death of Cardinal Richelieu.

1643. Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. Subscription of the Solemn League and Covenant between the Scotch and English nations. Siege of Gloucester and first battle of Newbury. Death of Louis XIII. of France and accession of Louis XIV.

1644. Battles of Marston Moor and the second Newbury, in the English civil war.

1645. Oliver Cromwell placed second in command of the English Parliamentary army. His victory at Naseby. Exploits of Montrose in Scotland.

1646. Adoption of Presbyterianism by the English Parliament. Surrender of King Charles to the Scottish army.

1647. Surrender of King Charles by the Scots to the English, and his seizure by the Army.

1648. The second Civil War in England. Cromwell's victory at Preston. Treaty of Newport with the king. Grand Army Remonstrance, and Pride's Purge of Parliament. Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War. Peace of Westphalia; cession of Alsace to France.

1649. Trial and execution of King Charles I., of England, and establishment of the Common-wealth. Campaign of Cromwell in Ireland. First civil war of the Fronde in France.

1650. Charles II. in Scotland. War between the English and the Scotch. Victory of Cromwell at Dunbar. The new Fronde in France, in alliance with Spain.

-----End "Contemporaneous Events"-----

AUSTRIA: A. D, 1618-1648. The Thirty Years War. The Peace of Westphalia.

"The thirty years' war made Germany the centre-point of European politics. ... No one at its commencement could have foreseen the duration and extent. But the train of war was everywhere laid, and required only the match to set it going; more than one war was joined to it, and swallowed up in it; and the melancholy truth, that war feeds itself, was never more clearly displayed. ... Though the war, which first broke out in Bohemia, concerned only the house of Austria, yet by its originating in religious disputes, by its peculiar character as a religious war, and by the measures adopted both by the insurgents and the emperor, it acquired such an extent, that even the quelling of the insurrection was insufficient to put a stop to it. ... Though the Bohemian war was apparently terminated, yet the flame had communicated to Germany and Hungary, and new fuel was added by the act of proscription promulgated against the elector Frederic and his adherents. From this the war derived that revolutionary character, which was henceforward peculiar to it; it was a step that could not but lead to further results, for the question of the relations between the emperor and his states, was in a fair way of being practically considered. New and bolder projects were also formed in Vienna and Madrid, where it was resolved to renew the war with the Netherlands. Under the present circumstances, the suppression of the Protestant religion and the overthrow of German and Dutch liberty appeared inseparable; while the success of the imperial arms, supported as they were by the league and the co-operation of the Spaniards, gave just grounds for hope. ... By the carrying of the war into Lower Saxony, the principal scat of the Protestant religion in Germany (the states of which had appointed Christian IV. of Denmark, as duke of Holstein, head of their confederacy), the northern states had already, though without any beneficial result, been involved in the strife, and the Danish war had broken out. But the elevation of Albert of Wallenstein to the dignity of duke of Friedland and imperial general over the army raised by himself, was of considerably more importance, as it affected the whole course and character of the war. From this time the war was completely and truly revolutionary. The peculiar situation of the general, the manner of the formation as well as the maintenance of his army, could not fail to make it such. ... The distinguished success of the imperial arms in the north of Germany unveiled the daring schemes of Wallenstein. He did not come forward as conqueror alone, but, by the investiture of Mecklenburg as a state of the empire, as a ruling prince. ... But the elevation and conduct of this novus homo, exasperated and annoyed the Catholic no less than the Protestant states, especially the league and its chief; all implored peace, and Wallenstein's discharge. Thus, at the diet of the electors at Augsburg, the emperor was reduced to the alternative of resigning him or his allies: He chose the former. Wallenstein was dismissed, the majority of his army disbanded, and Tilly nominated commander-in-chief of the forces of the emperor and the league. ... On the side of the emperor sufficient care was taken to prolong the war. The refusal to restore the unfortunate Frederic, and even the sale of his upper Palatine to Bavaria, must with justice have excited the apprehensions of the other princes. But when the Jesuits finally succeeded, not only in extorting the edict of restitution, but also in causing it to be enforced in the most odious manner, the Catholic states themselves saw with regret that peace could no longer exist. ... The greater the success that attended the house of Austria, the more actively foreign policy laboured to counteract it. England had taken an interest in the fate of Frederic V. from the first, though this interest was evinced by little beyond fruitless negotiations. Denmark became engaged in the quarrel mostly through the influence of this power and Holland. Richelieu, from the time he became prime minister of France, had exerted himself in opposing Austria and Spain. He found employment for Spain in the contests respecting Veltelin, and for Austria soon after, by the war of Mantua. Willingly would he have detached the German league from the interest of the emperor; and though he failed in this, he procured the fall of Wallenstein. ... Much more important, however, was Richelieu's influence on the war, by the essential share he had in gaining Gustavus Adolphus' active participation in it. ... The nineteen years of his [Gustavus Adolphus'] reign which had already elapsed, together with the Polish war, which lasted nearly that time, had taught the world but little of the real worth of this great and talented hero. The decisive superiority of Protestantism in Germany, under his guidance, soon created a more just knowledge, and at the same time showed the advantages which must result to a victorious supporter of that cause. ... The battle at Leipzig was decisive for Gustavus Adolphus and his party, almost beyond expectation. The league fell asunder; and in a short time he was master of the countries from the Baltic to Bavaria, and from the Rhine to Bohemia. ... But the misfortunes and death of Tilly brought Wallenstein again on the stage as absolute commander-in-chief, bent on plans not a whit less extensive than those he had before formed. No period of the war gave promise of such great and rapid successes or reverses as the present, for both leaders were determined to effect them; but the victory of Lutzen, while it cost Gustavus his life, prepared the fall of Wallenstein. {209} ... Though the fall of Gustavus Adolphus frustrated his own private views, it did not those of his party. ... The school of Gustavus produced a number of men, great in the cabinet and in the field; yet it was hard, even for an Oxensteirn, to preserve the importance of Sweden unimpaired; and it was but partially done by the alliance of· Heilbronn. ... If the forces of Sweden overrun almost every part of Germany in the following months, under the guidance of the pupils of the king, Bernard of Weimar and Gustavus Horn, we must apparently attribute it to Wallenstein's intentional inactivity in Bohemia. The distrust of him increased in Vienna the more, as he took but little trouble to diminish it; and though his fall was not sufficient to atone for treachery, if proved, it was for his equivocal character and imprudence. His death probably saved Germany from a catastrophe. ... A great change took place upon the death of Wallenstein; as a prince of the blood, Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia, obtained the command. Thus an end was put to plans of revolutions from this quarter. But in the same year the battle of Nordlingen gave to the imperial arms a sudden preponderance, such as it had never before acquired. The separate peace of Saxony with the emperor at Prague, and soon after an alliance, were its consequences; Sweden driven back to Pomerania, seemed unable of herself, during the two following years, to maintain her ground in Germany: the victory of Wittstock turned the scale in her favour. ... The war was prolonged and greatly extended by the active share taken in it by France: first against Spain, and soon against Austria. ... The German war, after the treaty with Bernhard of Weimar, was mainly carried on by France, by the arming of Germans against Germans. But the pupil of Gustavus Adolphus preferred to fight for himself rather than others, and his early death was almost as much coveted by France as by Austria. The success of the Swedish arms revived under Baner. ... At the general diet, which was at last convened, the emperor yielded to a general amnesty, or at least what was so designated. But when at the meeting of the ambassadors of the leading powers at Hamburg, the preliminaries were signed, and the time and place of the congress of peace fixed, it was deferred after Richelieu's death, (who was succeeded by Mazarin), by the war, which both parties continued, in the hope of securing better conditions by victory. A new war broke out in the north between Sweden and Denmark, and when at last the congress of peace was opened at Munster and Osnabruck, the negotiations dragged on for three years. ... The German peace was negotiated at Munster between the emperor and France, and at Osnabruck between the emperor and Sweden; but both treaties, according to express agreement, Oct. 24, 1648, were to be considered as one, under the title of the Westphalian."

_A. H. L. Heeren, A Manual of the History of the Political System of Europe and its Colonies, pages 91-99._

"The Peace of Westphalia has met manifold hostile comments, not only in earlier, but also in later, times. German patriots complained that by it the unity of the Empire was rent; and indeed the connection of the States, which even before was loose, was relaxed to the extreme. This was, however, an evil which could not be avoided, and it had to be accepted in order to prevent the French and Swedes from using their opportunity for the further enslavement of the land. ... The religious parties also made objections to the peace. The strict Catholics condemned it as a work of inexcusable and arbitrary injustice. ... The dissatisfaction of the Protestants was chiefly with the recognition of the Ecclesiastical Reservation. They complained also that their brethren in the faith were not allowed the free exercise of their religion in Austria. Their hostility was limited to theoretical discussions, which soon ceased when Louis XIV. took advantage of the preponderance which he had won to make outrageous assaults upon Germany, and even the Protestants were compelled to acknowledge the Emperor as the real defender of German independence."

A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War, volume 2, chapter 10, section 4.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620, to 1648; FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626; and ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1621. Formal establishment of the right of primogeniture in the Archducal Family.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1636-1637.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1624-1626. Hostile combinations of Richelieu. The Valtelline war in Northern Italy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1627-1631. War with France over the succession to the Duchy of Mantua.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1660-1664. Renewed war with the Turks. Help from France. Battle and victory of St. Gothard. Twenty years truce.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1668-1683. Increased oppression and religious persecution in Hungary. Revolt of Tekeli. The Turks again called in. Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna. Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714. The wars with Louis XIV. of France: War of the Grand Alliance. Peace of Ryswick.

"The leading principle of the reign [in France] of Louis XIV. ... is the principle of war with the dynasty of Charles V.--the elder branch of which reigned in Spain, while the descendants of the younger branch occupied the imperial throne of Germany. ... At the death of Mazarin, or to speak more correctly, immediately after the death of Philip IV., ... the early ambition of Louis XIV. sought to prevent the junior branch of the Austrian dynasty from succeeding to the inheritance of the elder branch. He had no desire to see reconstituted under the imperial sceptre of Germany the monarchy which Charles V. had at one time wished to transmit entire to his son, but which, worn out and weakened, he subsequently allowed without regret to be divided between his son and his brother. Before making war upon Austria, Louis XIV. cast his eyes upon a portion of the territory belonging to Spain, and the expedition against Holland, begun in 1672 [see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678], for the purpose of absorbing the Spanish provinces by overwhelming them, opened the series of his vast enterprises. His first great war was, historically speaking, his first great fault. He failed in his object: for at the end of six campaigns, during which the French armies obtained great and deserved success, Holland remained unconquered. {210} Thus was Europe warned that the lust of conquest of a young monarch, who did not himself possess military genius, but who found in his generals the resources and ability in which he was himself deficient, would soon threaten her independence. Condé and Turenne, after having been rebellious subjects under the Regency, were about to become the first and the most illustrious lieutenants of Louis XIV. Europe, however, though warned, was not immediately ready to defend herself. It was from Austria, more directly exposed to the dangers of the great war now commencing, that the first systematic resistance ought to have come. But Austria was not prepared to play such a part; and the Emperor Leopold possessed neither the genius nor the wish for it. He was, in fact, nothing more than the nominal head of Germany. ... Such was the state of affairs in Europe when William of Orange first made his appearance on the stage. ... The old question of supremacy, which Louis XIV. wished to fight out as a duel with the House of Austria, was now about to change its aspect, and, owing to the presence of an unexpected genius, to bring into the quarrel other powers besides the two original competitors. The foe of Louis XIV. ought by rights to have been born on the banks of the Danube, and not on the shores of the North Sea. In fact, it was Austria that at that moment most needed a man of genius, either on the throne or at the head of affairs. The events of the century would, in this case, doubtless have followed a different course: the war would have been less general, and the maritime nations would not have been involved in it to the same degree. ... The treaties of peace would have been signed in some small place in France or Germany, and not in two towns and a village in Holland, such as Nimeguen, Ryswick, and Utrecht. . . . William of Orange found himself in a position soon to form the Triple Alliance which the very policy of Louis XIV. suggested. For France to attack Holland, when her object was eventually to reach Austria, and keep her out of the Spanish succession, was to make enemies at one and the same time of Spain, of Austria, and of Holland. But if it afterwards required considerable efforts on the part of William of Orange to maintain this alliance, it demanded still more energy to extend it. It formed part of the Stadtholder's ulterior plans to combine the union between himself and the two branches of the Austrian family, with the old Anglo-Swedish Triple Alliance, which had just been dissolved under the strong pressure brought to bear on it by Louis XIV. ... Louis XIV., whose finances were exhausted, was very soon anxious to make peace, even on the morrow of his most brilliant victories; whilst William of Orange, beaten and retreating, ardently desired the continuance of the war. ... The Peace of Nimeguen was at last signed, and by it were secured to Louis XIV. Franche-Comté, and some important places in the Spanish Low Countries on his northern frontier [see NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF]. This was the culminating point of the reign of Louis XIV. Although the coalition had prevented him from attaining the full object of his designs against the House of Austria, which had been to absorb by conquest so much of the territory belonging to Spain as would secure him against the effect of a will preserving the whole inheritance intact in the family, yet his armies had been constantly successful, and many of his opponents were evidently tired of the struggle. ... Some years passed thus, with the appearance of calm. Europe was conquered; and when peace was broken, because, as was said, the Treaty of Nimeguen was not duly executed, the events of the war were for some time neither brilliant or important, for several campaigns began and ended without any considerable result. ... At length Louis XIV. entered on the second half of his reign, which differed widely from the first. ... During this second period of more than thirty years, which begins after the Treaty of Nimeguen and lasts till the Peace of Utrecht, events succeed each other in complete logical sequence, so that the reign presents itself as one continuous whole, with a regular movement of ascension and decline. ... The leading principle of the reign remained the same; it was always the desire to weaken the House of Austria, or to secure an advantageous partition of the Spanish succession. But the Emperor of Germany was protected by the coalition, and the King of Spain, whose death was considered imminent, would not make up his mind to die. ... During the first League, when the Prince of Orange was contending against Louis XIV. with the co-operation of the Emperor of Germany, of the King of Spain, and of the Electors on the Rhine, the religious element played only a secondary part in the war. But we shall see this element make its presence more manifest. ... Thus the influence of Protestant England made itself more and more felt in the affairs of Europe, in proportion as the government of the Stuarts, from its violence, its unpopularity, and from the opposition offered to it, was approaching its end. ... The second coalition was neither more united nor more firm than the first had been: but, after the expulsion of the Stuarts, the germs of dissolution no longer threatened the same dangers. ... The British nation now made itself felt in the balance of Europe, and William of Orange was for the first time in his life successful in war at the head of his English troops. ... This was the most brilliant epoch of the life of William III. ... He was now at the height of his glory, after a period of twenty years from his start in life, and his destiny was accomplished; so that until the Treaty of Ryswick, which in 1698 put an end to his hostilities with France, and brought about his recognition as King of England by Louis XIV., not much more was left for him to gain; and he had the skill to lose nothing. ... The negotiations for the Treaty of Ryswick were conducted with less ability and boldness, and concluded on less advantageous terms, than the Truce of Ratisbon or the Peace of Nimeguen. Nevertheless, this treaty, which secured to Louis the possession of Strasbourg, might, particularly as age was now creeping on him, have closed his military career without disgrace, if the eternal question, for the solution of which he had made so many sacrifices, and which had always held the foremost place in his thoughts, had not remained as unsettled and as full of difficulty as on the day when he had mounted the throne. {211} Charles II. of Spain was not dead, and the question of the Spanish succession, which had so actively employed the armies of Louis XIV., and taxed his diplomacy, was as undecided as at the beginning of his reign. Louis XIV. saw two alternatives before him: a partition of the succession between the Emperor and himself (a solution proposed thirty years before as a means to avoid war), or else a will in favour of France, followed of course by a recommencement of general hostilities. ... Louis XIV. proposed in succession two schemes, not, as thirty years before, to the Emperor, but to the King of England, whose power and whose genius rendered him the arbiter of all the great affairs of Europe. ... In the first of the treaties of partition, Spain and the Low Countries were to be given to the Prince of Bavaria; in the second, to the Archduke Charles. In both, France obtained Naples and Sicily for the Dauphin. ... Both these arrangements ... suited both France and England as a pacific solution of the question. ... But events, as we know, deranged all these calculations, and Charles II., who, by continuing to live, had disappointed so much impatient expectation, by his last will provoked a general war, to be carried on against France by the union of England with the Empire and with Holland--a union which was much strengthened under the new dynasty, and which afterwards embraced the northern states of Germany. ... William III. died at the age of fifty-two, on the 9th of March, 1702, at the beginning of the War of Succession. After him, the part he was to have played was divided. Prince Eugene, Marlborough, and Heinsius (the Grand Pensionary) had the conduct of political and especially of military affairs, and acted in concert. The disastrous consequences to France of that war, in which William had no part, are notorious. The battles of Blenheim, of Ramilies, and of Oudenarde brought the allied armies on the soil of France, and placed Louis XIV. on the verge of ruin."

_J. Van Praet, Essays on the Political History of the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries, pages 390-414 and 441-455._

ALSO IN: H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV:, volume 2, chapter 2 and 4-6.

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 5, chapter 5-6 (volume 3).

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1686; and FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690 to 1697.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1687. Merciless suppression of the Hungarian revolt. The crown of Hungary made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1699. Expulsion of the Turks from Hungary. The Peace of Carlowitz.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1699--1711. Suppression of the Revolt under Rakoczy in Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1700. Interest of the Imperial House in the question of the Spanish Succession.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1701-1713. The War of the Spanish Succession.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1704; ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713; SPAIN: A. D. 1702, to 1707-1710, and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711. The War of the Spanish Succession. Its Circumstances changed.

"The death of the Emperor Joseph I., who expired April 17, 1711, at the age of thirty-two, changed the whole character of the War of the Spanish Succession. As Joseph left no male heirs, the hereditary dominions of the House of Austria devolved to his brother, the Archduke Charles; and though that prince had not been elected King of the Romans, and had therefore to become a candidate for the imperial crown, yet there could be little doubt that he would attain that dignity. Hence, if Charles should also become sovereign of Spain and the Indies, the vast empire of Charles V. would be again united in one person; and that very evil of an almost universal monarchy would be established, the prevention of which had been the chief cause for taking up arms against Philip V. ... After an interregnum of half a year, during which the affairs of the Empire had been conducted by the Elector Palatine and the Elector of Saxony, as imperial vicars for South and North Germany, the Archduke Charles was unanimously named Emperor by the Electoral College (Oct. 12th). ... Charles ... received the imperial crown at Frankfort, Dec. 22d, with the title of Charles VI."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1714. Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession. The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt. Acquisition of the Spanish Netherlands, Naples and Milan.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1719. Continued differences with Spain. The Triple Alliance. The Quadruple Alliance.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714. The Desertion of the Catalans.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714-1718. Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks from Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738. The question of the Succession. The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI., and its guarantee by the Powers.

"On the death [A. D. 1711] of Joseph, the hopes of the house of Austria and the future destiny of Germany rested on Charles [then, as titular king of Spain, Charles III., ineffectually contesting the Spanish throne with the Bourbon heir, Philip V. afterwards, as Emperor, Charles VI.] who was the only surviving male of his illustrious family. By that event the houses of Austria, Germany and Europe were placed in a new and critical situation. From a principle of mistaken policy the succession to the hereditary dominions had never been established according to an invariable rule; for it was not clearly ascertained whether males of the collateral branches should be preferred to females in lineal descent, an uncertainty which had frequently occasioned many vehement disputes. To obviate this evil, as well as to prevent future disputes, Leopold [father of Joseph and Charles] had arranged the order of succession: to Joseph he assigned Hungary and Bohemia, and the other hereditary dominions; and to Charles the crown of Spain, and all the territories which belonged to the Spanish inheritance. Should Joseph die without issue male, the whole succession was to descend to Charles, and in case of his death, under similar circumstances, the Austrian dominions were to devolve on the daughters of Joseph in preference to those of Charles. This family compact was signed by the two brothers in the presence of Leopold. Joseph died without male issue; but left two daughters." He was succeeded by Charles in accordance with the compact. {212} "On the 2nd of August, 1718, soon after the signature of the Quadruple Alliance, Charles promulgated a new law of succession for the inheritance of the house of Austria, under the name of the Pragmatic Sanction. According to the family compact formed by Leopold, and confirmed by Joseph and Charles, the succession was entailed on the daughters of Joseph in preference to the daughters of Charles, should they both die without issue male. Charles, however, had scarcely ascended the throne, though at that time without children, than he reversed this compact, and settled the right of succession, in default of his male issue, first on his daughters, then on the daughters of Joseph, and afterwards on the queen of Portugal and the other daughters of Leopold. Since the promulgation of that decree, the Empress had borne a son who died in his infancy, and three daughters, Maria Theresa, Maria Anne and Maria Amelia. With a view to insure the succession of these daughters, and to obviate the dangers which might arise from the claims of the Josephine archduchesses, he published the Pragmatic Sanction, and compelled his nieces to renounce their pretensions on their marriages with the electors of Saxony and Bavaria. Aware, however, that the strongest renunciations are disregarded, he obtained from the different states of his extensive dominions the acknowledgement of the Pragmatic Sanction, and made it the great object of his reign, to which he sacrificed every other consideration, to procure the guaranty of the European powers." This guaranty was obtained in treaties with the several powers, as follows: Spain in 1725; Russia, 1726, renewed in 1733; Prussia, 1728; England and Holland, 1731; France, 1738; the Empire, 1732. The inheritance which Charles thus endeavored to secure to his daughter was vast and imposing. "He was by election Emperor of Germany, by hereditary right sovereign of Hungary, Transylvania, Bohemia, Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, the Tyrol, and the Brisgau, and he had recently obtained Naples and Sicily, the Milanese and the Netherlands."

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 80, 84-85 (volume 3).

"The Pragmatic Sanction, though framed to legalize the accession of Maria Theresa, excludes the present Emperor's daughters and his grandchild by postponing the succession of females to that of males in the family of Charles VI."

_J. D. Bourchier, The Heritage of the Hapsburgs (Fortnightly Review, March, 1889)._

ALSO IN: H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 2.

S. A. Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire, book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1719. Sardinia ceded to the Duke of Savoy in exchange for Sicily.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1731. The second Treaty of Vienna with England and Holland.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1732-1733. Interference in the election of the King of Poland.

See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1733-1735. The war of the Polish Succession. Cession of Naples and Sicily to Spain, and Lorraine and Bar to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735, and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1737-1739. Unfortunate war with the Turks, in alliance with Russia. Humiliating peace of Belgrade. Surrender of Belgrade, with Servia, and part of Bosnia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October). Treachery among the Guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction. The inheritance of Marie Theresa disputed.

"The Emperor Charles VI. ... died on the 20th of October, 1740. His daughter Maria Theresa, the heiress of his dominions with the title of Queen of Hungary, was but twenty-three years of age, without experience or knowledge of business; and her husband Francis, the titular Duke of Lorraine and reigning Grand Duke of Tuscany, deserved the praise of amiable qualities rather than of commanding talents. Her Ministers were timorous, irresolute, and useless: 'I saw them in despair,' writes Mr. Robinson, the British envoy, 'but that very despair was not capable of rendering them bravely desperate.' The treasury was exhausted, the army dispersed, and no General risen to replace Eugene. The succession of Maria Theresa was, indeed, cheerfully acknowledged by her subjects, and seemed to be secured amongst foreign powers by their guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction; but it soon appeared that such guarantees are mere worthless parchments where there is strong temptation to break and only a feeble army to support them. The principal claimant to the succession was the Elector of Bavaria, who maintained that the will of the Emperor Ferdinand the First devised the Austrian states to his daughter, from whom the Elector descended, on failure of male lineage. It appeared that the original will in the archives at Vienna referred to the failure not of the male but of the legitimate issue of his sons; but this document, though ostentatiously displayed to all the Ministers of state and foreign ambassadors, was very far from inducing the Elector to desist from his pretensions. As to the Great Powers--the Court of France, the old ally of the Bavarian family, and mindful of its injuries from the House of Austria, was eager to exalt the first by the depression of the latter. The Bourbons in Spain followed the direction of the Bourbons in France. The King of Poland and the Empress of Russia were more friendly in their expressions than in their designs. An opposite spirit pervaded England and Holland, where motives of honour and of policy combined to support the rights of Maria Theresa. In Germany itself the Elector of Cologne, the Bavarian's brother, warmly espoused his cause: and 'the remaining Electors,' says Chesterfield, 'like electors with us, thought it a proper opportunity of making the most of their votes,--and all at the expense of the helpless and abandoned House of Austria!' The first blow, however, came from Prussia, where the King Frederick William had died a few months before, and been succeeded by his son Frederick the Second; a Prince surnamed the Great by poets."

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 23 (volume 3)._

"The elector of Bavaria acted in a prompt, honest, and consistent manner. He at once lodged a protest against any disposition of the hereditary estates to the prejudice of his own rights; insisted on the will of Ferdinand I.; and demanded the production of the original text. It was promptly produced. But it was found to convey the succession to the heirs of his daughter, the ancestress of the elector, not, as he contended, on the failure of male heirs, but in the absence of more direct heirs born in wedlock. Maria Theresa could, however, trace her descent through nearer male heirs, and had, therefore, a superior title. Charles Albert was in any event only one of several claimants. The King of Spain, a Bourbon, presented himself as the heir of the Hapsburg emperor Charles V. The King of Sardinia alleged an ancient marriage contract, from which he derived a right to the duchy of Milan. Even August of Saxony claimed territory by virtue of an antiquated title, which, it was pretended, the renunciation of his wife could not affect. All these were, however, mere vultures compared to the eagle [Frederick of Prussia] which was soon to descend upon its prey."

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 2.

{213}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October-November). The War of the Succession. Conduct of Frederick the Great as explained by himself.

"This Pragmatic Sanction had been guarantied by France, England, Holland, Sardinia, Saxony, and the Roman empire; nay by the late King Frederic William [of Prussia] also, on condition that the court of Vienna would secure to him the succession of Juliers and Berg. The emperor promised him the eventual succession, and did not fulfil his engagements; by which the King of Prussia, his successor, was freed from this guarantee, to which his father, the late king, had pledged himself, conditionally. ... Frederic I., when he erected Prussia into a kingdom, had, by that vain grandeur, planted the scion of ambition in the bosom of his posterity; which, soon or late, must fructify. The monarchy he had left to his descendants was, if I may be permitted the expression, a kind of hermaphrodite, which was rather more an electorate than a kingdom. Fame was to be acquired by determining the nature of this being: and this sensation certainly was one of those which strengthened so many motives, conspiring to engage the king in grand enterprises. If the acquisition of the dutchy of Berg had not even met with almost insurmountable impediments, it was in itself so small that the possession would add little grandeur to the house of Brandenbourg. These reflections occasioned the king to turn his views toward the house of Austria, the succession of which would become matter of litigation, at the death of the emperor, when the throne of the Cæsars should be vacant. That event must be favourable to the distinguished part which the king had to act in Germany, by the various claims of the houses of Saxony and Bavaria to these states; by the number of candidates which might canvass for the Imperial crown; and by the projects of the court of Versailles, which, on such an occasion, must naturally profit by the troubles that the death of Charles VI. could not fail to excite. This accident did not long keep the world in expectation. The emperor ended his days at the palace La Favorite, on the 26th [20th] day of October, 1740. The news arrived at Rheinsberg when the king was ill of a fever. ... He immediately resolved to reclaim the principalities of Silesia; the rights of his house to which [long dormant, the claim dating back to a certain covenant of heritage-brotherhood with the duke of Liegnitz, in 1537, which the emperor of that day caused to be annulled by the States of Bohemia] were incontestable: and he prepared, at the same time, to support these pretensions, if necessary, by arms. This project accomplished all his political views; it afforded the means of acquiring reputation, of augmenting the power of the state, and of terminating what related to the litigious succession of the dutchy of Berg. ...The state of the court of Vienna, after the death of the emperor, was deplorable. The finances were in disorder; the army was ruined and discouraged by ill success in its wars with the Turks; the ministry disunited, and a youthful unexperienced princess at the head of the government, who was to defend the succession from all claimants. The result was that the government could not appear formidable. It was besides impossible that the king should be destitute of allies. ... The war which he might undertake in Silesia was the only offensive war that could be favoured by the situation of his states, for it would be carried on upon his frontiers, and the Oder would always furnish him with a sure communication. ... Add to these reasons, an army fit to march, a treasury ready prepared, and, perhaps, the ambition of acquiring renown. Such were the causes of the war which the king declared against Maria Theresa of Austria, queen of Hungary and Bohemia."

Frederick II. (Frederick the Great), History of My Own Times: Posthumous Works (translated by Holcroft), volume 1, chapter 1-2.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741. The War of the Succession: Faithlessness of the King of Prussia. The Macaulay verdict.

"From no quarter did the young queen of Hungary receive stronger assurances of friendship and support than from the King of Prussia. Yet the King of Prussia, the 'Anti-Machiavel,' had already fully determined to commit the great crime of violating his plighted faith, of robbing the ally whom he was bound to defend, and of plunging all Europe into a long, bloody, and desolating war, and all this for no end whatever except that he might extend his dominions and see his name in the gazettes. He determined to assemble a great army with speed and secrecy, to invade Silesia before Maria Theresa should be apprized of his design, and to add that rich province to his kingdom. ... Without any declaration of war, without any demand for reparation, in the very act of pouring forth compliments and assurances of good will, Frederic commenced hostilities. Many thousands of his troops were actually in Silesia before the Queen of Hungary knew that he had set up any claim to any part of her territories. At length he sent her a message which could be regarded only as an insult. If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he said, stand by her against any power which should try to deprive her of her other dominions: as if he was not already bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise could be of more value than the old one. It was the depth of winter. The cold was severe, and the roads deep in mire. But the Prussians pressed on. Resistance was impossible. The Austrian army was then neither numerous nor efficient. The small portion of that army which lay in Silesia was unprepared for hostilities. Glogau was blockaded; Breslau opened its gates; Ohlau was evacuated. A few scattered garrisons still held out; but the whole open country was subjugated: no enemy ventured to encounter the king in the field; and, before the end of January, 1741, he returned to receive the congratulations of his subjects at Berlin. {214} Had the Silesian question been merely a question between Frederic and Maria Theresa it would be impossible to acquit the Prussian king of gross perfidy. But when we consider the effects which his policy produced, and could not fail to produce, on the whole community of civilized nations, we are compelled to pronounce a condemnation still more severe. ... The selfish rapacity of the king of Prussia gave the signal to his neighbours. ... The evils produced by this wickedness were felt in lands where the name of Prussia was unknown; and, in order that he might rob a neighbour whom he had promised to defend, black men fought on the coast of Coromandel, and red men scalped each other by the great lakes of North America. Silesia had been occupied without a battle; but the Austrian troops were advancing to the relief of the fortresses which still held out. In the spring Frederic rejoined his army. He had seen little of war, and had never commanded any great body of men in the field. ... Frederic's first battle was fought at Molwitz [April 10, 1741], and never did the career of a great commander open in a more inauspicious manner. His army was victorious. Not only, however, did he not establish his title to the character of an able general, but he was so unfortunate as to make it doubtful whether he possessed the vulgar courage of a soldier. The cavalry, which he commanded in person, was put to flight. Unaccustomed to the tumult and carnage of a field of battle, he lost his self-possession, and listened too readily to those who urged him to save himself. His English gray carried him many miles from the field, while Schwerin, though wounded in two places, manfully upheld the day. The skill of the old Field-Marshal and the steadiness of the Prussian battalions prevailed, and the Austrian army was driven from the field with the loss of 8,000 men. The news was carried late at night to a mill in which the king had taken shelter. It gave him a bitter pang. He was successful; but he owed his success to dispositions which others had made, and to the valour of men who had fought while he was flying. So unpromising was the first appearance of the greatest warrior of that age."

Lord Macaulay, Frederic the Great (Essays, volume 4).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (April-May). The War of the Succession: French responsibility. The Carlyle verdict.

"The battle of Mollwitz went off like a signal shot among the Nations; intimating that they were, one and all, to go battling. Which they did, with a witness; making a terrible thing of it, over all the world, for above seven years to come. ... Not that Mollwitz kindled Europe; Europe was already kindled for some two years past;--especially since the late Kaiser died, and his Pragmatic Sanction was superadded to the other troubles afoot. But ever since that image of Jenkins's Ear had at last blazed up in the slow English brain, like a fiery constellation or Sign in the Heavens, symbolic of such injustices and unendurabilities, and had lighted the Spanish-English War [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], Europe was slowly but pretty surely taking fire. France 'could not see Spain humbled,' she said: England (in its own dim feeling, and also in the fact of things), could not do at all without considerably humbling Spain. France, endlessly interested in that Spanish-English matter, was already sending out fleets, firing shots,--almost, or altogether, putting her hand in it. 'In which case, will not, must not, Austria help us?' thought England,--and was asking, daily, at Vienna ... when the late Kaiser died. ... But if not as cause, then as signal, or as signal and cause together (which it properly was), the Battle of Mollwitz gave the finishing stroke and set all in motion. ... For directly on the back of Mollwitz, there ensued, first, an explosion of Diplomatic activity, such as was never seen before; Excellencies from the four winds taking wing towards Friedrich; and talking and insinuating, and fencing and fugling, after their sort, in that Silesian camp of his, the centre being there. A universal rookery of Diplomatists, whose loud cackle is now as if gone mad to us; their work wholly fallen putrescent and avoidable, dead to all creatures. And secondly, in the train of that, there ensued a universal European War, the French and the English being chief parties in it; which abounds in battles and feats of arms, spirited but delirious, and cannot be got stilled for seven or eight years to come; and in which Friedrich and his War swim only as an intermittent Episode henceforth. ... The first point to be noted is, Where did it originate? To which the answer mainly is ... with Monseigneur, the Maréchal de Belleisle principally; with the ambitious cupidities and baseless vanities of the French Court and Nation, as represented by Belleisle. ... The English-Spanish War had a basis to stand on in this Universe. The like had the Prussian-Austrian one; so all men now admit. If Friedrich had not business there, what man ever had in an enterprise he ventured on? Friedrich, after such trial and proof as has seldom been, got his claims on Schlesien allowed by the Destinies. ... Friedrich had business in this War; and Maria Theresa versus Friedrich had likewise cause to appear in Court, and do her utmost pleading against him. But if we ask, What Belleisle or France and Louis XV. had to do there? the answer is rigorously Nothing. Their own windy vanities, ambitions, sanctioned not by fact and the Almighty Powers, but by Phantasm and the babble of Versailles; transcendent self-conceit, intrinsically insane; pretensions over their fellow-creatures which were without basis anywhere in Nature, except in the French brain; it was this that brought Belleisle and France into a German War. And Belleisle and France having gone into an Anti-Pragmatic War, the unlucky George and his England were dragged into a Pragmatic one,--quitting their own business, on the Spanish Main, and hurrying to Germany,--in terror as at Doomsday, and zeal to save the Keystone of Nature there. That is the notable point in regard to this War: That France is to be called the author of it, who, alone of all the parties, had no business there whatever."

T. Carlyle, History of Friedrich II., book 12, chapter 11 (volume 4).

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

{215}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (May-June). Mission of Belleisle. The thickening of the Plot.

"The defeat of Maria Theresa's only army [at Mollwitz] swept away all the doubts and scruples of France. The fiery Belleisle had already set out upon his mission to the various German courts, armed with powers which were reluctantly granted by the cardinal [Fleury, the French minister], and were promptly enlarged by the ambassador to suit his own more ambitious views of the situation. He travelled in oriental state. ... The almost royal pomp with which he strode into the presence of princes of the blood, the copious eloquence with which he pleaded his cause, ... were only the outward decorations of one of the most iniquitous schemes ever devised by an unscrupulous diplomacy. The scheme, when stripped of all its details, did not indeed at first appear absolutely revolting. It proposed simply to secure the election of Charles Albert of Bavaria as emperor, an honor to which he had a perfect right to aspire. But it was difficult to obtain the votes of certain electors without offering them the prospect of territorial gains, and impossible for Charles Albert to support the imperial dignity without greater revenues than those of Bavaria. It was proposed, therefore, that provinces should be taken from Maria Theresa herself, first to purchase votes against her own husband, and then to swell the income of the successful rival candidate. The three episcopal electors were first visited, and subjected to various forms of persuasion, bribes, flattery, threats,--until the effects of the treatment began to appear; the count palatine was devoted to France; and these four with Bavaria made a majority of one. But that was too small a margin for Belleisle's aspirations, or even for the safety of his project. The four remaining votes belonged to the most powerful of the German states, Prussia, Hanover, Saxony and Bohemia. ... Bohemia, if it voted at all, would of course vote for the grand-duke Francis [husband of Maria Theresa]. Saxony and Hanover were already negotiating with Maria Theresa; and it was well understood that Austria could have Frederick's support by paying his price." Austria refused to pay the price, and Frederick signed a treaty with the king of France at Breslau on the 4th of June, 1741. "The essence of it was contained in four secret articles. In these the king of Prussia renounced his claim to Jülich-Berg in behalf of the house of Sulzbach, and agreed to give his vote to the elector of Bavaria for emperor. The king of France engaged to guarantee Prussia in the possession of Lower Silesia, to send within two months an army to the support of Bavaria, and to provoke an immediate rupture between Sweden and Russia."

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 99 (volume 3).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (June-September). Maria Theresa and the Hungarians.

"During these anxious summer months Maria Theresa and the Austrian court had resided mainly at Presburg, in Hungary. Here she had been occupied in the solution of domestic as well as international problems. The Magyars, as a manly and chivalrous race, had been touched by the perilous situation of the young queen; but, while ardently protesting their loyalty, insisted not the less on the recognition of their own inalienable rights. These had been inadequately observed in recent years, and in consequence no little disaffection prevailed in Hungary. The magnates resolved, therefore, as they had resolved at the beginning of previous reigns, to demand the restoration of all their rights and privileges. But it does not appear that they wished to take any ungenerous advantage of the sex or the necessities of Maria Theresa. They were argumentative and stubborn, yet not in a bargaining, mercenary spirit. They accepted in June a qualified compliance with their demands; and when on the 25th of that month the queen appeared before the diet to receive the crown of St. Stephen, and, according to custom, waved the great sword of the kingdom toward the four points of the compass, toward the north and the south, the east and the west, challenging all enemies to dispute her right, the assembly was carried away by enthusiasm, and it seemed as if an end had forever been put to constitutional technicalities. Such was, however, not the case. After the excitement caused by the dramatic coronation had in a measure subsided, the old contentions revived, as bitter and vexatious as before. These concerned especially the manner in which the administration of Hungary should be adjusted to meet the new state of things. Should the chief political offices be filled by native Hungarians, as the diet demanded? Could the co-regency of the grand-duke, which was ardently desired by the queen, be accepted by the Magyars? For two months the dispute over these problems raged at Presburg, until finally Maria Theresa herself found a bold, ingenious, and patriotic solution. The news of the Franco-Bavarian alliance and the fall of Passau determined her to throw herself completely upon the gallantry and devotion of the Magyars. It had long been the policy of the court of Vienna not to entrust the Hungarians with arms. ... But Maria Theresa had not been robbed, in spite of her experience with France and Prussia, of all her faith in human nature. She took the responsibility of her decision, and the result proved that her insight was correct. On the 11th of September she summoned the members of the diet before her, and, seated on the throne, explained to them the perilous situation of her dominions. The danger, she said, threatened herself, and all that was dear to her. Abandoned by all her allies, she took refuge in the fidelity and the ancient valor of the Hungarians, to whom she entrusted herself, her children, and her empire. Here she broke into tears, and covered, her face with her handkerchief. The diet responded to this appeal by proclaiming the 'insurrection' or the equipment of a large popular force for the defence of the queen. So great was the enthusiasm that it nearly swept away even the original aversion of the Hungarians to the grand-duke Francis, who, to the queen's delight, was finally, though not without some murmurs, accepted as co-regent. ... This uprising was organized not an hour too early, for dangers were pressing upon the queen from every side."

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: Duc de Broglie, Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa, chapter 4 (volume 2).

{216}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (August-November). The French-Bavarian onset.

"France now began to act with energy. In the month of August [1741] two French armies crossed the Rhine, each about 40, 000 strong. The first marched into Westphalia, and frightened George II. into concluding a treaty of neutrality for Hanover, and promising his vote to the Elector of Bavaria. The second advanced through South Germany on Passau, the frontier city of Bavaria and Austria. As soon as it arrived on German soil, the French officers assumed the blue and white cockade of Bavaria, for it was the cue of France to appear only as an auxiliary, and the nominal command of her army was vested in the Elector. From Passau the French and Bavarians passed into Upper Austria, and on Sept. 11 entered its capital, Linz, where the Elector assumed the title of Archduke. Five days later Saxony joined the allies. Sweden had already declared war on Russia. Spain trumped up an old claim and attacked the Austrian dominions in Italy. It seemed as if Belleisle's schemes were about to be crowned with complete success. Had the allies pushed forward, Vienna must have fallen into their hands. But the French did not wish to be too victorious, lest they should make the Elector too powerful, and so independent of them. Therefore, after six weeks' delay, they turned aside to the conquest of Bohemia."

_F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War, chapter 4, section 4._

"While . . . a portion of the French troops, under the command of the Count de Segur, was left in Upper Austria, the remainder of the allied army turned towards Bohemia; where they were joined by a body of Saxons, under the command of Count Rutowsky. They took Prague by assault, on the night of the 25th of November, while the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the husband of Maria Theresa, was marching to his relief. In Prague, 3,000 prisoners were taken. The elector of Bavaria hastened there, upon hearing of the success of his arms, was crowned King of Bohemia, during the month of December, and received the oath of fidelity from the constituted authorities. But while he was thus employed, the Austrian general, Khevenhuller, had driven the Count de Segur out of Austria, and had himself entered Bavaria; which obliged the Bavarian army to abandon Bohemia and hasten to the defence of their own country."

Lord Dover, Life of Frederick II., book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: _Frederick II., History of My Own Times (Posthumous Works, volume 1, chapter 5)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (October). Secret Treaty with Frederick. Lower Silesia conceded to him. Austrian success.

"By October, 1741, the fortunes of Maria Theresa had sunk to the lowest ebb, but a great revulsion speedily set in. The martial enthusiasm of the Hungarians, the subsidy from England, and the brilliant military talents of General Khevenhuller, restored her armies. Vienna was put in a state of defence, and at the same time jealousies and suspicion made their way among the confederates. The Electors of Bavaria and Saxony were already in some degree divided; and the Germans, and especially Frederick, were alarmed by the growing ascendency, and irritated by the haughty demeanour of the French. In the moment of her extreme depression, the Queen consented to a concession which England had vainly urged upon her before, and which laid the foundation of her future success. In October 1741 she entered into a secret convention with Frederick [called the convention of Ober-Schnellendorf], by which that astute sovereign agreed to desert his allies, and desist from hostilities, on condition of ultimately obtaining Lower Silesia, with Breslau and Neisse. Every precaution was taken to ensure secrecy. It was arranged that Frederick should continue to besiege Neisse, that the town should ultimately be surrendered to him, and that his troops should then retire into winter quarters, and take no further part in the war. As the sacrifice of a few more lives was perfectly indifferent to the contracting parties, and in order that no one should suspect the treachery that was contemplated, Neisse, after the arrangement had been made for its surrender, was subjected for four days and four nights to the horrors of bombardment. Frederick, at the same time talked, with his usual cynical frankness, to the English ambassador about the best way of attacking his allies the French; and observed, that if the Queen of Hungary prospered, he would perhaps support her, if not--everyone must look for himself. He only assented verbally to this convention, and, no doubt, resolved to await the course of events, in order to decide which Power it was his interest finally to betray; but in the meantime the Austrians obtained a respite, which enabled them to throw their whole forces upon their other enemies. Two brilliant campaigns followed. The greater part of Bohemia was recovered by an army under the Duke of Lorraine, and the French were hemmed in at Prague; while another army, under General Khevenhuller, invaded Upper Austria, drove 10,000 French soldiers within the walls of Linz, blockaded them, defeated a body of Bohemians who were sent to the rescue, compelled the whole French army to surrender, and then, crossing the frontier, poured in a resistless torrent over Bavaria. The fairest plains of that beautiful land were desolated by hosts of irregular troops from Hungary, Croatia, and the Tyrol; and on the 12th of February the Austrians marched in triumph into Munich. On that very day the Elector of Bavaria was crowned Emperor of Germany, at Frankfort, under the title of Charles VII., and the imperial crown was thus, for the first time, for many generations, separated from the House of Austria."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: _F. Von Raumer, Contributions to Modern History: Frederick II. and his Times, chapter 13-14._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741-1743. Successes in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (January-May). Frederick breaks faith again. Battle of Chotusitz.

"The Queen of Hungary had assembled in the beginning of the year two considerable armies in Moravia and Bohemia, the one under Prince Lobkowitz, to defend the former province, and the other commanded by Prince Charles of Lorraine, her brother-in-law. This young Prince possessed as much bravery and activity as Frederick, and had equally with him the talent of inspiring attachment and confidence. ... Frederick, alarmed at these preparations and the progress of the Austrians in Bavaria, abruptly broke off the convention of Ober-Schnellendorf, and recommenced hostilities. ... The King of Prussia became apprehensive that the Queen of Hungary would again turn her arms to recover Silesia. He therefore dispatched Marshal Schwerin to seize Olmutz and lay siege to Glatz, which surrendered after a desperate resistance on the 9th of January. Soon after this event, the King rejoined his army, and endeavoured to drive the Austrians from their advantageous position in the southern parts of Bohemia, which would have delivered the French troops in the neighbourhood and checked the progress of Khevenhüller in Bavaria. {217} The king advanced to Iglau, on the frontiers of Bohemia, and, occupying the banks of the Taya, made irruptions into Upper Austria, his hussars spreading terror even to the gates of Vienna. The Austrians drew from Bavaria a corps of 10,000 men to cover the capital, while Prince Charles of Lorraine, at the head of 50,000 men, threatened the Prussian magazines in Upper Silesia, and by this movement compelled Frederick to detach a considerable force for their protection, and to evacuate Moravia, which he had invaded. Broglie, who commanded the French forces in that country, must now have fallen a sacrifice, had not the ever-active King of Prussia brought up 30,000 men, which, under the Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, entering Bohemia, came up with Prince Charles at Czaslau, about thirty-five miles from Prague, before he could form a junction with Prince Lobkowitz. Upon this ensued [May 17, 1742] what is known in history as the battle of Czaslau [also, and more commonly, called the battle of Chotusitz]. ... The numbers in the two armies were nearly equal, and the action was warmly contested on both sides. ... The Prussians remained masters of the field, with 18 cannon, two pairs of colours and 1,200 prisoners; but they indeed paid dearly for the honour, for it was computed that their loss was equal to that of their enemy, which amounted to 7,000 men on either side; while the Prussian cavalry, under Field-Marshal Buddenbroch, was nearly ruined. ... Although in this battle the victory was, without doubt, on the side of the Prussians, yet the immediate consequences were highly favourable to the Queen of Hungary. The King was disappointed of his expected advantages, and conceived a disgust to the war. He now lowered his demands and made overtures of accommodation, which, on the 11th of June, resulted in a treaty of peace between the two crowns, which was signed at Breslau under the mediation of the British Ambassador."

Sir E. Cust, Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century, volume 2, page 19.

ALSO IN: _T. Carlyle, History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, book 13, chapter 13 (volume 5)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June). Treaty of Breslau with the King of Prussia.

"The following are the preliminary articles which were signed at Breslau: 1. The queen of Hungary ceded to the king of Prussia Upper and Lower Silesia, with the principality of Glatz; except the towns of Troppau, Jaegendorff and the high mountains situated beyond the Oppa. 2. The Prussians undertook to repay the English 1,700,000 crowns; which sum was a mortgage loan on Silesia. The remaining articles related to a suspension of arms, an exchange of prisoners, and the freedom of religion and trade. Thus was Silesia united to the Prussian States. Two years were sufficient for the conquest of that important province. The treasures which the late king had left were almost expended; but provinces that do not cost more than seven or eight millions are cheaply purchased."

Frederic II., History of My Own Times (Posthumous Works, volume 1), chapter 6.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June-December). Expulsion of the French from Bohemia. Belleisle's retreat from Prague.

"The Austrian arms began now to be successful in all quarters. Just before the signature of the preliminaries, Prince Lobcowitz, who was stationed at Budweiss with 10,000 men, made an attack on Frauenberg; Broglio and Belleisle advanced from Piseck to relieve the town, and a combat took place at Sahay, in which the Austrians were repulsed with the loss of 500 men. This trifling affair was magnified into a decisive victory. ... Marshal Broglio, elated with this advantage, and relying on the immediate junction of the King of Prussia, remained at Frauenberg in perfect security. But his expectations were disappointed; Frederic had already commenced his secret negotiations, and Prince Charles was enabled to turn his forces against the French. Being joined by Prince Lobcowitz, they attacked Broglio, and compelled him to quit Frauenberg with such precipitation that his baggage fell into the hands of the light troops, and the French retreated towards Branau, harassed by the Croats and other irregulars. ... The Austrians, pursuing their success against the French, drove Broglio from Branau, and followed him to the walls of Prague, where he found Belleisle. ... After several consultations, the two generals called in their posts, and secured their army partly within the walls and partly within a peninsula of the Moldau. ... Soon afterwards the duke of Lorraine joined the army [of Prince Charles], which now amounted to 70 70,000 men, and the arrival of the heavy artillery enabled the Austrians to commence the siege."

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 102 (volume 3).

"To relieve the French at Prague, Marshal Maillebois was directed to advance with his army from Westphalia. At these tidings Prince Charles changed the siege of Prague to a blockade, and marching against his new opponents, checked their progress on the Bohemian frontier; the French, however, still occupying the town of Egra. It was under these circumstances that Belleisle made his masterly and renowned retreat from Prague. In the night of the 16th of December, he secretly left the city at the head of 11,000 foot and 3,000 horse, having deceived the Austrians' vigilance by the feint of a general forage in the opposite quarter; and pushed for Egra through a hostile country, destitute of resources and surrounded by superior enemies. His soldiers, with no other food than frozen bread, and compelled to sleep without covering on the snow and ice, perished in great numbers; but the gallant spirit of Belleisle triumphed over every obstacle; he struck through morasses almost untrodden before, offered battle to Prince Lobkowitz, who, however, declined engaging, and at length succeeded in reaching the other French army with the flower of his own. The remnant left at Prague, and amounting only to 6,000 men, seemed an easy prey; yet their threat of firing the city, and perishing beneath its ruins, and the recent proof of what despair can do, obtained for them honourable terms, and the permission of rejoining their comrades at Egra. But in spite of all this skill and courage in the French invaders, the final result to them was failure; nor had they attained a single permanent advantage beyond their own safety in retreat. Maillebois and De Broglie took up winter quarters in Bavaria, while Belleisle led back his division across the Rhine; and it was computed that, of the 35,000 men whom he had first conducted into Germany, not more than 8,000 returned beneath his banner."

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 24 (volume 3)_.

"Thus, at the termination of the campaign, all Bohemia was regained, except Egra; and on the 12th of May, 1743, Maria Theresa was soon afterwards crowned at Prague, to the recovery of which, says her great rival, her firmness had more contributed than the force of her arms. The only reverse which the Austrians experienced in the midst of their successes was the temporary loss of Bavaria, which, on the retreat of Kevenhuller, was occupied by marshal Seckendorf; and the Emperor made his entry into Munich on the 2d of October."

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 103 (volume 3).

{218}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743. England drawn into the conflict. The Pragmatic Army. The Battle of Dettingen.

"The cause of Maria Theresa had begun to excite a remarkable enthusiasm in England. ... The convention of neutrality entered into by George II. in September 1741, and the extortion of his vote for the Elector of Bavaria, properly concerned that prince only as Elector of Hanover; yet, as he was also King of England, they were felt as a disgrace by the English people. The elections of that year went against Walpole, and in February 1742 he found himself compelled to resign. He was succeeded in the administration by Pulteney, Earl of Bath, though Lord Carteret was virtually prime minister. Carteret was an ardent supporter of the cause of Maria Theresa. His accession to office was immediately followed by a large increase of the army and navy; five millions were voted for carrying on the war, and a subsidy of £500,000 for the Queen of Hungary. The Earl of Stair, with an army of 16,000 men, afterwards reinforced by a large body of Hanoverians and Hessians in British pay, was despatched into the Netherlands to cooperate with the Dutch. But though the States-General, at the instance of the British Cabinet, voted Maria Theresa a subsidy, they were not yet prepared to take an active part in a war which might ultimately involve them in hostilities with France. The exertions of the English ministry in favour of the Queen of Hungary had therefore been confined during the year 1742 to diplomacy, and they had helped to bring about ... the Peace of Breslau. In 1743 they were able to do more," In April, 1743, the Emperor, Charles VII., regained possession of Bavaria and returned to Munich, but only to be driven out again by the Austrians in June. The Bavarians were badly beaten at Simpach (May 9), and Munich was taken (June 12) after a short bombardment. "Charles VII. was now again obliged to fly, and took refuge at Augsburg. At his command, Seckendorf [his general] made a convention with the Austrians at the village of Niederschönfeld, by which he agreed to abandon to them Bavaria, on condition that Charles's troops should be allowed to occupy unmolested quarters between Franconia and Suabia. Maria Theresa seemed at first indisposed to ratify even terms so humiliating to the Emperor. She had become perhaps a little too much exalted by the rapid turn of fortune. She had caused herself to be crowned in Prague. She had received the homage of the Austrians, and entered Vienna in a sort of triumph. She now dreamt of nothing less than conquering Lorraine for herself, Alsace for the Empire; of hurling Charles VII. from the Imperial throne, and placing on it her own consort." She was persuaded, however, to consent at length to the terms of the Niederschönfeld convention. "Meanwhile the allied army of English and Germans, under the Earl of Stair, nearly 40,000 strong, which, from its destined object, had assumed the name of the 'Pragmatic Army,' had crossed the Meuse and the Rhine in March and April, with a view to cut off the army of Bavaria from France. George II. had not concealed his intention of breaking the Treaty of Hanover of 1741, alleging as a ground that the duration of the neutrality stipulated in it had not been determined; and on June 19th he had joined the army in person. He found it in a most critical position. Lord Stair, who had never distinguished himself as a general, and was now falling into dotage, had led it into a narrow valley near Aschaffenburg, between Mount Spessart and the river Main; while Marshal Noailles [commanding the French], who had crossed the Rhine towards the end of April, by seizing the principal fords of the Main, both above and below the British position, had cut him off both from his magazines at Hanau, and from the supplies which he had expected to procure in Franconia. Nothing remained but for him to fight his way back to Hanau." In the battle of Dettingen, which followed (June 27), all the advantages of the French in position were thrown away by the ignorant impetuosity of the king's nephew, the Duke of Grammont, who commanded one division, and they suffered a severe defeat. "The French are said to have lost 6,000 men and the British half that number. It is the last action in which a king of England has fought in person. But George II., or rather Lord Stair, did not know how to profit by his victory. Although the Pragmatic Army was joined after the battle of Dettingen by 15,000 Dutch troops, under Prince Maurice of Nassau, nothing of importance was done during the remainder of the campaign."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 104 (volume 3).

Sir E. Cust, Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century, volume 2, pages 30-36.

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 25 (volume 3)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743. Treaty of Worms with Sardinia and England.

See ITALY: A. D. 1743.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743 (October). The Second Bourbon Family Compact.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744. The Prussian King strikes in again. The Union of Frankfort. Siege and capture of Prague.

"Everywhere Austria was successful, and Frederick had reason to fear for himself unless the tide of conquest could be stayed. He explains in the 'Histoire de Mon Temps' that he feared lest France should abandon the cause of the Emperor, which would mean that the Austrians, who now boldly spoke of compensation for the war, would turn their arms against himself. ... France was trembling, not for her conquests, but for her own territory. After the battle of Dettingen, the victorious Anglo-Hanoverian force was to cross the Rhine above Mayence and march into Alsace, while Prince Charles of Lorraine, with a strong Austrian army, was to pass near Basle and occupy Lorraine, taking up his winter quarters in Burgundy and Champagne. The English crossed without any check and moved on to Worms, but the Austrians failed in their attempt. Worms became a centre of intrigue, which Frederick afterwards called 'Cette abyme de mauvaisc fol.' The Dutch were persuaded by Lord Carteret to join the English, and they did at last send 14,000 men, who were never of the least use. {219} Lord Carteret also detached Charles Emanuel, King of Sardinia, from his French leanings, and persuaded him to enter into the Austro-English alliance [by the treaty of Worms, Sept. 13, 1743, which conceded to the King of Sardinia Finale, the city of Placentia, with some other small districts and gave him command of the allied forces in Italy]. It was clear that action could not be long postponed, and Frederick began to recognize the necessity of a new war. His first anxiety was to guard himself against interference from his northern and eastern neighbours. He secured, as he hoped, the neutrality of Russia by marrying the young princess of Anhalt-Zerbst, afterwards the notorious Empress Catherine, with the Grand-Duke Peter of Russia, nephew and heir to the reigning Empress Elizabeth. ... Thus strengthened, as he hoped, in his rear and flank, and having made the commencement of a German league called the Union of Frankfurt, by which Hesse and the Palatinate agreed to join Frederick and the Kaiser, he concluded on the 5th of June, 1744, a treaty which brought France also into this alliance. It was secretly agreed that Frederick was to invade Bohemia, conquer it for the Kaiser, and have the districts of Königgrätz, Bunzlau, and Leitmeritz to repay him for his trouble and costs; while France, which was all this time at war with Austria and England, should send an army against Prince Charles and the English. ... The first stroke of the coming war was delivered by France. Louis XV. sent a large army into the Netherlands under two good leaders, Noailles and Maurice de Saxe. Urged by his mistress, the Duchesse de Châteauroux, he joined it himself early, and took the nominal command early in June. ... The towns [Menin, Ypres, Fort Knoque, Furnes] rapidly fell before him, and Marshal Wade, with the Anglo-Dutch-Hanoverian army, sat still and looked at the success of the French. But on the night of the 30th June--1st July, Prince Charles crossed the Rhine by an operation which is worth the study of military students, and invaded Alsace, the French army of observation falling back before him. Louis XV. hurried back to interpose between the Austrians and Paris. ... Maurice de Saxe was left in the Netherlands with 45,000 men. Thus the French army was paralysed, and the Austrian army in its turn was actually invading France. At this time Frederick struck in. He sent word to the King that, though all the terms of their arrangement had not yet been fulfilled, he would at once invade Bohemia, and deliver a stroke against Prague which would certainly cause the retreat of Prince Charles with his 70,000 men. If the French army would follow Prince Charles in his retreat, Frederick would attack him, and between France and Prussia the Austrian army would certainly be crushed, and Vienna be at their mercy. This was no doubt an excellent plan of campaign, but, like the previous operations concerted with Broglio, it depended for success upon the good faith of the French, and this turned out to be a broken reed. On the 7th of August the Prussian ambassador at Vienna gave notice of the Union of Frankfurt and withdrew from the court of Austria; and on the 15th the Prussian army was put in march upon Prague [opening what is called the Second Silesian War]. Frederick's forces moved in three columns, the total strength being over 80,000. ... Maria Theresa was now again in great danger, but as usual retained her high courage, and once more called forth the enthusiasm of her Hungarian subjects, who sent swarms of wild troops, horse and foot, to the seat of war. ... On the 1st of September the three columns met before Prague, which had better defences than in the last campaign, and a garrison of some 16,000 men. ... During the night of the 9th the bombardment commenced ... and on the 16th the garrison surrendered. Thus, one month after the commencement of the march Prague was captured, and the campaign opened with a brilliant feat of arms."

Colonel C. B. Brackenbury, Frederick the Great, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 28.

_F. Von Raumer, Contributions to Modern History: Frederick II. and his Times, chapter 17-19._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745. Frederick's retreat and fresh triumph. Austria recovers the imperial crown. Saxony subdued. The Peace of Dresden.

After the reduction of Prague, Frederick, "in deference to the opinion of Marshal Belleisle, but against his own judgment, advanced into the south of Bohemia with the view of threatening Vienna. He thus exposed himself to the risk of being cut off from Prague. Yet even so he would probably have been able to maintain himself if the French had fulfilled their engagements. But while he was conquering the districts of the Upper Moldau, the Austrian army returned unimpaired from Alsace. The French had allowed it to cross the Rhine unmolested, and had not made the slightest attempt to harass its retreat [but applied themselves to the siege and capture of Freiburg]. They were only too glad to get rid of it themselves. In the ensuing operations Frederick was completely outmanoeuvred. Traun [the Austrian general], without risking a battle, forced him back towards the Silesian frontier. He had to choose between abandoning Prague and abandoning his communications with Silesia, and as the Saxons had cut off his retreat through the Electorate, there was really no choice in the matter. So he fell back on Silesia, abandoning Prague and his heavy artillery. The retreat was attended with considerable loss. Frederick was much struck with the skill displayed by Traun, and says, in his 'Histoire de mon Temps,' that he regarded this campaign as his school in the art of war and M. de Traun as his teacher. The campaign may have been an excellent lesson in the art of war, but in other respects it was very disastrous to Frederick. He had drawn upon himself the whole power of Austria, and had learnt how little the French were to be depended upon. His prestige was dimmed by failure, and even in his own army doubts were entertained of his capacity. But, bad as his position already was, it became far worse when the unhappy Emperor died [January 20, 1745], worn out with disease and calamity. This event put an end to the Union of Frankfort. Frederick could no longer claim to be acting in defence of his oppressed sovereign; the ground was cut from under his feet. Nor was there any longer much hope of preventing the Imperial Crown from reverting to Austria. The new Elector of Bavaria was a mere boy. In this altered state of affairs he sought to make peace. But Maria Theresa would not let him off so easily. {220} In order that she might use all her forces against him, she granted peace to Bavaria, and gave back to the young elector his hereditary dominions, on condition of his resigning all claim to hers and promising to vote for her husband as Emperor. While Frederick thus lost a friend in Bavaria, Saxony threw herself completely into the arms of his enemy, and united with Austria in a treaty [May 18] which had for its object, not the reconquest of Silesia merely, but the partition of Prussia and the reduction of the king to his ancient limits as Margrave of Brandenburg. Saxony was then much larger than it is now, but it was not only the number of troops it could send into the field that made its hostility dangerous. It was partly the geographical position of the country, which made it an excellent base for operations against Prussia, but still more the alliance that was known to subsist between the Elector (King Augustus III. of Poland) and the Russian Court. It was probable that a Prussian invasion of Saxony would be followed by a Russian invasion of Prussia. Towards the end of May, the Austrian and Saxon army, 75,000 strong, crossed the Giant Mountains and descended upon Silesia. The Austrians were again commanded by Prince Charles, but the wise head of Traun was no longer there to guide him. ... The encounter took place at Hohenfriedberg [June 5], and resulted in a complete victory for Prussia. The Austrians and Saxons lost 9,000 killed and wounded, and 7,000 prisoners, besides 66 cannons and 73 flags and standards. Four days after the battle they were back again in Bohemia. Frederick followed, not with the intention of attacking them again, but in order to eat the country bare, so that it might afford no sustenance to the enemy during the winter. For his own part he was really anxious for peace. His resources were all but exhausted, while Austria was fed by a constant stream of English subsidies. As in the former war, England interposed with her good offices, but without effect; Maria Theresa was by no means disheartened by her defeat, and refused to hear of peace till she had tried the chances of battle once more. On Sept. 13 her husband was elected Emperor by seven votes out of nine, the dissentients being the King of Prussia and the Elector Palatine. This event raised the spirits of the Empress-Queen, as Maria Theresa was henceforward called, and opened a wider field for her ambition. She sent peremptory orders to Prince Charles to attack Frederick before he retired from Bohemia. A battle was accordingly fought at Sohr [Sept. 30], and again victory rested with the Prussians. The season was now far advanced, and Frederick returned home expecting that there would be no more fighting till after the winter. Such however, was far from being the intention of his enemies." A plan for the invasion of Brandenburg by three Austrian and Saxon armies simultaneously, was secretly concerted; but Frederick had timely warning of it and it was frustrated by his activity and energy. On the 23d of November he surprised and defeated Prince Charles at Hennersdorf. "Some three weeks afterwards [Dec. 15] the Prince of Dessau defeated a second Saxon and Austrian army at Kesselsdorf, a few miles from Dresden. This victory completed the subjugation of Saxony and put an end to the war. Three days after Kesselsdorf, Frederick entered Dresden, and astonished everyone by the graciousness of his behaviour and by the moderation of his terms. From Saxony he exacted no cession of territory, but merely a contribution of 1,000,000 thalers (£150,000) towards the expenses of the war. From Austria he demanded a guarantee of the treaty of Breslau, in return for which he agreed to recognize Francis as Emperor. Peace was signed [at Dresden] on Christmas Day."

_F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War, chapter 5._

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Frederick II., book 15, chapter 3-15 (volume 4).

Lord Dover, Life of Frederick II., book 2, chapter 3-5 (volume 1).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745. Overwhelming disasters in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (May). Reverses in the Netherlands. Battle of Fontenoy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (September-October). The Consort of Maria Theresa elected and crowned Emperor. Rise of the new House of Hapsburg-Lorraine.

Francis of Lorraine, Grand Duke of Tuscany and husband of Maria Theresa, was elected Emperor, at Frankfort, Sept. 13, 1745, and crowned Oct. 1, with the title of Francis I. "Thus the Empire returned to the New House of Austria, that of Hapsburg-Lorraine, and France had missed the principal object for which she had gone to war." By the treaties signed at Dresden, Dec. 25, between Prussia, Austria and Saxony, Frederick, as Elector of Brandenburg, assented to and recognized the election of Francis, against which he and the Elector Palatine had previously protested.

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1746-1747. Further French conquests in the Netherlands. Lombardy recovered. Genoa won and lost.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747; and ITALY; A. D. 1746-1747.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1748 (October). Termination and results of the War of the Succession.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1755-1763. The Seven Years War.

Since the conquest of Silesia by Frederick the Great of Prussia, "he had cast off all reserve. In his extraordinary Court at Potsdam this man of wit and war laughed at God, and at his brother philosophers and sovereigns; he ill-treated Voltaire, the chief organ of the new opinions; he wounded kings and queens with his epigrams; he believed neither in the beauty of Madam de Pompadour nor in the poetical genius of the Abbé Bernis, Prime Minister of France. The Empress thought the moment favourable for the recovery of Silesia; she stirred up Europe, especially the queens; she persuaded the Queen of Poland and the Empress of Russia; she paid court to the mistress of Louis XV. The monstrous alliance of France with the ancient state of Austria against a sovereign who maintained the equilibrium of Germany united all Europe against him. England alone supported him and gave him subsidies. She was governed at that time by a gouty lawyer, the famous William Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, who raised himself by his eloquence and by his hatred of the French. England wanted two things; the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe, and the destruction of the French and Spanish colonies. {221} Her griefs were serious; the Spaniards had ill-treated her smugglers and the French wanted to prevent her from settling on their territory in Canada. In India, La Bourdonnaie and his successor Dupleix threatened to found a great empire in the face of the English. As a declaration of war the English confiscated 300 French ships (1756). The marvel of the war was to see this little kingdom of Prussia, interposed between the huge powers of Austria, France, and Russia, run from one to the other, and defy them all. This was the second period of the art of war. The unskillful adversaries of Frederick thought that he owed all his success to the precision of the manœuvres of the Prussian soldiers, to their excellent drill and rapid firing. Frederick had certainly carried the soldier machine to perfection. This was capable of imitation: the Czar Peter III. and the Count of St. Germin created military automatons by means of the lash. But they could not imitate the quickness of his manœuvres; the happy arrangement of his marches, which gave him great facility for moving and concentrating large masses, and directing them on the weak points of the enemy. In this terrible chase given by the large unwieldy armies of the allies to the agile Prussians, one cannot help noticing the amusing circumspection of the Austrian tacticians and the stupid folly of the fine gentlemen who led the armies of France. The Fabius of Austria, the sage and heavy Daun, was satisfied with a war of positions; he could not find encampments strong enough or mountains sufficiently inaccessible; his stationary troops were always beaten by Frederick. To begin with, he freed himself from the enmity of Saxony. He did not hurt, he only disarmed her. He struck his next blow in Bohemia. Repulsed by the Austrians, and abandoned by the English army, which determined at Kloster-seven to fight no more, threatened by the Russians, who were victorious at Joegerndorf, he passed into Saxony and found the French and Imperialists combined there. Prussia was surrounded by four armies. Frederick fancied himself lost and determined on suicide. He wrote to his sister and to d'Argens announcing his intention. There was only one thing which frightened him: it was, that when once he was dead the great distributor of glory--Voltaire--might make free with his name: he wrote an epistle to disarm him. ... Having written this epistle he defeated the enemy at Rosbach. The Prince of Soubise, who thought that he fled, set off rashly in pursuit; then the Prussians unmasked their batteries, killed 3,000 men, and took 7,000 prisoners. In the French camp were found an army of cooks, actors, hair-dressers; a number of parrots, parasols, and huge cases of lavender-water, &c. (1757). None but a tactician could follow the King of Prussia in this series of brilliant and skillful battles. The Seven Years' War, however varied its incidents, was a political and strategical war: it has not the interest of the wars for ideas, the struggles for religion and for freedom of the 16th century and of our own time. The defeat of Rosbach was followed by another at Crevelt, and by great reverses balanced by small advantages; the total ruin of the French navy and colonies; the English masters of the ocean and conquerors of India; the exhaustion and humiliation of old Europe in the presence of young Prussia. This is the history of the Seven Years War. It was terminated under the ministry of the Duke of Choiseul," by the Peace of Hubertsburg and the Peace of Paris.

J. Michelet, A Summary of Modern History, pages 300-302.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, to 1763; and, also, SEVEN YEARS' WAR.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1772-1773. The First Partition of Poland.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1777-1779. The question of the Bavarian Succession.

See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1782-1811. Abolition of Serfdom.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1787-1791. War with the Turks. Treaty of Sistova. Slight Acquisitions of Territory.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1790-1797. Death of Joseph II. and Leopold II. Accession of Francis II. The Coalition against and war with revolutionary France, to the Peace of Campo Formio.

"It is a mistake to imagine that the European Powers attacked the Revolution in France. It was the Revolution which attacked them. The diplomatists of the 18th century viewed at first with cynical indifference the meeting of the States-General at Versailles. ... The two points which occupied the attention of Europe in 1789 were the condition of Poland and the troubles in the East. The ambitious designs of Catherine and the assistance lent to them by Joseph threatened the existence of the Turkish Empire, irritated the Prussian Court, and awakened English apprehensions, always sensitive about the safety of Stamboul. Poland, the battle-field of cynical diplomacy, torn by long dissensions and mined by a miserable constitution, was vainly endeavouring, under the jealous eyes of her great neighbours, to avert the doom impending, and to reassert her ancient claim to a place among the nations of the world. But Russia had long since determined that Poland must be a vassal State to her or cease to be a State at all, while Prussia, driven to face a hard necessity, realised that a strong Poland and a strong Prussia could not exist together, and that if Poland ever rose again to power, Prussia must bid good-bye to unity and greatness. These two questions to the States involved seemed to be of far more moment than any political reform in France, and engrossed the diplomatists of Europe until the summer of 1791. In February, 1790, a new influence was introduced into European politics by the death of the Emperor Joseph and the accession of his brother, Leopold II. Leopold was a man of remarkable ability, no enthusiast and no dreamer, thoroughly versed in the selfish traditions of Austrian policy and in some of the subtleties of Italian statecraft, discerning, temperate, resolute and clear-headed, quietly determined to have his own way, and generally skilful enough to secure it. Leopold found his new dominions in a state of the utmost confusion, with war and rebellion threatening him on every side. He speedily set about restoring order. He repealed the unpopular decrees of Joseph. He conciliated or repressed his discontented subjects. He gradually re-established the authority of the Crown. ... Accordingly, the first eighteen months of Leopold's reign were occupied with his own immediate interests, and at the end of that time his success was marked. {222} Catherine's vast schemes in Turkey had been checked. War had been averted. Poland had been strengthened by internal changes. Prussia had been conciliated and outmanœuvred, and her influence had been impaired. At last, at the end of August, 1791, the Emperor was free to face the French problem, and he set out for the Castle of Pillnitz to meet the King of Prussia and the Emigrant leaders at the Saxon Elector's Court. For some time past the restlessness of the French Emigrants had been causing great perplexity in Europe. Received with open arms by the ecclesiastical princes of the Rhine, by the Electors of Mayence and Trèves, they proceeded to agitate busily for their own restoration. ... The object of the Emigrants was to bring pressure to bear at the European Courts, with the view of inducing the Powers to intervene actively in their behalf. ... After his escape from France, in June, 1790, the Comte de Provence established his Court at Coblentz, where he was joined by his brother the Comte d'Artois, and where, on the plea that Louis was a prisoner, he claimed the title of Regent, and assumed the authority of King. The Court of the two French princes at Coblentz represented faithfully the faults and follies of the Emigrant party. But a more satisfactory spectacle was offered by the camp at Worms, where Condé was bravely trying to organise an army to fight against the Revolution in France. To Condé's standard flocked the more patriotic Emigrants. ... But the German Princes in the neighbourhood looked with disfavour on the Emigrant army. It caused confusion in their dominions, and it drew down on them the hostility of the French Government. The Emperor joined them in protesting against it. In February, 1792, Condé's army was compelled to abandon its camp at Worms, and to retire further into Germany. The Emperor was well aware of the reckless selfishness of the Emigrant princes. He had as little sympathy with them as his sister. He did not intend to listen to their demands. If he interfered in France at all, it would only be in a cautious and tentative manner, and in order to save Marie Antoinette and her husband. Certainly he would not undertake a war for the restoration of the Ancien Régime. ... Accordingly, the interviews at Pillnitz came to nothing. ... Early in March, 1792, Leopold suddenly died. His heir Francis, unrestrained by his father's tact and moderation, assumed a different tone and showed less patience. The chances of any effective pressure from the Powers declined, as the prospect of war rose on the horizon. Francis' language was sufficiently sharp to give the Assembly the pretext which it longed for, and on the 20th April, Louis, amid general enthusiasm, came down to the Assembly and declared war against Austria. The effects of that momentous step no comment can exaggerate. It ruined the best hopes of the Revolution, and prepared the way for a military despotism in the future."

C. E. Mallet, The French Revolution, chapter 7.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791; 1791 (JULY-DECEMBER); 1791-1792; 1792 (APRIL-JULY), and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER); 1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY); 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), and (JULY-DECEMBER); 1794 (MARCH-JULY); 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY); 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER); 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1794-1796. The Third partition of Poland. Austrian share of the spoils.

See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1797 (October). Treaty of Campo-Formio with France. Cession of the Netherlands and Lombard provinces. Acquisition of Venice and Venetian territories.

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

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1798-1806. Congress of Rastadt. Second Coalition against France. Peace of Luneville. Third Coalition. Ulm and Austerlitz. Peace of Presburg. Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire. Birth of the Empire of Austria.

"When Bonaparte sailed for Egypt he had left a congress at Rastadt discussing means for the execution of certain articles in the treaty of Campo Formio which were to establish peace between France and the Empire. ... Though openly undertaking to invite the Germans to a congress in order to settle a general peace on the basis of the integrity of the Empire, the Emperor agreed in secret articles to use his influence to procure for the Republic the left bank of the Rhine with the exception of the Prussian provinces, to join with France in obtaining compensation in Germany for those injured by this change, and to contribute no more than his necessary contingent if the war were prolonged. The ratification of these secret provisions had been extorted from the Congress by threats before Bonaparte had left; but the question of indemnification had progressed no farther than a decision to secularise the ecclesiastical states for the purpose, when extravagant demands from the French deputies brought negotiation to a deadlock. Meanwhile, another coalition war had been brewing. Paul I. of Russia had regarded with little pleasure the doings of the Revolution, and when his proteges, the knights of St. John of Jerusalem, had been deprived of Malta by Bonaparte on his way to Egypt, when the Directory established by force of arms a Helvetic republic in Switzerland, when it found occasion to carry off the Pope into exile and erect a Roman republic, he abandoned the cautious and self-seeking policy of Catherine, and cordially responded to Pitt's advances for an alliance. At the same time Turkey was compelled by the invitation of Egypt to ally itself for once with Russia. Austria, convinced that the French did not intend to pay a fair price for the treaty of Campo Formio, also determined to renew hostilities; and Naples, exasperated by the sacrilege of a republic at Rome, and alarmed by French aggressiveness, enrolled itself in the league. The Neapolitan king, indeed, opened the war with some success, before he could receive support from his allies; but he was soon vanquished by the French, and his dominions were converted into a Parthenopean republic. Austria, on the contrary, awaited the arrival of the Russian forces; and the general campaign began early in 1799. The French, fighting against such generals as the Archduke Charles and the Russian Suvaroff, without the supervision of Carnot or the strategy and enterprise of Bonaparte, suffered severe reverses and great privations. Towards the end the Russian army endured much hardship on account of the selfishness of the Austrian cabinet; and this caused the Tsar, who thought he had other reasons for discontent, to withdraw his troops from the field. {223} When Bonaparte was made First Consul the military position of France was, nevertheless, very precarious. ... The Roman and Cisalpine republics had fallen. The very congress at Rastadt had been dispersed by the approach of the Austrians; and the French emissaries had been sabred by Austrian troopers, though how their insolence came to be thus foully punished has never been clearly explained. At this crisis France was rescued from foreign foes and domestic disorders by its most successful general. ... In the campaign which followed, France obtained signal satisfaction for its chagrin. Leaving Moreau to carry the war into Germany, Bonaparte suddenly crossed the Alps, and defeated the Austrians on the plain of Marengo. The Austrians, though completely cowed, refrained from concluding a definite peace out of respect for their engagements with England; and armistices, expiring into desultory warfare, prolonged the contest till Moreau laid the way open to Vienna, by winning a splendid triumph at Hohenlinden. A treaty of peace was finally concluded at Lunéville, when Francis II. pledged the Empire to its provisions on the ground of the consents already given at Rastadt. In conformity with the treaty of Campo Formio, Austria retained the boundary of the Adige in Italy; France kept Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine; and the princes, dispossessed by the cessions, were promised compensation in Germany; while Tuscany was given to France to sell to Spain at the price of Parma, Louisiana, six ships of the line, and a sum of money. Shortly afterwards peace was extended to Naples on easy terms. ... The time was now come for the Revolution to complete the ruin of the Holy Roman Empire. Pursuant to the treaty of Lunéville, the German Diet met at Regensburg to discuss a scheme of compensation for the dispossessed rulers. Virtually the meeting was a renewal of the congress of Rastadt. ... At Rastadt the incoherence and disintegration of the venerable Empire had become painfully apparent. ... When it was known that the head of the nation, who had guaranteed the integrity of the Empire in the preliminaries of Leoben, and had renewed the assurance when he convoked the assembly, had in truth betrayed to the stranger nearly all the left bank of the Rhine,--the German rulers greedily hastened to secure every possible trifle in the scramble of redistribution. The slow and wearisome debates were supplemented by intrigues of the most degraded nature. Conscious that the French Consul could give a casting vote on any disputed question, the princes found no indignity too shameful, no trick too base, to obtain his favour. ... The First Consul, on his side, prosecuted with a duplicity and address, heretofore unequalled, the traditional policy of France in German affairs. ... Feigning to take into his counsels the young Tsar, whose convenient friendship was thus easily obtained on account of his family connections with the German courts, he drew up a scheme of indemnification and presented it to the Diet for endorsement. In due time a servile assent was given to every point which concerned the two autocrats. By this settlement, Austria and Prussia were more equally balanced against one another, the former being deprived of influence in Western Germany, and the latter finding in more convenient situations a rich recompense for its cessions on the Rhine; while the middle states, Bavaria, Baden, and Würtemberg, received very considerable accessions of territory. But if Bonaparte dislocated yet further the political structure of Germany, he was at least instrumental in removing the worst of the anachronisms which stifled the development of improved institutions among a large division of its people. The same measure which brought German separatism to a climax, also extinguished the ecclesiastical sovereignties and nearly all the free cities. That these strongholds of priestly obscurantism and bourgeois apathy would some day be invaded by their more ambitious and active neighbours, had long been apparent. ... And war was declared when thousands of British subjects visiting France had already been ensnared and imprisoned. ... Pitt had taken the conduct of the war out of the hands of Addington's feeble ministry. Possessing the confidence of the powers, he rapidly concluded offensive alliances with Russia, Sweden, and Austria, though Prussia obstinately remained neutral. Thus, by 1805, Napoleon had put to hazard all his lately won power in a conflict with the greater part of Europe. The battle of Cape Trafalgar crushed for good his maritime power, and rendered England safe from direct attack. The campaign on land, however, made him master of central Europe. Bringing the Austrian army in Germany to an inglorious capitulation at Ulm, he marched through Vienna, and, with inferior forces won in his best style the battle of Austerlitz against the troops of Francis and Alexander. The action was decisive. The allies thought not of renewing the war with the relays of troops which were hurrying up from North and South. Russian and Austrian alike wished to be rid of their ill-fated connection. The Emperor Alexander silently returned home, pursued only by Napoleon's flattering tokens of esteem; the Emperor Francis accepted the peace of Presburg, which deprived his house of the ill-gotten Venetian States, Tyrol, and its more distant possessions in Western Germany; the King of Prussia, who had been on the point of joining the coalition with a large army if his mediation were unsuccessful, was committed to an alliance with the conqueror by his terrified negotiator. And well did Napoleon appear to make the fruits of victory compensate France for its exertions. The empire was not made more unwieldy in bulk, but its dependents, Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, received considerable accessions of territory, and the two first were raised to the rank of kingdoms; while the Emperor's Italian principality, which he had already turned into a kingdom of Italy to the great disgust of Austria, was increased by the addition of the ceded Venetian lands. But the full depth of Europe's humiliation was not experienced till the two following years. In 1806 an Act of Federation was signed by the kings of Bavaria and Würtemberg, the Elector of Baden, and thirteen minor princes, which united them into a league under the protection of the French Emperor. The objects of this confederacy, known as the Rheinbund were defence against foreign aggression and the exercise of complete autonomy at home. ... Already the consequences of the Peace of Lunéville had induced the ruling Hapsburg to assure his equality with the sovereigns of France and Russia by taking the imperial title in his own right; and before the Confederation of the Rhine was made public he formally renounced his office of elective Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and released from allegiance to him all the states and princes of the Reich, The triumph of the German policy of the Consulate was complete."

A. Weir, The Historical Basis of Modern Europe, chapter 4.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799, to 1805, and GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803, to 1805-1806.

{224}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1809-1814. The second struggle with Napoleon and the second defeat. The Marriage alliance. The Germanic War of Liberation. The final alliance and the overthrow of the Corsican.

"On the 12th of July, 1806, fourteen princes of the south and west of Germany united themselves into the confederation of the Rhine, and recognised Napoleon as their protector. On the 1st of August, they signified to the diet of Ratisbon their separation from the Germanic body. The Empire of Germany ceased to exist, and Francis II. abdicated the title by proclamation. By a convention signed at Vienna, on the 15th of December, Prussia exchanged the territories of Anspach, Cleves and Neufchâtel for the electorate of Hanover, Napoleon had all the west under his power. Absolute master of France and Italy, as emperor and king, he was also master of Spain, by the dependence of that court; of Naples and Holland, by his two brothers; of Switzerland, by the act of mediation; and in Germany he had at his disposal the kings of Bavaria and Wurtemberg, and the confederation of the Rhine against Austria and Prussia. ... This encroaching progress gave rise to the fourth coalition. Prussia, neutral since the peace of Bâle, had, in the last campaign, been on the point of joining the Austro-Russian coalition. The rapidity of the emperor's victories had alone restrained her; but now, alarmed at the aggrandizement of the empire, and encouraged by the fine condition of her troops, she leagued with Russia to drive the French from Germany. ... The campaign opened early in October. Napoleon, as usual, overwhelmed the coalition by the promptitude of his marches and the vigour of his measures. On the 14th of October, he destroyed at Jena the military monarchy of Prussia, by a decisive victory. ... The campaign in Poland was less rapid, but as brilliant as that of Prussia. Russia, for the third time, measured its strength with France. Conquered at Zurich and Austerlitz, it was also defeated at Eylau and Friedland. After these memorable battles, the emperor Alexander entered into a negotiation, and concluded at Tilsit, on the 21st of June, 1807, an armistice which was followed by a definitive treaty on the 7th of July. The peace of Tilsit extended the French domination on the continent. Prussia was reduced to half its extent. In the south of Germany, Napoleon had instituted the two kingdoms of Bavaria and Wurtemberg against Austria; further to the north, he created the two feudatory kingdoms of Saxony and Westphalia against Prussia. ... In order to obtain universal and uncontested supremacy, he made use of arms against the continent, and the cessation of commerce against England. But in forbidding to the continental states all communication with England, he was preparing new difficulties for himself, and soon added to the animosity of opinion excited by his despotism, and the hatred of states produced by his conquering domination, the exasperation of private interests and commercial suffering occasioned by the blockade. ... The expedition of Portugal in 1807, and the invasion of Spain in 1808, began for him and for Europe a new order of events. ... The reaction manifested itself in three countries, hitherto allies of France, and it brought on the fifth coalition. The court of Rome was dissatisfied; the peninsula was wounded in its national pride by having imposed upon it a foreign king; in its usages, by the suppression of convents, of the Inquisition, and of the grandees; Holland suffered in its commerce from the blockade, and Austria supported impatiently its losses and subordinate condition. England, watching for an opportunity to revive the struggle on the continent, excited the resistance of Rome, the peninsula, and the cabinet of Vienna. ... Austria ... made a powerful effort, and raised 550,000 men, comprising the Landwehr, and took the field in the spring of 1809. The Tyrol rose, and King Jerome was driven from his capital by the Westphalians: Italy wavered; and Prussia only waited till Napoleon met with a reverse, to take arms; but the emperor was still at the height of his power and prosperity. He hastened from Madrid in the beginning of February, and directed the members of the confederation to keep their contingents in readiness. On the 12th of April he left Paris, passed the Rhine, plunged into Germany, gained the victories of Eckmühl and Essling, occupied Vienna a second time on the 15th of May and overthrew this new coalition by the battle of Wagram, after a campaign of four mouths. ... The peace of Vienna, of the 11th of October, 1809, deprived the house of Austria of several more provinces, and compelled it again to adopt the continental system. ... Napoleon, who seemed to follow a rash but inflexible policy, deviated from his course about this time by a second marriage. He divorced Josephine that he might give an heir to the empire, and married, on the 1st of April, 1810, Marie-Louise, arch-duchess of Austria. This was a decided error. He quitted his position and his post as a parvenu and revolutionary monarch, opposing in France the ancient courts as the republic had opposed the ancient governments. He placed himself in a false situation with respect to Austria, which he ought either to have crushed after the victory of Wagram, or to have reinstated in its possessions after his marriage with the arch-duchess. ... The birth, on the 20th of March, 1811, of a son, who received the title of king of Rome, seemed to consolidate the power of Napoleon, by securing to him a successor. The war in Spain was prosecuted with vigour during the years 1810 and 1811. ... While the war was proceeding in the peninsula with advantage, but without any decided success, a new campaign was preparing in the north. Russia perceived the empire of Napoleon approaching its territories. ... About the close of 1810, it increased its armies, renewed its commercial relations with Great Britain, and did not seem indisposed to a rupture. The year 1811 was spent in negotiations which led to nothing, and preparations for war were made on both sides. ... On the 9th of March, Napoleon left Paris. ... During several months he fixed his court at Dresden, where the emperor of Austria, the king of Prussia, and all the sovereigns of Germany, came to bow before his high fortune. {225} On the 22nd of June, war was declared against Russia. ... Napoleon, who, according to his custom, wished to finish all in one campaign, advanced at once into the heart of Russia, instead of prudently organizing the Polish barrier against it. His army amounted to about 500,000 men. He passed the Niemen on the 24th of June; took Wilna, and Witepsk, defeated the Russians at Astrowno, Polotsk, Mohilow Smolensko, at the Moskowa, and on the 14th of September, made his entry into Moscow. ... Moscow was burned by its governor. ... The emperor ought to have seen that this war would not terminate as the others had done; yet, conqueror of the foe, and master of his capital, he conceived hopes of peace which the Russians skilfully encouraged. Winter was approaching, and Napoleon prolonged his stay at Moscow for six weeks. He delayed his movements on account of the deceptive negotiations of the Russians; and did not decide on a retreat till the 19th of October. This retreat was disastrous, and began the downfall of the empire. ... The cabinet of Berlin began the defections. On the 1st of March, 1813, it joined Russia and England, which were forming the sixth coalition. Sweden acceded to it soon after; yet the emperor, whom the confederate power thought prostrated by the last disaster, opened the campaign with new victories. The battle of Lutzen, won by conscripts, on the 2nd of May, the occupation of Dresden; the victory of Bautzen, and the war carried to the Elbe, astonished the coalition. Austria, which, since 1810, had been on a footing of peace, was resuming arms, and already meditating a change of alliance. She now proposed herself as a mediatrix between the emperor and the confederates. Her meditation was accepted; an armistice was concluded at Plesswitz, on the 4th of June, and a congress assembled at Prague to negotiate peace. It was impossible to come to terms. ... Austria joined the coalition, and war, the only means of settling this great contest, was resumed. The emperor had only 280,000 men against 520,000. .... Victory seemed, at first, to second him. At Dresden he defeated the combined forces; but the defeats of his lieutenants deranged his plans. ... The princes of the confederation of the Rhine chose this moment to desert the cause of the empire. A vast engagement having taken place at Leipsic between the two armies, the Saxons and Wurtembergers passed over to the enemy on the field of battle. This defection to the strength of the coalesced powers, who had learned a more compact and skilful mode of warfare, obliged Napoleon to retreat, after a struggle of three days. ... The empire was invaded in all directions. The Austrians entered Italy; the English, having made themselves masters of the peninsula during the last two years, had passed the Bidassoa, under General Wellington, and appeared on the Pyrenees. Three armies pressed on France to the east and north. ... Napoleon was ... obliged to submit to the conditions of the allied powers; their pretensions increased with their power. ... On the 11th of April, 1814, he renounced for himself and children the thrones of France and Italy, and received in exchange for his vast sovereignty, the limits of which had extended from Cadiz to the Baltic Sea, the little island of Elba."

F. A. Mignet, History of the French Revolution, chapter 15.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE), to 1813; RUSSIA: A. D. 1812; and FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812 to 1814.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814. Restored rule in Northern Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1815. Treaties of Paris and Congress of Vienna. Readjustment of French boundaries. Recovery of the Tyrol from Bavaria and Lombardy in Italy. Acquisition of the Venetian states.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE), and 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER): also VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1820. Formation of the Germanic Confederation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815. The Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815. Return of Napoleon from Elba. The Quadruple Alliance. The Waterloo Campaign and Its results.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1835. Emperor Francis, Prince Metternich, and "the system."

"After the treaty of Vienna in 1809, and still more conspicuously after the pacification of Europe, the political wisdom of the rulers of Austria inclined them ever more and more to the maintenance of that state of things which was known to friends and foes as the System. But what was the System? It was the organisation of do-nothing. It cannot even be said to have been reactionary: it was simply reactionary. ... 'Mark time in place' was the word of command in every government office. The bureaucracy was engaged from morning to night in making work, but nothing ever came of it. Not even were the liberal innovations which had lasted through the reign of Leopold got rid of. Everything went on in the confused, unfinished, and ineffective state in which the great war had found it. Such was the famous System which was venerated by the ultra-Tories of every land, and most venerated where it was least understood. Two men dominate the history of Austria during this unhappy time--men who, though utterly unlike in character and intellect, were nevertheless admirably fitted to work together, and whose names will be long united in an unenviable notoriety. These were the Emperor Francis and Prince Metternich. The first was the evil genius of internal politics; the second exercised a hardly less baneful influence over foreign affairs. ... For the external policy of Prince Metternich, the first and most necessary condition was, that Austria should give to Europe the impression of fixed adherence to the most extreme Conservative views. So for many years they worked together, Prince Metternich always declaring that he was a mere tool in the hands of his master, but in reality far more absolute in the direction of his own department than the emperor was in his. ... Prince Metternich had the power of making the most of all he knew, and constantly left upon persons of real merit the impression that he was a man of lofty aspirations and liberal views, who forced himself to repress such tendencies in others because he thought that their repression was a sine quâ non for Austria. The men of ability, who knew him intimately, thought less well of him. {226} To them he appeared vain and superficial, with much that recalled the French noblesse of the old régime in his way of looking at things, and emphatically wanting in every element of greatness. With the outbreak of the Greek insurrection in 1821, began a period of difficulty and complications for the statesmen of Austria. There were two things of which they were mortally afraid--Russia and the revolution. Now, if they assisted the Greeks, they would be playing into the hands of the second; and if they opposed the Greeks, they would be likely to embroil themselves with the first. The whole art of Prince Metternich was therefore exerted to keep things quiet in the Eastern Peninsula, and to postpone the intolerable 'question d'Orient.' Many were the shifts he tried, and sometimes, as just after the accession of Nicholas, his hopes rose very high. All was, however, in vain. England and Russia settled matters behind his back; and although the tone which the publicists in his pay adopted towards the Greeks became more favourable in 1826-7, the battle of Navarino was a sad surprise and mortification to the wily chancellor. Not less annoying was the commencement of hostilities on the Danube between Russia and the Porte. The reverses with which the great neighbour met in his first campaign cannot have been otherwise than pleasing at Vienna. But the unfortunate success which attended his arms in the second campaign soon turned ill-dissembled joy into ill-concealed sorrow, and the treaty of Adrianople at once lowered Austria's prestige in the East, and deposed Metternich from the commanding position which he had occupied in the councils of the Holy Allies. It became, indeed, ever more and more evident in the next few years that the age of Congress politics, during which he had been the observed of all observers, was past and gone, that the diplomatic period had vanished away, and that the military period had begun. The very form in which the highest international questions were debated was utterly changed. At Vienna, in 1814, the diplomatists had been really the primary, the sovereigns only secondary personages; while at the interview of Münchengratz, between Nicholas and the Emperor Francis, in 1833, the great autocrat appeared to look upon Prince Metternich as hardly more than a confidential clerk. The dull monotony of servitude which oppressed nearly the whole of the empire was varied by the agitations of one of its component parts. When the Hungarian Diet was dissolved in 1812, the emperor had solemnly promised that it should be called together again within three years. Up to 1815, accordingly, the nation went on giving extraordinary levies and supplies without much opposition. When, however, the appointed time was fulfilled, it began to murmur. ... Year by year the agitation went on increasing, till at last the breaking out of the Greek revolution, and the threatening appearance of Eastern politics, induced Prince Metternich to join his entreaties to those of many other counsellors, who could not be suspected of the slightest leaning to constitutional views. At length the emperor yielded, and in 1825 Presburg was once more filled with the best blood and most active spirits of the land, assembled in parliament. Long and stormy were the debates which ensued. Bitter was, from time to time, the vexation of the emperor, and great was the excitement throughout Hungary. In the end, however, the court of Vienna triumphed. Hardly any grievances were redressed, while its demands were fully conceded. The Diet of 1825 was, however, not without fruit. The discussion which took place advanced the political education of the people, who were brought back to the point where they stood at the death of Joseph II.--that is, before the long wars with France had come to distract their attention from their own affairs. ... The slumbers of Austria were not yet over. The System dragged its slow length along. Little or nothing was done for the improvement of the country. Klebelsberg administered the finances in an easy and careless manner. Conspiracies and risings in Italy were easily checked, and batches of prisoners sent off from time to time to Mantua or Spielberg. Austrian influence rose ever higher and higher in all the petty courts of the Peninsula. ... In other regions Russia or England might be willing to thwart him, but in Italy Prince Metternich might proudly reflect that Austria was indeed a 'great power.' The French Revolution of 1830 was at first alarming; but when it resulted in the enthronement of a dynasty which called to its aid a 'cabinet of repression,' all fears were stilled. The Emperor Francis continued to say, when any change was proposed, 'We must sleep upon it,' and died in 1835 in 'the abundance of peace.'"

M. E. Grant Duff, Studies in European Politics, pages 140-149.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846. Gains of the Hapsburg monarchy. Its aggressive absolutism. Death of Francis I. Accession of Ferdinand I. Suppression of revolt in Galicia. Extinction and annexation of the Republic of Cracow.

"In the new partition of Europe, arranged in the Congress of Vienna [see VIENNA. THE CONGRESS OF], Austria received Lombardy and Venice under the title of a Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, the Illyrian provinces also as a kingdom, Venetian Dalmatia, the Tirol, Vorarlberg, Salzburg, the Innviertel and Hausrucksviertel, and the part of Galicia ceded by her at an earlier period. Thus, after three and twenty years of war, the monarchy had gained a considerable accession of strength, having obtained, in lieu of its remote and unprofitable possessions in the Netherlands, territories which consolidated its power in Italy, and made it as great in extent as it had been in the days of Charles VI., and far more compact and defensible. The grand duchies of Modena, Parma, and Placentia, were moreover restored to the collateral branches of the house of Hapsburg. ... After the last fall of Napoleon ... the great powers of the continent ... constituted themselves the champions of the principle of absolute monarchy. The maintenance of that principle ultimately became the chief object of the so-called Holy Alliance established in 1816 between Russia, Austria and Prussia, and was pursued with remarkable steadfastness by the Emperor Francis and his minister, Prince Metternich [see HOLY ALLIANCE]. ... Thenceforth it became the avowed policy of the chief sovereigns of Germany to maintain the rights of dynasties in an adverse sense to those of their subjects. The people, on the other hand, deeply resented the breach of those promises which had been so lavishly made to them on the general summons to the war of liberation. {227} Disaffection took the place of that enthusiastic loyalty with which they had bled and suffered for their native princes; the secret societies, formed with the concurrence of their rulers, for the purpose of throwing off the yoke of the foreigner, became ready instruments of sedition. ... In the winter of 1819, a German federative congress assembled at Vienna. In May of the following year it published an act containing closer definitions of the Federative Act, having for their essential objects the exclusion of the various provincial Diets from all positive interference in the general affairs of Germany, and an increase of the power of the princes over their respective Diets, by a guarantee of aid on the part of the confederates" (see GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820). During the next three years, the powers of the Holy Alliance, under the lead of Austria, and acting under a concert established at the successive congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona (see VERONA, CONGRESS OF), interfered to put down popular risings against the tyranny of government in Italy and Spain, while they discouraged the revolt of the Greeks.

See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821; and SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

"The commotions that pervaded Europe after the French Revolution of 1830 affected Austria only in her Italian dominions, and there but indirectly, for the imperial authority remained undisputed in the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom. But the duke of Modena and the archduke of Parma were obliged to quit those states, and a formidable insurrection broke out in the territory of the Church. An Austrian army of 18,000 men quickly put down the insurgents, who rose again, however, as soon as it was withdrawn: The pope again invoked the aid of Austria, whose troops entered Bologna in January, 1832, and established themselves there in garrison. Upon this, the French immediately sent a force to occupy Ancona, and for a while a renewal of the oft-repeated conflict between Austria and France on Italian ground seemed inevitable; but it soon appeared that France was not prepared to support the revolutionary party in the pope's dominions, and that danger passed away. The French remained for some years in Ancona, and the Austrians in Bologna and other towns of Romagna. This was the last important incident in the foreign affairs of Austria previous to the death of the Emperor Francis I. on the 2nd of March, 1835, after a reign of 43 years. ... The Emperor Francis was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand I., whose accession occasioned no change in the political or administrative system of the empire. Incapacitated, by physical and mental infirmity, from labouring as his father had done in the business of the state, the new monarch left to Prince Metternich a much more unrestricted power than that minister had wielded in the preceding reign. ... The province of Galicia began early in the new reign to occasion uneasiness to the government. The Congress of Vienna had constituted the city of Cracow an independent republic--a futile representative of that Polish nationality which had once extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. After the failure of the Polish insurrection of 1831 against Russia, Cracow became the focus of fresh conspiracies, to put an end to which the city was occupied by a mixed force of Russians, Prussians, and Austrians; the two former were soon withdrawn, but the latter remained until 1840. When they also had retired, the Polish propaganda was renewed with considerable effect. An insurrection broke out in Galicia in 1846, when the scantiness of the Austrian military force in the province seemed to promise it success. It failed, however, as all previous efforts of the Polish patriots had failed, because it rested on no basis of popular sympathy. The nationality for which they contended had ever been of an oligarchical pattern, hostile to the freedom of the middle and lower classes. The Galician peasants had no mind to exchange the yoke of Austria, which pressed lightly upon them, for the feudal oppression of the Polish nobles. They turned upon the insurgents and slew or took them prisoners, the police inciting them to the work by publicly offering a reward of five florins for every suspected person delivered up by them, alive or dead. Thus the agents of a civilized government became the avowed instigators of an inhuman 'jacquerie.' The houses of the landed proprietors were sacked by the peasants, their inmates were tortured and murdered, and bloody anarchy raged throughout the land in the prostituted name of loyalty. The Austrian troops at last restored order; but Szela, the leader of the sanguinary marauders, was thanked and highly rewarded in the name of his sovereign. In the same year the three protecting powers, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, took possession of Cracow, and, ignoring the right of the other parties to the treaty of Vienna to concern themselves about the fate of the republic, they announced that its independence was annulled, and that the city and territory of Cracow were annexed to, and forever incorporated with, the Austrian monarchy. From this time forth the political atmosphere of Europe became more and more loaded with the presages of the storm that burst in 1848."

_W. K. Kelly, Continuation of Coxe's History of the House of Austria, chapter 5-6._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1849. Arrangements in Italy of the Congress of Vienna. Heaviness of the Austrian yoke. The Italian risings.

"By the treaty of Vienna (1815), the ... entire kingdom of Venetian-Lombardy was handed over to the Austrians; the duchies of Modena, Reggio, with Massa and Carrara, given to Austrian princes; Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla to Napoleon's queen, Maria Luisa, because she was an Austrian princess; the grand-duchy of Tuscany to Ferdinand III. of Austria; the duchy of Lucca to a Bourbon. Rome and the Roman states were restored to the new Pope, Pius VII.; Sicily was united to Naples under the Bourbons, and later deprived of her constitution, despite the promised protection of England; the Canton Ticino, though strictly Italian, annexed to the Swiss Confederation; the little republic of St. Marino left intact, even as the principality of Monaco. England retained Malta; Corsica was left to France. Italy, so Metternich and Europe fondly hoped, was reduced to a geographical expression. Unjust, brutal, and treacherous as was that partition, at least it taught the Italians that 'who would be free himself must strike the blow.' It united them into one common hatred of Austria and Austrian satellites. By substituting papal, Austrian, and Bourbon despotism for the free institutions, codes, and constitutions of the Napoleonic era, it taught them the difference between rule and misrule. {228} Hence the demand of the Neapolitans during their first revolution (1820) was for a constitution; that of the Piedmontese and Lombards (1821) for a constitution and war against Austria. The Bourbon swore and foreswore, and the Austrians 'restored order' in Naples. The Piedmontese, who had not concerted their movement until Naples was crushed--after the abdication of Victor Emmanuel I., the granting of the constitution by the regent Charles Albert, and its abrogation by the new king Charles Felix--saw the Austrians enter Piedmont, while the leaders of the revolution went out into exile [see ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821]. But those revolutions and those failures were the beginning of the end. The will to be independent of all foreigners, the thirst for freedom, was universal; the very name of empire or of emperor, was rendered ridiculous, reduced to a parody--in the person of Ferdinand of Austria. But one illusion remained--in the liberating virtues of France and the French; this had to be dispelled by bitter experience, and for it substituted the new idea of one Italy for the Italians, a nation united, independent, free, governed by a president or by a king chosen by the sovereign people. The apostle of this idea, to which for fifty years victims and martyrs were sacrificed by thousands, was Joseph Mazzini; its champion, Joseph Garibaldi. By the genius of the former, the prowess of the latter, the abnegation, the constancy, the tenacity, the iron will of both, all the populations of Italy were subjugated by that idea: philosophers demonstrated it, poets sung it, pious Christian priests proclaimed it, statesmen found it confronting their negotiations, baffling their half-measures."

J. W. V. Mario, Introduction to Autobiography of Garibaldi.-

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832, and 1848-1849.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1835. Accession of the Emperor Ferdinand I.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1839-1840. The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement. Quadruple Alliance.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848. The Germanic revolutionary rising. National Assembly at Frankfort. Archduke John elected Administrator of Germany.

"When the third French Revolution broke out, its influence was immediately felt in Germany. The popular movement this time was very different from any the Governments had hitherto had to contend with. The people were evidently in earnest, and resolved to obtain, at whatever cost, their chief demands. ... The Revolution was most serious in the two great German States, Prussia and Austria. ... It was generally hoped that union as well as freedom was now to be achieved by Germany; but, as Prussia and Austria were in too much disorder to do anything, about 500 Germans from the various States met at Frankfurt, and on March 21 constituted themselves a provisional Parliament. An extreme party wished the assembly to declare itself permanent; but to this the majority would not agree. It was decided that a National Assembly should be elected forthwith by the German people. The Confederate Diet, knowing that the provisional Parliament was approved by the nation, recognized its authority. Through the Diet the various Governments were communicated with, and all of them agreed to make arrangements for the elections. ... The National Assembly was opened in Frankfurt on May 18, 1848. It elected the Archduke John of Austria as the head of a new provisional central Government. The choice was a happy one. The Archduke was at once acknowledged by the different governments, and on July 12 the President of the Confederate Diet formally made over to him the authority which had hitherto belonged to the Diet. The Diet then ceased to exist. The Archduke chose from the Assembly seven members, who formed a responsible ministry. The Assembly was divided into two parties, the Right and the Left. These again were broken up into various sections. Much time was lost in useless discussions, and it was soon suspected that the Assembly would not in the end prove equal to the great task it had undertaken."

J. Sime, History of Germany, chapter 19, sections. 8-11.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848 (December). Accession of the Emperor Francis Joseph I.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849. Revolutionary risings. Bombardment of Prague and Vienna. Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand. Accession of Francis Joseph. The Hungarian struggle for independence.

"The rise of national feeling among the Hungarian, Slavonic, and Italian subjects of the House of Hapsburg was not the only difficulty of the Emperor Ferdinand I. Vienna was then the gayest and the dearest centre of fashion and luxury in Europe, but side by side with wealth there seethed a mass of wretched poverty; and the protective trade system of Austria so increased the price of the necessaries of life that bread-riots were frequent. ... The university students were foremost in the demand for a constitution and for the removal of the rigid censorship of the press and of all books. So, when the news came of the flight of Louis Philippe from Paris [see FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848] the students as well as the artisans of Vienna rose in revolt (March 13, 1848), the latter breaking machinery and attacking the houses of unpopular employers. A deputation of citizens clamoured for the resignation of the hated Metternich: his house was burnt down, and he fled to England. A second outbreak of the excited populace (May 15, 1848), sent the Emperor Ferdinand in helpless flight to Innsprück in Tyrol; but he returned when they avowed their loyalty to his person, though they detested the old bureaucratic system. Far more complicated, however, were the race jealousies of the Empire. The Slavs of Bohemia ... had demanded of Ferdinand the union of Bohemia, Moravia, and Austrian Silesia in Estates for those provinces, and that the Slavs should enjoy equal privileges with the Germans. After an unsatisfactory answer had been received, they convoked a Slavonic Congress at Prague. ... But while this Babel of tongues was seeking for a means of fusion, Prince Windischgrätz was assembling Austrian troops around the Bohemian capital. Fights in the streets led to a bombardment of the city, which Windischgrätz soon entered in triumph. This has left a bitterness between the Tsechs or Bohemians and the Germans which still divides Bohemia socially and politically. ... The exciting news of the spring of 1848 had made the hot Asiatic blood of the Magyars boil; yet even Kossuth and the democrats at first only demanded the abolition of Metternich's system in favour of a representative government. ... {229} Unfortunately Kossuth claimed that the Magyar laws and language must now be supreme, not only in Hungary proper, but also in the Hungarian 'crown lands' of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia, and the enthusiastic Magyars wished also to absorb the ancient principality of Transylvania; but this again was stoutly resisted by the Roumanians, Slavs, and Saxons of that little known corner of Europe, and their discontent was fanned by the court of Vienna. Jellachich, the Ban or Governor of Croatia, headed this movement, which aimed at making Agram the capital of the southern Slavs. Their revolt against the Hungarian ministry of Batthyanyi was at first disavowed in June, 1848, but in October was encouraged, by the perfidious government of Vienna. A conference between Batthyanyi and Jellachich ended with words of defiance: 'Then we must meet on the Drave,' said the Hungarian. 'No, on the Danube,' retorted the champion of the Slavs. The vacillating Ferdinand annulled his acceptance of the new Hungarian constitution and declared Jellachich dictator of Hungary. His tool was unfortunate. After crossing the Drave, the Slavs were defeated by the brave Hungarian 'honveds' (defenders); and as many as 9,000 were made prisoners. Unable to subdue Hungary, Jellachich turned aside towards Vienna to crush the popular party there. For the democrats, exasperated by the perfidious policy of the government, had, on October 6, 1848, risen a third time: the war-minister, Latour, had been hanged on a lamp-post, and the emperor again fled from his turbulent capital to the ever-faithful Tyrolese. But now Jellachich and Windischgrätz bombarded the rebellious capital. It was on the point of surrendering when the Hungarians appeared to aid the city; but the levies raised by the exertions of Kossuth were this time outmanœuvred [and defeated] by the imperialists at Schwechat (October 30, 1848), and on the next day Vienna surrendered. Blum, a delegate from Saxony [to the German Parliament of Frankfort, who had come on a mission of mediation to Vienna, but who had taken a part in the fighting], and some other democrats, were shot. By this clever but unscrupulous use of race jealousy the Viennese Government seemed to have overcome Bohemians, Italians, Hungarians, and the citizens of its own capital in turn; while it had diverted the southern Slavonians from hostility to actual service on its side. ... The weak health and vacillating spirit of Ferdinand did not satisfy the knot of courtiers of Vienna, who now, flushed by success, sought to concentrate all power in the Viennese Cabinet. Worn out by the excitements of the year and by the demands of these men, Ferdinand, on December 2, 1848, yielded up the crown, not to his rightful successor, his brother, but to his nephew, Francis Joseph. He, a youth of eighteen, ascended the throne so rudely shaken, and still, in spite of almost uniform disaster in war, holds sway over an empire larger and more powerful than he found it in 1848. The Hungarians refused to recognise the young sovereign thus forced upon them; and the fact that he was not crowned at Presburg with the sacred iron crown of St. Stephen showed that he did not intend to recognise the Hungarian constitution. Austrian troops under Windischgrätz entered Buda-Pesth, but the Hungarian patriots withdrew from their capital to organize a national resistance; and when the Austrian Government proclaimed the Hungarian constitution abolished and the complete absorption of Hungary in the Austrian Empire, Kossuth and his colleagues retorted by a Declaration of Independence (April 24, 1849). The House of Hapsburg was declared banished from Hungary, which was to be a republic. Kossuth, the first governor of the new republic, and Görgei, its general, raised armies which soon showed their prowess." The first important battle of the war had been fought at Kapolna, on the right bank of the Theiss, on the 26th of February, 1849, Görgei and Dembinski commanding the Hungarians and Windischgrätz leading the Austrians. The latter won the victory, and the Hungarians retreated toward the Theiss. About the middle of March, Görgei resumed the offensive, advancing toward Pesth, and encountered the Austrians at Isaszeg, where he defeated them in a hard-fought battle,--or rather in two battles which are sometimes called by different names: viz., that of Tapio Biscke fought April 4th, and that of Godolo, fought on the 5th. It was now the turn of the Austrians to fall back, and they concentrated behind the Rakos, to cover Pesth. The Hungarian general passed round their left, carried Waitzen by storm, forced them to evacuate Pesth and to retreat to Presburg, abandoning the whole of Hungary with the exception of a few fortresses, which they held. The most important of these fortresses, that of Buda, the "twin-city," opposite Pesth on the Danube, was besieged by the Hungarians and carried by storm on the 21st of May. "In Transylvania, too, the Hungarians, under the talented Polish general Bem, overcame the Austrians, Slavonians, and Roumanians in many brilliant encounters. But the proclamation of a republic had alienated those Hungarians who had only striven for their old constitutional rights, so quarrels arose between Görgei and the ardent democrat Kossuth. Worse still, the Czar Nicholas, dreading the formation of a republic near his Polish provinces sent the military aid which Francis Joseph in May 1849 implored. Soon 80,000 Russians under Paskiewitch poured over the northern Carpathians to help the beaten Austrians, while others overpowered the gallant Bem in Transylvania. Jellachich with his Croats again invaded South Hungary, and Haynau, the scourge of Lombardy, marched on the strongest Hungarian fortress, Komorn, on the Danube." The Hungarians, overpowered by the combination of Austrians and Russians against them, were defeated at Pered, June 21; at Acz, July 3; at Komorn, July 11; at Waitzen, July 16; at Tzombor, July 20; at Segesvar, July 31; at Debreczin, August 2; at Szegedin, August 4; at Temesvar, August 10. "In despair Kossuth handed over his dictatorship to his rival Görgei, who soon surrendered at Vilagos with all his forces to the Russians (August 13, 1849). About 5,000 men with Kossuth, Bem, and other leaders, escaped to Turkey. Even there Russia and Austria sought to drive them forth; but the Porte, upheld by the Western Powers, maintained its right to give sanctuary according to the Koran. Kossuth and many of his fellow-exiles finally sailed to England [and afterwards to America], where his majestic eloquence aroused deep sympathy for the afflicted country. Many Hungarian patriots suffered death. All rebels had their property confiscated and the country was for years ruled by armed force, and its old rights were abolished."

_J. H. Rose, A Century of Continental History, chapter 31._

ALSO IN: Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1815-1852, chapter 55.

A. Görgei, My Life and Acts in Hungary.

General Klapka, Memoirs of the War of Independence in Hungary.

Count Hartig, Genesis of the Revolution in Austria.

W. H. Stiles, Austria in 1848-49.

{230}

AUSTRIA: A. D.1848-1849. Revolt in Lombardy and Venetia. War with Sardinia. Victories of Radetzky. Italy vanquished again.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1850. Failure of the movement for Germanic national unity. End of the Frankfort Assembly.

"Frankfort had become the centre of the movement. The helpless Diet had acknowledged the necessity of a German parliament, and had summoned twelve men of confidence charged with drawing up a new imperial constitution. But it was unable to supply what was most wanted--a strong executive. ... Instead of establishing before all a strong executive able to control and to realise its resolutions, the Assembly lost months in discussing the fundamental rights of the German people, and thus was overhauled by the events. In June, Prince Windischgraetz crushed the insurrection at Prague; and in November the anarchy which had prevailed during the whole summer at Berlin was put down, when Count Brandenburg became first minister. ... Schwarzenberg [at Vienna] declared as soon as he had taken the reins, that his programme was to maintain the unity of the Austrian empire, and demanded that the whole of it should enter into the Germanic confederation. This was incompatible with the federal state as contemplated by the National Assembly, and therefore Gagern, who had become president of the imperial ministry [at Frankfort], answered Schwarzenberg's programme by declaring that the entering of the Austrian monarchy with a majority of non-German nationalities into the German federal state was an impossibility. Thus nothing was left but to place the king of Prussia at the head of the German state. But in order to win a majority for this plan Gagern found it necessary to make large concessions to the democratic party, amongst others universal suffrage. This was not calculated to make the offer of the imperial crown acceptable to Frederic William IV., but his principal reason for declining it was, that he would not exercise any pressure on the other German sovereigns, and that, notwithstanding Schwarzenberg's haughty demeanour, he could not make up his mind to exclude Austria from Germany. After the refusal of the crown by the king, the National Assembly was doomed; it had certainly committed great faults, but the decisive reason of its failure was the lack of a clear and resolute will in Prussia. History, however, teaches that great enterprises, such as it was to unify an empire dismembered for centuries, rarely succeed at the first attempt. The capital importance of the events of 1848 was that they had made the German unionist movement an historical fact; it could never be effaced from the annals, that all the German governments had publicly acknowledged that tendency as legitimate, the direction for the future was given, and even at the time of failure it was certain, as Stockmar said, that the necessity of circumstances would bring forward the man who, profiting by the experiences of 1848, would fulfil the national aspirations."

F. H. Geffcken, The Unity of Germany (English Historical Revised, April, 1891).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859. The Return to pure Absolutism. Bureaucracy triumphant.

"The two great gains which the moral earthquake of 1848 brought to Austria were, that through wide provinces of the Empire, and more especially in Hungary, it swept away the sort of semi-vassalage in which the peasantry had been left by the Urbarium of Maria Theresa [an edict which gave to the peasants the right of moving from place to place, and the right of bringing up their children as they wished, while it established in certain courts the trial of all suits to which they were parties], and other reforms akin to or founded upon it, and introduced modern in the place of middle-age relations between the two extremes of society. Secondly, it overthrew the policy of do-nothing--a surer guarantee for the continuance of abuses than even the determination, which soon manifested itself at headquarters, to make the head of the state more absolute than ever. After the taking of Vienna by Windischgrätz, the National Assembly had, on the 15th of November 1848, been removed from the capital to the small town of Kremsier, in Moravia. Here it prolonged all ineffective existence till March 1849, when the court camarilla felt itself strong enough to put an end to an inconvenient censor, and in March 1849 it ceased to exist. A constitution was at the same time promulgated which contained many good provisions, but which was never heartily approved by the ruling powers, or vigorously carried into effect--the proclamation of a state of siege in many cities, and other expedients of authority in a revolutionary period, easily enabling it to be set at naught. The successes of the reaction in other parts of Europe, and, above all, the coup d'état in Paris, emboldened Schwartzenberg to throw off the mask; and on the last day of 1851 Austria became once more a pure despotism. The young emperor had taken 'Viribus unitis' for his motto; and his advisers interpreted those words to mean that Austria was henceforward to be a state as highly centralised as France--a state in which the minister at Vienna was absolutely to govern everything from Salzburg to the Iron Gate. The hand of authority had been severely felt in the pre-revolutionary period, but now advantage was to be taken of the revolution to make it felt far more than ever. In Hungary, for example, ... it was fondly imagined that there would be no more trouble. The old political division into counties was swept away; the whole land was divided into five provinces; and the courtiers might imagine that from henceforth the Magyars would be as easily led as the inhabitants of Upper Austria. These delusions soon became general, but they owed their origin partly to the enthusiastic ignorance of those who were at the head of the army, and partly to two men"--Prince Schwartzenberg and Alexander Bach. Of the latter, the "two leading ideas were to cover the whole empire with a German bureaucracy, and to draw closer the ties which connected the court of Vienna with that of Rome. {231} ... If absolutism in Austria had a fair trial from the 31st of December 1851 to the Italian war, it is to Bach that it was owing; and if it utterly and ludicrously failed, it is he more than any other man who must bear the blame. Already, in 1849, the bureaucracy had been reorganised, but in 1852 new and stricter regulations were introduced. Everything was determined by precise rules--even the exact amount of hair which the employee was permitted to wear upon his face. Hardly any question was thought sufficiently insignificant to be decided upon the spot. The smallest matters had to be referred to Vienna. .... We can hardly be surprised that the great ruin of the Italian war brought down with a crash the whole edifice of the reaction."

M. E. G. Duff, Studies in European Politics, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 33.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1853. Commercial Treaty with the German Zollverein.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1853-1856. Attitude in the Crimean War.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1856-1859. The war in Italy with Sardinia and France. Reverses at Magenta and Solferino. Peace of Villafranca. Surrender of Lombardy.

"From the wars of 1848-9 the King of Sardinia was looked upon by the moderate party as the champion of Italian freedom. Charles Albert had failed: yet his son would not, and indeed could not, go back, though, when he began his reign, there were many things against him. ... Great efforts were made to win him over to the Austrian party, but the King was neither cast down by defeat and distrust nor won over by soft words. He soon showed that, though he had been forced to make a treaty with Austria, yet he would not cast in his lot with the oppression of Italy. He made Massimo d'Azeglio his chief Minister, and Camillo Benso di Cavour his Minister of Commerce. With the help of these two men he honestly carried out the reforms which had been granted by his father, and set new ones on foot. ... The quick progress of reform frightened Count Massimo d'Azeglio. He retired from office in 1853, and his place was taken by Count Cavour, who made a coalition with the democratic party in Piedmont headed by Urbano Rattazzi. The new chief Minister began to work not only for the good of Piedmont but for Italy at large. The Milanese still listened to the hopes which Mazzini held out, and could not quietly hear their subjection. Count Cavour indignantly remonstrated with Radetzky for his harsh government. ... The division and slavery of Italy had shut her out from European politics. Cavour held that, if she was once looked upon as an useful ally, then her deliverance might be hastened by foreign interference. The Sardinian army had been brought into good order by Alfonso della Marmora; and was ready for action. In 1855, Sardinia made alliance with England and France, who were at war with Russia; for Cavour looked on that power as the great support of the system of despotism on the Continent, and held that it was necessary for Italian freedom that Russia should be humbled. The Sardinian army was therefore sent to the Crimea, under La Marmora, where it did good service in the battle of Tchernaya. ... The next year the Congress of Paris was held to arrange terms of peace between the allies and Russia, and Cavour took the opportunity of laying before the representatives of the European powers the unhappy state of his countrymen. ... In December, 1851, Louis Napoleon Buonaparte, the President of the French Republic, seized the government, and the next year took the title of Emperor of the French. He was anxious to weaken the power of Austria, and at the beginning of 1859 it became evident that war would soon break out. As a sign of the friendly feeling of the French Emperor towards the Italian cause, his cousin, Napoleon Joseph, married Clotilda, the daughter of Victor Emmanuel. Count Cavour now declared that Sardinia would make war on Austria, unless a separate and national government was granted to Lombardy and Venetia, and unless Austria promised to meddle no more with the rest of Italy. On the other hand, Austria demanded the disarmament of Sardinia. The King would not listen to this demand, and France and Sardinia declared war against Austria. The Emperor Napoleon declared that he would free Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic. ... The Austrian army crossed the Ticino, but was defeated by the King and General Cialdini. The French victory of Magenta, on June 4th forced the Austrians to retreat from Lombardy. ... On June 24th the Austrians, who had crossed the Mincio, were defeated at Solferino by the allied armies of France and Sardinia. It seemed as though the French Emperor would keep his word. But he found that if he went further, Prussia would take up the cause of Austria, and that he would have to fight on the Rhine as well as on the Adige. When, therefore, the French army came before Verona, a meeting was arranged between the two Emperors. This took place at Villafranca, and there Buonaparte, without consulting his ally, agreed with Francis Joseph to favour the establishment of an Italian Confederation. ...Austria gave up to the King of Sardinia Lombardy to the west of Mincio. But the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Duke of Modena were to return to their States. The proposed Confederation was never made, for the people of Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and Romagna sent to the King to pray that they might be made part of his Kingdom, and Victor Emmanuel refused to enter on the scheme of the French Emperor. In return for allowing the Italians of Central Italy to shake off the yoke, Buonaparte asked for Savoy and Nizza. ... The King ... consented to give up the 'glorious cradle of his Monarchy' in exchange for Central Italy."

W. A. Hunt, History of Italy, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: J. W. Probyn, Italy from 1815 to 1890, chapter 9-10.

C. de Mazade, Life of Count Cavour, chapter 2-7.

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1862-1866. The Schleswig-Holstein question. Quarrel with Prussia. The humiliating Seven Weeks War.

Conflict with Prussia grew out of the complicated Schleswig-Holstein question, reopened in 1862 and provisionally settled by a delusive arrangement between Prussia and Austria, into which the latter was artfully drawn by Prince Bismarck.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862, and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

{232}

No sooner was the war with Denmark over, than "Prussia showed that it was her intention to annex the newly acquired duchies to herself. This Austria could not endure, and accordingly, in 1866, war broke out between Austria and Prussia. Prussia sought alliance with Italy, which she stirred up to attack Austria in her Italian possessions. The Austrian army defeated the Italian at Eustazza [or Custozza (see ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866)]; but the fortunes of war were against them in Germany. Allied with the Austrians were the Saxons, the Bavarians, the Würtembergers, Baden and Hesse, and Hanover. The Prussians advanced with their chief army into Bohemia with the utmost rapidity, dreading lest the Southern allies should march north to Hanover, and cut the kingdom in half, and push on to Berlin. The Prussians had three armies, which were to enter Bohemia and effect a junction. The Elbe army under the King, the first army under Prince Frederick Charles, and the second army under the Crown Prince. The Elbe army advanced across Saxony by Dresden. The first army was in Lusatia, at Reichenberg, and the second army in Silesia at Heisse. They were all to meet at Gitschin. The Austrian army under General Benedek was at Königgrätz, in Eastern Bohemia. ... As in the wars with Napoleon, so was it now; the Austrian generals ... never did the right thing at the right moment. Benedek did indeed march against the first army, but too late, and when he found it was already through the mountain door, he retreated, and so gave time for the three armies to concentrate upon him. The Elbe army and the first met at Münchengratz, and defeated an Austrian army there, pushed on, and drove them back out of Gitschin on Königgrätz. ... The Prussians pushed on, and now the Elbe army went to Smidar, and the first army to Horzitz, whilst the second army, under the Crown Prince, was pushing on, and had got to Gradlitz. The little river Bistritz is crossed by the high road to Königgrätz. It runs through swampy ground, and forms little marshy pools or lakes. To the north of Königgrätz a little stream of much the same character dribbles through bogs into the Elbe. ... But about Chlum, Nedelist and Lippa is terraced high ground, and there Benedek planted his cannon. The Prussians advanced from Smidar against the left wing of the Austrians, from Horzitz against the centre, and the Crown Prince was to attack the right wing. The battle began on the 3d of July, at 7 o'clock in the morning, by the simultaneous advance of the Elbe and the first army upon the Bistritz. At Sadowa is a wood, and there the battle raged most fiercely. ... Two things were against the Austrians; first, the incompetence of their general, and, secondly, the inferiority of their guns. The Prussians had what are called needle-guns, breach-loaders, which are fired by the prick of a needle, and for the rapidity with which they can be fired far surpassed the old-fashioned muzzle-loaders used by the Austrians. After this great battle, which is called by the French and English the battle of Sadowa (Sadowa (o Breve), not Sadowa (o Macron), as it is erroneously pronounced), but which the Germans call the battle of Königgrätz, the Prussians marched on Vienna, and reached the Marchfeld before the Emperor Francis Joseph would come to terms. At last, on the 23d of August, a peace which gave a crushing preponderance in Germany to Prussia, was concluded at Prague."

S. Baring-Gould, The Story of Germany, pages 390-394.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866. The War in Italy. Loss of Venetia.

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867. Concession of nationality to Hungary. Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian Empire.

"For twelve years the name of Hungary, as a State, was erased from the map of Europe. Bureaucratic Absolutism ruled supreme in Austria, and did its best to obliterate all Hungarian institutions. Germanisation was the order of the day, the German tongue being declared the exclusive language of official life as well as of the higher schools. Government was carried on by means of foreign, German, and Czech officials. No vestige was left, not only of the national independence, but either of Home Rule or of self-government of any sort; the country was divided into provinces without regard for historical traditions; in short, an attempt was made to wipe out every trace denoting the existence of a separate Hungary. All ranks and classes opposed a sullen passive resistance to these attacks against the existence of the nation; even the sections of the nationalities which had rebelled against the enactments of 1848, at the instigation of the reactionary Camarilla, were equally disaffected in consequence of the short-sighted policy of despotical centralisation. ... Finally, after the collapse of the system of Absolutism in consequence of financial disasters and of the misfortunes of the Italian War of 1859, the Hungarian Parliament was again convoked; and after protracted negotiations, broken off and resumed again, the impracticability of a system of provincial Federalism having been proved in the meantime, and the defeat incurred in the Prussian War of 1866 having demonstrated the futility of any reconstruction of the Empire of Austria in which the national aspirations of Hungary were not taken into due consideration--an arrangement was concluded under the auspices of Francis Deák, Count Andrássy, and Count Beust, on the basis of the full acknowledgment of the separate national existence of Hungary, and of the continuity of its legal rights. The idea of a centralised Austrian Empire had to give way to the dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which is in fact an indissoluble federation of two equal States, under the common rule of a single sovereign, the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, each of the States having a constitution, government, and parliament of its own, Hungary especially retaining, with slight modifications, its ancient institutions remodelled in 1848. The administration of the foreign policy, the management of the army, and the disbursement of the expenditure necessary for these purposes, were settled upon as common affairs of the entire monarchy, for the management of which common ministers were instituted, responsible to the two delegations, co-equal committees of the parliaments of Hungary and of the Cisleithanian (Austrian) provinces. Elaborate provisions were framed for the smooth working of these common institutions, for giving weight to the constitutional influence, even in matters of common policy, of the separate Cisleithanian and Hungarian ministries, and for rendering their responsibility to the respective Parliaments an earnest and solid reality. {233} The financial questions pending in the two independent and equal States were settled by a compromise; measures were taken for the equitable arrangement of all matters which might arise in relation to interests touching both States, such as duties, commerce, and indirect taxation, all legislation on these subjects taking place by means of identical laws separately enacted by the Parliament of each State. ... Simultaneously with these arrangements the political differences between Hungary and Croatia were compromised by granting provincial Home Rule to the latter. ... Thus the organisation of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy on the basis of dualism, and the compromise entered into between the two halves composing it, whilst uniting for the purposes of defence the forces of two States of a moderate size and extent into those of a great empire, able to cope with the exigencies of an adequate position amongst the first-class Powers of Europe, restored also to Hungary its independence and its unfettered sovereignty in all internal matters."

A. Pulszky, Hungary (National Life and Thought, lecture 3).

"The Ausgleich, or agreement with Hungary, was arranged by a committee of 67 members of the Hungarian diet, at the head of whom was the Franklin of Hungary, Francis Deák, the true patriot and inexorable legist, who had taken no part in the revolutions, but who had never given up one of the smallest of the rights of his country. ... On the 8th of June [1867], the emperor Francis Joseph was crowned with great pomp at Pesth. On the 28th of the following June, he approved the decisions of the diet, which settled the position of Hungary with regard to the other countries belonging to his majesty, and modified some portions of the laws of 1848. ... Since the Ausgleich the empire has consisted of two parts. ... For the sake of clearness, political language has been increased by the invention of two new terms, Cisleithania and Transleithania, to describe the two groups, separated a little below Vienna by a small affluent of the Danube, called the Leitha--a stream which never expected to become so celebrated."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 35.

ALSO IN: Francis Deák, A Memoir, chapter 26-31.

Count von Beust, Memoirs, volume 2, chapter 38.

L. Felbermann, Hungary and its People, chapter 5.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887. The Austro-Hungarian Empire. Its new national life. Its difficulties and promises. Its ambitions and aims in Southeastern Europe.

"Peace politicians may say that a war always does more harm than good to the nations which engage in it. Perhaps it always does, at any rate, morally speaking, to the victors: but that it does not to the vanquished, Austria stands as a living evidence. Finally excluded from Italy and Germany by the campaign of 1866, she has cast aside her dreams of foreign domination, and has set herself manfully to the task of making a nation out of the various conflicting nationalities over which she presides. It does not require much insight to perceive that as long as she held her position in Germany this fusion was hopeless. The overwhelming preponderance of the German element made any approach to a reciprocity of interests impossible. The Germans always were regarded as sovereigns, the remaining nationalities as subjects; it was for these to command, for those to obey. In like manner, it was impossible for the Austrian Government to establish a mutual understanding with a population which felt itself attracted--alike by the ties of race, language, and geographical position--to another political union. Nay more, as long as the occupation of the Italian provinces remained as a blot on the Imperial escutcheon, it was impossible for the Government to command any genuine sympathy from any of its subjects. But with the close of the war with Prussia these two difficulties--the relations with Germany and the relations with Italy--were swept away. From this time forward Austria could appear before the world as a Power binding together for the interests of all, a number of petty nationalities, each of which was too feeble to maintain a separate existence. In short, from the year 1866 Austria had a raison d'être, whereas before she had none. ... Baron Beust, on the 7th of February, 1867, took office under Franz Joseph. His programme may be stated as follows. He saw that the day of centralism and imperial unity was gone past recall, and that the most liberal Constitution in the world would never reconcile the nationalities to their present position, as provinces under the always detested and now despised Empire. But then came the question--Granted that a certain disintegration is inevitable, how far is this disintegration to go? Beust proposed to disarm the opposition of the leading nationality by the gift of an almost complete independence, and, resting on the support thus obtained, to gain time for conciliating the remaining provinces by building up a new system of free government. It would be out of place to give a detailed account of the well-known measure which converted the 'Austrian empire' into the 'Austro-Hungarian monarchy.' It will be necessary, however, to describe the additions made to it by the political machinery. The Hungarian Reichstag was constructed on the same principle as the Austrian Reichsrath. It was to meet in Pesth, as the Reichsrath at Vienna, and was to have its own responsible ministers. From the members of the Reichsrath and Reichstag respectively were to be chosen annually sixty delegates to represent Cisleithanian and sixty to represent Hungarian interests--twenty being taken in each case from the Upper, forty from the Lower House. These two 'Delegations,' whose votes were to be taken, when necessary, collectively, though each Delegation sat in a distinct chamber, owing to the difference of language, formed the Supreme Imperial Assembly, and met alternate years at Vienna and Pesth. They were competent in matters of foreign policy, in military administration, and in Imperial finance. At their head stood three Imperial ministers--the Reichskanzler, who presided at the Foreign Office, and was ex officio Prime Minister, the Minister of War, and the Minister of Finance. These three ministers were independent of the Reichsrath and Reichstag, and could only be dismissed by a vote of want of confidence on the part of the Delegations. The 'Ausgleich' or scheme of federation with Hungary is, no doubt, much open to criticism, both as a whole and in its several parts. It must always be borne in mind that administratively and politically it was a retrogression. {234} At a time in which all other European nations--notably North Germany--were simplifying and unifying their political systems, Austria was found doing the very reverse. ... The true answer to these objections is, that the measure of 1867 was constructed to meet a practical difficulty. Its end was not the formation of a symmetrical system of government, but the pacification of Hungary. ... The internal history of the two halves of the empire flows in two different channels. Graf Andrassy, the Hungarian Premier, had a comparatively easy task before him. There were several reasons for this. In the first place, the predominance of the Magyars in Hungary was more assured than that of the Germans in Cisleithania. It is true that they numbered only 5,000,000 out of the 16,000,000 inhabitants; but in these 5,000,000 were included almost all the rank, wealth, and intelligence of the country. Hence they formed in the Reichstag a compact and homogeneous majority, under which the remaining Slovaks and Croatians soon learnt to range themselves. In the second place, Hungary had the great advantage of starting in a certain degree afresh. Her government was not bound by the traditional policy of former Vienna ministries, and ... it had managed to keep its financial credit unimpaired. In the third place, as those who are acquainted with Hungarian history well know, Parliamentary institutions had for a long time flourished in Hungary. Indeed the Magyars, who among their many virtues can hardly be credited with the virtue of humility, assert that the world is mistaken in ascribing to England the glory of having invented representative government, and claim this glory for themselves. Hence one of the main difficulties with which the Cisleithanian Government had to deal was already solved for Graf Andrassy and his colleagues."--Austria since Sadowa (Quarterly Review, volume 131, pages 90-95).--"It is difficult for anyone except an Austro-Hungarian statesman to realise the difficulties of governing the Dual Monarchy. Cisleithania has, as is well-known, a Reichsrath and seventeen Provincial Diets. The two Austrias, Styria, Carinthia, and Salzburg present no difficulties, but causes of trouble are abundant in the other districts. The Emperor will probably end by getting himself crowned King of Bohemia, although it will be difficult for him to lend himself to a proscription of the German language by the Tsechs, as he has been forced by the Magyars to lend himself to the proscription in parts of Hungary of Rouman and of various Slavonic languages. But how far is this process to continue? The German Austrians are as unpopular in Istria and Dalmatia as in Bohemia; and Dalmatia is also an ancient kingdom. These territories were originally obtained by the election of the King of Hungary to the crown of the tripartite kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. Is 'Ferencz Jozsef' to be crowned King of Dalmatia? And is Dalmatia to have its separate Ministry and its separate official language, and its completely separate laws? And what then of Fiume, the so-called Hungarian port? Then, again, Galicia is also an ancient kingdom, although it has at other times formed part of Poland; and the Emperor is King of Galicia, as he is King of Bohemia and Dalmatia. Is he to be crowned King of Galicia? And if so, is the separate existence of Galicia to be a Polish or a Ruthenian existence, or, indeed, a Jewish? for the Jews are not only extraordinarily powerful and numerous there, but are gaining ground day by day. The Ruthenians complain as bitterly of being bullied by the Poles in Galicia as the Croats complain of the Magyars. Even here the difficulties are not ended. The Margraviate of Moravia contains a large Tsech population, and will have to be added to the Bohemian kingdom. Bukowina may go with Galicia or Transylvania, Austrian Silesia may be divided between the Tsechs of Bohemia and Moravia on the one part, and the Poles or Ruthenians or Jews of Galicia on the other. But what is to become of that which, with the most obstinate disregard of pedants, I intend to continue to call the Tyrol? Trieste must go with Austria and Salzburg, and the Northern Tyrol and Styria and Carinthia no doubt; but it is not difficult to show that Austria would actually be strengthened by giving up the Southern Tyrol, where the Italian people, or at least the Italian language, is gaining ground day by day. There really seems very little left of the integrity of the Austrian Empire at the conclusion of our survey of its constituent parts. Matters do not look much better if we turn to Trans-Leithania. Hungary has its Reichstag (which is also known by some terrible Magyar name), its House of Representatives, and its House of Magnates, and, although there are not so many Provincial Diets as in Austria, Slavonia and the Banat of Croatia possess a Common Diet with which the Magyars are far from popular; and the Principality of Transylvania also possessed separate local rights, for trying completely to suppress which the Magyars are at present highly unpopular. The Principality, although under Magyar rule, is divided between 'Saxons' and Roumans, who equally detest the Magyars, and the Croats and Slovenes who people the Banat are Slavs who also execrate their Ugrian rulers, inscriptions in whose language are defaced whenever seen. Croatia is under-represented at Pest, and says that she goes unheard, and the Croats, who have partial Home Rule without an executive, ask for a local executive as well, and demand Fiume and Dalmatia. If we look to the numbers of the various races, there are in Austria of Germans and Jews about 9,000,000 to about 13,000,000 Slavs and a few Italians and Roumans. There are in the lands of the Crown of Hungary 2,000,000 of Germans and Jews, of Roumans nearly 3,000,000, although the Magyars only acknowledge 2,500,000, and of Magyars and Slavs between five and six millions apiece. In the whole of the territories of the Dual Monarchy it will be seen that there are 18,000,000 of Slavs and only 17,000,000 of the ruling races--Germans, Jews, and Magyars--while between three and four millions of Roumans and Italians count along with the Slav majority as being hostile to the dominant nationalities. It is difficult to exaggerate the gravity for Austria of the state of things which these figures reveal."

The Present Position of European Polities (Fortnightly Review, April, 1887).

{235}

"In past times, when Austria had held France tight bound between Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands, she had aspired to a dominant position in Western Europe; and, so long as her eyes were turned in that direction, she naturally had every interest in preserving the Ottoman Empire intact, for she was thus guaranteed against all attacks from the south. But, after the loss of her Italian possessions in 1805, and of part of Croatia in 1809, after the disasters of 1849, 1859 and 1866, she thought more and more seriously of indemnifying herself at the expense of Turkey. It was moreover evident that, in order to paralyse the damaging power of Hungary, it was essential for her to assimilate the primitive and scattered peoples of Turkey, accustomed to centuries of complete submission and obedience, and form thus a kind of iron band which should encircle Hungary and effectually prevent her from rising. If, in fact, we glance back at the position of Austria in 1860, and take the trouble carefully to study the change of ideas and interests which had then taken place in the policy of France and of Russia, the tendencies of the strongly constituted nations who were repugnant to the authority and influence of Austria, the basis of the power of that empire, and, finally, the internal ruin with which she was then threatened, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that Austria, by the very instinct of self-preservation, was forced to turn eastwards and to consider how best she might devour some, at least, of the European provinces of Turkey. Austrian statesmen have been thoroughly convinced of this fact, and, impelled by the instinct above-mentioned, have not ceased carefully and consistently to prepare and follow out the policy here indicated. Their objects have already been partially attained by the practical annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878 [see TURKS: A. D. 1878]; and it was striking to observe with what bitter feeling and resentment this measure was looked upon at the time by the Hungarian section of the empire. ... Russia has never made any secret of her designs upon Turkey; she has, indeed, more than once openly made war in order to carry them out. But Austria remains a fatal obstacle in her path. Even as things at present stand, Austria, by her geographical position, so commands and dominates the Russian line of operations that, once the Danube passed, the Russians are constantly menaced by Austria on the flank and rear. ... And if this be true now, how much more true would it be were Austria to continue her march eastwards towards Salonica. That necessarily, at some time or other, that march must be continued may be taken for almost certain; but that Austria has it in her power to commence it for the present, cannot, I think, be admitted. She must further consolidate and make certain of what she has. Movement now would bring upon her a struggle for life or death--a struggle whose issue may fairly be said, in no unfriendly spirit to Austria, to be doubtful. With at home a bitterly discontented Croatia, strong Pan-slavistic tendencies in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Dalmatia, a Greek population thoroughly disaffected, and a Hungary whose loyalty is doubtful, she would have to deal beyond her frontiers with the not contemptible armies, when combined, of Servia, Bulgaria, and Greece, whose aspirations she would be asphyxiating for ever, with a bitterly hostile population in Macedonia, with the whole armed force of Turkey, and with the gigantic military power of Russia; whilst it is not fantastic to suppose that Germany would be hovering near ready to pounce on her German provinces when the 'moment psychologique' should occur. With such a prospect before her, it would be worse than madness for Austria to move until the cards fell more favourably for her."

_V. Caillard, The Bulgarian Imbroglio (Fortnightly Review, December, 1885)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1878. The Treaty of Berlin. Acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

AUTERI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

AUTUN: Origin.

See GAULS.

AUTUN: A. D. 287. Sacked by the Bagauds.

See BAGAUDS.

----------AUTUN: End----------

AUVERGNE, Ancient. The country of the Arverni.

See ÆDUI; also GAULS.

AUVERGNE, The Great Days of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1665.

AUXILIUM.

See TALLAGE.

AVA.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

AVALON.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655; and MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

AVARICUM.

See BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.

AVARS, The.

The true Avars are represented to have been a powerful Turanian people who exercised in the sixth century a wide dominion in Central Asia. Among the tribes subject to them was one called the Ogors, or Ouigours, or Ouiars, or Ouar Khouni, or Varchonites (these diverse names have been given to the nation) which is supposed to have belonged to the national family of the Huns. Some time in the early half of the sixth century, the Turks, then a people who dwelt in the very center of Asia, at the foot of the Altai mountains, making their first appearance in history as conquerors, crushed and almost annihilated the Avars, thereby becoming the lords of the Ouigours, or Ouar Khouni. But the latter found an opportunity to escape from the Turkish yoke. "Gathering together their wives and their children, their flocks and their herds, they turned their waggons towards the Setting Sun. This immense exodus comprised upwards of 200,000 persons. The terror which inspired their flight rendered them resistless in the onset; for the avenging Turk was behind their track. They overturned everything before them, even the Hunnic tribes of kindred origin, who had long hovered on the north-east frontiers of the Empire, and, driving out or enslaving the inhabitants, established themselves in the wide plains which stretch between·the Volga and the Don. In that age of imperfect information they were naturally enough confounded with the greatest and most formidable tribe of the Turanian stock known to the nations of the West. The report that the Avars had broken loose from Asia, and were coming in irresistible force to overrun Europe, spread itself all along both banks of the Danube and penetrated to the Byzantine court. With true barbaric cunning, the Ouar Khouni availed themselves of the mistake, and by calling themselves Avars largely increased the terrors of their name and their chances of conquest." The pretended Avars were taken into the pay of the Empire by Justinian and employed against the Hun tribes north and east of the Black Sea. {236} They presently acquired a firm footing on both banks of the Danube, and turned their arms against the Empire. The important city of Sirmium was taken by them after an obstinate siege and its inhabitants put to the sword. Their ravages extended over central Europe to the Elbe, where they were beaten back by the warlike Franks, and, southwards, through Moesia, Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia and Greece, even to the Peloponnesus. Constantinople itself was threatened more than once, and in the summer of 626, it was desperately attacked by Avars and Persians in conjunction (see ROME: A. D. 565-628), with disastrous results to the assailants. But the seat of their Empire was the Dacian country--modern Roumania, Transylvania and part of Hungary--in which the Avars had helped the Lombards to crush and extinguish the Gepidæ. The Slavic tribes which, by this time, had moved in great numbers into central and south-eastern Europe, were largely in subjection to the Avars and did their bidding in war and peace. "These unfortunate creatures, of apparently an imperfect, or, at any rate, imperfectly cultivated intelligence, endured such frightful tyranny from their Avar conquerors, that their very name has passed into a synonyme for the most degraded servitude."

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 4.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 42. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

AVARS: 7th Century. The Slavic Revolt.

The Empire of the Avars was shaken and much diminished in the Seventh Century by an extensive rising of their oppressed Slavic subjects, roused and led, it is said, by a Frank merchant, or adventurer, named Samo, who became their king. The first to throw off the yoke were a tribe called the Vendes, or Wendes, or Venedi, in Bohemia, who were reputed to be half-castes, resulting from intercourse between the Avar warriors and the women of their Slavic vassals. Under the lead of Samo, the Wendes and Slovenes or Slavonians drove the Avars to the east and north; and it seems to have been in connection with this revolution that the Emperor Heraclius induced the Serbs or Servians and Croats--Slavic tribes of the same race and region--to settle in depopulated Dalmatia. "'From the year 630 A. D.' writes M. Thierry, 'the Avar people are no longer mentioned in the annals of of the East; the successors of Attila no longer figure beside the successors of Constantine. It required new wars in the West to bring upon the stage of history the khan and his people.' In these wars [of Pepin and Charlemagne] they were finally swept off from the roll of European nations."

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 4.

AVARS: A. D. 791-805. Conquest by Charlemagne.

"Hungary, now so called, was possessed by the Avars, who, joining with themselves a multitude of Hunnish tribes, accumulated the immense spoils which both they themselves and their equally barbarous predecessors had torn from the other nations of Europe. ... They extended their limits towards Lombardy, and touched upon the very verge of Bavaria. ... Much of their eastern frontier was now lost, almost without a struggle on their part, by the rise of other barbarous nations, especially the various tribes of Bulgarians." This was the position of the Avars at the time of Charlemagne, whom they provoked by forming an alliance with the ambitious Duke of Bavaria, Tassilo,--most obstinate of all who resisted the Frank king's imperious and imperial rule. In a series of vigorous campaigns, between 791 and 797 Charlemagne crushed the power of the Avars and took possession of their country. The royal "ring" or stronghold--believed to have been situated in the neighborhood of Tatar, between the Danube and the Theiss--was penetrated, and the vast treasure stored there was seized. Charlemagne distributed it with a generous hand to churches, to monasteries and to the poor, as well as to his own nobles, servants and soldiers, who are said to have been made rich. There were subsequent risings of the Avars and wars, until 805, when the remnant of that almost annihilated people obtained permission to settle on a tract of land between Sarwar and Haimburg, on the right bank of the Danube, where they would be protected from their Slavonian enemies. This was the end of the Avar nation.

G. P. R. James, History of Charlemagne, books 9 and 11.

ALSO IN: J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great, book 2, chapter 7.

----------AVARS: End----------

AVARS, The Rings of the. The fortifications of the Avars were of a peculiar and effective construction and were called Hrings, or Rings. "They seem to have been a series of eight or nine gigantic ramparts, constructed in concentric circles, the inner one of all being called the royal circle or camp, where was deposited all the valuable plunder which the warriors had collected in their expeditions. The method of constructing these ramparts was somewhat singular. Two parallel rows of gigantic piles were driven into the ground, some twenty feet apart. The intervening space was filled with stones, or a species of chalk, so compacted as to become a solid mass. The sides and summit were covered with soil, upon which were planted trees and shrubs, whose interlacing branches formed an impenetrable hedge."

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 9.

AVEBURY.

See ABURY.

AVEIN, Battle of (1635).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

AVENTINE, The.

See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

AVERNUS, Lake and Cavern.

A gloomy lake called Avernus, which filled the crater of an extinct volcano, situated a little to the north of the Bay of Naples, was the object of many superstitious imaginations among the ancients. "There was a place near Lake Avernus called the prophetic cavern. Persons were in attendance there who called up ghosts. Anyone desiring it came thither, and, having killed a victim and poured out libations, summoned whatever ghost he wanted. The ghost came, very faint and doubtful to the sight, but vocal and prophetic; and, having answered the questions, went off."

_Maximus Tyrius, quoted by C. C. Felton, in Greece, Ancient and Modern, c. 2, lecture 9._

See, also, CUMÆ: AND BAIÆ.

AVERYSBORO, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

AVIGNON: 10th Century. In the Kingdom of Arles.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1226. Siege by Louis VIII.

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.

{237}

AVIGNON: A. D. 1309-1348. Made the seat of the Papacy. Purchase of the city by Clement V.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1367-1369. Temporary return of Urban V. to Rome.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1377-1417. Return of Pope Gregory XI. to Rome. Residence of the anti-popes of the great Schism.

See PAPACY: A. D.1377-1417.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1790-1791. Revolution and Anarchy. Atrocities committed. Reunion with France decreed.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1797. Surrendered to France by the Pope.

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

AVIGNON: A. D. 1815. Possession by France confirmed.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

----------AVIGNON: End----------

AVIONES, The.

"The Aviones were a Suevic clan. They are mentioned by Tacitus in connexion with the Reudigni, Angli, Varini, Eudoses, Suardones and Nuithones, all Suevic clans. These tribes must have occupied Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Sleswick-Holstein, the Elbe being their Eastern boundary. It is, however, impossible to define their precise localities."

_A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, Minor Works of Tacitus, Geographical Notes to the Germany._

AVIS, The House of.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.

AVIS, Knights of.

This is a Portuguese military-religions order which originated about 1147 during the wars with the Moors, and which formerly observed the monastic rule of St. Benedict. It became connected with the order of Calatrava in Spain and received from the latter its property in Portugal. Pope Paul III. united the Grand Mastership to the Crown of Portugal.

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 4.

See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

AVITUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455-456.

AVVIM, The. The original inhabitants of the south-west corner of Canaan, from which they were driven by the Philistines.

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 1, section 4.

AYACUCHO, Battle of (1824).

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

AYLESBURY ELECTION CASE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.

AYLESFORD, Battle of (A. D. 455).

The first battle fought and won by the invading Jutes after their landing in Britain under Hengest and Horsa. It was fought at the lowest ford of the river Medway.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

AYMARAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AYOUBITE OR AIYUBITE DYNASTY.

See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

AZINCOUR (AGINCOURT), Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

AZOF OR AZOV: A. D. 1696. Taken by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

AZOF: A. D. 1711. Restoration to the Turks.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.

AZOF: A. D. 1736-1739. Captured by the Russians. Secured to them by the Treaty of Belgrade.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

----------AZOF: End----------

AZTEC.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT; and A. D. 1325-1502; also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

"No nation ever reduced it [pictography] more to a system. It was in constant use in the daily transactions of life. They [the Aztecs] manufactured for writing purposes a thick coarse paper from the leaves of the agave plant by a process of maceration and pressure. An Aztec book closely resembles one of our quarto volumes. It is made of a single sheet, 12 to 15 inches wide, and often 60 or 70 feet long, and is not rolled, but folded either in squares or zigzags in such a manner that on opening there are two pages exposed to view. Thin wooden boards are fastened to each of the outer leaves, so that the whole presents as neat an appearance, remarks Peter Martyr, as if it had come from the shop of a skilful book binder. They also covered buildings, tapestries and scrolls of parchment with these devices. ... What is still more astonishing, there is reason to believe, in some instances, their figures were not painted, but actually printed with movable blocks of wood on which the symbols were carved in relief, though this was probably confined to those intended for ornament only. In these records we discern something higher than a mere symbolic notation. They contain the germ of a phonetic alphabet, and represent sounds of spoken language. The symbol is often not connected with the idea, but with the word. The mode in which this is done corresponds precisely to that of the rebus. It is a simple method, readily suggesting itself. In the middle ages it was much in vogue in Europe for the same purpose for which it was chiefly employed in Mexico at the same time--the writing of proper names. For example, the English family Bolton was known in heraldry by a 'tun' transfixed by a 'bolt.' Precisely so the Mexican Emperor Ixcoatl is mentioned in the Aztec manuscripts under the figure of a serpent, coatl,' pierced by obsidian knives, 'ixtli.' ... As a syllable could be expressed by any object whose name commenced with it, as few words can be given the form of a rebus without some change, as the figures sometimes represent their full phonetic value, sometimes only that of their initial sound, and as universally the attention of the artist was directed less to the sound than to the idea, the didactic painting of the Mexicans, whatever it might have been to them, is a sealed book to us, and must remain so in great part. ... Immense masses of such documents were stored in the imperial archives of ancient Mexico. Torquemada asserts that five cities alone yielded to the Spanish governor on one requisition no less than 16,000 volumes or scrolls! Every leaf was destroyed. Indeed, so thorough and wholesale was the destruction of these memorials, now so precious in our eyes, that hardly enough remain to whet the wits of antiquaries. In the libraries of Paris, Dresden, Pesth, and the Vatican are, however, a sufficient number to make us despair of deciphering them, had we for comparison all which the Spaniards destroyed. Beyond all others the Mayas, resident on the peninsula of Yucatan, would seem to have approached nearest a true phonetic system. They had a regular and well understood alphabet of 27 elementary sounds, the letters of which are totally different from those of any other nation, and evidently originated with themselves. But besides these they used a large number of purely conventional symbols, and moreover were accustomed constantly to employ the ancient pictographic method in addition as a sort of commentary on the sound represented. ... With the aid of this alphabet, which has fortunately been preserved, we are enabled to spell out a few words on the Yucatecan manuscripts and façades, but thus far with no positive results. The loss of the ancient pronunciation is especially in the way of such studies. In South America, also, there is said to have been a nation who cultivated the art of picture-writing, the Panos, on the river Ucayale."

D. G. Brinton, The Myths of the New World, chapter 1.

----------AZTEC: End----------

{238}

B.

BABAR, King of Ferghana, A. D. 1494-; King of Kabul, A. D. 1504-; Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1526-1530.

BABENBERGS, The.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

BABYLON: The City.

"The city stands on a broad plain, and is an exact square, a hundred and twenty furlongs in length each way, so that the entire circuit is four hundred and eighty furlongs. While such is its size, in magnificence there is no other city that approaches it. It is surrounded, in the first place, by a broad and deep moat, full of water, behind which rises a wall fifty royal cubits in width and two hundred in height. ... And here I may not omit to tell the use to which the mould dug out of the great moat was turned, nor the manner wherein the wall was wrought. As fast as they dug the moat the soil which they got from the cutting was made into bricks, and when a sufficient number were completed they baked the bricks in kilns. Then they set to building, and began with bricking the borders of the moat, after which they proceeded to construct the wall itself, using throughout for their cement hot bitumen, and interposing a layer of wattled reeds at every thirtieth course of the brick. On the top, along the edges of the wall, they constructed buildings of a single chamber facing one another, leaving between them room for a four-horse chariot to turn. In the circuit of the wall are a hundred gates, all of brass, with brazen lintels and side posts. The bitumen used in the work was brought to Babylon from the Is, a small stream which flows into the Euphrates at the point where the city of the same name stands, eight days' journey from Babylon. Lumps of bitumen are found in great abundance in this river. The city is divided into two portions by the river which runs through the midst of it. This river is the Euphrates. ... The city wall is brought down on both sides to the edge of the stream; thence, from the corners of the wall, there is carried along each bank of the river a fence of burnt bricks. The houses are mostly three and four stories high; the streets all run in straight lines; not only those parallel to the river, but also the cross streets which lead down to the water side. At the river end of these cross streets are low gates in the fence that skirts the stream, which are, like the great gates in the outer wall, of brass, and open on the water. The outer wall is the main defence of the city. There is, however, a second inner wall, of less thickness than the first, but very little inferior to it in strength. The centre of each division of the town was occupied by a fortress. In the one stood the palace of the kings, surrounded by a wall of great strength and size: in the other was the sacred precinct of Jupiter Belus, a square enclosure, two furlongs each way, with gates of solid brass; which was also remaining in my time. In the middle of the precinct there was a tower of solid masonry, a furlong in length and breadth, upon which was raised a second tower, and on that a third, and so on up to eight. The ascent to the top is on the outside, by a path which winds round all the towers. . . . On the topmost tower there is a spacious temple."

Herodotus, History, translated by G. Rawlinson, book 1, chapters 178-181.

According to Ctesias, the circuit of the walls of Babylon was but 360 furlongs. The historians of Alexander agreed nearly with this. As regards the height of the walls, "Strabo and the historians of Alexander substitute 50 for the 200 cubits of Herodotus, and it may therefore be suspected that the latter author referred to hands, four of which were equal to the cubit. The measure, indeed, of 50 fathoms or 200 royal cubits for the walls of a city in a plain is quite preposterous. ... My own belief is that the height of the walls of Babylon did not exceed 60 or 70 English feet."

H. C. Rawlinson, note to above.-

See, also, BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.

BABYLON OF THE CRUSADERS, The.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

BABYLONIA, Primitive.

(So much new knowledge of the ancient peoples in the East has been and is being brought to light by recent search and study, and the account of it in English historical literature is so meagre as yet, that there seems to be good reason for deferring the treatment of these subjects, for the most part, to a later volume of this work. The reader is referred, therefore, to the article "Semites," in the hope that, before its publication is reached, in the fourth or fifth volume, there will be later and better works to quote from on all the subjects embraced. Terrien de Lacouperie's interesting theory, which is introduced below, in this place, is questioned by many scholars; and Professor Sayce, whose writings have done much to popularize the new oriental studies, seems to go sometimes in advance of the sure ground.)

The Sumirians, inhabitants of the Shinar of the Old Testament narrative, and Accadians, who divided primitive Babylonia between them, "were overrun and conquered by the Semitic Babylonians of later history, Accad being apparently the first half of the country to fall under the sway of the new comers. It is possible that Casdim, the Hebrew word translated Chaldees or Chaldeans in the authorized version, is the Babylonian 'casidi' or conquerors, a title which continued to cling to them in consequence of their conquest. The Accadiaus had been the inventors of the pictorial hieroglyphics which afterwards developed into the cuneiform or wedge-shaped writing; they had founded the great cities of Chaldea, and had attained to a high degree of culture and civilization. Their cities possessed libraries, stocked with books, written partly on papyrus, partly on clay, which was, while still soft, impressed with characters by means of a metal stylus. {239} The books were numerous, and related to a variety of subjects. ... In course of time, however, the two dialects of Sumir and Accad ceased to be spoken; but the necessity for learning them still remained, and we find, accordingly, that down to the latest days of both Assyria and Babylonia, the educated classes were taught the old extinct Accadian, just as in modern Europe they are taught Latin."

A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 2.

"Since Sumir, the Shinar of the Bible, was the first part of the country occupied by the invading Semites, while Accad long continued to be regarded as the seat of an alien race, the language and population of primitive Chaldea have been named Accadian by the majority of Assyrian scholars. The part played by these Accadians in the intellectual history of mankind is highly important. They were the earliest civilizers of Western Asia, and it is to them that we have to trace the arts and sciences, the religious traditions and the philosophy not only of the Assyrians, but also of the Phœnicians, the Aramæans, and even the Hebrews themselves. It was, too, from Chaldea that the germs of Greek art and of much of the Greek pantheon and mythology originally came. Columnar architecture reached its first and highest development in Babylonia; the lions that still guard the main entrance of Mykenæ are distinctly Assyrian in character; and the Greek Herakles with his twelve labours finds his prototype in the hero of the great Chaldean epic. It is difficult to say how much of our present culture is not owed to the stunted, oblique-eyed people of ancient Babylonia; Jerusalem and Athens are the sacred cities of our modern life; and both Jerusalem and Athens were profoundly influenced by the ideas which had their first starting-point in primæval Accad. The Semite has ever been a trader and an intermediary, and his earliest work was the precious trade in spiritual and mental wares. Babylonia was the home and mother of Semitic culture and Semitic inspiration; the Phœnicians never forgot that they were a colony from the Persian Gulf, while the Israelite recounted that his father Abraham had been born in Ur of the Chaldees. Almost the whole of the Assyrian literature was derived from Accad, and translated from the dead language of primitive Chaldea."

A. H. Sayce, Babylonian Literature, pages 6-7.

A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2.

"The place of China in the past and future is not that which it was long supposed to be. Recent researches have disclosed that its civilization, like ours, was variously derived from the same old focus of culture of south-western Asia. ... It was my good fortune to be able to show, in an uninterrupted series of a score or so of papers in periodicals, of communications to the Royal Asiatic Society and elsewhere, published and unpublished, and of contributions to several works since April 1880, downwards, that the writing and some knowledge of arts, science and government of the early Chinese, more or less enumerated below, were derived from the old civilization of Babylonia, through the secondary focus of Susiana, and that this derivation was a social fact, resulting not from scientific teaching but from practical intercourse of some length between the Susian confederation and the future civilizers of the Chinese, the Bak tribes, who, from their neighbouring settlements in the N., moved eastwards at the time of the great rising of the XXIII. century B. C. Coming again in the field, Dr. J. Edkins has joined me on the same line."

_Terrien de Lacouperie, Babylonia and China (Academy, Aug. 7, 1880)._

"We could enumerate a long series of affinities between Chaldean culture and Chinese civilization, although the last was not borrowed directly. From what evidence we have, it seems highly probable that a certain number of families or of tribes, without any apparent generic name, but among which the Kutta filled an important position, came to China about the year 2500 B. C. These tribes, which came from the West, were obliged to quit the neighbourhood, probably north of the Susiana, and were comprised in the feudal agglomeration of that region, where they must have been influenced by the Akkado-Chaldean culture."

Terrien de Lacouperie, Early History of Chinese Civilization, page 32.

See, also, CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.

BABYLONIA: The early (Chaldean) monarchy.

"Our earliest glimpse of the political condition of Chaldea shows us the country divided into numerous small states, each headed by a great city, made famous and powerful by the sanctuary or temple of some particular deity, and ruled by a patesi, a title which is now thought to mean priest-king, i. e., priest and king in one. There can be little doubt that the beginning of the city was every where the temple, with its college of ministering priests, and that the surrounding settlement was gradually formed by pilgrims and worshippers. That royalty developed out of the priesthood is also more than probable. ... There comes a time when for the title of patesi is substituted that of king. ... It is noticeable that the distinction between the Semitic newcomers and the indigenous Shumiro-Accadians continues long to be traceable in the names of the royal temple-builders, even after the new Semitic idiom, which we call the Assyrian, had entirely ousted the old language. ... Furthermore, even superficial observation shows that the old language and the old names survive longest in Shumir,--the South. From this fact it is to be inferred with little chance of mistake that the North,--the land of Accad,-- was earlier Semitized, that the Semitic immigrants established their first headquarters in that part of the country, that their power and influence thence spread to the South. Fully in accordance with these indications, the first grand historical figure that meets us at the threshold of Chaldean history, dim with the mists of ages and fabulous traditions, yet unmistakably real, is that of the Semite Sharrukin, king of Accad, or Agade, as the great Northern city came to be called--more generally known in history under the corrupt modern reading of Sargon, and called Sargon I., 'the First,' to distinguish him from a very famous Assyrian monarch of the same name who reigned many centuries later. As to the city of Agade, it is no other than the city of Accad mentioned in Genesis x, 10. It was situated close to the Euphrates on a wide canal just opposite Sippar, so that in time the two cities came to be considered as one double city, and the Hebrews always called it 'the two Sippars'--Sepharvaim, which is often spoken of in the Bible. ... The tremendously ancient date of 3800 B. C. is now generally accepted for Sargon of Agade--perhaps the remotest authentic date yet arrived at in history."

Z. A. Ragozin, Story of Chaldea, chapter 4.

{240}

"A horde of Cassites or Kossæans swept down from the mountains of Northern Elam under their leader, Khammuragas; Accad was conquered, a foreign dynasty established in the land, and the capital transferred from Agade to Babylon. Babylon now became a city of importance for the first time; the rank assigned to it in the mythical age was but a reflection of the position it held after the Cassite conquest. The Cassite dynasty is probably the Arabian dynasty of Berosos. ... A newly-found inscription of Nabonidos makes the date [of its advent] B. C. 3750 [foot-note]. ... The first care of Khammuragas, after establishing himself in Accad, was to extend his sway over the southern kingdom of Sumer as well. ... Khammuragas became king of the whole of Babylonia. From this time onward the country remained a united monarchy. The Cassite dynasty must have lasted for several centuries, and probably included more than one line of kings. ... It was under the Cassite dynasty that the kingdom of Assyria first took its rise,-- partly, perhaps, in consequence of the Asiatic conquests of the Egyptian monarchs of the eighteenth dynasty. ... In B. C. 1400 the Cassite king married an Assyrian princess. Her son, Kara-Murdas, was murdered by the party opposed to Assyrian influence, but the usurper, Nazi-bugas, was quickly overthrown by the Assyrians, who placed a vassal-prince on the throne. This event may be considered the turning-point in the history of the kingdoms of the Tigris and Euphrates; Assyria henceforth takes the place of the worn-out monarchy of Babylonia, and plays the chief part in the affairs of Western Asia until the day of its final fall. In little more than a hundred years later the Assyrians were again in Babylonia, but this time as avowed enemies to all parties alike; Babylon was captured by the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-Adar in B. C. 1270, and the rule of the Cassite dynasty came to an end."

A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2.

ALSO IN: G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Chaldea, chapter 8.

See, also, ASSYRIA.

BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539. The later Empire.

For more than six centuries after the conquest of B. C. 1270, Babylonia was obscured by Assyria. During most of that long period, the Chaldean kingdom was subject to its northern neighbor and governed by Assyrian viceroys. There were frequent revolts and some intervals of independence; but they were brief, and the political life of Babylonia as a distinct power may be said to have been suspended from 1270 until 625 B. C., when Nabopolassar, who ruled first as the viceroy of the Assyrian monarch, threw off his yoke, took the attributes of sovereignty to himself, and joined the Medes in extinguishing the glory of Nineveh. "The Assyrian Empire was now shared between Media and Babylon. Nabucudur-utser, or Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar's eldest son, was the real founder of the Babylonian empire. The attempt of Pharaoh Necho to win for Egypt the inheritance of Assyria was overthrown at the battle of Carchemish, and when Nebuchadrezzar succeeded his father in B. C. 604, he found himself the undisputed lord of Western Asia. Palestine was coerced in 602, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 laid a way open for the invasion of Egypt, which took place twenty years later. Tyre also underwent a long siege of thirteen years, but it is doubtful whether it was taken after all. Babylon was now enriched with the spoils of foreign conquest. It owed as much to Nebuchadrezzar as Rome owed to Augustus. The buildings and walls with which it was adorned were worthy of the metropolis of the world. The palace, now represented by the Kasr mound, was built in fifteen days, and the outermost of its three walls was seven miles in circuit. Hanging gardens were constructed for Queen Amytis, the daughter of the Median prince, and the great temple of Bel was roofed with cedar and overlaid with gold. The temple of the Seven Lights, dedicated to Nebo at Borsippa by an early king, who had raised it to a height of forty-two cubits, was completed, and various other temples were erected on a sumptuous scale, both in Babylon and in the neighbouring cities, while new libraries were established there. After a reign of forty-two years, six months and twenty-one days, Nebuchadrezzar died (B. C. 562), and left the crown to his son Evil-Merodach, who had a short and inactive reign of three years and thirty-four days, when he was murdered by his brother-in-law, Nergal-sharezer, the Neriglissar of the Greeks. ... The chief event of his reign of four years and four months was the construction of a new palace. His son, who succeeded him, was a mere boy, and was murdered after a brief reign of four months. The power now passed from the house of Nabopolassar,--Nabu-nahid or Nabonidos, who was raised to the throne, being of another family. His reign lasted seventeen years and five months, and witnessed the end of the Babylonian empire,"--which was overthrown by Cyrus the Great (or Kyros), B. C. 539 [see PERSIA: B. C. 543-521], and swallowed up in the Persian empire which he founded.

A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2.

ALSO IN: M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 4, chapter 15.

_G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: The Fourth Monarchy, chapter 8._

BABYLONIAN JEWS.

See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50, and A. D. 200-400.

BABYLONIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

BABYLONIAN TALMUD, The.

See TALMUD.

"BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY" OF THE POPES.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BACCALAOS, OR BACALHAS, OR BACALHAO COUNTRY.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

BACCHIADÆ.

See CORINTH.

BACCHIC FESTIVALS.

See DIONYSIA.

BACENIS, Forest of.

See HERCYNIAN FOREST.

BACON'S REBELLION.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.

{241}

BACTRIA.

"Where the edge [of the tableland of Iran] rises to the lofty Hindu Kush, there lies on its northern slope a favored district in the region of the Upper Oxus. ... On the banks of the river, which flows in a north-westerly direction, extend broad mountain pastures, where support is found in the fresh mountain air for numerous herds of horses and sheep, and beneath the wooded hills are blooming valleys. On these slopes of the Hindu Kush, the middle stage between the table-land and the deep plain of the Caspian Sea, lay the Bactrians--the Bakhtri of the Achaemenids, the Bakhdhi of the Avesta. ... In ancient times the Bactrians were hardly distinguished from nomads; but their land was extensive and produced fruits of all kinds, with the exception of the vine. The fertility of the land enabled the Hellenic princes to make great conquests."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 6. chapter 2.

The Bactrians were among the people subjugated by Cyrus the Great and their country formed part of the Persian Empire until the latter was overthrown by Alexander (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 330-323). In the division of the Macedonian conquests, after Alexander's death, Bactria, with all the farther east, fell to the share of Seleucus Nicator and formed part of what came to be called the kingdom of Syria. About 256 B. C. the Bactrian province, being then governed by an ambitious Greek satrap named Diodotus, was led by him into revolt against the Syrian monarchy, and easily gained its independence, with Diodotus for its king (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224). "The authority of Diodotus was confirmed and riveted on his subjects by an undisturbed reign of eighteen years before a Syrian army even showed itself in his neighbourhood. ... The Bactrian Kingdom was, at any rate at its commencement, as thoroughly Greek as that of the Seleucidæ." "From B. C. 206 to about B. C. 185 was the most flourishing period of the Bactrian monarchy, which expanded during that space from a small kingdom to a considerable empire"--extending over the greater part of modern Afghanistan and across the Indus into the Punjaub. But meantime the neighboring Parthians, who threw off the Seleucid yoke soon after the Bactrians had done so, were growing in power and they soon passed from rivalry to mastery. The Bactrian kingdom was practically extinguished about 150 B. C. by the conquests of the Parthian Mithridates I., "although Greek monarchs of the Bactrian series continued masters of Cabul and Western India till about B. C. 126."

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3-5.

BADAJOS: The Geographical Congress (1524).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

BADEN: Early Suevic population.

See SUEVI.

BADEN: A. D. 1801-1803. Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

BADEN: A. D. 1805-1806. Aggrandized by Napoleon. Created a Grand Duchy. Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806, and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

BADEN: A. D. 1813. Abandonment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the French Alliance.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BADEN: A. D. 1849. Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

BADEN: A. D. 1866. The Seven Weeks War. Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

BADEN: A. D. 1870-1871. Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon transformed into the German Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.

----------BADEN: End----------

BADEN, OR RASTADT, Treaty of (1714).

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BADR, OR BEDR, Battle of.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 609-632.

BÆCULA, Battle of.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

BÆRSÆRK.

See BERSERKER.

BÆTICA.

The ancient name of the province in Spain which afterwards took from the Vandals the name of Andalusia.

See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25, and A. D. 428; also TURDETANI, and VANDALS: A. D. 428.

BÆTIS, The.

The ancient name of the Guadalquiver river in Spain.

BAGACUM.

See NERVII.

BAGAUDS, Insurrection of the (A. D. 287).

The peasants of Gaul, whose condition had become very wretched during the distractions and misgovernment of the third century, were provoked to an insurrection, A. D. 287, which was general and alarming. It was a rising which seems to have been much like those that occurred in France and England eleven centuries later. The rebel peasants were called Bagauds,--a name which some writers derive from the Celtic word "bagad" or "bagat," signifying "tumultuous assemblage." They sacked and ruined several cities,--taking Autun after a siege of seven months,--and committed many terrible atrocities. The Emperor Maximian--colleague of Diocletian,--succeeded, at last, in suppressing the general outbreak, but not in extinguishing it every where. There were traces of it surviving long afterwards.

P. Godwin, History of France, volume 1: Ancient Gaul, book 2, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: _W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial Administration, chapter 4._

See, also, DEDITITIUS.

BAGDAD, A. D. 763. The founding of the new capital of the Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 763.

BAGDAD: A. D. 815-945. Decline of the Caliphate.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1050. In the hands of the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258. The Fall of the Caliphate. Destruction of the city by the Mongols.

In 1252, on the accession of Mangu Khan, grandson of Jingis Khan, to the sovereignty of the Mongol Empire [see MONGOLS], a great Kuriltai or council was held, at which it was decided to send an expedition into the West, for two purposes: (1), to exterminate the Ismaileans or Assassins, who still maintained their power in northern Persia; (2), to reduce the Caliph of Bagdad to submission to the Mongol supremacy. The command of the expedition was given to Mangu's brother Khulagu, or Houlagou, who performed his appointed tasks with thoroughness and unmerciful resolution. In 1257 he made an end of the Assassins, to the great relief of the whole eastern world, Mahometan and Christian. In 1258 he passed on to Bagdad, preceded by an embassy which summoned the Caliph to submit, to raze the walls of Bagdad, to give up his vain pretensions to the sovereignty of the Moslem world, and to acknowledge the Great Khan for his lord. The feeble caliph and his treacherous and incapable ministers neither submitted nor made vigorous preparations for defence. As a consequence, Bagdad was taken after a siege which only excited the ferocity of the Mongols. They fired the city and slaughtered its people, excepting some Christians, who are said to have been spared through the influence of one of Khulagu's wives, who was a Nestorian. The sack of Bagdad lasted seven days. The number of the dead, we are told by Raschid, was 800,000. The caliph, Mostassem, with all his family, was put to death.

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, pages 193-201.

----------BAGDAD: End----------

[Image] I. Asia Minor And The Balkan Peninsula Near The Close Of The Twelfth Century.

Byzantine Empire. Selj. Turks. Servia. Bulgaria. Cilician Armenia. Venetian Possessions. States Under Latin Rule. County Palatinate Of Cephalonia.

II ASIA MINOR AND THE BALKAN PENINSULA IN 1265 (SHOWING RESTORED BYZANTINE EMPIRE AND SURROUNDING STATES)

III ASIA MINOR.

IV TURKISH EMPIRE.

----------End----------

[Image: ASIA MINOR AND BALKAN PENINSUAL.] [Image: TURKISH EMPIRE.]

{242}

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258. (Continued)

For a considerable period before this final catastrophe, in the decline of the Seljuk Empire, the Caliphate at Bagdad had become once more "an independent temporal state, though, instead of ruling in the three quarters of the globe, the caliphs ruled only over the province of Irak Arabi. Their position was not unlike that of the Popes in recent times, whom they also resembled in assuming a new name, of a pious character, at their inauguration. Both the Christian and the Moslem pontiff was the real temporal sovereign of a small state; each claimed to be spiritual sovereign over the whole of the Faithful; each was recognized as such by a large body, but rejected by others. But in truth the spiritual recognition of the Abbaside caliphs was more nearly universal in their last age than it had ever been before." With the fall of Bagdad fell the caliphate as a temporal sovereignty; but it survived, or was resurrected, in its spiritual functions, to become merged, a little later, in the supremacy of the sultan of the Ottoman Turks. "A certain Ahmed, a real or pretended Abbasside, fled [from Bagdad] to Egypt, where he was proclaimed caliph by the title of Al Mostanser Billah, under the protection of the then Sultan Bibars. He and his successors were deemed, in spiritual things, Commanders of the Faithful, and they were found to be a convenient instrument both by the Mameluke sultans and by other Mahometan princes. From one of them, Bajazet the Thunderbolt received the title of Sultan; from another, Selim the Inflexible procured the cession of his claims, and obtained the right to deem himself the shadow of God upon earth. Since then, the Ottoman Padishah has been held to inherit the rights of Omar and of Haroun, rights which if strictly pressed, might be terrible alike to enemies, neutrals, and allies."

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquest of the Saracens, lecture 4.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1393. Timour's pyramid of heads.

See TIMOUR.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1623-1638. Taken by the Persians and retaken by the Turks. Fearful slaughter of the inhabitants.

See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.

----------BAGDAD: End----------

BAGISTANA.

See BEHISTUN, ROCK OF.

BAGLIONI, The.

"The Baglioni first came into notice during the wars they carried on with the Oddi of Perugia in the 14th and 15th centuries. This was one of those duels to the death, like that of the Visconti with the Torrensi of Milan, on which the fate of so many Italian cities of the middle ages hung. The nobles fought; the townsfolk assisted like a Greek chorus, sharing the passions of the actors, but contributing little to the catastrophe. The piazza was the theatre on which the tragedy was played. In this contest the Baglioni proved the stronger, and began to sway the state of Perugia after the irregular fashion of Italian despots. They had no legal right over the city, no hereditary magistracy, no title of princely authority. The Church was reckoned the supreme administrator of the Perugian commonwealth. But in reality no man could set foot on the Umbrian plain without permission from the Baglioni. They elected the officers of state. The lives and goods of the citizens were at their discretion. When a Papal legate showed his face, they made the town too hot to hold him. ... It was in vain that from time to time the people rose against them, massacring Pandolfo Baglioni on the public square in 1393, and joining with Ridolfo and Braccio of the dominant house to assassinate another Pandolfo with his son Niccolo in 1460. The more they were cut down, the more they flourished. The wealth they derived from their lordships in the duchy of Spoleto and the Umbrian hill-cities, and the treasures they accumulated in the service of the Italian republics, made them omnipotent in their native town. ... From father to son they were warriors, and we have records of few Italian houses, except perhaps the Malatesti of Rimini, who equalled them in hardihood and fierceness. Especially were they noted for the remorseless vendette which they carried on among themselves, cousin tracking cousin to death with the ferocity and and craft of sleuth-hounds. Had they restrained these fratricidal passions, they might, perhaps, by following some common policy, like that of the Medici in Florence or the Bentivogli in Bologna, have successfully resisted the Papal authority, and secured dynastic sovereignty. It is not until 1495 that the history of the Baglioni becomes dramatic, possibly because till then they lacked the pen of Matarazzo. But from this year forward to their final extinction, every detail of their doings has a picturesque and awful interest. Domestic furies, like the revel descried by Cassandra above the palace of Mycenae, seem to take possession of the fated house; and the doom which has fallen on them is worked out with pitiless exactitude to the last generation."

J. A. Symonds, Sketches in Italy and Greece, pages 70-72.

BAGRATIDAE, The.

See ARMENIA: 12th-14th CENTURIES.

BAHAMA ISLANDS: A. D. 1492. Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

BAHRITE SULTANS.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.

BAIÆ.

Baiæ, in Campania, opposite Puteoli on a small bay near Naples, was the favorite watering place of the ancient Romans. "As soon as the reviving heats of April gave token of advancing summer, the noble and the rich hurried from Rome to this choice retreat; and here, till the raging dogstar forbade the toils even of amusement, they disported themselves on shore or on sea, in the thick groves or on the placid lakes, in litters and chariots, in gilded boats with painted sails, lulled by day and night with the sweetest symphonies of song and music, or gazing indolently on the wanton measures of male and female dancers. The bath, elsewhere their relaxation, was here the business of the day; ... they turned the pools of Avernus and Lucrinus into tanks for swimming; and in these pleasant waters both sexes met familiarly together, and conversed amidst the roses sprinkled lavishly on their surface."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 40.

BAINBRIDGE, Commodore William, in the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.

{243}

BAIREUTH, Creation of the Principality of.

See GERMANY: THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

----------BAIREUTH: End----------

BAJAZET I.--Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1389-1402.

Bajazet II., A. D. 1481-1512.

BAKAIRI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

BAKER, Colonel Edward D., Killed at Ball's Bluff.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

BAKSAR, OR BAXAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BALACLAVA, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

BALANCE OF POWER.

In European diplomacy, a phrase signifying the policy which aimed at keeping an approximate equilibrium of power among the greater nations.

T. J. Lawrence, International Law, page 126.

BALBINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 238.

BALBOA'S DISCOVERY OF THE PACIFIC.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.

BALCHITAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

BALDWIN OF FLANDERS, The Crusade of.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

Baldwin I., Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1204-1205.

Baldwin II., A. D. 1237-1261.

BALEARIC ISLANDS: Origin of the Name.

"The name 'Baleares' was derived by the Greeks from 'ballein,' to throw; but the art was taught them by the Phœnicians, and the name is no doubt Phœnician."

J. Kenrick, Phœnicia, chapter 4.

For the chief incidents in the history of these islands,

See MINORCA and MAJORCA.

BALIA OF FLORENCE, The.

The chief instrument employed by the Medici to establish their power in Florence was "the pernicious system of the Parlamento and Balia, by means of which the people, assembled from time to time in the public square, and intimidated by the reigning faction, entrusted full powers to a select committee nominated in private by the chiefs of the great house. ... Segni says: 'The Parlamento is a meeting of the Florentine people on the Piazza of the Signory. When the Signory has taken its place to address the meeting, the piazza is guarded by armed men, and then the people are asked whether they wish to give absolute power (Balia) and authority to the citizens named, for their good. When the answer, yes, prompted partly by inclination and partly by compulsion, is returned, the Signory immediately retires into the palace. This is all that is meant by this parlamento, which thus gives away the full power of effecting a change in the state."

J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots, page 164, and foot-note.

See, also, FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and 1458-1469.

----------BALIA OF FLORENCE: End----------

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BALKAN: Ancient History.

The States of southeastern Europe, lately emancipated, for the most part, from the rule of the Turks, are so associated by a common history, although remarkably diverse in race, that it seems expedient to bring them for discussion together. They occupy mainly the regions known in Roman times as MOESIA, DACIA and ILLYRICUM, to which names the reader is referred for some account of the scanty incidents of their early history.

See, also, AVARS.

----------BALKAN: End----------

{244}

[Image: Danubian And Balkan States]

Danubian And Balkan States

Showing Changes During The Present Century

The political condition in 1815 is shown by ROMAN LETTERS and this style of boundary:

All subsequent change, are shown by ITALIC LETTERS and this style of boundary:

The Bulgarian boundary according to the Treaty of San Stefano 1878 is shown thus:

----------Danubian And Balkan States: End----------

BALKAN: Races existing.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us