History for ready reference, Volume 1, A-Elba (part 5 of 15)

History for ready reference, Volume 1, A-Elba (part 5 of 15)

"In no part of Western Europe do we find districts inhabited by men differing in speech and national feeling, lying in distinct patches here and there over a large country. A district like one of our larger counties in which one parish, perhaps one hundred, spoke Welsh, another Latin, another English, another Danish, another Old French, another the tongue of more modern settlers, Flemings, Huguenots or Palatines, is something which we find hard to conceive, and which, as applied to our own land or to any other Western land, sounds absurd on the face of it. When we pass into South-eastern Europe, this state of things, the very idea of which seems absurd in the West, is found to be perfectly real. All the races which we find dwelling there at the beginning of recorded history, together with several races which have come in since, all remain, not as mere fragments or survivals, but as nations, each with its national language and national feelings, and each having its greater or less share of practical importance in the politics of the present moment. Setting aside races which have simply passed through the country without occupying it, we may say that all the races which have ever settled in the country are there still as distinct races. And, though each race has its own particular region where it forms the whole people or the great majority of the people, still there are large districts where different races really live side by side in the very way which seems so absurd when we try to conceive it in any Western country. We cannot conceive a Welsh, an English, and a Norman village side by side; but a Greek, a Bulgarian, and a Turkish village side by side is a thing which may be seen in many parts of Thrace. The oldest races in those lands, those which answer to Basques and Bretons in Western Europe, hold quite another position from that of Basques and Bretons in Western Europe. They form three living and vigorous nations, Greek, Albanian, and Rouman. They stand as nations alongside of the Slaves who came in later, and who answer roughly to the Teutons in the West, while all alike are under the rule of the Turk, who has nothing answering to him in the West. ... When the Romans conquered the South-eastern lands, they found there three great races, the Greek, the Illyrian, and the Thracian. Those three races are all there still. The Greeks speak for themselves. The Illyrians are represented by the modern Albanians. The Thracians are represented, there seems every reason to believe, by the modern Roumans. Now had the whole of the South-eastern lands been inhabited by Illyrians and Thracians, those lands would doubtless have become as thoroughly Roman as the Western lands became. ... But the position of the Greek nation, its long history and its high civilization, hindered this. {245} The Greeks could not become Romans in any but the most purely political sense. Like other subjects of the Roman Empire, they gradually took the Roman name; but they kept their own language, literature, and civilization. In short we may say that the Roman Empire in the East became Greek, and that the Greek nation became Roman. The Eastern Empire and the Greek-speaking lands became nearly coextensive. Greek became the one language of the Eastern Roman Empire, while those that spoke it still called themselves Romans. Till quite lately, that is till the modern ideas of nationality began to spread, the Greek-speaking subjects of the Turk called themselves by no name but that of Romans. ... While the Greeks thus took the Roman name without adopting the Latin language, another people in the Eastern peninsula adopted both name and language, exactly as the nations of the West did. If, as there is good reason to believe, the modern Roumans represent the old Thracians, that nation came under the general law, exactly like the Western nations. The Thracians became thoroughly Roman in speech, as they have ever since kept the Roman name. They form in fact one of the Romance nations, just as much as the people of Gaul or Spain. ... In short, the existence of a highly civilized people like the Greeks hindered in every way the influence of Rome from being so thorough in the East as it was in the West. The Greek nation lived on, and alongside of itself, it preserved the other two ancient nations of the peninsula. Thus all three have lived on to the present as distinct nations. Two of them, the Greeks and the Illyrians, still keep their own languages, while the third, the old Thracians, speak a Romance language and call themselves Roumans. ... The Slavonic nations hold in the East a place answering to that which is held by the Teutonic nations in the West. ... But though the Slaves in the East thus answer in many ways to the Teutons in the West, their position with regard to the Eastern Empire was not quite the same as that of the Teutons towards the Western Empire. ... They learned much from the half Roman, half Greek power with which they had to do; but they did not themselves become either Greek or Roman, in the way in which the Teutonic conquerors in the Western Empire became Roman. ... Thus, while in the West everything except a few survivals of earlier nations, is either Roman or Teutonic, in the East, Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians or Roumans, and Slaves, all stood side by side as distinct nations when the next set of invaders came, and they remain as distinct nations still. ... There came among them, in the form of the Ottoman Turk, a people with whom union was not only hard but impossible, a people who were kept distinct, not by special circumstances, but by the inherent nature of the case. Had the Turk been other than what he really was, he might simply have become a new nation alongside of the other South-eastern nations. Being what he was the Turk could not do this. ... The original Turks did not belong to the Aryan branch of mankind, and their original speech is not an Aryan speech. The Turks and their speech belong to altogether another class of nations and languages. ... Long before the Turks came into Europe, the Magyars or Hungarians had come; and, before the Magyars came, the Bulgarians had come. Both the Magyars and the Bulgarians were in their origin Turanian nations, nations as foreign to the Aryan people of Europe as the Ottoman Turks themselves. But their history shows that a Turanian nation settling in Europe may either be assimilated with an existing European nation or may sit down as an European nation alongside of others. The Bulgarians have done one of these things; the Magyars have done the other; the Ottoman Turks have done neither. So much has been heard lately of the Bulgarians as being in our times the special victims of the Turk that some people may find it strange to hear who the original Bulgarians were. They were a people more or less nearly akin to the Turks, and they came into Europe as barbarian conquerors who were as much dreaded by the nations of South-eastern Europe as the Turks themselves were afterwards. The old Bulgarians were a Turanian people, who settled in a large part of the South-eastern peninsula, in lands which had been already occupied by Slaves. They came in as barbarian conquerors; but, exactly as happened to so many conquerors in Western Europe, they were presently assimilated by their Slavonic subjects and neighbours. They learned the Slavonic speech; they gradually lost all traces of their foreign origin. Those whom we now call Bulgarians are a Slavonic people speaking a Slavonic tongue, and they have nothing Turanian about them except the name which they borrowed from their Turanian masters. ... The Bulgarians entered the Empire in the seventh century, and embraced Christianity in the ninth. They rose to great power in the South-eastern lands, and played a great part in their history. But all their later history, from a comparatively short time after the first Bulgarian conquest, has been that of a Slavonic and not that of a Turanian people. The history of the Bulgarians therefore shows that it is quite possible, if circumstances are favourable, for a Turanian people to settle among the Aryans of Europe and to be thoroughly assimilated by the Aryan nation among whom they settled."

E. A. Freeman, The Ottoman Power in Europe, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: R. G. Latham, The Nationalities of Europe.

BALKAN: 7th Century. (Servia, Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia and Montenegro.) The Slavonic settlement.

"No country on the face of our unfortunate planet has been oftener ravaged, no land so often soaked with the blood of its inhabitants. At the dawn of history Bosnia formed part of Illyria. It was said to have been already peopled by Slav tribes. Rome conquered all this region as far as the Danube, and annexed it to Dalmatia. Two provinces were formed, 'Dalmatia maritima,' and 'Dalmatia interna,' or 'Illyris barbara.' Order reigned, and as the interior communicated with the coast, the whole country flourished. Important ports grew upon the littoral. ... At the fall of the Empire came the Goths, then the Avars, who, for two centuries, burned and massacred, and turned the whole country into a desert. ... In 630 the Croats began to occupy the present Croatia, Slavonia, and the north of Bosnia, and in 640 the Servians, of the same race and language, exterminated the Avars and peopled Servia, Southern Bosnia, Montenegro and Dalmatia. The ethnic situation which exists to-day dates from this epoch."

E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 3.

{246}

"Heraclius [who occupied the throne of the Eastern Empire at Constantinople from 610 to 642] appears to have formed the plan of establishing a permanent barrier in Europe against the encroachments of the Avars and Sclavonians. ... To accomplish this object, Heraclius induced the Serbs, or Western Sclavonians, who occupied the country about the Carpathian mountains, and who had successfully opposed the extension of the Avar empire in that direction, to abandon their ancient seats, and move down to the South into the provinces between the Adriatic and the Danube. The Roman and Greek population of these provinces had been driven towards the seacoast by the continual incursions of the northern tribes, and the desolate plains of the interior had been occupied by a few Sclavonian subjects and vassals of the Avars. The most important of the western Sclavonian tribes who moved southward at the invitation of Heraclius were the Servians and Croatians, who settled in the countries still peopled by their descendants. Their original settlements were formed in consequence of friendly arrangements, and, doubtless, under the sanction of an express treaty; for the Sclavonian people of Illyria and Dalmatia long regarded themselves as bound to pay a certain degree of territorial allegiance to the Eastern Empire. ... These colonies, unlike the earlier invaders of the Empire, were composed of agricultural communities. ... Unlike the military races of Goths, Huns, and Avars, who had preceded them, the Servian nations increased and flourished in the lands which they had colonized; and by the absorption of every relic of the ancient population, they formed political communities and independent states, which offered a firm barrier to the Avars and other hostile nations. ... The states which they constituted were of considerable weight in the history of Europe; and the kingdoms or bannats of Croatia, Servia, Bosnia, Rascia and Dalmatia, occupied for some centuries a political position very similar to that now held by the secondary monarchical states of the present day."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 6.

See, also, AVARS: THE BREAKING OF THEIR DOMINION; and SLAVONIC NATIONS: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

BALKAN: 7th-8th Centuries (Bulgaria). Vassalage to the Khazars.

See KHAZARS.

BALKAN: 9th Century (Servia). Rise of the Kingdom.

"At the period alluded to [the latter part of the ninth century] the Servians did not, like the rest of the Sclavonians, constitute a distinct state, but acknowledged the supremacy of the Eastern Roman Emperor: in fact the country they inhabited had, from ancient times, formed part of the Roman territory; and it still remained part of the Eastern Empire when the Western Empire was re-established, at the time of Charlemagne. The Servians, at the same period, embraced the Christian faith; but in doing so they did not subject themselves entirely, either to the empire or church of the Greeks. .... The Emperor ... permitted the Servians to be ruled by native chiefs, solely of their own election, who preserved a patriarchal form of government. ... In the eleventh century, the Greeks, despite of the stipulations they had entered into, attempted to take Servia under their immediate control, and to subject it to their financial system." The attempt met with a defeat which was decisive. "Not only did it put a speedy termination to the encroachment of the Court of Constantinople in imposing a direct government, but it also firmly established the princely power of the Grand Shupanes; whose existence depended on the preservation of the national independence. ... Pope Gregory VII. was the first who saluted a Grand Shupane as King."

L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 1.

BALKAN: 9th-16th Centuries (Bosnia, Servia, Croatia, Dalmatia.) Conversion to Christianity. The Bogomiles. Hungarian crusades. Turkish conquest.

After the Slavonic settlement of Servia, Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia, for a time "the sovereignty of Byzantium was acknowledged. But the conversion of these tribes, of identical race, to two different Christian rites, created an antagonism which still exists. The Croats were converted first by missionaries from Rome; they thus adopted Latin letters and Latin ritual; the Servians, on the contrary, and consequently part of the inhabitants of Bosnia, were brought to Christianity by Cyril and Methodius, who, coming from Thessalonica, brought the characters and rites of the Eastern Church. About 860 Cyril translated the Bible into Slav, inventing an alphabet which bears his name, and which is still in use. ... In 874 Budimir, the first Christian King of Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia, called a diet upon the plain of Dalminium, where he tried to establish a regular organization. It was about this time that the name Bosnia appeared for the first time. It is said to be derived from a Slav tribe coming originally from Thrace. In 905 Brisimir, King of Servia, annexed Croatia and Bosnia; but this union did not last long. The sovereignty of Byzantium ceased in these parts after the year 1000. It was gained by Ladislaus, King of Hungary, about 1091. In 1103 Coloman, King of Hungary, added the titles of 'Rex Ramæ' (Herzegovina), then of 'Rex Bosniæ.' Since then Bosnia has always been a dependence of the crown of Saint Stephen. ... About this time some Albigenses came to Bosnia. who converted to their beliefs a large number of the people who were called Catare, in German Patarener. In Bosnia they received and adopted the name of Bogomile, which means 'loving God.' Nothing is more tragic than the history of this heresy. ... They [the Bogomiles] became in Bosnia a chief factor, both of its history and its present situation. ... The Hungarian Kings, in obedience to the Pope, ceaselessly endeavoured to extirpate them, and their frequent wars of extermination provoked the hatred of the Bosnians. ... In 1238 the first great crusade was organized by Bela IV. of Hungary, in obedience to Pope Gregory VII. The whole country was devastated, and the Bogomiles nearly all massacred, except a number who escaped to the forests and mountains. In 1245 the Hungarian Bishop of Kalocsa himself led a second crusade. In 1280 a third crusade was undertaken by Ladislaus IV., King of Hungary, in order to regain the Pope's favour. ... About the year 1300 Paul of Brebir, 'Banus Croatorum et Bosniæ dominus,' finally added Herzegovina to Bosnia. Under the Ban Stephen IV., the Emperor of Servia, the great Dushan, occupied Bosnia, but it soon regained its independence (1355), and under Stephen Tvartko, who took the title of king, the country enjoyed a last period of peace and prosperity. ... {247} Before his death the Turks appeared on the frontiers. At the memorable and decisive battle of Kossovo [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389], which gave them Servia, 30,000 Bosnians were engaged, and, though retreating stopped the conqueror. Under Tvartko II., the second king, who was a Bogomile, Bosnia enjoyed some years' peace (1326-1443). Then followed [see TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451] a bloody interlude of civil war," which invited the Turks and prepared the way for them. "Mohammed II., who had just taken Constantinople (1453), advanced with a formidable army of 150,000 men, which nothing could resist. The country was laid waste: 30,000 young men were circumcised and enrolled amongst the janissaries; 200,000 prisoners were made slaves; the towns which resisted were burned; the churches turned into mosques, and the land confiscated by the conquerors (1463). ... A period of struggle lasted from 1463 till the definite conquest in 1527 [see TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. ... When the battle of Mohacz (August 29, 1526) gave Hungary to the Ottomans [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526] Jaitche, the last rampart of Bosnia, whose defence had inspired acts of legendary courage, fell in its turn in 1527. A strange circumstance facilitated the Mussulman conquest. To save their wealth, the greater number of magnates, and almost all the Bogomiles, who were exasperated by the cruel persecutions directed against them, went over to Islamism. From that time they became the most ardent followers of Mohammedanism, whilst keeping the language and names of their ancestors. They fought everywhere in the forefront of the battles which gained Hungary for the Turks." Within the present century the Bosnian Mussulmans have risen in arms "against all the reforms that Europe, in the name of modern principles, wrested from the Porte."

E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of Servia, &c.

BALKAN: 10th-11th Centuries (Bulgaria). The First Bulgarian Kingdom and its overthrow by Basil II.

"The glory of the Bulgarians was confined to a narrow scope both of time and place. In the 9th and 10th centuries they reigned to the south of the Danube, but the more powerful nations that had followed their emigration repelled all return to the north and all progress to the west. ... In the beginning of the 11th century, the Second Basil [Byzantine or Greek Emperor, A. D. 976-1025] who was born in the purple, deserved the appellation of conqueror of the Bulgarians [subdued by his predecessor, John Zimisces, but still rebellious]. His avarice was in some measure gratified by a treasure of 400,000 pounds sterling (10,000 pounds' weight of gold) which he found in the palace of Lychnidus. His cruelty inflicted a cool and exquisite vengeance on 15,000 captives who had been guilty of the defence of their country. They were deprived of sight, but to one of each hundred a single eye was left, that he might conduct his blind century to the presence of their king. Their king is said to have expired of grief and horror; the nation was awed by this terrible example; the Bulgarians were swept away from their settlements, and circumscribed within a narrow province; the surviving chiefs bequeathed to their children the advice of patience and the duty of revenge."

E. Gibbon, Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 55. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN: _G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1007, book 2, chapter 2._

See, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043, and ACHRIDA, THE KINGDOM OF.

BALKAN: A. D. 1096 (Bulgaria). Hostilities with the First Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

BALKAN: 12th Century (Bulgaria). The Second Bulgarian or Wallachian Kingdom.

"The reign of Isaac II. [Byzantine or Greek Emperor, A. D. 1185-1195] is filled with a series of revolts, caused by his incapable administration and financial rapacity. The most important of these was the great rebellion of the Vallachian and Bulgarian population which occupied the country between Mount Hæmus and the Danube. The immense population of this extensive country now separated itself finally from the government of the Eastern Empire, and its political destinies ceased to be united with those of the Greeks. A new European monarchy, called the Vallachian, or Second Bulgarian kingdom, was formed, which for some time acted an important part in the affairs of the Byzantine Empire, and contributed powerfully to the depression of the Greek race. The sudden importance assumed by the Vallachian population in this revolution, and the great extent of country then occupied by a people who had previously acted no prominent part in the political events of the East, render it necessary to give some account of their previous history. Four different countries are spoken of under the name of Vallachia by the Byzantine writers: Great Vallachia, which was the country round the plain of Thessaly, particularly the southern and south-western part. White Vallachia, or the modern Bulgaria, which formed the Vallachio-Bulgarian kingdom that revolted from Isaac II.; Black Vallachia, Mavro-Vallachia, or Karabogdon, which is Moldavia; and Hungarovallachia, or the Vallachia of the present day, comprising a part of Transylvania. ... The question remains undecided whether these Vallachians are the lineal descendants of the Thracian race, who, Strabo tells us, extended as far south as Thessaly, and as far north as to the borders of Pannonia; for of the Thracian language we know nothing."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 1.

"Whether they were of Slavic origin or of Gaelic or Welsh origin, whether they were the aboriginal inhabitants of the country who had come under the influence of the elder Rome, and had acquired so many Latin words as to overlay their language and to retain little more than the grammatical forms and mould of their own language, or whether they were the descendants of the Latin colonists of Dacia [see DACIA: TRAJAN'S CONQUEST] with a large mixture of other peoples, are all questions which have been much controverted. It is remarkable that while no people living on the south of the Balkans appear to be mentioned as Wallachs until the tenth century, when Anna Comnena mentions a village called Ezeban, near Mount Kissavo, occupied by them, almost suddenly we hear of them as a great nation to the south of the Balkans. They spoke a language which differed little from Latin. Thessaly, during the twelfth century is usually called Great Wallachia. ... Besides the Wallachs in Thessaly, whose descendants are now called Kutzo-Wallachs, there were the Wallachs in Dacia, the ancestors of the present Roumanians, and Mavro-Wallachs in Dalmatia. Indeed, according to the Hungarian and Byzantine writers, there were during the twelfth century a series of Wallachian peoples, extending from the Theiss to the Dniester. ... The word Wallach is used by the Byzantine writers as equivalent to shepherd, and it may be that the common use of a dialect of Latin by all the Wallachs is the only bond of union among the peoples bearing that name. They were all occasionally spoken of by the Byzantine writers as descendants of the Romans."

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 3.

{248}

"The classical type of feature, so often met with among Roumanian peasants, pleads strongly for the theory of Roman extraction, and if just now I compared the Saxon peasants to Noah's ark figures rudely carved out of the coarsest wood, the Roumanians as often remind me of a type of face chiefly to be seen on cameo ornaments, or ancient signet rings. Take at random a score of individuals from any Roumanian village, and, like a handful of antique gems which have been strewn broadcast over the land, you will there surely find a good choice of classical profiles worthy to be immortalized on agate, onyx, or jasper. An air of plaintive melancholy generally characterizes the Roumanian peasant: it is the melancholy of a long-subjected and oppressed race. ... Perhaps no other race possesses in such marked degree the blind and immovable sense of nationality which characterizes the Roumanians. They hardly ever mingle with the surrounding races, far less adopt manners and customs foreign to their own. This singular tenacity of the Roumanians to their own dress, manners and customs is probably due to the influence of their religion [the Greek church], which teaches that any divergence from their own established rules is sinful."

_E. Gérard, Transylvanian Peoples (Contemporary Review, March, 1887)._

BALKAN: A. D. 1341-1356 (Servia). The Empire of Stephan Dushan.

"In 1341, when John Cantacuzenus assumed the purple [at Constantinople], important prospects were opened to the Servians. Cantacuzenus ... went up the mountains and prevailed upon Stephan Dushan, the powerful king of the Servians, whom he found in a country palace at Pristina, to join his cause." As the result of this connection, and by favor of the opportunities which the civil war and general decline in the Greek Empire afforded him, Stephan Dushan extended his dominions over Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, and a part of Thrace. "The Shkypetares in Albania followed his standard; Arta and Joannina were in his possession. From these points his Voivodes [Palatines], whose districts may easily be traced, spread themselves over the whole of the Roumelian territory on the Vardar and the Marizza, as far as Bulgaria, which he also regarded as a province of his kingdom. Being in the possession of so extensive a dominion, he now ventured to assume a title which was still in dispute between the Eastern and Western Empires, and could not rightly be claimed by either. As a Servian Krale, he could neither ask nor expect the obedience of the Greeks: therefore he called himself Emperor of the Roumelians--the Macedonian Christ-loving Czar--and began to wear the tiara. ... Stephan Dushan died [Dec. 2, 1356] before he had completed the Empire of which he had laid the foundation, and ere he had strengthened his power by the bulwark of national institutions."

L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 1-2.

ALSO IN: M'me E. L. Mijatovich, Kossovo, Int.

BALKAN: A. D. 1389 (Bulgaria). Conquest by the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

BALKAN: 14th Century (Bulgaria). Subjection to Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

BALKAN: 14th-18th Centuries (Roumania, or Wallachia, and Moldavia). Four Centuries of Conflict with Hungarians and Turks.

"The Wallacho-Bulgarian monarchy, whatever may have been its limits, was annihilated by a horde of Tartars about A. D. 1250. The same race committed great havoc in Hungary, conquered the Kumani, overran Moldavia, Transylvania, &c., and held their ground there until about the middle of the 14th century, when they were driven northward by the Hungarian, Saxon, and other settlers in Transylvania; and with their exit we have done with the barbarians. ... Until recently the historians of Roumania have had little to guide them concerning the events of the period beyond traditions which, though very interesting, are now gradually giving place to recorded and authenticated facts. .... It is admitted that the plains and slopes of the Carpathians were inhabited by communities ruled over by chieftains of varying power and influence. Some were banates, as that of Craiova, which long remained a semi-independent State; then there were petty voivodes or princes . ... and besides these there were Khanates, ... some of which were petty principalities, whilst others were merely the governorships of villages or groups of them. ... Mircea, one of the heroes of Roumanian history, not only secured the independent sovereignty, and called himself Voivode of Wallachia 'by the grace of God,' but in 1389 he formed an alliance with Poland, and assumed other titles by the right of conquest. This alliance ... had for its objects the extension of his dominions, as well as protection against Hungary on the one hand, and the Ottoman power on the other; for the ... Turkish armies had overrun Bulgaria, and about the year 1391 they first made their appearance north of the Danube. At first the bravery of Mircea was successful in stemming the tide of invasion;" but after a year or two, "finding himself between two powerful enemies, the King of Hungary and the Sultan, Mircea elected to form an alliance with the latter, and concluded a treaty with him at Nicopolis (1393), known as the First Capitulation, by which Wallachia retained its autonomy, but agreed to pay an annual tribute and to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan. ... According to several historians Mircea did not adhere to it long, for he is said to have been in command of a contingent in the army of the crusaders, and to have been present at the battle of Nicopolis (1396), in which the flower of the French nobility fell, and, when he found their cause to be hopeless, once more to have deserted them and joined the victorious arms of Bajazet. Of the continued wars and dissensions in Wallachia during the reign of Mircea it is unnecessary to speak. He ruled with varying fortunes until 1418 A. D." A Second Capitulation was concluded, at Adrianople, with the Turks, in 1460, by a later Wallachian voivode, named Vlad. {249} It increased the tribute to the Porte, but made no other important change in the terms of suzerainty. Meantime, in the neighbouring Moldavian principality, events were beginning to shape themselves into some historical distinctness. "For a century after the foundation of Moldavia, or, as it was at first called, Bogdania, by Bogdan Dragosch [a legendary hero], the history of the country is shrouded in darkness. Kings or princes are named, one or more of whom were Lithuanians. ... At length a prince more powerful than the rest ascended the throne. ... This was Stephen, sometimes called the 'Great' or 'Good.' ... He came to the throne about 1456 or 1458, and reigned until 1504, and his whole life was spent in wars against Transylvania, Wallachia, ... the Turks, and Tartars. ... In 1475 he was at war with the Turks, whom he defeated on the river Birlad. ... In that year also Stephen ... completely overran Wallachia. Having reduced it to submission, he placed a native boyard on the throne as his viceroy, who showed his gratitude to Stephen by rebelling and liberating the country from his rule; but he was in his turn murdered by his Wallachian subjects. In 1476 Stephen sustained a terrible defeat at the hands of the Ottomans at Valea Alba (the White Valley), but eight years afterwards, allied with the Poles, he again encountered [and defeated] this terrible enemy. ... After the battle of Mohacs [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526] the Turks began to encroach more openly upon Roumanian (Moldo-Wallachian) territory. They occupied and fortified Braila, Giurgevo, and Galatz; interfered in the election of the princes ... adding to their own influence, and rendering the princes more and more subservient to their will. This state of things lasted until the end of the 16th century, when another hero, Michael the Brave of Wallachia, restored tranquility and independence to the Principalities, and raised them for a season in the esteem of surrounding nations." Michael, who mounted the throne in 1593, formed an alliance with the Prince of Siebenbürgen (Transylvania) and the voivode of Moldavia, against the Turks. He began his warfare, November, 1591, by a wholesale massacre of the Turks in Bucharest and Jassy. He then took Giurgevo by storm and defeated the Ottoman forces in a battle at Rustchuk. In 1595, Giurgevo was the scene of two bloody battles, in both of which Michael came off victor, with famous laurels. The Turks were effectually driven from the country. The ambition of the victorious Michael was now excited, and he invaded Transylvania (1599) desiring to add it to his dominions. In a battle "which is called by some the battle of Schellenberg, and by others of Hermanstadt," he defeated the reigning prince, Cardinal Andreas, and Transylvania was at his feet. He subdued Moldavia with equal ease, and the whole of ancient Dacia became subject to his rule. The Emperor Rudolph, as suzerain of Transylvania, recognized his authority. But his reign was brief. Before the close of the year 1600 a rising occurred in Transylvania, and Michael was defeated in a battle fought at Miriszlo. He escaped to the mountains and became a fugitive for some months, while even his Wallachian throne was occupied by a brother of the Moldavian voivode. At length he made terms with the Emperor Rudolph, whose authority had been slighted by the Transylvanian insurgents, and procured men and money with which he returned in force, crushed his opponents at Goroszlo, and reigned again as viceroy. But he quarreled soon with the commander of the imperial troops, General Basta, and the latter caused him to be assassinated, some time in August, 1601. ... The History of Moldo-Wallachia during the 17th century ... possesses little interest for English readers." At the end of the 17th century "another great Power [Russia] was drawing nearer and nearer to Roumania, which was eventually to exercise a grave influence upon her destiny. ... In the beginning of the 18th century there ruled two voivodes, Constantine Brancovano, in Wallachia, and Demetrius Cantemir in Moldavia, both of whom had been appointed in the usual manner under the suzerainty of the Porte; but these princes, independently of each other, had entered into negotiations with Peter the Great after the defeat of Charles XII. at Pultawa (1709), to assist them against the Sultan, their suzerain, stipulating for their own independence under the protection of the Czar." Peter was induced to enter the country with a considerable army [1711], but soon found himself in a position from which there appeared little chance of escape. He was extricated only by the cleverness of the Czarina, who bribed the Turkish commander with her jewels.

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

The Moldavian Voivode escaped with the Russians. The Wallachian, Brancovano, was seized, taken to Constantinople, and put to death, along with his four sons. "Stephen Cantacuzene, the son of his accusers, was made Voivode of Wallachia, but like his predecessors he only enjoyed the honour for a brief term, and two years afterwards he was deposed, ordered to Constantinople, imprisoned, and decapitated; and with him terminated the rule of the native princes, who were followed, both in Wallachia and Moldavia, by the so-called Phanariote governors [see PHANARIOTES] or farmers-general of the Porte."

J. Samuelson, Roumania, Past and Present, part 2, chapter 11-13.

BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries: (Montenegro) The new Servia.

"The people that inhabit the two territories known on the map as Servia and Montenegro are one and the same. If you ask a Montenegrin what language he speaks, he replies 'Serb.' The last of the Serb Czars fell gloriously fighting at Kossovo in 1389 [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389]. To this day the Montenegrin wears a strip of black silk upon his headgear in memory of that fatal day. ... The brave Serbs who escaped from Kossovo found a sanctuary in the mountains that overlook the Bay of Cattaro. Their leader, Ivo, surnamed Tsernoi (Black), gave the name of Tzrnogora (Montenegro) to these desert rocks. ... Servia having become a Turkish province, her colonists created in Montenegro a new and independent Servia [see TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. The memory of Ivo the Black is still green in the country. Springs, ruins, and caverns are called after him, and the people look forward to the day when he will reappear as a political Messiah. But Ivo's descendants proved unworthy of him; they committed the unpardonable sin of marrying aliens, and early in the 16th century the last descendant of Ivo the Black retired to Venice. {250} From 1516 to 1697 Montenegro was ruled by elective Vladikas or Bishops; from 1697 to 1851 by hereditary Vladikas. For the Montenegrins the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries formed a period of incessant warfare. ... Up till 1703 the Serbs of the mountain were no more absolutely independent of the Sultan than their enslaved kinsmen of the plain. The Havatch or Sultan's slipper tax was levied on the mountaineers. In 1703 Danilo Petrovitch celebrated his consecration as a Christian Bishop by ordering the slaughter of every Mussulman who refused to be baptised. This massacre took place on Christmas Eve 1703. ... The 17th and 18th centuries were for Montenegro a struggle for existence. In the 19th century began their struggle for an outlet to the sea. The fall of Venice would naturally have given the mountaineers the bay of Cattaro, had not the French stepped in and annexed Dalmatia." In 1813, the Vladika, Peter I., "with the aid of the British fleet ... took Cattaro from the French, but (pursuant to an arrangement between Russia and Austria) was compelled subsequently to relinquish it to the latter power. ... Peter I. of Montenegro ... died in 1830, at the age of 80. ... His nephew Peter II. was a wise ruler. ... On the death of Peter II., Prince Danilo, the uncle of the present Prince, went to Russia to be consecrated Bishop of Montenegro. The czar seems to have laughed him out of this ancient practice; and the late Prince instead of converting himself into monk and bishop returned to his own country and married [1851]. ... Prince Danilo was assassinated at Cattaro (1860). ... He was succeeded by his nephew Nicholas."

J. G. C. Minchin, Servia and Montenegro (National Life and Thought, lecture 19).

"The present form of government in Montenegro is at once the most despotic and the most popular in Europe--despotic, because the will of the Prince is the law of the land; and popular, because the personal rule of the Prince meets all the wants and wishes of the people. No Sovereign in Europe sits so firmly on his throne as the Prince of this little State, and no Sovereign is so absolute. The Montenegrins have no army; they are themselves a standing army."

J. G. C. Minchin, The Growth of Freedom in the Balkan Peninsula, chapter 1.

A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic, book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, &c.: Slave Provinces of Turkey, chapter 2-6.

"Montenegro is an extremely curious instance of the way in which favourable geographical conditions may aid a small people to achieve a fame and a place in the world quite out of proportion to their numbers. The Black Mountain is the one place where a South Sclavonic community maintained themselves in independence, sometimes seeing their territory overrun by the Turks, but never acknowledging Turkish authority de jure from the time of the Turkish Conquest of the 15th century down to the Treaty of Berlin. Montenegro could not have done that but for her geographical structure. She is a high mass of limestone; you cannot call it a plateau, because it is seamed by many valleys, and rises into many sharp mountain-peaks. Still, it is a mountain mass, the average height of which is rather more than 2,000 feet above the sea, with summits reaching 5,000. It is bare limestone, so that there is hardly anything grown on it, only grass--and very good grass--in spots, with little patches of corn and potatoes, and it has scarcely any water. Its upland is covered with snow in winter, while in summer the invaders have to carry their water with them, a serious difficulty when there were no roads, and active mountaineers fired from behind every rock, a difficulty which becomes more serious the larger the invading force. Consequently it is one of the most impracticable regions imaginable for an invading army. It is owing to those circumstances that this handful of people--because the Montenegrins of the 17th century did not number more than 40,000 or 50,000--have maintained their independence. That they did maintain it is a fact most important in the history of the Balkan Peninsula, and may have great consequences yet to come."

_J. Bryce, Relations of History and Geography (Contemporary Review, March, 1886)._

BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries.--(Servia): The long oppression of the Turk. Struggle for freedom under Kara Georg and Milosch. Independence achieved. The Obrenovitch dynasty.

"The brilliant victories of Stephan Dushan were a misfortune to Christendom. They shattered the Greek empire, the last feeble bulwark of Europe, and paved the way for those ultimate successes of the Asiatic conquerors which a timely union of strength might have prevented. Stephan Dushan conquered, but did not consolidate: and his scourging wars were insufficiently balanced by the advantage of the code of laws to which he gave his·name. His son Urosh, being a weak and incapable prince, was murdered by one of the generals of the army, and thus ended the Neman dynasty, after having subsisted 212 years, and produced eight kings and two emperors. The crown now devolved on Knes, or Prince Lasar; a connexion of the house of Neman. ... Of all the ancient rulers of the country, his memory is held the dearest by the Servians of the present day." Knes Lasar perished in the fatal battle of Kossovo, and with him fell the Servian monarchy.

See TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389, 1402-1451, and 1459; also MONTENEGRO.

"The Turkish conquest was followed by the gradual dispersion or disappearance of the native nobility of Servia, the last of whom, the Brankovitch, lived as despots' in the castle of Semendria up to the beginning of the 18th century. ... The period preceding the second siege of Vienna was the spring-tide of Islam conquest. After this event, in 1684, began the ebb. Hungary was lost to the Porte, and six years afterwards 37,000 Servian families emigrated into that kingdom; this first led the way to contact with the civilization of Germany. ... Servia Proper, for a short time wrested from the Porte by the victories of Prince Eugene, again became a part of the dominions of the Sultan."

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1739.

{251}

"But a turbulent militia overawed the government and tyrannized over the Rayahs. Pasvan Oglou and his bands at Widdin were, at the end of the last century, in open revolt against the Porte. Other chiefs had followed his example; and for the first time the Divan thought of associating Christian Rayahs with the spahis, to put down these rebels. The Dahis, as these brigand-chiefs were called, resolved to anticipate the approaching struggle by a massacre of the most influential Christians. This atrocious massacre was carried out with indescribable horrors. ... Kara Georg [Black George], a peasant, born at Topola about the year 1767, getting timely information that his name was in the list of the doomed, fled into the woods, and gradually organized a formidable force. In the name of the Porte he combated the Dahis, who had usurped local authority in defiance of the Pasha of Belgrade. The Divan, little anticipating the ultimate issue of the struggle in Servia, was at first delighted at the success of Kara Georg; but soon saw with consternation that the rising of the Servian peasants grew into a formidable rebellion, and ordered the Pashas of Bosnia and Scodra to assemble all their disposable forces and invade Servia. Between 40,000 and 50,000 Bosniacs burst into Servia on the west, in the spring of 1806, cutting to pieces all who refused to receive Turkish authority. Kara Georg undauntedly met the storm," defeating the Turkish forces near Tchoupria, September, 1804, and more severely two years later (August, 1806) at Shabatz. In December of the same year he surprised and took Belgrade. "The succeeding years were passed in the vicissitudes of a guerilla warfare, neither party obtaining any marked success; and an auxiliary corps of Russians assisted in preventing the Turks from making the re-conquest of Servia. ... Kara Georg was now a Russian lieutenant-general, and exercised an almost unlimited power in Servia; the revolution, after a struggle of eight years, appeared to be successful, but the momentous events then passing in Europe completely altered the aspect of affairs. Russia, in 1812, on the approach of the countless legions of Napoleon, precipitately concluded the treaty of Bucharest, the eighth article of which formally assured a separate administration to the Servians. Next year, however, was fatal to Kara Georg. In 1813, the vigour of the Ottoman empire ... was now concentrated on the resubjugation of Servia. A general panic seemed to seize the nation; and Kara Georg and his companions in arms sought a retreat on the Austrian territory, and thence passed into Wallachia. In 1814, 300 Christians were impaled at Belgrade by the Pasha, and every valley in Servia presented the spectacle of infuriated Turkish spahis avenging on the Servians the blood, exile and confiscation of the ten preceding years. At this period, Milosh Obrenovitch appears prominently on the political tapis. He spent his youth in herding the famed swine of Servia; and during the revolution was employed by Kara Georg to watch the passes of the Balkans. ... He now saw that a favourable conjuncture had come for his advancement from the position of chieftain to that of chief; he therefore lost no time in making terms with the Turks, offering to collect the tribute, to serve them faithfully, and to aid them in the resubjugation of the people. ... He now displayed singular activity in the extirpation of all the other popular chiefs," until he found reason to suspect that the Turks were only using him to destroy him in the end. Then, in 1815, he turned upon them and raised the standard of revolt. The movement which he headed was so formidable that the Porte made haste to treat, and Milosch made favourable terms for himself, being reinstated as tribute-collector. "Many of the chiefs, impatient at the speedy submission of Milosh, wished to fight the matter out, and Kara Georg, in order to give effect to their plans, landed in Servia. Milosh pretended to be friendly to his designs, but secretly betrayed his place of concealment to the governor, whose men broke into the cottage where he slept, and put him to death."

A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic, book 1, chapter 3.

"In 1817 Milosch was proclaimed hereditary Prince of Servia by the National Assembly. ... In 1830 the autonomy of Servia was at length solemnly recognized by the Porte, and Milosch proclaimed 'the father of the Fatherland.' ... If asked why the descendants of Milosch still rule over Servia, and not the descendants of Kara George, my answer is that every step in Servian progress is connected with the Obrenovitch dynasty. The liberation of the country, the creation of a peasant proprietary, the final withdrawal of the Turkish troops from Belgrade in 1862, the independence of the country, the extension of its territory, and the making of its railways,--all of these are among the results of Obrenovitch rule. The founder of the dynasty had in 1830 a great opportunity of making his people free as well as independent. But Milosch had lived too long with Turks to be a lover of freedom. ... In 1839 Milosch abdicated. The reason for this step was that he refused to accept a constitution which Russia and Turkey concocted for him. This charter vested the actual government of the country in a Senate composed of Milosch's rivals, and entirely independent of that Prince. ... It was anti-democratic, no less than anti-dynastic. Milosch was succeeded first by his son Milan, and on Milan's death by Michael. Michael was too gentle for the troubled times in which he lived, and after a two years's reign he too started upon his travels. ... When Michael crossed the Save, Alexander Kara Georgevitch was elected Prince of Servia. From 1842 to 1858 the son of Black George lived--he can scarcely be said to have reigned--in Belgrade. During these 17 years this feeble son of a strong man did absolutely nothing for his country. ... Late in 1858 he fled from Servia, and Milosch ruled in his stead. Milosch is the Grand Old Man of Serb history. His mere presence in Servia checked the intrigues of foreign powers. He died peacefully in his bed. ... Michael succeeded his father. ... Prince Michael was murdered by convicts in the park at Topschidera near Belgrade." He "was succeeded (1868) by Milan, the grandson of Zephrem, the brother of Milosch. As Milan was barely fourteen years of age, a Regency of three was appointed."

J. G. C. Minchin, Servia and Montenegro (National Life and Thought, lecture 19).

ALSO IN: E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 6.

BALKAN: A. D. 1718 (Bosnia). A part ceded to Austria by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

BALKAN: A. D. 1739 (Bosnia and Roumania). Entire restoration of Bosnia to the Turks, and Cession of Austrian Wallachia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

{252}

BALKAN: 19th Century (Roumania and Servia). Awakening of a National Spirit. The effect of historical teaching.

"No political fact is of more importance and interest in modern continental history than the tenacity with which the smaller nations of Europe preserve their pride of nationality in the face of the growing tendency towards the formation of large, strongly concentrated empires, supported by powerful armies. Why should Portugal utterly refuse to unite with Spain? Why do Holland and Belgium cling to their existence as separate States, in spite of all the efforts of statesmen to join them? Why do the people of Bohemia and Croatia, of Finland, and of Poland, refuse to coalesce with the rest of the population of the empires of which they form but small sections? Why, finally, do the new kingdoms of Roumania and Servia show such astonishing vitality? The arguments as to distinctive race or' distinctive language fail to answer all these questions. ... This rekindling of the national spirit is the result chiefly of the development of the new historical school all over the Continent. Instead of remaining in ignorance of their past history, or, at best, regarding a mass of legends as containing the true tale of their countries' achievements, these small nations have now learnt from the works of their great historians what the story of their fatherlands really is, and what title they have to be proud of their ancestors. These great historians--Herculano, Palacky, Széchenyi, and the rest--who made it their aim to tell the truth and not to show off the beauties of a fine literary style, all belonged to the generation which had its interest aroused in the history of the past by the novels of Sir Walter Scott and the productions of the Romantic School, and they all learnt how history was to be studied, and then written, from Niebuhr, Von Ranke and their disciples and followers. From these masters they learnt that their histories were not to be made interesting at the expense of truth. ... The vitality of the new historical school in Roumania is particularly remarkable, for in the Danubian provinces, which form that kingdom, even more strenuous efforts had been made to stamp out the national spirit than in Bohemia. The extraordinary rapidity with which the Roumanian people has reasserted itself in recent years, is one of the most remarkable facts in modern European history, and it is largely due to the labours of its historians. Up till 1822 the Roumanian language was vigorously proscribed; the rulers of the Danubian provinces permitted instruction to the upper classes in the language of the rulers only, and while Slavonic, and in the days of the Phanariots Greek, was the official and fashionable language, used in educating the nobility and bourgeois, the peasants were left in ignorance. Four men, whose names deserve record, first endeavoured to raise the Roumanian language to a literary level, and not only studied Roumanian history, but tried to teach the Roumanian people something of their own early history. Of these four, George Schinkaï was by far the most remarkable. He was an inhabitant of Transylvania, a Roumanian province which still remains subject to Hungary, and he first thought of trying to revive the Roumanian nationality by teaching the people their history. He arranged the annals of his country from A. D. 86 to A. D. 1739 with indefatigable labour, during the last half of the 18th century, and, according to Edgar Quinet, in such a truly modern manner, after such careful weighing of original authorities, and with such critical power, that he deserves to be ranked with the creators of the modern historical school. It need hardly be said that Schinkaï's History was not allowed to be printed by the Hungarian authorities, who had no desire to see the Roumanian nationality re-assert itself, and the censor marked on it 'opus igne, auctor patibulo dignus.' It was not published until 1853, more than forty years after its completion, and then only at Jassy, for the Hungarians still proscribed it in Transylvania. Schinkaï's friend, Peter Major, was more fortunate in his work, a 'History of the Origin of the Roumanians in Dacia,' which, as it did not touch on modern society, was passed by the Hungarian censorship, and printed at Buda Pesth in 1813. The two men who first taught Roumanian history in the provinces which now form the kingdom of Roumania were not such learned men as Schinkaï and Peter Major, but their work was of more practical importance. In 1813 George Asaky got leave to open a Roumanian class at the Greek Academy of Jassy, under the pretext that it was necessary to teach surveying in the Roumanian tongue, because of the questions which constantly arose in that profession, in which it would be necessary to speak to the peasants in their own language, and in his lectures he carefully inserted lessons in Roumanian history, and tried to arouse the spirit of the people. George Lazarus imitated him at Bucharest in 1816, and the fruit of this instruction was seen when the Roumanians partially regained their freedom. The Moldo-Wallachian princes encouraged the teaching of Roumanian history, as they encouraged the growth of the spirit of Roumanian independence, and when the Roumanian Academy was founded, an historical section was formed with the special mission of studying and publishing documents connected with Roumanian history. The modern scientific spirit has spread widely throughout the kingdom."

H. Morse Stephens, Modern Historians and Small Nationalities (Contemporary Review, July, 1887).

BALKAN: A. D. 1829 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia). Important provisions of the Treaty of Adrianople. Life Election of the Hospodars. Substantial independence of the Turk.

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

BALKAN: A. D. 1856 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia). Privileges guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

BALKAN: A. D. 1858-1866. (Roumania or Wallachia and Moldavia). Union of the two provinces under one Crown. Accession of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern.

See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

{253}

BALKAN: A. D. 1875-1878. The Breaking of the Turkish yoke. Bulgarian atrocities. Russo-Turkish War.

In 1875, a revolt broke out in Herzegovina. "The efforts made to suppress the growing revolt strained the already weakened resources of the Porte, until they could bear up against it no longer, and the Herzegovinese rebellion proved the last straw which broke the back of Turkish solvency. ... The hopes of the insurgents were of course quickened by this catastrophe, which, as they saw, would alienate much sympathy from the Turks. The advisers of the Sultan, therefore, thought it necessary to be conciliatory, and ... they induced him to issue an Iradé, or circular note, promising the remission of taxes, and economical and social reforms. ... Europe, however, had grown tired of the Porte's promises of amendment, and for some time the Imperial Powers had been laying their heads together, and the result of their consultations was the Andrassy Note. The date of this document was December 30th, 1875, and it was sent to those of the Western Powers who had signed the treaties of 1856. It declared that although the spirit of the suggested reforms was good, there was some doubt whether the Porte had the strength to carry them out; Count Andrassy, therefore, proposed that the execution of the necessary measures should be placed under the care of a special commission, half the members of which should be Mussulmans and half Christians. ... It concluded with a serious warning, that if the war was not gone with the snow, 'the Governments of Servia and Montenegro, which have had great difficulty in keeping aloof from the movement, will be unable to resist the current.' ... It was evident, however, that this note would have but little or no effect; it contained no coercive precautions, and accordingly the Porte quietly allowed the question to drop, and contented himself with profuse promises. ... So affairs drifted on; the little war continued to sputter on the frontier; reinforced by Servians and Montenegrins, the Herzegovinese succeeded in keeping their enemy at bay, and, instigated, it is said, by Russian emissaries, put forward demands which the Porte was unable to accept. ... The Powers, in no wise disconcerted by the failure of their first attempt to settle the difficulties between the Sultan and his rebellious subjects, had published a sequel to the Andrassy Note. There was an informal conference of the three Imperial Chancellors, Prince Bismarck, Prince Gortschakoff, and Count Andrassy, at Berlin, in May. ... Then on May 18th the Ambassadors of England, France, and Italy were invited to Prince Bismarck's house, and the text of the famous Berlin Memorandum was laid before them. ... While the three Chancellors were forging their diplomatic thunderbolt, a catastrophe of such a terrible nature had occurred in the interior of Turkey that all talk of armistices and mixed commissions had become stale and unprofitable. The Berlin Memorandum was not even presented to the Porte; for a rumour, though carefully suppressed by Turkish officials, was beginning to leak out that there had been an insurrection of the Christian population of Bulgaria, and that the most horrible atrocities had been committed by the Turkish irregular troops in its suppression. It was communicated to Lord Derby by Sir Henry Elliot on the 4th of May. ... On June 16th a letter was received from him at the Foreign Office, saying, 'The Bulgarian insurrection appears to be unquestionably put down, although I regret to say, with cruelty, and, in some places, with brutality.' ... A week afterwards the Constantinople correspondent of the Daily News ... gave the estimates of Bulgarians slain as varying from 18,000 to 30,000, and the number of villages destroyed at about a hundred. ... That there was much truth in the statements of the newspaper correspondents was ... demonstrated beyond possibility of denial as soon as Sir Henry Elliot's despatches were made public. ... 'I am satisfied,' wrote Sir Henry Elliot, 'that, while great atrocities have been committed, both by Turks upon Christians and Christians upon Turks, the former have been by far the greatest, although the Christians were undoubtedly the first to commence them.' ... Meanwhile, the Daily News had resolved on sending out a special commissioner to make an investigation independent of official reports. Mr. J. A. MacGahan, an American, who had been one of that journal's correspondents during the Franco-German War, was the person selected. He started in company with Mr. Eugene Schuyler, the great authority on the Central Asian question, who, in the capacity of Consul-General, was about to prepare a similar statement for the Honorable Horace Maynard, the United States Minister at Constantinople. They arrived at Philippopolis on the 25th of July; where Mr. Walter Baring, one of the Secretaries of the British Legation at Constantinople, was already engaged in collecting information. The first of Mr. MacGahan's letters was dated July the 28th, and its publication in this country revived in a moment the half-extinct excitement of the populace. ... Perhaps the passage which was most frequently in men's mouths at the time was that in which he described the appearance of the mountain village of Batak. 'We entered the town. On every side were skulls and skeletons charred among the ruins, or lying entire where they fell in their clothing. There were skeletons of girls and women, with long brown hair hanging to their skulls. We approached the church. There these remains were more frequent, until the ground was literally covered by skeletons, skulls, and putrefying bodies in clothing. Between the church and school there were heaps. The stench was fearful. We entered the churchyard. The sight was more dreadful. The whole churchyard, for three feet deep, was festering with dead bodies, partly covered; hands, legs, arms, and heads projecting in ghastly confusion. I saw many little hands, heads, and feet of children three years of age, and girls with heads covered with beautiful hair. The church was still worse. The floor was covered with rotting bodies quite uncovered. I never imagined anything so fearful. ... The town had 9,000 inhabitants. There now remain 1,200. Many who had escaped had returned recently, weeping and moaning over their ruined homes. Their sorrowful wailing could be heard half a mile off. Some were digging out the skeletons of loved ones. A woman was sitting moaning over three small skulls, with hair clinging to them, which she had in her lap. The man who did this, Achmed Agra, has been promoted, and is still governor of the district.' An exceeding bitter cry of horror and disgust arose throughout the country on the receipt of this terrible news. Mr. Anderson at once asked for information on the subject, and Mr. Bourke was entrusted with the difficult duty of replying. He could only read a letter from Mr. Baring, in which he said that, as far as he had been able to discover, the proportion of the numbers of the slain was about 12,000 Bulgarians to 500 Turks, and that 60 villages had been wholly or partially burnt. ... Mr. Schuyler's opinions were, as might be expected from the circumstance that his investigations had been shorter than those of Mr. Baring, and that he was ignorant of the Turkish language--which is that chiefly spoken in Bulgaria--and was therefore at the mercy of his interpreter, the more highly coloured. He totally rejected Lord Beaconsfield's idea that there had been a civil war, and that cruelties had been committed on both sides. On the contrary he asserted that 'the insurgent villages made little or no resistance. {254} In many cases they surrendered their arms on the first demand. ... No Turkish women or children were killed in cold blood. No Mussulman women were, violated. No Mussulmans were tortured. No purely Turkish village was attacked or burnt. No Mosque was desecrated or destroyed. The Bashi-Bazouks, on the other hand, had burnt about 65 villages, and killed at least 15,000 Bulgarians.' The terrible story of the destruction of Batak was told in language of precisely similar import to that of Mr. MacGahan, whose narrative the American Consul had never seen, though there was a slight difference in the numbers of the massacred. 'Of the 8,000 inhabitants,' he said, 'not 2,000 are known to survive'. ... Abdul Aziz had let loose the hordes of Bashi-Bazouks on defenceless Bulgaria, but Murad seemed utterly unable to rectify the fatal error; the province fell into a state of complete anarchy. ... As Lord Derby remarked, it was impossible to effect much with an imbecile monarch and bankrupt treasury. One thing, at any rate, the Turks were strong enough to do, and that was to defeat the Servians, who declared war on Turkey on July 1st. ... Up to the last Prince Milan declared that his intentions were purely pacific; but the increasing troubles of the Porte enabled him, with some small chance of success, to avail himself of the anti-Turkish spirit of his people and to declare war. His example was followed by Prince Nikita of Montenegro, who set out with his brave little army from Cettigne on July 2nd. At first if appeared as if the principalities would have the better of the struggle. The Turkish generals showed their usual dilatoriness in attacking Servia, and Tchernaieff, who was a man of considerable military talent, gave them the good-bye, and cut them off from their base of operations. This success was, however, transitory; Abdul Kerim, the Turkish Commander-in·Chief, drove back the enemy by mere force of numbers, and by the end of the month he was over the border. Meanwhile, the hardy Montenegrins had been considerably more fortunate; but their victories over Mukhtar Pasha were not sufficiently important to effect a diversion. The Servians fell back from all their positions of defence, and on September 1st received a most disastrous beating before the walls of Alexinatz. ... On September 16th the Porte agreed to a suspension of hostilities until the 25th. It must be acknowledged that the Servians used this period of grace exceedingly ill. Prince Milan was proclaimed by General Tchernaieff, in his absence and against his will, King of Servia and Bosnia; and though, on the remonstrance of the Powers, he readily consented to waive the obnoxious title, the evil effect of the declaration remained. Lord Derby's proposals for peace, which were made on September 21st, were nevertheless accepted by the Sultan when he saw that unanimity prevailed among the Powers, and he offered in addition to prolong the formal suspension of hostilities to October 2nd. This offer the Servians, relying on the Russian volunteers who were flocking to join Tchernaieff, rejected with some contempt, and hostilities were resumed. They paid dearly for their temerity. Tchernaieff's position before Alexinatz was forced by the Turks after three days' severe fighting; position after position yielded to them; on October 31st Alexinatz was taken, and Deligrad was occupied on November 1st. Nothing remained between the outpost of the crescent and Belgrade, and it seemed as if the new Kingdom of Servia must perish in the throes of its birth." Russia now invoked the intervention of the powers, and brought about a conference at Constantinople, which effected nothing, the Porte rejecting all the proposals submitted. On the 24th of April, 1877, Russia declared war and entered upon a conflict with the Turks, which had for its result the readjustment of affairs in South-eastern Europe by the Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

Cassell's Illustrated History of England, volume 10, chapter 22-23.

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.

BALKAN: A. D. 1878. Treaty of Berlin. Transfer of Bosnia to Austria. Independence of Servia, Montenegro and Roumania. Division and semi-independence of Bulgaria.

"(1) Bosnia, including Herzegovina, was assigned to Austria for permanent occupation. Thus Turkey lost a great province of nearly 1,250,000 inhabitants. Of these about 500,000 were Christians of the Greek Church, 450,000 were Mohammedans, mainly in the towns, who offered a stout resistance to the Austrian troops, and 200,000 Roman Catholics. By the occupation of the Novi-Bazar district Austria wedged in her forces between Montenegro and Servia, and was also able to keep watch over the turbulent province of Macedonia. (2) Montenegro received less than the San Stefano terms had promised her, but secured the seaports of Antivari and Dulcigno. It needed a demonstration of the European fleets off the latter port, and a threat to seize Smyrna, to make the Turks yield Dulcigno to the Montenegrians (who alone of all the Christian races of the peninsula had never been conquered by the Turks). (3) Servia was proclaimed an independent Principality, and received the district of Old Servia on the upper valley of the Morava. (4) Roumania also gained her independence and ceased to pay any tribute to the Porte, but had to give up to her Russian benefactors the slice acquired from Russia in 1856 between the Pruth and the northern mouth of the Danube. In return for this sacrifice she gained the large but marshy Dobrudscha district from Bulgaria, and so acquired the port of Kustendje on the Black Sea. (5) Bulgaria, which, according to the San Stefano terms, would have been an independent State as large as Roumania, was by the Berlin Treaty subjected to the suzerainty of the sultan, divided into two parts, and confined within much narrower limits. Besides the Dobrudscha, it lost the northern or Bulgarian part of Macedonia, and the Bulgarians who dwelt between the Balkans and Adrianople were separated from their kinsfolk on the north of the Balkans, in a province called Eastern Roumelia, with Philippopolis as capital. The latter province was to remain Turkish, under a Christian governor nominated by the Porte with the consent of the Powers. Turkey was allowed to occupy the passes of the Balkans in time of war."

J. H. Rose, A Century of Continental History, chapter 42.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

ALSO IN: E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, volume 4, nos. 518, 524-532.

{255}

BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1891. Proposed Balkan Confederation and its aims.

"During the reaction against Russia which followed the great war of 1878, negotiations were actually set on foot with a view to forming a combination of the Balkan States for the purpose of resisting Russian aggression. ... Prince Alexander always favoured the idea of a Balkan Confederation which was to include Turkey; and even listened to proposals on the part of Greece, defining the Bulgarian and Greek spheres of influence in Macedonia. But the revolt of Eastern Roumelia, followed by the Servo-Bulgarian war and the chastisement of Greece by the Powers, provoked so much bitterness of feeling among the rival races that for many years nothing more was heard of a Balkan Confederation. The idea has lately been revived under different auspices and with somewhat different aims. During the past six years the Triple Alliance, with England, has, despite the indifference of Prince Bismarck, protected the Balkan States in general, and Bulgaria in particular from the armed intervention of Russia. It has also acted the part of policeman in preserving the peace throughout the Peninsula, and in deterring the young nations from any dangerous indulgence in their angry passions. The most remarkable feature in the history of this period has been the extraordinary progress made by Bulgaria. Since the revolt of Eastern Roumelia, Bulgaria has been treated by Dame Europa as a naughty child. But the Bulgarians have been shrewd enough to see that the Central Powers and England have an interest in their national independence and consolidation; they have recognised the truth that fortune favours those who help themselves, and they have boldly taken their own course, while carefully avoiding any breach of the proprieties such as might again bring them under the censure of the European Areopagus. They ventured, indeed, to elect a Prince of their own choosing without the sanction of that august conclave; the wiseacres shook their heads, and prophesied that Prince Ferdinand's days in Bulgaria might, perhaps, be as many as Prince Alexander's years. Yet Prince Ferdinand remains on the throne, and is now engaged in celebrating the fourth anniversary of his accession; the internal development of the country proceeds apace, and the progress of the Bulgarian sentiment outside the country--in other words, the Macedonian propaganda—is not a whit behind. The Bulgarians have made their greatest strides in Macedonia since the fall of Prince Bismarck, who was always ready to humour Russia at the expense of Bulgaria. … What happened after the great war of 1878? A portion of the Bulgarian race was given a nominal freedom which was never expected to be a reality; Russia pounced on Bessarabia, England on Cyprus, Austria on Bosnia and Herzegovina. France got something elsewhere, but that is another matter. The Bulgarians have never forgiven Lord Beaconsfield for the division of their race, and I have seen some bitter poems upon the great Israelite in the Bulgarian tongue which many Englishmen would not care to hear translated. The Greeks have hated us since our occupation of Cyprus, and firmly believe that we mean to take Crete as well. The Servians have not forgotten how Russia, after instigating them to two disastrous wars, dealt with their claims at San Stefano; they cannot forgive Austria for her occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and every Servian peasant, as he pays his heavy taxes, or reluctantly gives a big price for some worthless imported article, feels the galling yoke of her fiscal and commercial tyranny. Need it be said how outraged Bulgaria scowls at Russia, or how Roumania, who won Plevna for her heartless ally, weeps for her Bessarabian children, and will not be comforted? It is evident that the Balkan peoples have no reason to expect much benefit from the next great war, from the European Conference which will follow it, or from the sympathy of the Christian Powers. ... What, then, do the authors of the proposed Confederation suggest as its ultimate aim and object? The Balkan States are to act independently of the foreign Powers, and in concert with one another. The Sick Man's inheritance lies before them, and they are to take it when an opportunity presents itself. They must not wait for the great Armageddon, for then all may be lost. If the Central Powers come victorious out of the conflict, Austria, it is believed, will go to Salonika; if Russia conquers, she will plant her standard at Stamboul, and practically annex the Peninsula. In either ease the hopes of the young nations will be destroyed forever. It is, therefore, sought to extricate a portion at least of the Eastern Question from the tangled web of European politics, to isolate it, to deal with it as a matter which solely concerns the Sick Man and his immediate successors. It is hoped that the Sick Man may be induced by the determined attitude of his expectant heirs to make over to them their several portions in his lifetime; should he refuse, they must act in concert, and provide euthanasia for the moribund owner of Macedonia, Crete, and Thrace. In other words, it is believed that the Balkan States, if once they could come to an understanding as regards their claims to what is left of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, might conjointly, and without the aid of any foreign Power, bring such pressure to bear upon Turkey as to induce her to surrender peaceably her European possessions, and to content herself henceforth with the position of an Asiatic Power."

J. D. Bourchier, A Balkan Confederation (Fortnightly Review, Sept., 1891).

BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1886 (Bulgaria): Reunion of the two Bulgarias. Hostility of Russia. Victorious war with Servia. Abduction and abdication of Prince Alexander.

"The Berlin Treaty, by cutting Bulgaria into three pieces, contrary to the desire of her inhabitants, and with utter disregard of both geographical and ethnical fitness, had prepared the ground from which a crop of never-ending agitation was inevitably bound to spring--a crop which the Treaty of San Stefano would have ended in preventing. On either side of the Balkans, both in Bulgaria and in Roumelia, the same desire for union existed. Both parties were agreed as to this, and only differed as to the means by which the end should be attained. The Liberals were of opinion that the course of events ought to be awaited; the unionists, on the other hand, maintained that they should be challenged. It was a few individuals belonging to the latter party and acting with M. Karaveloff, the head of the Bulgarian Cabinet, who prepared and successfully carried out the revolution of September 18, 1885. So unanimously was this movement supported by the whole population, including even the Mussulmans, that it was accomplished and the union proclaimed without the least resistance being encountered, and without the shedding of one drop of blood! {256} Prince Alexander was in no way made aware of what was in preparation; but he knew very well that it would be his duty to place himself at the head of any national movement, and in a proclamation dated the 19th of September, and addressed from Tirnova, the ancient capital, he recommended union and assumed the title of Prince of North and South Bulgaria. The Porte protested in a circular, dated the 23rd of September, and called upon the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Berlin, to enforce the observance of its stipulations. On the 13th of October, the Powers collectively declare 'that they condemn this violation of the Treaty, and are sure that the Sultan will do all that he can, consistently with his sovereign rights, before resorting to the force which he has at his disposal.' From the moment when there was opposition to the use of force, which even the Porte did not seem in a hurry to employ, the union of the two Bulgarias necessarily became an accomplished fact. ... Whilst England and Austria both accepted the union of the two Bulgarias as being rendered necessary by the position of affairs, whilst even the Porte (although protesting) was resigned, the Emperor of Russia displayed a passionate hostility to it, not at all in accord with the feelings of the Russian nation. ... In Russia they had reckoned upon all the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of Tirnova becoming so many causes of disorder and anarchy, instead of which the Bulgarians were growing accustomed to freedom. Schools were being endowed, the country was progressing in every way, and thus the Bulgarians were becoming less and less fitted for transformation into Russian subjects. Their lot was a preferable one, by far, to that of the people of Russia--henceforth they would refuse to accept the Russian yoke! ... If, then, Russia wanted to maintain her high-handed policy in Bulgaria, she must oppose the union and hinder the consolidation of Bulgarian nationality by every means in her power; this she has done without scruple of any sort or kind, as will be shown by a brief epitome of what has happened recently. Servia, hoping to extend her territory in the direction of Tru and Widdin, and, pleading regard for the Treaty of Berlin and the theory of the balance of power, attacks Bulgaria. On November 14th [17th to 19th?] 1885, Prince Alexander defends the Slivnitza positions [in a three days' battle] with admirable courage and strategic skill. The Roumelian militia, coming in by forced marches of unheard-of length, perform prodigies of valour in the field. Within eight days, i. e., from the 20th to the 28th of November, the Servian army, far greater in numbers, is driven back into its own territory; the Dragoman Pass is crossed; Pirot is taken by assault; and Prince Alexander is marching on Nisch, when his victorious progress is arrested by the Austrian Minister, under threats of an armed intervention on the part of that country! On December 21st, an armistice is concluded, afterwards made into a treaty of pence, and signed at Bucharest on March 3rd by M. Miyatovitch on behalf of Servia, by M. Guechoff on behalf of Bulgaria, and by Madgid Pascha for the Sultan. Prince Alexander did all he could to bring about a reconciliation with the Czar and even went so far as to attribute to Russian instructors all the merit of the victories he had just won. The Czar would not yield. Then the Prince turned to the Sultan, and with him succeeded in coming to a direct understanding. The Prince was to be nominated Governor-General of Roumelia; a mixed Commission was to meet and modify the Roumelian statutes; more than this, the Porte was bound to place troops at his disposal in the event of his being attacked, ... From that date the Czar swore that he would cause Prince Alexander's downfall. It was said that Prince Alexander of Battenberg had changed into a sword the sceptre which Russia had given him and was going to turn it against his benefactor. Nothing could be more untrue. Up to the very last moment, he did everything he could to disarm the anger of the Czar, but what was wanted from him was this--that he should make Bulgaria an obedient satellite of Russia, and rather than consent to do so he left Sofia. The story of the Prince's dethronement by Russian influence, or, as Lord Salisbury said, by Russian gold, is well known. A handful of malcontent officers, a few cadets of the École Militaire, and some of Zankoff's adherents, banding themselves together, broke into the palace during the night of the 21st of August, seized the Prince, and had him carried off, without escort, to Rahova on the Danube, from thence to Reni in Bessarabia, where he was handed over to the Russians! The conspirators endeavoured to form a government, but the whole country rose against them, in spite of the support openly given them by M. Bogdanoff the Russian diplomatic agent. On the 3rd of September, a few days after these occurrences, Prince Alexander returned to his capital, welcomed home by the acclamations of the whole people; but in answer to a respectful, not to say too humble, telegram in which he offered to replace his Crown in the hands of the Czar, that potentate replied that he ceased to have any relations with Bulgaria as long as Prince Alexander remained there. Owing to advice which came, no doubt, from Berlin, Prince Alexander decided to abdicate; he did so because of the demands of the Czar and in the interests of Bulgaria."

E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, Introduction.

ALSO IN: A. Von Huhn, The Struggle of the Bulgarians.

J. G. C. Minchin, Growth of Freedom in the Balkan Peninsula.

A. Koch, Prince Alexander of Battenberg.

BALKAN: A. D. 1879-1889 (Servia). Quarrels and divorce of King Milan and Queen Natalia. Abdication of the King.

"In October, 1875. ... Milan, then but twenty-one years old, married Natalia Kechko, herself but sixteen. The present Queen was the daughter of a Russian officer and of the Princess Pulckerie Stourdza. She, as little as her husband, had been born with a likelihood to sit upon the throne, and a quiet burgher education had been hers at Odessa. But even here her great beauty attracted notice, as also her abilities, her ambition and her wealth. ... At first all went well, to outward appearance at least, for Milan was deeply enamoured of his beautiful wife, who soon became the idol of the Servians, on account of her beauty and her amiability. This affection was but increased when, a year after her marriage, she presented her subjects with an heir. But from that hour the domestic discord began. The Queen had been ill long and seriously after her boy's birth; Milan had sought distractions elsewhere. Scenes of jealousy and recrimination grew frequent. {257} Further, Servia was then passing through a difficult political crisis: the Turkish war was in full swing. Milan, little beloved ever since he began to reign, brought home no wreaths from this conflict, although his subjects distinguished themselves by their valour. Then followed in 1882 the raising of the principality into a kingdom--a fact which left the Servians very indifferent, and in which they merely beheld the prospect of increased taxes, a prevision that was realized. As time went on, and troubles increased, King Milan became somewhat of a despot, who was sustained solely by the army, itself undermined by factious intrigues. Meantime the Queen, now grown somewhat callous to her husband's infidelities, aspired to comfort herself by assuming a political role, for which she believed herself to have great aptitude. ... As she could not influence the decisions of the Prince, the lady entered into opposition to him, and made it her aim to oppose all his projects. The quarrel spread throughout the entire Palace, and two inimical factions were formed, that of the King and that of the Queen. ... Meantime Milan got deeper and deeper into debt, so that after a time he had almost mortgaged his territory. ... While the husband and wife were thus quarrelling and going their own ways, grave events were maturing in neighbouring Bulgaria. The coup d'état of Fillippopoli, which annexed Eastern Roumelia to the principality, enlarged it in such wise that Servia henceforth had to cut a sorry figure in the Balkans. Milan roused himself, or pretended to rouse himself, and war was declared against Bulgaria. ... There followed the crushing defeat of Slivnitza, in which Prince Alexander of Battenberg carried off such laurels, and the Servians had to beat a disgraceful and precipitate retreat. Far from proving himself the hero Nathalie had dreamed, Milan ... telegraphed to the Queen, busied with tending the wounded, that he intended to abdicate forthwith. This cowardly conduct gave the death blow to any feeling the Queen might have retained for the King. Henceforth she despised him, and took no pains to hide the fact. ... In 1887 the pair parted without outward scandals, the Queen taking with her the Crown Prince. ... Florence was the goal of the Queen's wanderings, and here she spent a quiet winter. ... The winter ended, Nathalie desired to return to Belgrade. Milan would not hear of it. ... The Queen went to Wiesbaden in consequence. While residing there Milan professed to be suddenly taken with a paternal craving to see his son. ... And to the shame of the German Government, be it said, they lent their hand to abducting an only child from his mother. ... Before ever the excitement about this act could subside in Europe, Milan ... petitioned the Servian Synod for a divorce, on the ground of 'irreconcilable mutual antipathy.' Neither by canonical or civil law was this possible, and the Queen refused her consent. ... Nor could the divorce have been obtained but for the servile complaisance of the Servian Metropolitan Theodore. ... Quick vengeance, however, was in store for Milan. The international affairs of Servia had grown more and more disturbed. ... The King, perplexed, afraid, storm-tossed between divided counsels, highly irritable, and deeply impressed by Rudolph of Hapsburg's recent suicide, suddenly announced his intention to abdicate in favour of his son. ... Without regret his people saw depart from among them a man who at thirty-five years of age was already decrepit, and who had not the pluck or ambition to try and overcome a difficult political crisis. ... After kneeling down before his son and swearing fidelity to him as a subject (March, 1889), Milan betook himself off to tour through Europe ... leaving the little boy and his guardians to extricate themselves. ... 'Now I can see mamma again,' were the first words of the boy King on hearing of his elevation. ... Three Regents are appointed to aid the King during his minority."

"Politikos," The Sovereigns, pages 353-363.

----------BALKAN: End----------

BALKH. Destruction by Jingis Khan (A. D. 1221).

From his conquest of the region beyond the Oxus, Jingis Khan moved southward with his vast horde of Mongols, in pursuit of the fugitive Khahrezmian prince, in 1220 or 1221, and invested the great city of Balkh,--which is thought in the east to be the oldest city of the world, and which may not impossibly have been one of the capitals of the primitive Aryan race. "Some idea of its extent and riches [at that time] may possibly be formed from the statement that it contained 1,200 large mosques, without including chapels, and 200 public baths for the use of foreign merchants and travellers--though it has been suggested that the more correct reading would be 200 mosques and 1,200 baths. Anxious to avert the horrors of storm and pillage, the citizens at once offered to capitulate; but Chinghiz, distrusting the sincerity of their submission so long as Sultan Mohammed Shah was yet alive, preferred to carry the place by force of arms--an achievement of no great difficulty. A horrible butchery ensued, and the 'Tabernacle of Islam'--as the pious town was called--was razed to the ground. In the words of the Persian poet, quoted by Major Price, 'The noble city he laid as smooth as the palm of his hand--its spacious and lofty structures he levelled in the dust.'"

J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, chapter 3.

BALL'S BLUFF, The Battle of.

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

BALMACEDA'S DICTATORSHIP.

See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

BALNEÆ.

SEE THERMÆ.

BALTHI, OR BALTHINGS.

"The rulers of the Visigoths, though they, like the Amal kings of the Ostrogoths, had a great house, the Balthi, sprung from the seed of gods, did not at this time [when driven across the Danube by the Huns] bear the title of King, but contented themselves with some humbler designation, which the Latin historians translated into Judex (Judge)."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, introduction, chapter 3.

See BAUX, LORDS OF.

BALTIMORE, Lord, and the Colonization of Maryland.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, to 1688-1757.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1729-1730. Founding of the city.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1812. Rioting of the War Party. The mob and the Federalists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

{258}

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1814. British attempt against the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1860. The Douglas Democratic and Constitutional Union Conventions.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (April). The city controlled by the Secessionists. The Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

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

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (May). Disloyalty put down.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

----------BALTIMORE: End----------

BALUCHISTAN.

See Supplement in volume 5.

BAN.--BANAT.

"Ban is Duke (Dux), and Banat is Duchy. The territory [Hungarian] east of the Carpathians is the Banat of Severin, and that of the west the Banat of Temesvar. ... The Banat is the cornucopia, not only of Hungary, but of the whole Austrian Empire."

A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic, volume 2, page 28.

Among the Croats, "after the king, the most important officers of the state were the bans. At first there was but one ban, who was a kind of lieutenant-general; but later on there were seven of them, each known by the name of the province he governed, as the ban of Sirmia, ban of Dalmatia, etc. To this day the royal lieutenant of Croatia (or 'governor-general,' if that title be preferred) is called the ban."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, page 55.

BAN, The Imperial.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BANBURY, Battle of.

Sometimes called the "Battle of Edgecote"; fought July 26,1469, and with success, by a body of Lancastrian insurgents, in the English "Wars of the Roses," against the forces of the Yorkist King, Edward IV. The latter were routed and most of their leaders' taken and beheaded.

Mrs. Hookham, Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou, volume 2, chapter 5.

BANDA ORIENTAL, The.

Signifying the "Eastern Border"; a name applied originally by the Spaniards to the country on the eastern side of Rio de La Plata which afterwards took the name of Uruguay.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

BANGALORE, Capture of (1790).

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

BANK OF ST. GEORGE.

See GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

BANKS, General Nathaniel P. Command in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

Siege and Capture of Port Hudson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Red River Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

BANKS OF AMSTERDAM, ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

The Bank of Amsterdam was founded in 1609, and replaced, after 1814. by the Netherland Bank. The Bank of England was founded in 1694 by William Patterson, a Scotchman; and that of France by John Law, in 1716. The latter collapsed with the Mississippi scheme and was revived in 1776.

J. J. Lalor, editor. Cyclopædia of Political Science.

ALSO IN: _J. W. Gilbart, History and Principles of Banking, section 1 and 3._

BANKS, Wildcat.

See WILDCAT BANKS.

BANNACKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

BANNERETS, Knights.

See KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

BANNOCKBURN, Battle of (A. D. 1314).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314; and 1314-1328.

BANT, The.

See GAU.

BANTU TRIBES, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS; and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BAPTISTS.

See article in the Supplement, volume 5.

BAR, A. D. 1659-1735. The Duchy ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661, and 1733-1735.

BAR: The Confederation of.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

BARATHRUM, The.

"The barathrum, or 'pit of punishment' at Athens, was a deep hole like a well into which criminals were precipitated. Iron hooks were inserted in the sides; which tore the body in pieces as it fell. It corresponded to the Ceadas of the Lacedæmonians."

G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, book 7, section 133, note.

BARBADOES: A. D. 1649-1660. Royalist attitude towards the English Commonwealth.

See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.

BARBADOES: A. D. 1656. Cromwell's colony of disorderly women.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.

BARBARIANS.

See ARYANS.

BARBAROSSAS, Piracies and dominion of.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

----------BARBAROSSAS: End----------

BARBARY STATES.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 647-709. Mahometan conquest of North Africa.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 908-1171. The Fatimite Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1415. Siege and capture of Ceuta by the Portuguese.

See PORTUGAL: A. D.1415-1460.

{259}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510. Spanish conquests on the coast. Oran. Bugia. Algiers. Tripoli.

In 1505, a Spanish expedition planned and urged by Cardinal Ximenes, captured Mazarquiver, an "important port, and formidable nest of pirates, on the Barbary coast, nearly opposite Carthagena." In 1509, the same energetic prelate led personally an expedition of 4,000 horse and 10,000 foot, with a fleet of 10 galleys and 80 smaller vessels, for the conquest of Oran. "This place, situated about a league from the former, was one of the most considerable of the Moslem possessions in the Mediterranean, being a principal mart for the trade of the Levant," and maintained a swarm of cruisers, which swept the Mediterranean "and made fearful depredations on its populous borders." Oran was taken by storm. "No mercy was shown; no respect for age or sex; and the soldiery abandoned themselves to all the brutal license and ferocity which seem to stain religious wars above every other. ... No less than 4,000 Moors were said to have fallen in the battle, and from 5,000 to 8,000 were made prisoners. The loss of the Christians was inconsiderable." Recalled to Spain by King Ferdinand, Ximenes left the army in Africa under the command of Count Pedro Navarro. Navarro's "first enterprise was against Bugia (January 13th, 1510), whose king, at the head of a powerful army, he routed in two pitched battles, and got possession of his flourishing capital (January 31st). Algiers, Teunis, Tremecin, and other cities on the Barbary coast, submitted one after another to the Spanish arms. The inhabitants were received as vassals of the Catholic king. ... They guaranteed, moreover, the liberation of all Christian captives in their dominions; for which the Algerines, however, took care to indemnify themselves, by extorting the full ransom from their Jewish residents. ...On the 26th of July, 1510, the ancient city of Tripoli, after a most bloody and desperate defence, surrendered to the arms of the victorious general, whose name had now become terrible along the whole northern borders of Africa. In the following month, however (Aug. 28th), he met with a serious discomfiture in the island of Gelves, where 4,000 of his men were slain or made prisoners. This check in the brilliant career of Count Navarro put a final stop to the progress of the Castilian arms in Africa under Ferdinand. The results obtained, however, were of great importance. ... Most of the new conquests escaped from the Spanish crown in later times, through the imbecility or indolence of Ferdinand's successors. The conquests of Ximenes, however, were placed in so strong a posture of defence as to resist every attempt for their recovery by the enemy, and to remain permanently incorporated with the Spanish empire."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, chapter 21 (volume 3).

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535. Piratical dominion of the Barbarossas in Algiers. Establishment of Turkish sovereignty. Seizure of Tunis by the Corsairs and its conquest by Charles V.

"About the beginning of the 16th century, a sudden revolution happened, which, by rendering the states of Barbary formidable to the Europeans, hath made their history worthy of more attention. This revolution was brought about by persons born in a rank of life which entitled them to act no such illustrious part. Hornc and Hayradin, the sons of a potter in the isle of Lisbos, prompted by a restless and enterprising spirit, forsook their father's trade, ran to sea, and joined a crew of pirates. They soon distinguished themselves by their valor and activity, and, becoming masters of a small brigantine, carried on their infamous trade with such conduct and success that they assembled a fleet of 12 galleys, besides many vessels of smaller force. Of this fleet Hornc, the elder brother, called Barbarossa from the red color of his beard, was admiral, and Hayradin second in command, but with almost equal authority. They called themselves the friends of the sea, and the enemies of all who sail upon it; and their names soon became terrible from the Straits of the Dardanelles to those of Gibraltar. ... They often carried the prizes which they took on the coasts of Spain and Italy into the ports of Barbary, and, enriching the inhabitants by the sale of their booty, and the thoughtless prodigality of their crews, were welcome guests in every place at which they touched. The convenient situation of these harbours, lying so near the greatest commercial states at that time in Christendom, made the brothers wish for an establishment in that country. An opportunity of accomplishing this quickly presented itself [1516], which they did not suffer to pass unimproved." Invited by Entemi, king of Algiers, to assist him in taking a Spanish fort which had been built in his neighbourhood, Barbarossa was able to murder his too confiding employer, master the Algerine kingdom and usurp its crown. "Not satisfied with the throne which he had acquired, he attacked the neighbouring king of Tremecen, and, having vanquished him in battle, added his dominions to those of Algiers. At the same time, he continued to infest the coasts of Spain and Italy with fleets which resembled the armaments of a great monarch, rather than the light squadrons of a corsair. Their frequent cruel devastations obliged Charles [the Fifth--the great Emperor and King of Spain: 1519-1555], about the beginning of his reign, to furnish the Marquis de Comares, governor of Oran, with troops sufficient to attack him." Barbarossa was defeated in the ensuing war, driven from Tremecen, and slain [1518]. "His brother Hayradin, known likewise by the name of Barbarossa, assumed the sceptre of Algiers with the same ambition and abilities, but with better fortune. His reign being undisturbed by the arms of the Spaniards, which had full occupation in the wars among the European powers, he regulated with admirable prudence the interior police of his kingdom, carried on his naval operations with great vigour, and extended his conquests on the continent of Africa. But perceiving that the Moors and Arabs submitted to his government with reluctance, and being afraid that his continual depredations would one day draw upon him the arms of the Christians, he put his dominions under the protection of the Grand Seignior [1519], and received from him [with the title of Bey, or Beylerbey] a body of Turkish soldiers sufficient for his domestic as well as foreign enemies. At last, the fame of his exploits daily increasing, Solyman offered him the command of the Turkish fleet. ... Barbarossa repaired to Constantinople, and ... gained the entire confidence both of the sultan and his vizier. To them he communicated a scheme which he had formed of making himself master of Tunis, the most flourishing kingdom at that time on the coast of Africa; and this being approved of by them, he obtained whatever he demanded for carrying it into execution. His hopes of success in this undertaking were founded on the intestine divisions in the kingdom of Tunis." The last king of that country, having 34 sons by different wives, had established one of the younger sons on the throne as his successor. This young king attempted to put all of his brothers to death; but Alraschid, who was one of the eldest, escaped and fled to Algiers. Barbarossa now proposed to the Turkish sultan to attack Tunis on the pretence of vindicating the rights of Alraschid. His proposal was adopted and carried out; but even before the Turkish expedition sailed. {260} Alraschid himself disappeared--a prisoner, shut up in the Seraglio--and was never heard of again. The use of his name, however, enabled Barbarossa to enter Tunis in triumph, and the betrayed inhabitants discovered too late that he came as a viceroy, to make them the subjects of the sultan. "Being now possessed of such extensive territories, he carried on his depredations against the Christian states to a greater extent and with more destructive violence than ever. Daily complaints of the outrages committed by his cruisers were brought to the emperor by his subjects, both in Spain and Italy. All Christendom seemed to expect from him, as its greatest and most fortunate prince, that he would put an end to this new and odious species of oppression. At the same time Muley-Hascen, the exiled king of Tunis, ... applied to Charles as the only person who could assert his rights in opposition to such a formidable usurper." The Emperor, accordingly, in 1535, prepared a great expedition against Tunis, drawing men and ships from every part of his wide dominions--from Spain, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. "On the 16th of July the fleet, consisting of near 500 vessels, having on board above 30,000 regular troops, set sail from Cagliari, and, after a prosperous navigation, landed within sight of Tunis." The fort of Goletta, commanding the bay, was invested and taken; the corsair's fleet surrendered, and Barbarossa, advancing boldly from Tunis to attack the invaders, was overwhelmingly beaten, and fled, abandoning his capital. Charles's soldiers rushed into the unfortunate town, escaping all restraint, and making it a scene of indescribable horrors. "Above 30,000 of the innocent inhabitants perished on that unhappy day, and 10,000 were carried away as slaves. Muley-Hascen took possession of a throne surrounded with carnage, abhorred by his subjects, on whom he had brought such calamities." Before quitting the country, Charles concluded a treaty with Muley-Hascen, under which the latter acknowledged that he held his kingdom in fee of the crown of Spain, doing homage to the Emperor as his liege, and maintaining a Spanish garrison in the Goletta. He also released, without ransom, all the Christian slaves in his dominions, 20,000 in number, and promised to detain in servitude no subject of the Emperor thereafter. He opened his kingdom to the Christian religion, and to free trade, and pledged himself to exclude Turkish corsairs from his ports.

W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., book 5 (volume 2).

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541. The disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.

Encouraged, and deceived, by his easy success at Tunis, the emperor, Charles V., determined, in 1541, to undertake the reduction of Algiers, and to wholly exterminate the freebooters of the north African coast. Before his preparations were completed, "the season unfortunately was far advanced, on which account the Pope entreated, and Doria conjured him not to expose his whole armament to a destruction almost unavoidable on a wild shore during the violence of the autumnal gales. Adhering, however, to his plan with determined obstinacy, he embarked at Porto Venere. ... The force ... which he had collected ... consisted of 20,000 foot and 2,000 horse, mostly veterans, together with 3,000 volunteers. ... Besides these there had joined his standard 1,000 soldiers sent by the Order of St. John, and led by 100 of its most valiant knights. Landing near Algiers without opposition, Charles immediately advanced towards the town. To oppose the invaders, Hassan had only 800 Turks, and 5,000 Moors, partly natives of Africa, and partly refugees from Spain. When summoned to surrender he, nevertheless, returned a fierce and haughty answer. But with such a handful of troops, neither his desperate courage nor consummate skill in war could have long resisted forces superior to those which had formerly defeated Barbarossa at the head of 60,000 men." He was speedily relieved from danger, however, by an opportune storm, which burst upon the region during the second day after Charles's debarkation. The Spanish camp was flooded; the soldiers drenched, chilled, sleepless and dispirited. In this condition they were attacked by the Moors at dawn, and narrowly escaped a rout. "But all feeling of this disaster was soon obliterated by a more affecting spectacle. As the tempest continued with unabated violence, the full light of day showed the ships, on which alone their safety depended, driving from their anchors, dashing against one another, and many of them forced on the rocks, or sinking in the waters. In less than an hour, 15 ships of war and 140 transports, with 8,000 men, perished before their eyes; and such of the unhappy sailors as escaped the fury of the sea, were murdered by the Arabs as soon as they reached land." With such ships as he could save, Doria sought shelter behind Cape Matafuz, sending a message to the emperor, advising that he follow with the army to that point. Charles could not do otherwise than act according to the suggestion; but his army suffered horribly in the retreat, which occupied three days. "Many perished by famine, as the whole army subsisted chiefly on roots and berries, or on the flesh of horses, killed for that purpose by the emperor's orders; numbers were drowned in the swollen brooks; and not a few were slain by the enemy." Even after the army had regained the fleet, and was reembarked, it was scattered by a second storm, and several weeks passed before the emperor reached his Spanish dominions, a wiser and a sadder man.

M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., book 6 (volume 2.)

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560. The pirate Dragut and his exploits. Turkish capture of Tripoli. Disastrous Christian attempt to recover the place.

Dragut, or Torghūd, a native of the Caramanian coast, opposite the island of Rhodes, began his career as a Mediterranean corsair some time before the last of the Barbarossas quitted the scene and was advanced by the favor of the Algerine. In 1540 he fell into the hands of one of the Dorias and was bound to the oar as a galley-slave for three years,--which did not sweeten his temper toward the Christian world. In 1543 he was ransomed, and resumed his piracies, with more energy than before. "Dragut's lair was at the island of Jerba [called Gelves, by the Spaniards]. ... Not content with the rich spoils of Europe, Dragut took the Spanish outposts in Africa, one by one--Susa, Sfax, Monastir; and finally set forth to conquer 'Africa.' {261} It is not uncommon in Arabic to call a country and its capital by the same name. ... 'Africa' meant to the Arabs the province of Carthage or Tunis and its capital, which was not at first Tunis but successively Kayrawan and Mahdiya. Throughout the later middle ages the name 'Africa' is applied by Christian writers to the latter city. ... This was the city which Dragut took without a blow in the spring of 1550. Mahdiya was then in an anarchic state, ruled by a council of chiefs, each ready to betray the other, and none owing the smallest allegiance to any king, least of all the despised king of Tunis, Hamid, who had deposed and blinded his father, Hasan, Charles V. 's protégé. One of these chiefs let Dragut and his merry men into the city by night. ... So easy a triumph roused the emulation of Christendom. ... Don Garcia de Toledo dreamed of outshining the Corsair's glory. His father, the Viceroy of Naples, the Pope, and others, promised their aid, and old Andrea Doria took the command. After much delay and consultation a large body of troops was conveyed to Mahdiya and disembarked on June 28, 1550. Dragut, though aware of the project, was at sea, devastating the Gulf of Genoa, and paying himself in advance for any loss the Christians might inflict in Africa: his nephew Hisar Reis commanded in the city. When Dragut returned, the siege had gone on for a month," but he failed in attempting to raise it and retired to Jerba. Mahdiya was carried by assault on the 8th of September. "Next year, 1551, Dragut's place was with the Ottoman navy, then commanded by Sinan Pasha. ... With nearly 150 galleys or galleots, 10,000 soldiers, and numerous siege-guns, Sinan and Dragut sailed out of the Dardanelles--whither bound no Christian could tell. They ravaged, as usual, the Straits of Messina, and then revealed the point of attack by making direct for Malta." But the demonstration made against the strong fortifications of the Knights of St. John was ill-planned and feebly executed; it was easily repelled. To wipe out his defeat, Sinan "sailed straight for Tripoli, some 64 leagues away. Tripoli was the natural antidote to Malta: for Tripoli, too, belonged to the Knights of St. John--much against their will--inasmuch as the Emperor had made their defence of this easternmost Barbary state a condition of their tenure of Malta." But the fortifications of Tripoli were not strong enough to resist the Turkish bombardment, and Gaspard de Villiers, the commandant, was forced to surrender (August 15th), "on terms, as he believed, identical with those which Suleyman granted to the Knights of Rhodes. But Sinan was no Suleyman; moreover, he was in a furious rage with the whole Order. He put the garrison--all save a few--in chains and carried them off to grace his triumph at Stambol. Thus did Tripoli fall once more into the hands of the Moslems. ... The misfortunes of the Christians did not end here. Year after year the Ottoman fleet appeared in Italian waters. ... Unable as they felt themselves to cope with the Turks at sea, the powers of Southern Europe resolved to strike one more blow on land, and recover Tripoli. A fleet of nearly 100 galleys and ships, gathered from Spain, Genoa, 'the Religion,' the Pope, from all quarters, with the Duke de Medina-Celi at their head, assembled at Messina. ... Five times the expedition put to sea; five times was it driven back by contrary winds. At last, on February 10, 1560, it was fairly away for the African coast. Here fresh troubles awaited it. Long delays in crowded vessels had produced their disastrous effects: fevers and scurvy and dysentery were working their terrible ravages among the crews, and 2,000 corpses were flung into the sea. It was impossible to lay siege to Tripoli with a diseased army, and when actually in sight of their object the admirals gave orders to return to Jerba. A sudden descent quickly gave them the command of the beautiful island. ... In two months a strong castle was built, with all scientific earthworks, and the admiral prepared to carry home such troops as were not needed for its defence. Unhappily for him, he had lingered too long. ... He was about to prepare for departure when news came that the Turkish fleet had been seen at Goza. Instantly all was panic. Valiant gentlemen forgot their valour, forgot their coolness. ... Before they could make out of the strait ... the dread Corsair [Dragut] himself, and Ochiali, and Piali Pasha were upon them. Then ensued a scene of confusion that baffles description. Despairing of weathering the north side of Jerba the panic-stricken Christians ran their ships ashore and deserted them, never stopping even to set them on fire. ... On rowed the Turks; galleys and galleons to the number of 56 fell into their hands; 18,000 Christians bowed down before their scimitars; the beach on that memorable 11th of May, 1560, was a confused medley of stranded ships, helpless prisoners, Turks busy in looting men and galleys--and a hideous heap of mangled bodies. The fleet and the army which had sailed from Messina ... were absolutely lost."

S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs.

ALSO IN: W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II., book 4, chapter 1.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565. Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver. Capture of Penon de Velez.

In the spring of 1563 a most determined and formidable attempt was made by Hassem, the dey of Algiers, to drive the Spaniards from Oran and Mazarquiver, which they had held since the African conquests of Cardinal Ximenes. The siege was fierce and desperate; the defence most heroic. The beleaguered garrisons held their ground until a relieving expedition from Spain came in sight, on the 8th of June, when the Moors retreated hastily. In the summer of the next year the Spaniards took the strong island fortress of Penon de Velez, breaking up one more nest of piracy and strengthening their footing on the Barbary coast. In the course of the year following they blocked the mouth of the river Tetuan, which was a place of refuge for the marauders.

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II., book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1565. Participation in the Turkish Siege of Malta. Death of Dragut.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1,130-1565.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1570-1571. War with the Holy League of Spain, Venice and the Pope. The Battle of Lepanto.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1572-1573. Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria. Its recovery, with Goletta, by the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.

{262}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1579. Invasion of Morocco by Sebastian of Portugal. His defeat and death.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684. Wars of France against the piratical powers. Destructive bombardments of Algiers.

"The ancient alliance of the crown of France with the Ottoman Porte, always unpopular, and less necessary since France had become so strong, was at this moment [early in the reign of Louis XIV.] well-nigh broken, to the great satisfaction both of the Christian nations of the South and of the Austrian empire. ... Divers plans were proposed in the King's council for attacking the Ottoman power on the Moorish coasts, and for repressing the pirates, who were the terror of the merchant-shipping and maritime provinces. Colbert induced the king to attempt a military settlement among the Moors as the best means of holding them in check. A squadron commanded by the Duke de Beaufort ... landed 5,000 picked soldiers before Jijeli (or Djigelli), a small Algerine port between Bougiah and Bona. They took possession of Jijeli without difficulty (July 22, 1664); but discord arose between Beaufort and his officers; they did not work actively enough to fortify themselves," and before the end of September they were obliged to evacuate the place precipitately. "The success of Beaufort's squadron, commanded under the duke by the celebrated Chevalier Paul, ere long effaced the impression of this reverse: two Algerine flotillas were destroyed in the course of 1665." The Dey of Algiers sent one of his French captives, an officer named Du Babinais, to France with proposals of peace, making him swear to return if his mission failed. The proposals were rejected; Du Babinais was loyal to his oath and returned--to suffer death, as he expected, at the hands of the furious barbarian. "The devotion of this Breton Regulus was not lost: despondency soon took the place of anger in the heart of the Moorish chiefs. Tunis yielded first to the guns of the French squadron, brought to bear on it from the Bay of Goletta. The Pacha and the Divan of Tunis obligated themselves to restore all the French slaves they possessed, to respect French ships, and thenceforth to release all Frenchmen whom they should capture on foreign ships. .... Rights of aubaine, and of admiralty and shipwreck, were suppressed as regarded Frenchmen (November 25, 1665). The station at Cape Negro was restored to France. ... Algiers submitted, six' months after, to nearly the same conditions imposed on it by Louis XIV.: one of the articles stipulated that French merchants should be treated as favorably as any foreign nation, and even more so (May 17, 1666). More than 3,000 French slaves were set at liberty." Between 1669 and 1672, Louis XIV. was seriously meditating a great war of conquest with the Turks and their dependencies, but preferred, finally, to enter upon his war with Holland, which brought the other project to naught. France and the Ottoman empire then remained on tolerably good terms until 1681, when a "squadron of Tripolitan corsairs having carried off a French ship on the coast of Provence, Duquesne, at the head of seven vessels, pursued the pirates into the waters of Greece. They took refuge in the harbor of Scio. Duquesne summoned the Pacha of Scio to expel them. The Pacha refused, and fired on the French squadron, when Duquesne cannonaded both the pirates and the town with such violence that the Pacha, terrified, asked for a truce, in order to refer the matter to the Sultan (July 23, 1681). Duquesne converted the attack into a blockade. At the news of this violation of the Ottoman territory, the Sultan, Mahomet IV., fell into a rage ... and dispatched the Captain-Pacha to Scio with 32 galleys. Duquesne allowed the Turkish galleys to enter the harbor, then blockaded them with the pirates, and declared that he would burn the whole if satisfaction were not had of the Tripolitans. The Divan hesitated. War was about to recommence with the Emperor; it was not the moment to kindle it against France." In the end there was a compromise, and the Tripolitans gave up the French vessel and the slaves they had captured, promising, also, to receive a French consul at Tripoli. "During this time another squadron, commanded by Château-Renault, blockaded the coasts of Morocco, the men of Maghreb having rivalled in depredations the vassals of Turkey. The powerful Emperor of Morocco, Muley Ismael, sent the governor of Tetuan to France to solicit peace of Louis XIV. The treaty was signed at Saint-Germain, January 29, 1682, on advantageous conditions," including restitution of French slaves. "Affairs did not terminate so amicably with Algiers. From this piratical centre had proceeded the gravest offenses. A captain of the royal navy was held in slavery there, with many other Frenchmen. It was resolved to inflict a terrible punishment on the Algerines. The thought of conquering Algeria had more than once presented itself to the king and Colbert, and they appreciated the value of this conquest; the Jijeli expedition had been formerly a first attempt. They did not, however, deem it incumbent on them to embark in such an enterprise; a descent, a siege, would have required too great preparations; they had recourse· to another means of attack. The regenerator of the art of naval construction, Petit-Renau, invented bomb-ketches expressly for the purpose. ... July 23, 1682, Duquesne anchored before Algiers, with 11 ships, 15 galleys, 5 bomb-ketches, and Petit-Renau to guide them. After five weeks' delay caused by bad weather, then by a fire on one of the bomb-ketches, the thorough trial took place during the night of August 30. The effect was terrible: a part of the great mosque fell on the crowd that had taken refuge there. During the night of September 3-4, the Algerines attempted to capture the bomb-ketches moored at the entrance of their harbor; they were repulsed, and the bombardment continued. The Dey wished to negotiate; the people, exasperated, prevented him. The wind shifting to the northwest presaged the equinoctial storm; Duquesne set sail again, September 12. The expedition had not been decisive. It was begun anew. June 18, 1683, Duquesne reappeared in the road of Algiers; he had, this time, seven bomb-ketches instead of five. These instruments of extermination had been perfected in the interval. The nights of June 26-27 witnessed the overthrow of a great number of houses, several mosques, and the palace of the Dey. A thousand men perished in the harbor and the town." The Dey opened negotiations, giving up 700 French slaves, but was killed by his Janizaries, and one Hadgi-Hussein proclaimed in his stead. {263} "The bombardment was resumed with increasing violence. ... The Algerines avenged themselves by binding to the muzzles of their guns a number of Frenchmen who remained in their hands. ... The fury of the Algerines drew upon them redoubled calamities. ... The bombs rained almost without intermission. The harbor was strewn with the wrecks of vessels. The city was ... a heap of bloody ruins." But "the bomb-ketches had exhausted their ammunition. September was approaching. Duquesne again departed; but a strong blockading force was kept up, during the whole winter, as a standing threat of the return of the 'infernal vessels.' The Algerines finally bowed their head, and, April 25, 1684, peace was accorded by Tourville, the commander of the blockade, to the Pacha, Dey, Divan, and troops of Algiers. The Algerines restored 320 French slaves remaining in their power, and 180 other Christians claimed by the King; the janizaries only which had been taken from them were restored; they engaged to make no prizes within ten leagues of the coast of France, nor to assist the other Moorish corsairs at war with France; to recognize the precedence of the flag of France over all other flags, &c., &c.; lastly, they sent an embassy to carry their submission to Louis XIV.; they did not, however, pay the damages which Duquesne had wished to exact of them."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV., volume 1, chapter 4 and 7.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801. Piratical depredations upon American commerce. Humiliating treaties and tribute. The example of resistance given by the United States.

"It is difficult for us to realize that only 70 years ago the Mediterranean was so unsafe that the merchant ships of every nation stood in danger of being captured by pirates, unless they were protected either by an armed convoy or by tribute paid to the petty Barbary powers. Yet we can scarcely open a book of travels during the last century without mention being made of the immense risks to which everyone was exposed who ventured by sea from Marseilles to Naples. ... The European states, in order to protect their commerce, had the choice either of paying certain sums per head for each captive, which in reality was a premium on capture, or of buying entire freedom for their commerce by the expenditure of large sums yearly. The treaty renewed by France, in 1788, with Algiers, was for fifty years, and it was agreed to pay $200,000 annually, besides large presents distributed according to custom every ten years, and a great sum given down. The peace of Spain with Algiers is said to have cost from three to five millions of dollars. There is reason to believe that at the same time England was paying an annual tribute of about $280,000. England was the only power sufficiently strong on the sea to put down these pirates; but in order to keep her own position as mistress of the seas she preferred to leave them in existence in order to be a scourge to the commerce of other European powers, and even to support them by paying a sum so great that other states might find it difficult to make peace with them. When the Revolution broke out, we [of the United States of America] no longer had the safeguards for our commerce that had been given to us by England, and it was therefore that in our very first negotiations for a treaty with France we desired to have an article inserted into the treaty, that the king of France should secure the inhabitants of the United States, and their vessels and effects, against all attacks or depredations from any of the Barbary powers. It was found impossible to insert this article in the treaty of 1778, and instead of that the king agreed to 'employ his good offices and interposition in order to provide as fully and efficaciously as possible for the benefit, conveniency and safety of the United States against the princes and the states of Barbary or their subjects.'"

Direct negotiations between the United States and the piratical powers were opened in 1785, by a call which Mr. Adams made upon the Tripolitan ambassador. The latter announced to Mr. Adams that "'Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers, and Morocco were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean; and that no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace with them.' ... The ambassador demanded as the lowest price for a perpetual peace 30,000 guineas for his employers and £3,000 for himself; that Tunis would probably treat on the same terms; but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco. Peace with all four powers would cost at least $1,000,000, and Congress had appropriated only $80,000. ... Mr. Adams was strongly opposed to war, on account of the expense, and preferred the payment of tribute. ... Mr. Jefferson quite as decidedly preferred war." The opinion in favor of a trial of pacific negotiations prevailed, and a treaty with the Emperor of Morocco was concluded in 1787. An attempt at the same time to make terms with the Del of Algiers and to redeem a number of American captives in his hands, came to nothing. "For the sake of saving a few thousand dollars, fourteen men were allowed to remain in imprisonment for ten years. ... In November, 1793, the number of [American] prisoners at Algiers amounted to 115 men, among whom there remained only ten of the original captives of 1785." At last, the nation began to realize the intolerable shame of the matter, and, "on January 2, 1794, the House of Representatives resolved that a 'naval force adequate for the protection of the commerce of the United States against the AIgerine forces ought to be provided.' In the same year authority was given to build six frigates, and to procure ten smaller vessels to be equipped as galleys. Negotiations, however, continued to go on," and in September, 1795, a treaty with the Dey was concluded. "In making this treaty, however, we had been obliged to follow the usage of European powers--not only pay a large sum for the purpose of obtaining peace, but an annual tribute, in order to keep our vessels from being captured in the future. The total cost of fulfilling the treaty was estimated at $992,463. 25."

E. Schuyler, American Diplomacy, part 4.

"The first treaty of 1795, with Algiers, which was negotiated during Washington's administration, cost the United States, for the ransom of American captives, and the Dey's forbearance, a round $1,000,000, in addition to which an annuity was promised. Treaties with other Barbary States followed, one of which purchased peace from Tripoli by the payment of a gross sum. Nearly $2,000,000 had been squandered thus far in bribing these powers to respect our flag, and President Adams complained in 1800 that the United States had to pay three times the tribute imposed upon Sweden and Denmark. {264} But this temporizing policy only made matters worse. Captain Bainbridge arrived at Algiers in 1800, bearing the annual tribute money for the Dey in a national frigate, and the Dey ordered him to proceed to Constantinople to deliver Algerine dispatches. 'English, French, and Spanish ships of war have done the same,' said the Dey, insolently, when Bainbridge and the American consul remonstrated. 'You pay me tribute because you are my slaves.' Bainbridge had to obey. ... The lesser Barbary States were still more exasperating. The Bashaw of Tripoli had threatened to seize American vessels unless President Adams sent him a present like that bestowed upon Algiers. The Bashaw of Tunis made a similar demand upon the new President [Jefferson]. ... Jefferson had, while in Washington's cabinet, expressed his detestation of the method hitherto favored for pacifying these pests of commerce; and, availing himself of the present favorable opportunity, he sent out Commodore Dale with a squadron of three frigates and a sloop of war, to make a naval demonstration on the coast of Barbary. ... Commodore Dale, upon arriving at Gibraltar [July, 1801], found two Tripolitan cruisers watching for American vessels; for, as had been suspected, Tripoli already meditated war. The frigate Philadelphia blockaded these vessels, while Bainbridge, with the frigate Essex, convoyed American vessels in the Mediterranean. Dale, in the frigate President, proceeded to cruise off Tripoli, followed by the schooner Experiment, which presently captured a Tripolitan cruiser of 14 guns after a spirited action. The Barbary powers were for a time overawed, and the United States thus set the first example among Christian nations of making reprisals instead of ransom the rule of security against these commercial marauders. In this respect Jefferson's conduct was applauded at home by men of all parties."

J. Schouler, History of the U. S., chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: R. L. Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom, chapter 16.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805. American War with the pirates of Tripoli.

"The war with Tripoli dragged tediously along, and seemed no nearer its end at the close of 1803 than 18 months before. Commodore Morris, whom the President sent to command the Mediterranean squadron, cruised from port to port between May, 1802, and August, 1803, convoying merchant vessels from Gibraltar to Leghorn and Malta, or lay in harbor and repaired his ships, but neither blockaded nor molested Tripoli; until at length, June 21, 1803, the President called him home and dismissed him from the service. His successor was Commodore Preble, who Sept. 12, 1803, reached Gibraltar with the relief-squadron which Secretary Gallatin thought unnecessarily strong. ... He found Morocco taking part with Tripoli. Captain Bainbridge, who reached Gibraltar in the 'Philadelphia' August 24, some three weeks before Preble arrived, caught in the neighborhood a Moorish cruiser of 22 guns with an American brig in its clutches. Another American brig had just been seized at Mogador. Determined to stop this peril at the outset, Preble united to his own squadron the ships which he had come to relieve, and with this combined force, ... sending the 'Philadelphia' to blockade Tripoli, he crossed to Tangiers October 6, and brought the Emperor of Morocco to reason. On both sides prizes and prisoners were restored, and the old treaty was renewed, This affair consumed time; and when at length Preble got the 'Constitution' under way for the Tripolitan coast, he spoke [to] a British frigate off the Island of Sardinia, which reported that the 'Philadelphia' had been captured October 21, more than three weeks before. Bainbridge, cruising off Tripoli, had chased a Tripolitan cruiser into shoal water, and was hauling off, when the frigate struck on a reef at the mouth of the harbor. Every effort was made without success to float her; but at last she was surrounded by Tripolitan gunboats, and Bainbridge struck his flag. The Tripolitans, after a few days work, floated the frigate, and brought her under the guns of the castle. The officers became prisoners of war, and the crew, in number 300 or more, were put to hard labor. The affair was in no way discreditable to the squadron. ... The Tripolitans gained nothing except the prisoners; for at Bainbridge's suggestion Preble, some time afterward, ordered Stephen Decatur, a young lieutenant in command of the 'Enterprise', to take a captured Tripolitan craft renamed the 'Intrepid,' and with a crew of 75 men to sail from Syracuse, enter the harbor of Tripoli by night, board the 'Philadelphia,' and burn her under the castle guns. The order was literally obeyed. Decatur ran into the harbor at ten o'clock in the night of February 16, 1804, boarded the frigate within half gun-shot of the Pacha's castle, drove the Tripolitan crew overboard, set the ship on fire, remained alongside until the flames were beyond control, and then withdrew without losing a man."

H. Adams, History of the United States: Administration of Jefferson, volume 2, chapter 7.

"Commodore Preble, in the meantime, hurried his preparations for more serious work, and on July 25th arrived off Tripoli with a squadron, consisting of the frigate Constitution, three brigs, three schooners, six gunboats, and two bomb vessels. Opposed to him were arrayed over a hundred guns mounted on shore batteries, nineteen gunboats, one ten-gun brig, two schooners mounting eight guns each, and twelve galleys. Between August 3rd and September 3rd five attacks were made, and though the town was never reduced, substantial damage was inflicted, and the subsequent satisfactory peace rendered possible. Preble was relieved by Barron in September, not because of any loss of confidence in his ability, but from exigencies of the service, which forbade the Government sending out an officer junior to him in the relief squadron which reinforced his own. Upon his return to the United States he was presented with a gold medal, and the thanks of Congress were tendered him, his officers, and men, for gallant and faithful services. The blockade was maintained vigorously, and in 1805 an attack was made upon the Tripolitan town of Derna, by a combined land and naval force; the former being under command of Consul-General Eaton, who had been a captain in the American army, and of Lieutenant O'Bannon of the Marines. The enemy made a spirited though disorganized defence, but the shells of the war-ships drove them from point to point, and finally their principal work was carried by the force under O'Bannon and Midshipman Mann. Eaton was eager to press forward, but he was denied reinforcements and military stores, and much of his advantage was lost. {265} All further operations were, however, discontinued in June, 1805, when, after the usual intrigues, delays, and prevarications, a treaty was signed by the Pasha, which provided that no further tribute should be exacted, and that American vessels should be forever free of his rovers. Satisfactory as was this conclusion, the uncomfortable fact remains that tribute entered into the settlement. After all the prisoners had been exchanged man for man, the Tripolitan Government demanded, and the United States paid, the handsome sum of sixty thousand dollars to close the contract. This treaty, however, awakened the conscience of Europe, and from the day it was signed the power of the Barbary Corsairs began to wane. The older countries saw their duty more clearly, and ceased to legalize robbery on the high seas."

S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs, chapter 20.

ALSO IN: J. F. Cooper, History of the U. S. Navy, volume 1, chapter 18 and volume 2, chapter 1-7.

J. F. Cooper, Life of Preble.

A. S. Mackenzie, Life of Decatur, chapter 3-7.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815. Final War of Algiers with the United States. Death-blow to Algerine piracy.

"Just as the late war with Great Britain broke out, the Dey of Algiers, taking offense at not having received from America the precise articles in the way of tribute demanded, had unceremoniously dismissed Lear, the consul, had declared war, and had since captured an American vessel, and reduced her crew to slavery. Immediately after the ratification of the treaty with England, this declaration had been reciprocated. Efforts had been at once made to fit out ships, new and old, including several small ones lately purchased for the proposed squadrons of Porter and Perry, and before many weeks Decatur sailed from New York with the Guerrière, Macedonian, and Constellation frigates, now released from blockade; the Ontario, new sloop of war, four brigs, and two schooners. Two days after passing Gibralter, he fell in with and captured an Algerine frigate of 44 guns, the largest ship in the Algerine navy, which struck to the Guerrière after a running fight of twenty-five minutes. A day or two after, an Algerine brig was chased into shoal water on the Spanish coast, and captured by the smaller vessels. Decatur having appeared off Algiers, the terrified Dey at once consented to a treaty, which he submitted to sign on Decatur's quarter deck, surrendering all prisoners on hand, making certain pecuniary indemnities, renouncing all future claim to any American tribute or presents, and the practice, also, of reducing prisoners of war to slavery. Decatur then proceeded to Tunis and Tripoli, and obtained from both indemnity for certain American vessels captured under the guns of their forts by British cruisers during the late war. The Bey of Tripoli being short of cash, Decatur agreed to accept in part payment the restoration of liberty to eight Danes and two Neapolitans held as slaves."

R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., Second Series, chapter 30 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: A. S. Mackenzie, Life of Decatur, chapter 13-14.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816. Bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth. Relinquishment of Christian slavery in Algiers, Tripolis and Tunis.

"The corsairs of Barbary still scoured the Mediterranean; the captives, whom they had taken from Christian vessels, still languished in captivity in Algiers; and, to the disgrace of the civilized world, a piratical state was suffered to exist in its very centre. ... The conclusion of the war [of the Coalition against Napoleon and France] made the continuance of these ravages utterly intolerable. In the interests of civilization it was essential that piracy should be put down; Britain was mistress of the seas, and it therefore devolved upon her to do the work. ... Happily for this country the Mediterranean command was held by an officer [Lord Exmouth] whose bravery and skill were fully equal to the dangers before him. ... Early in 1816 Exmouth was instructed to proceed to the several states of Barbary; to require them to recognize the cession of the Ionian Islands to Britain; to conclude peace with the kingdoms of Sardinia and Naples; and to abolish Christian slavery. The Dey of Algiers readily assented to the two first of these conditions; the Beys of Tripolis and Tunis followed the example of the Dey of Algiers, and in addition consented to refrain in future from treating prisoners of war as slaves. Exmouth thereupon returned to Algiers, and endeavoured to obtain a similar concession from the Dey. The Dey pleaded that Algiers was subject to the Ottoman Porte," and obtained a truce of three months in order to confer with the Sultan. But meantime the Algerines made an unprovoked attack upon a neighbouring coral fishery, which was protected by the British flag, massacring the fishermen and destroying the flag. This brought Exmouth back to Algiers in great haste, with an ultimatum which he delivered on the 27th of August. No answer to it was returned, and the fleet (which had been joined by some vessels of the Dutch navy) sailed into battle range that same afternoon. "The Algerines permitted the ships to move into their stations. The British reserved their fire till they could deliver it with good effect. A crowd of spectators watched the ships from the shore; and Exmouth waved his hat to them to move and save themselves from the fire. They had not the prudence to avail themselves of his timely warning. A signal shot was fired by the Algerines from the mole. The 'Queen Charlotte' replied by delivering her entire broadside. Five hundred men were struck down by the first discharge. ... The battle, which had thus begun at two o'clock in the afternoon, continued till ten o'clock in the evening. By that time half Algiers had been destroyed; the whole of the Algerine navy had been burned; and, though a few of the enemy's batteries still maintained a casual fire, their principal fortifications were crumbling ruins; the majority of their guns were dismounted." The Dey humbled himself to the terms proposed by the British commander. "On the first day of September Exmouth had the satisfaction of acquainting his government with the liberation of all the slaves in the city of Algiers, and the restitution of the money paid since the commencement of the year by the Neapolitan and Sardinian Governments for the redemption of slaves." He had also extorted from the piratical Dey a solemn declaration that he would, in future wars, treat all prisoners according to the usages of European nations. In the battle which won these important results, "128 men were killed and 690 wounded on board the British fleet; the Dutch lost 13 killed and 52 wounded."

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years Peace, book 1, chapter 6 (volume l).

L. Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and Conventions, volume 1.

{266}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830. French conquest of Algiers.

"During the Napoleonic wars, the Dey of Algiers supplied grain for the use of the French armies; it was bought by merchants of Marseilles, and there was a dispute about the matter which was unsettled as late as 1829. Several instalments had been paid; the dey demanded payment in full according to his own figures, while the French government, believing the demand excessive, required an investigation. In one of the numerous debates on the subject, Hussein Pasha, the reigning dey, became very angry, struck the consul with a fan, and ordered him out of the house. He refused all reparation for the insult, even on the formal demand of the French government, and consequently there was no alternative but war." The expedition launched from the port of Toulon, for the chastisement of the insolent Algerine, "comprised 37,500 men, 3,000 horses, and 180 pieces of artillery. ... The sea-forces included 11 ships of the line, 23 frigates, 70 smaller vessels, 377 transports, and 230 boats for landing troops. General Bourmont, Minister of War, commanded the expedition, which appeared in front of Algiers on the 13th of June, 1830." Hussein Pasha "had previously asked for aid from the Sultan of Turkey, but that wily ruler had blankly refused. The beys of Tunis and Tripoli had also declined to meddle with the affair." The landing of the French was effected safely and without serious opposition, at Sidi-Ferruch, about 16 miles west of Algiers. The Algerine army, 40,000 to 50,000 strong, commanded by Aga Ibrahim, son-in-law of the dey, took its position on the table-land of Staoueli, overlooking the French, where it waited while their landing was made. On the 19th General Bourmont was ready to advance. His antagonist, instead of adhering to the waiting attitude, and forcing the French to attack him, on his own ground, now went out to meet them, and flung his disorderly mob against their disciplined battalions, with the result that seldom fails. "The Arab loss in killed and wounded was about 3,000, ... while the French loss was less than 500. In little more than an hour the battle was over, and the Osmanlis were in full and disorderly retreat." General Bourmont took possession of the Algerine camp at Staoueli, where he was again attacked on the 24th of June, with a similar disastrous result to the Arabs. He then advanced upon the city of Algiers, established his army in position behind the city, constructed batteries, and opened, on the 4th of July, a bombardment so terrific that the dey hoisted the white flag in a few hours. "Hussein Pasha hoped to the last moment to retain his country and its independence by making liberal concessions in the way of indemnity for the expenses of the war, and offered to liberate all Christian slaves in addition to paying them for their services and sufferings. The English consul tried to mediate on this basis, but his offers of mediation were politely declined. ... It was finally agreed that the dey should surrender Algiers with all its forts and military stores, and be permitted to retire wherever he chose with his wives, children, and personal belongings, but he was not to remain in the country under any circumstances. On the 5th of July the French entered Algiers in great pomp and took possession of the city. ... The spoils of war were such as rarely fall to the lot of a conquering army, when its numbers and the circumstances of the campaign are considered. In the treasury was found a large room filled with gold and silver coins heaped together indiscriminately, the fruits of three centuries of piracy; they were the coins of all the nations that had suffered from the depredations of the Algerines, and the variety in the dates showed very clearly that the accumulation had been the work of two or three hundred years. How much money was contained in this vast pile is not known; certain it is that nearly 50,000,000 francs, or £2,000,000 sterling, actually reached the French treasury. ... The cost of the war was much more than covered by the captured property. ... Many slaves were liberated. ... The Algerine power was forever broken, and from that day Algeria has been a prosperous colony of France. Hussein Pasha embarked on the 10th of July with a suite of 110 persons, of whom 55 were women. He proceeded to Naples, where he remained for a time, went afterwards to Leghorn, and finally to Egypt." In Egypt he died, under circumstances which indicated poison.

T. W. Knox, Decisive Battles Since Waterloo, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: R. L. Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom, chapter 19.

E. E. Crowe, History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and Charles X., volume 2, chapter 13.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846. The French war of Subjugation in Algeria with Abd-el-Kader.

"When Louis Philippe ascended the throne [of France, A. D. 1830] the generals of his predecessor had overrun the country [of Algiers]--though they did not effectually subdue it; their absolute dominion not extending far round Algiers--from Bona, on the east, in latitude 36° 53' North, longitude 7° 46' West, to Oran, on the west--nearly the entire extent of the ancient Libya. ... There was always a party in the chamber of deputies opposed to the conquest who deprecated the colonisation of Algeria, and who steadily opposed any grants of either men or money to be devoted to the African enterprise. The natural result followed. Ten thousand men could not effect the work for which 40,000 were required; and, whilst the young colony languished, the natives became emboldened, and encouraged to make that resistance which cost the French so dear. Marshal Clausel, when entrusted with the government of the colony, and the supreme command of the troops ... established a series of fortified posts, which were adequately garrisoned; and roads were opened to enable the garrisons promptly to communicate with each other. These positions, rapidly acquired, he was unable to maintain, in consequence of the home government recalling the greater part of his force. To recruit his army he resolved to enlist some corps of the natives; and, in October, 1830, the first regiment of zouaves was raised." ... In 1833 we "first hear of Abd-el-Kader. This chief was the son of a marabout, or priest, in the province of Oran. He united consummate ability with great valour; was a devout Mohammedan; and when he raised the standard of the prophet, he called the Arabs around him, with the fullest confidence of success. {267} His countrymen obeyed his call in great numbers; and, encouraged by the enthusiasm they displayed, he first, at the close of 1833, proclaimed himself emir of Tlemsen (the former name of Oran), and then seized on the port of Arzew, on the west side of the gulf of that name; and the port of Mostaganem, on the opposite coast. The province of Mascara, lying at the foot of the Atlas, was also under his rule. At that time General Desmichels commanded at Oran. He had not a very large force, but he acted promptly. Marching against Abd-el-Kader, he defeated him in two pitched battles; retook Arzew and Mostaganem; and, on the 26th of February, 1834, entered into a treaty with the emir, by which both parties were bound to keep the peace towards each other. During that year the terms were observed; but, in 1835, the Arab chief again commenced hostilities. He marched to the east, entered the French territories, and took possession of Medeah, being received with the utmost joy by the inhabitants. On the 26th of June, General Trezel, with only 2,300 men, marched against him. Abd-el-Kader had 8,000 Arabs under his command; and a sanguinary combat took place in the defiles of Mouley-Ismael. After a severe combat, the French forced the passage, but with considerable loss. ... The French general, finding his position untenable, commenced a retrograde movement on the 28th of June. In his retreat he was pursued by the Arabs; and before he reached Oran, on the 4th of July, he lost all his waggons, train, and baggage; besides having ten officers, and 252 sous-officers and rank-and-file killed, and 308 wounded. The heads of many of the killed were displayed in triumph by the victors. This was a severe blow to the French, and the cause of great rejoicing to the Arabs. The former called for marshal Clausel to be restored to his command, and the government at home complied; at the same time issuing a proclamation, declaring that Algeria should not be abandoned, but that the honour of the French arms should be maintained. The marshal left France on the 28th of July; and as soon as he landed, he organised an expedition against Mascara, which was Abd-el-Kader's capital. ... The Arab chieftain advanced to meet the enemy; but, being twice defeated, he resolved to abandon his capital, which the French entered on the 6th of December, and found completely deserted. The streets and houses were alike empty and desolate; and the only living creature they encountered was an old woman, lying on some mats, who could not move of herself, and had been either forgotten or abandoned. The French set fire to the deserted houses; and having effected the destruction of Mascara, they marched to Mostaganem, which Clausel determined to make the centre of French power in that district."

Thomas Wright, History of France, volume 3, pages 633-635.

"A camp was established on the Taafna in April 1836, and an action took place there on the 25th, when the Tableau states that 3,000 French engaged 10,000 natives; and some of the enemies being troops of Morocco, an explanation was required of Muley-Abd-er-Rachman, the emperor, who said that the assistance was given to the Algerines without his knowledge. On July 6th, 1836, Abd-el-Kader suffered a disastrous defeat on the river Sikkak, near Tlemsen, at the hands of Marshal Bugeaud. November 1836, the first expedition was formed against Constantina. ...After the failure of Clauzel, General Damrémont was appointed governor, February 12th, 1837; and on the 30th of May the treaty of the Taafna between General Bugeaud and Abd-el-Kader left the French government at liberty to direct an their attention against Constantina, a camp being formed at Medjoy-el-Ahmar in that direction. An army of 10,000 men set out thence on the 1st of October, 1837, for Constantina. On the 6th it arrived before Constantina; and on the 13th the town was taken with a severe loss, including Damrémont. Marshal Vallée succeeded Damrémont as governor. The fall of Constantina destroyed the last relic of the old Turkish government. ... By the 27th January, 1838, 100 tribes had submitted to the French. A road was cleared in April by General Negrier from Constantina to Stora on the sea. This road, passing by the camps of Smendou and the Arrouch, was 22 leagues in length. The coast of the Bay of Stora, on the site of the ancient Rusicada, became covered with French settlers: and Philippeville was founded Oct. 1838, threatening to supplant Bona. Abd-el-Kader advancing in December 1837 to the province of Constantina, the French advanced also to observe him; then both retired, without coming to blows. A misunderstanding which arose respecting the second article of the treaty of Taafna was settled in the beginning of 1838. ... When Abd-el-Kader assumed the royal title of Sultan and the command of a numerous army, the French, with republican charity and fraternal sympathy, sought to infringe the Taafna treaty, and embroil the Arab hero, in order to ruin his rising empire, and found their own on its ashes. The Emir had been recognised by the whole country, from the gates of Ouchda to the river Mijerda. ... The war was resumed, and many French razzias took place. They once marched a large force from Algiers on Milianah to surprise the sultan's camp. They failed in their chief object, but nearly captured the sultan himself. He was surrounded in the middle of a French square, which thought itself sure of the reward of 100,000 francs (£4,000) offered for him; but uttering his favourite 'en-shallah' (with the will of God), he gave his white horse the spur, and came over their bayonets unwounded. He lost, however, thirty of his bodyguard and friends, but killed six Frenchmen with his own hand. Still, notwithstanding his successes, Abd-el-Kader had been losing all his former power, as his Arabs, though brave, could not match 80,000 French troops, with artillery and all the other ornaments of civilised warfare. Seven actions were fought at the Col de Mouzaia, where the Arabs were overthrown by the royal dukes, in 1841; and at the Oued Foddha, where Changarnier, with a handful of troops, defeated a whole population in a frightful gorge. It was on this occasion that, having no guns, he launched his Chasseurs d'Afrique against the fort, saying, 'Voilà mon artillerie!' Abd-el·Kader had then only two chances,--the support of Muley-Abd-er-Rahman, Emperor of Morocco; or the peace that the latter might conclude with France for him. General Bugeaud, who had replaced Marshal Vallée, organised a plan of campaign by movable columns radiating from Algiers, Oran, and Constantina; and having 100,000 excellent soldiers at his disposal, the results as against the Emir were slowly but surely effective. {268} General Negrier at Constantina, Changarnier amongst the Hadjouts about Medeah and Milianah, Cavaignae and Lamoricière in Oran,--carried out the commander-in-chiefs instructions with untiring energy and perseverance; and in the spring of 1843 the Duc d'Aumale, in company with General Changarnier, surprised the Emir's camp in the absence of the greatest part of his force, and it was with difficulty that he himself escaped. Not long afterwards he took refuge in Morocco, excited the fanatical passions of the populace of that empire, and thereby forced its ruler, Muley-Abd-er-Rahman, much against his own inclination, into a war with France; a war very speedily terminated by General Bugeaud's victory of Isly, with some slight assistance from the bombardment of Tangier and Mogador by the Prince de Joinville. In 1845 the struggle was maintained amidst the hills by the partisans of Abd-el-Kader; but our limits prevent us from dwelling on its particulars, save in one instance. ... On the night of the 12th of June, 1845, about three months before Marshal Bugeaud left Algeria, Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud, at the head of a considerable force, attempted a razzia upon the tribe of the Beni-Oulell-Hiah, numbering, in men, women, and children, about 700 persons. This was in the Dahra. The Arabs escaped the first clutch of their pursuers; and when hard pressed, as they soon were, took refuge in the cave of Khartani, which had some odour of sanctity about it: some holy man or marabout had lived and died there, we believe. The French troops came up quickly to the entrance, and the Arabs were summoned to surrender. They made no reply. Possibly they did not hear the summons. ... As there was no other outlet from the cave than that by which the Arabs entered, a few hours' patience must have been rewarded by the unconditional surrender of the imprisoned tribe. Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud were desirous of a speedier result; and by their order an immense fire was kindled at the mouth of the cave, and fed sedulously during the summer night with wood, grass, reeds, anything that would help to keep up the volume of smoke and flame which the wind drove, in roaring, whirling eddies, into the mouth of the cavern. It was too late now for the unfortunate Arabs to offer to surrender; the discharge of a cannon would not have been heard in the roar of that huge blast-furnace, much less smoke-strangled cries of human agony. The fire was kept up throughout the night; and when the day had fully dawned, the then expiring embers were kicked aside, and as soon as a sufficient time had elapsed to render the air of the silent cave breathable, some soldiers were directed to ascertain how matters were, within. They were gone but a few minutes; and they came back, we are told, pale, trembling, terrified, hardly daring, it seemed, to confront the light of day. No wonder they trembled and looked pale. They had found all the Arabs dead--men, women, children. ... St. Arnaud and Pelissier were rewarded by the French minister; and Marshal Soult observed, that 'what would be a crime against civilisation in Europe might be a justifiable necessity in Africa.' ... A taste of French bayonets at Isly, and the booming of French guns at Mogador, had brought Morocco to reason. ... Morocco sided with France, and threatened Abel-el-Kader, who cut one of their corps to pieces, and was in June on the point of coming to blows with Muley-Abd-el-Rahman, the emperor. But the Emperor of Morocco took vigorous measures to oppose him, nearly exterminating the tribes friendly to him; which drew off many partisans from the Emir, who tried to pacify the emperor, but unsuccessfully." In December, 1846, "he asked to negotiate, offered to surrender; and after 24 hours' discussion he came to Sidi Brahim, the scene of his last exploits against the French, where he was received with military honours, and conducted to the Duke of Aumale at Nemours. France has been severely abused for the detention of Abd-el-Kader in Ham."

J. R. Morell, Algeria, chapter 22.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1881. Tunis brought under the protectorate of France.

See FRANCE: A. D.1875-1889.

----------BARBARY STATES: End----------

BARBES.--BARBETS.

The elders among the early Waldenses were called barbes, which signified "Uncle." Whence came the nickname Barbets, applied to the Waldensian people generally.

E. Comba, History of the Waldenses of Italy, page 147.

BARCA.

See CYRENE.

BARCELONA: A. D. 713. Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1151. The County joined to Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

BARCELONA: 12th-16th Centuries. Commercial prosperity and municipal freedom.

"The city of Barcelona, which originally gave its name to the county of which it was the capital, was distinguished from a very early period by ample municipal privileges. After the union with Aragon in the 12th century, the monarchs of the latter kingdom extended towards it the same liberal legislation; so that, by the 13th, Barcelona had reached a degree of commercial prosperity rivalling that of any of the Italian republics. She divided with them the lucrative commerce with Alexandria; and her port, thronged with foreigners from every nation, became a principal emporium in the Mediterranean for the spices, drugs, perfumes, and other rich commodities of the East, whence they were diffused over the interior of Spain and the European continent. Her consuls, and her commercial factories, were established in every considerable port in the Mediterranean and in the north of Europe. The natural products of her soil, and her various domestic fabrics, supplied her with abundant articles of export. Fine wool was imported by her in considerable quantities from England in the 14th and 15th centuries, and returned there manufactured into cloth; an exchange of commodities the reverse of that existing between the two nations at the present day. Barcelona claims the merit of having established the first bank of exchange and deposit in Europe, in 1401; it was devoted to the accommodation of foreigners as well as of her own citizens. She claims the glory, too, of having compiled the most ancient written code, among the moderns, of maritime law now extant, digested from the usages of commercial nations, and which formed the basis of the mercantile jurisprudence of Europe during the Middle Ages. The wealth which flowed in upon Barcelona, as the result of her activity and enterprise, was evinced by her numerous public works, her docks, arsenal, warehouses, exchange, hospitals, and other constructions of general utility. Strangers, who visited Spain in the 14th and 15th centuries, expatiate on the magnificence of this city, its commodious private edifices, the cleanliness of its streets and public squares (a virtue by no means usual in that day), and on the amenity of its gardens and cultivated environs. {269} But the peculiar glory of Barcelona was the freedom of her municipal institutions. Her government consisted of a senate or council of one hundred, and a body of regidores or counsellors, as they were styled, varying at times from four to six in number; the former intrusted with the legislative, the latter with the executive functions of administration. A large proportion of these bodies were selected from the merchants, tradesmen, and mechanics of the city. They were invested not merely with municipal authority, but with many of the rights of sovereignty. They entered into commercial treaties with foreign powers; superintended the defence of the city in time of war; provided for the security of trade; granted letters of reprisal against any nation who might violate it; and raised and appropriated the public moneys for the construction of useful works, or the encouragement of such commercial adventures as were too hazardous or expensive for individual enterprise. The counsellors, who presided over the municipality, were complimented with certain honorary privileges, not even accorded to the nobility. They were addressed by the title of magnificos; were seated, with their heads covered, in the presence of royalty; were preceded by mace-bearers, or lictors, in their progress through the country; and deputies from their body to the court were admitted on the footing and received the honors of foreign ambassadors. These, it will be recollected, were plebeians,--merchants and mechanics. Trade never was esteemed a degradation in Catalonia, as it came to be in Castile."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, introduction, section 2.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1640. Insurrection.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1651-1652. Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1705. Capture by the Earl of Peterborough.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1706. Unsuccessful siege by the French and Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1706.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1713-1714. Betrayal and desertion by the Allies. Siege, capture and massacre by French and Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1842. Rebellion and bombardment.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

----------BARCELONA: End----------

BARCELONA, Treaty of.

See ITALY: A.D. 1527-1529.

BARCIDES, OR BARCINE FAMILY, The.

The family of the great Carthaginian, Hamilcar Barca, father of the more famous Hannibal. The surname Barca, or Barcas, given to Hamilcar, is equivalent to the Hebrew Barak and signified lightning.

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthagenians, chapter 7.

BARDS.

See FILI.

BARDULIA, Ancient Cantabria.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

BARÉ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

BAREBONES PARLIAMENT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BARERE AND THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE); (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER); TO 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

BARKIAROK, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1092-1104.

BARMECIDES, OR BARMEKIDES, The.

The Barmecides, or Barmekides, famous in the history of the Caliphate at Bagdad, and made familiar to all the world by the stories of the "Arabian Nights," were a family which rose to great power and wealth under the Caliph Haroun Alraschid. It took its name from one Khaled ibn Barmek, a Persian, whose father had been the "Barmek" or custodian of one of the most celebrated temples of the Zoroastrian faith. Khaled accepted Mahometanism and became one of the ablest agents of the conspiracy which overthrew the Ommiad Caliphs and raised the Abbasides to the throne. The first of the Abbaside Caliphs recognized his ability and made him vizier. His son Yahya succeeded to his power and was the first vizier of the famous Haroun Alraschid. But it was Jaafar, one of the sons of Yahya, who became the prime favorite of Haroun and who raised the family of the Barmecides to its acme of splendor. So much greatness in a Persian house excited wide jealousy, however, among the Arabs, and, in the end, the capricious lord and master of the all powerful vizier Jaafar turned his heart against him, and against all his house. The fall of the Barmecides was made as cruel as their advancement had been unscrupulous. Jaafar was beheaded without a moment's warning; his father and brother were imprisoned, and a thousand members of the family are said to have been slain.

R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad, part 2, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: E. H. Palmer, Haroun Alraschid, chapter 3.

BARNABITES.--PAULINES.

"The clerks-regular of St. Paul (Panlines), whose congregation was founded by Antonio Maria Zacharia of Cremona and two Milanese associates in 1532, approved by Clement VII. in 1533, and confirmed as independent by Paul III. in 1534, in 1545 took the name of Barnabites, from the church of St. Barnabas, which was given up to them at Milan. The Barnabites, who have been described as the democratic wing of the Theatines, actively engaged in the conversion of heretics, both in Italy and in France and in that home of heresy, Bohemia."

A. W. Ward, The Counter Reformation, page 29.

BARNBURNERS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

BARNET, Battle of (A. D. 1471).

The decisive battle, and the last but one fought, in the "Wars of the Roses." Edward IV., having been driven out of England and Henry VI. reinstated by Warwick, "the King-maker," the former returned before six months had passed and made his way to London. Warwick hastened to meet him with an army of Lancastrians and the two forces came together on Easter Sunday, April 14, 1471, near Barnet, only ten miles from London. The victory, long doubtful, was won for the white rose of York and it was very bloodily achieved. The Earl of Warwick was among the slain.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

BARNEVELDT, John of, The religious persecution and death of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

{270}

BARON.

"The title of baron, unlike that of Earl, is a creation of the [Norman] Conquest. The word, in its origin equivalent to 'homo,' receives under feudal institutions, like 'homo' itself, the meaning of vassal. Homage (hominium) is the ceremony by which the vassal becomes the man of his lord; and the homines of the king are barons. Possibly the king's thegn of Anglo-Saxon times may answer to the Norman baron."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11, section 124.

BARON, Court.

See MANORS.

BARONET.

"One approaches with reluctance the modern title of baronet. ... Grammatically, the term is clear enough; it is the diminutive of baron: but baron is emphatically a man, the liege vassal of the king; and baronet, therefore, etymologically would seem to imply a a doubt. Degrees of honor admit of no diminution: a 'damoisel' and a 'donzello' are grammatical diminutives, but they do not lessen the rank of the bearer; for, on the contrary, they denote the heir to the larger honor, being attributed to none but the sons of the prince or nobleman, who bore the paramount title. They did not degrade, even in their etymological signification, which baronet appears to do, and no act of parliament can remove this radical defect. ... Independently of these considerations, the title arose from the expedient of a needy monarch [James I.] to raise money, and was offered for sale. Any man, provided he were of good birth, might, 'for a consideration,' canton his family shield with the red hand of Ulster."

R. T. Hampson, Origines Patriciæ, pages 368-369.

BARONS' WAR, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

BARONY OF LAND.

"Fifteen acres, but in some places twenty acres."

N. H. Nicolas, Notitia Historica, page 134.

BARRIER FORTRESSES, The razing of the.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

BARRIER TREATIES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709, and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

BARROW.

A mound raised over the buried dead. "This form of memorial, ... as ancient as it has been lasting, is found in almost all parts of the globe. Barrows, under diverse names, line the coasts of the Mediterranean, the seats of ancient empires and civilisations. ... They abound in Great Britain and Ireland, differing in shape and size and made of various materials; and are known as barrows (mounds of earth) and cairns (mounds of stone) and popularly in some parts of England as lows, houes, and tumps."

W. Greenwell, British Barrows, pages 1-2.

ALSO IN: Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric TIMES, chapter 5.

BARTENSTEIN, Treaty of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

BARWALDE, Treaty of.

See GERMANY. A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).

BASHAN.

See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

BASHI BOZOUK, OR BAZOUKS.

For the suppression of the revolt of 1875-77 in the Christian provinces of the Turkish dominions (see TURKS: 1861-1876), "besides the regular forces engaged against the Bulgarians, great numbers of the Moslem part of the local population had been armed by the Government and turned loose to fight the insurgents in their own way. These irregular warriors are called Bashi Bozouks, or Rottenheads. The term alludes to their being sent out without regular organization and without officers at their head."

H. O. Dwight, Turkish Life in War Time, page 15.

BASIL I. (called the Macedonian), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 867-886.

Basil, or Vassili, I., Grand Duke of Volodomir, A. D. 1272-1276

Basil II., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1025.

Basil, or Vassili, II., Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1389-1425.

Basil III. (The Blind), Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1425-1462.

Basil IV., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1505-1533.

BASILEUS.

"From the earliest period of history, the sovereigns of Asia had been celebrated in the Greek language by the title of Basileus, or King: and since it was considered as the first distinction among men, it was soon employed by the servile provincials of the east in their humble address to the Roman throne."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

BASILIAN DYNASTY, The.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

BASILICÆ.

"Among the buildings appropriated to the public service at Rome, none were more important than the Basilicæ. Although their name is Greek, yet they were essentially a Roman creation, and were used for practical purposes peculiarly Roman,--the administration of law and the transaction of merchants' business. Historically, considerable interest attaches to them from their connection with the first Christian churches. The name of Basilica was applied by the Romans equally to all large buildings intended for the special needs of public business. ... Generally, however, they took the form most adapted to their purposes--a semi-circular apse or tribunal for legal trials and a central nave, with arcades and galleries on each side for the transaction of business. They existed not only as separate buildings, but, also as reception rooms attached to the great mansions of Rome. ... It is the opinion of some writers that these private basilicæ, and not the public edifices, served as the model for the Christian Basilica."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, introduction.

ALSO IN: A. P. Stanley, Christian Institutions, chapter 9.

BASILIKA, The.

A compilation or codification of the imperial laws of the Byzantine Empire promulgated A. D. 884, in the reign of Basil I. and afterwards revised and amplified by his son, Leo VI.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to 1057, book 2, chapter 1, section 1.

BASING HOUSE, The Storming and Destruction of.

"Basing House [mansion of the Marquis of Winchester, near Basingstoke, in Hampshire], an immense fortress, with a feudal castle and a Tudor palace within its ramparts, had long been a thorn in the side of the Parliament. Four years it had held out, with an army within, well provisioned for years, and blocked the road to the west. At last it was resolved to take it: and Cromwell was directly commissioned by Parliament to the work. Its capture is one of the most terrible and stirring incidents of the war. After six days' constant cannonade, the storm began at six o'clock in the morning of the 14th of October [A. D. 1645]. After some hours of desperate fighting, one after another its defences were taken and its garrison put to the sword or taken. The plunder was prodigious; the destruction of property unsparing. It was gutted, burnt, and the very ruins carted away."

F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of the Civil War, chapter 37 (volume 2).

Mrs. Thompson, Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places, volume 2, chapter 1.

{271}

BASLE, Council of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.

BASLE, Treaties of (1795).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY), and 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BASOCHE.--BASOCHIENS.

"The Basoche was an association of the 'clercs du Parlement' [Parliament of Paris]. The etymology of the name is uncertain. ... The Basoche is supposed to have been instituted in 1302, by Philippe-le-Bel, who gave it the title of 'Royaume de la Basoche,' and ordered that it should form a tribunal for judging, without appeal, all civil and criminal matters that might arise among the clerks and all actions brought against them. He likewise ordered that the president should be called 'Roi de la Basoche,' and that the king and his subjects should have an annual 'montre' or review. ... Under the reign of Henry III. the number of subjects of the roi de la Basoche amounted to nearly 10,000. ... The members of the Basoche took upon themselves to exhibit plays in the 'Palais,' in which they censured the public manners; indeed they maybe said to have been the first comic authors and actors that appeared in Paris. ...At the commencement of the Revolution, the Basochiens formed a troop, the uniform of which was red, with epaulettes and silver buttons; but they were afterwards disbanded by a decree of the National Assembly."

History of Paris (London: G. B. Whittaker, 1827), volume 2, page 106.

BASQUES, The.

"The western extremity of the Pyrenees, where France and Spain join, gives us a locality ... where, although the towns, like Bayonne, Pampeluna, and Bilbao, are French or Spanish, the country people are Basques or Biscayans--Basques or Biscayans not only in the provinces of Biscay, but in Alava, Upper Navarre, and the French districts of Labourd and Soule. Their name is Spanish (the word having originated in that of the ancient Vascones), and it is not the one by which they designate themselves; though possibly it is indirectly connected with it. The native name is derived from the root Eusk-; which becomes Euskara when the language, Euskkerria when the country, and Euskaldunac when the people are spoken of."

H. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: I. Taylor, Origin of the Aryans, chapter 4, section 4.

See, also, IBERIANS, THE WESTERN, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.

BASSANO, Battle of.

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

BASSEIN, Treaty of (1802).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

BASSORAH.

See BUSSORAH.

BASTARNÆ, The. See PEUCINI.

BASTILLE, The.

"The name of Bastille or Bastel was, in ancient times, given to any kind of erection calculated to withstand a military force; and thus, formerly in England and on the borders of Scotland, the term Bastel-house was usually applied to places of strength and fancied security. Of the many Bastilles in France that of Paris, ... which at first was called the Bastille St-Antoine, from being erected near the suburb of St-Antoine, retained the name longest. This fortress, of melancholy celebrity, was erected under the following circumstances: In the year 1356, when the English, then at war with France, were in the neighbourhood of Paris, it was considered necessary by the inhabitants of the French capital to repair the bulwarks of their city. Stephen Marcel, provost of the merchants, undertook this task, and, amongst other defences, added to the fortifications at the eastern entrance of the town, a gate flanked with a tower on each side." This was the beginning of the constructions of the Bastille. They were enlarged in 1369 by Hugh Aubriot, provost of Paris under Charles V. He "added two towers, which, being placed opposite to those already existing on each side of the gate, made of the Bastille a square fort, with a tower at each of the four angles." After the death of Charles V., Aubriot, who had many enemies, was prosecuted for alleged crimes, "was condemned to perpetual confinement, and placed in the Bastille, of which, according to some historians, he was the first prisoner. After some time, he was removed thence to Fort l'Evêque, another prison," from which he was liberated in 1381, by the insurrection of the Maillotins (see PARIS: A. D. 1381). "After the insurrection of the Maillotins, in 1382, the young king, Charles VI., still further enlarged the Bastille by adding four towers to it, thus giving it, instead of the square form it formerly possessed, the shape of an oblong or parallelogram. The fortress now consisted of eight towers, each 100 feet high, and, like the wall which united them, nine feet thick. Four of these towers looked on the city, and four on the suburb of St-Antoine. To increase its strength, the Bastille was surrounded by a ditch 25 feet deep and 120 feet wide. The road which formerly passed through it was turned on one side. ... The Bastille was now completed (1383), and though additions were subsequently made to it, the body of the fortress underwent no important change. ... Both as a place of military defence, and as a state prison of great strength, the Bastille was, even at an early period, very formidable."

History of the Bastille (Chambers's Miscellany, no. 132, volume 17).

For an account of the taking and destruction of the Bastille by the people, in 1789,

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY).

ALSO IN: D. Bingham, The Bastille.

R. A. Davenport, History of the Bastile.

BASTITANI, The.

See TURDETANI.

BASUTOS, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.

BATAVIA (Java), Origin of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

BATAVIAN REPUBLIC, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

{272}

BATAVIANS, OR BATAVI, The.

"The Germanic Batavi had been peacefully united with the [Roman] Empire, not by Cæsar, but not long afterwards, perhaps by Drusus. They were settled in the Rhine delta, that is on the left bank of the Rhine and on the islands formed by its arms, upwards as far at least as the Old Rhine, and so nearly from Antwerp to Utrecht and Leyden in Zealand and southern Holland, on territory originally Celtic--at least the local names are predominantly Celtic; their name is still borne by the Betuwe, the lowland between the Waal and the Leck with the capital Noviomagus, now Nimeguen. They were, especially compared with the restless and refractory Celts, obedient and useful subjects, and hence occupied a distinctive position in the aggregate, and particularly in the military system of the Roman Empire. They remained quite free from taxation, but were on the other hand drawn upon more largely than any other canton in the recruiting; this one canton furnished to the army 1,000 horsemen and 9,000 foot soldiers; besides, the men of the imperial body-guard were taken especially from them. The command of these Batavian divisions was conferred exclusively on native Batavi. The Batavi were accounted indisputably not merely as the best riders and swimmers of the army, but also as the model of true soldiers."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.

"When the Cimbri and their associates, about a century before our era, made their memorable onslaught upon Rome, the early inhabitants of the Rhine island of Batavia, who were probably Celts, joined in the expedition. A recent and tremendous inundation had swept away their miserable homes. ... The island was deserted of its population. At about the same period a civil dissension among the Chatti--a powerful German race within the Hercynian forest--resulted in the expatriation of a portion of the people. The exiles sought a new home in the empty Rhine island, called it 'Bet-auw,' or 'good meadow,' and were themselves called, thenceforward, Batavi, or Batavians."

J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction., section 2.

BATAVIANS: A. D. 69. Revolt of Civilis.

"Galba [Roman Emperor], succeeding to the purple upon the suicide of Nero, dismissed the Batavian life-guards to whom he owed his elevation. He is murdered, Otho and Vitellius contend for the succession, while all eyes are turned upon the eight Batavian regiments. In their hands the scales of Empire seem to rest. They declare for Vitellius and the civil war begins. Otho is defeated; Vitellius acknowledged by Senate and people. Fearing, like his predecessors, the imperious turbulence of the Batavian legions, he, too, sends them into Germany. It was the signal for a long and extensive revolt, which had well-nigh overturned the Roman power in Gaul and Lower Germany. Claudius Civilis was a Batavian of noble race, who had served twenty-five years in the Roman armies. His Teutonic name has perished. ... After a quarter of a century's service he was sent in chains to Rome and his brother executed, both falsely charged with conspiracy. ... Desire to avenge his own wrongs was mingled with loftier motives in his breast. He knew that the sceptre was in the gift of the Batavian soldiery. ... By his courage, eloquence and talent for political combinations, Civilis effected a general confederation of all the Netherland tribes, both Celtic and German. For a brief moment there was a united people, a Batavian commonwealth. ... The details of the revolt [A. D. 69] have been carefully preserved by Tacitus, and form one of his grandest and most elaborate pictures. ... The battles, the sieges, the defeats, the indomitable spirit of Civilis, still flaming most brightly when the clouds were darkest around him, have been described by the great historian in his most powerful manner. ... The struggle was an unsuccessful one. After many victories and many overthrows, Civilis was left alone. ... He accepted the offer of negotiation from Cerialis [the Roman commander]. ... A colloquy was agreed upon. The bridge across the Nabalia was broken asunder in the middle and Cerialis and Civilis met upon the severed sides. ... Here the story abruptly terminates. The remainder of the Roman's narrative is lost, and upon that broken bridge the form of the Batavian hero disappears forever."

J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction., sections. 3-4.

ALSO IN: Tacitus, History, books. 4-5.

----------BATAVIANS: End----------

BATH, The Order of the.

"The present Military Order of the Bath, founded by King George I. in the year 1725, differs so essentially from the Knighthood of the Bath, or the custom of making Knights with various rites and ceremonies, of which one was Bathing, that it may almost be considered a distinct and new fraternity of chivalry. The last Knights of the Bath, made according to the ancient forms, were at the coronation of King Charles II.; and from that period until the reign of the first George, the old institution fell into total oblivion. At the latter epoch, however, it was determined to revive, as it was termed, The Order of the Bath, by erecting it into a regular Military Order'; and on the 25th May, 1725, Letters Patent were issued for that purpose. By the Statutes then promulgated, the number of Knights, independent of the Sovereign, a Prince of the Blood Royal, and a Great Master, was restricted to 35." It has since been greatly increased, and the Order divided into three classes: First Class, consisting of "Knights Grand Cross," not to exceed 50 for military and 25 for civil service; Second Class, consisting of "Knights Commanders," not to exceed 102 for military and 50 for civil service; Third Class, "Companions," not to exceed 525 for military and 200 for civil service.

Sir B. Burke, Book of Orders of Knighthood, page 104.

BATH, in Roman times.

See AQUÆ: SOLIS.

BATHS OF CARACALLA, Nero, etc.

See THERMÆ.

BATONIAN WAR, The.

A formidable revolt of the Dalmatians and Pannonians, A. D. 6, involved the Roman Empire, under Augustus, in a serious war of three years duration, which was called the Batonian War, from the names of two leaders of the insurgents,--Bato the Dalmatian, and Bato the Pannonian.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 1.

BATOUM: Ceded to Russia. Declared a free port.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

BATTIADÆ, The.

See CYRENE.

BATTLE ABBEY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1066 (OCTOBER).

BATTLE ABOVE THE CLOUDS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

BATTLE OF THE CAMEL.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

BATTLE OF THE KEGS, The.

See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

{273}

BATTLE OF THE NATIONS (Leipsic).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

BATTLE OF THE THREE EMPERORS. The battle of Austerlitz

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER)--was so called by Napoleon.

BATTLES.

The battles of which account is given in this work are so numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting references to them under this general heading. They are severally indexed under the names by which they are historically known.

BAURE, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

BAUTZEN, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

BAUX, Lords of; Gothic Origin of the.

The illustrious Visigothic race of the "Balthi" or "Baltha" ("the bold"), from which sprang Alaric, "continued to flourish in France in the Gothic province of Septimania, or Languedoc, under the corrupted appellation of Baux, and a branch of that family afterwards settled in the kingdom of Naples."

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

BAVARIA: The name. Bavaria derived its name from the Boii.

R. G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena, section 20.

See, also, BOIANS.

The Ethnology of.

"Bavaria ... falls into two divisions; the Bavaria of the Rhine, and the Bavaria of the Danube. In Rhenish Bavaria the descent is from the ancient Vangiones and Nemetes, either Germanized Gauls or Gallicized Germans, with Roman superadditions. Afterwards, an extension of the Alemannic and Suevic populations from the right bank of the Upper Rhine completes the evolution of their present Germanic character. Danubian Bavaria falls into two subdivisions. North of the Danube the valley of the Naab, at least, was originally Slavonic, containing an extension of the Slavonic population of Bohemia. But disturbance and displacement began early. ... In the third and fourth centuries, the Suevi and Alemanni extended themselves from the Upper Rhine. ... The northwestern parts of Bavaria were probably German from the beginning. South of the Danube the ethnology changes. In the first place the Roman elements increase; since Vindelicia was a Roman province. ... Its present character has arisen from an extension of the Germans of the Upper Rhine."

R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 8.

BAVARIA: A. D. 547. Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.

"It is about this period [A. D. 547] that the Bavarians first become known in history as tributaries of the Franks; but at what time they became so is matter of dispute. From the previous silence of the annalists respecting this people, we may perhaps infer that both they and the Suabians remained independent until the fall of the Ostrogothic Empire in Italy. The Gothic dominions were bounded on the north by Rhætia and Noricum; and between these countries and the Thuringians, who lived still further to the north, was the country of the Bavarians and Suabians. Thuringia had long been possessed by the Franks, Rhætia was ceded by Vitisges, king of Italy, and Venetia was conquered by Theudebert [the Austrasian Frank King]. The Bavarians were therefore, at this period, almost surrounded by the Frankish territories. ... Whenever they may have first submitted to the yoke, it is certain that at the time of Theudebert's death [A. D. 547], or shortly after that event, both Bavarians and Suabians (or Alemannians), had become subjects of the Merovingian kings."

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

BAVARIA: A. D. 843-962. The ancient Duchy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

BAVARIA: A. D. 876. Added to the Austrian March.

See Austria: A. D. 805-1246.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1071-1178. The Dukes of the House of Guelf.

See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES; and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1101. Disastrous Crusade of Duke Welf.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1125-1152. The origin of the Electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1138-1183. Involved in the beginnings of the Guelf and Ghibelline Conflicts. The struggles of Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion.

See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1156. Separation of the Austrian March, which becomes a distinct Duchy.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356. The House of Wittelsbach. Its acquisition of Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine. Loss of the Electoral Vote by Bavaria.

When, in 1180, the dominions of Henry the Lion, under the ban of the Empire, were stripped from him (see SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183), by the imperial sentence of forfeiture, and were divided and conferred upon others by Frederick Barbarossa, the Duchy of Bavaria was given to Otto, Count Palatine of Wittelsbach. "As he claimed a descent from an ancient royal family of Bavaria, it was alleged that, in obtaining the sovereignty of that state, he had only in some measure regained those rights which in former times belonged to his ancestors."

Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover, volume 1, page 276.

"Otto ... was a descendant of that Duke Luitpold who fell in combat with the Hungarians, and whose sons and grandsons had already worn the ducal cap of Bavaria. No princely race in Europe is of such ancient extraction. ... Bavaria was as yet destitute of towns: Landshutt and Munich first rose into consideration in the course of the 13th century; Ratisbon, already a flourishing town, was regarded as the capital and residence of the Dukes of Bavaria. ... A further accession of dignity and power awaited the family in 1214 in the acquisition of the Palatinate of the Rhine. Duke Ludwig was now the most powerful prince of Southern Germany. ... His son Otto the Illustrious, remaining ... true to the imperial house, died excommunicate, and his dominions were placed for several years under an interdict. ... Upon the death of Otto a partition of the inheritance took place. This partition became to the family an hereditary evil, a fatal source of quarrel and of secret or open enmity. ... In [the] dark and dreadful period of interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], when all men waited for the final dissolution of the empire, nothing appears concerning the Wittelsbach family. ... Finally in 1273 Rudolf, the first of the Hapsburgs, ascended the long-unoccupied throne. ... He won over the Bavarian princes by bestowing his daughters upon them in marriage. {274} Louis remained faithful and rendered him good service; but the turbulent Henry, who had already made war upon his brother for the possession of the electoral vote, deserted him, and for this Bavaria was punished by the loss of the vote, and of the territory above the Enns." Afterwards, for a time, the Duke of Bavaria and the Count Palatine exercised the right of the electoral vote alternately; but in 1356 by the Golden Bull of Charles IV. [see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493], the vote was given wholly to the Count Palatine, and lost to Bavaria for nearly 300 years.

J. I. von Döllinger, The House of Wittelsbach (Studies in European History, chapter 2).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1314. Election of Louis to the imperial throne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1500. Formation of the Circle.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1610. The Duke at the head of the Catholic League.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1619. The Duke in command of the forces of the Catholic League.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1623. Transfer to the Duke of the Electoral dignity of the Elector Palatine.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1632. Occupation by Gustavus Adolphus.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1646-1648. Ravaged by the Swedes and French. Truce made and renounced by the Elector. The last campaigns of the war.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1648. Acquisition of the Upper Palatinate in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1686. The League of Augsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1689-1696. The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692; 1693 (JULY); 1694; 1695-1696.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1700. Claims of the Electoral Prince on the Spanish Crown.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1702. The Elector joins France against the Allies.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1702.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1703. Successes of the French and Bavarians.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1704. Ravaged, crushed and surrendered by the Elector.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1705. Dissolution of the Electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1714. The Elector restored to his Dominions.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1740. Claims of the Elector to the Austrian succession.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1742. The Elector crowned Emperor.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (OCTOBER).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (April). The Emperor-Elector recovers his Electoral territory.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER), and 1743.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (June). The Emperor-Elector again a fugitive. The Austrians in Possession.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1745. Death of the Emperor-Elector. Peace with Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1748. Termination and results of the war of the Austrian Succession.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1767. Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779. The Succession question.

"With the death of Maximilian Joseph, of Bavaria (30 December, 1777), the younger branch of the house of Wittelsbach became extinct, and the electorate of Bavaria ... came to an end. By virtue of the original partition in 1310, the duchy of Bavaria ought to pass to the elder branch of the family, represented by Charles Theodore, the Elector Palatine. But Joseph [the Second, the Emperor], saw the possibility of securing valuable additions to Austria which would round off the frontier on the west. The Austrian claims were legally worthless. They were based chiefly upon a gift of the Straubingen territory which Sigismund was said to have made in 1426 to his son-in-law, Albert of Austria, but which had never taken effect and had since been utterly forgotten. It would be impossible to induce the diet to recognise such claims, but it might be possible to come to an understanding with the aged Charles Theodore, who had no legitimate children and was not likely to feel any very keen interest in his new inheritance. Without much difficulty the elector was half frightened, half induced to sign a treaty (3 January, 1778), by which he recognised the claims put forward by Austria, while the rest of Bavaria was guaranteed to him and his successors. Austrian troops were at once despatched to occupy the ceded districts. The condition of Europe seemed to assure the success of Joseph's bold venture. ... There was only one quarter from which opposition was to be expected, Prussia. Frederick promptly appealed to the fundamental laws of the Empire, and declared his intention of upholding them with arms. But he could find no supporters except those who were immediately interested, the elector of Saxony, whose mother, as a sister of the late elector of Bavaria, had a legal claim to his allodial property, and Charles of Zweibrücken, the heir apparent of the childless Charles Theodore. ... Frederick, left to himself, despatched an army into Bohemia, where the Austrian troops had been joined by the emperor in person. But nothing came of the threatened hostilities. Frederick was unable to force on a battle, and the so-called war was little more than an armed negotiation. ... France and Russia undertook to mediate, and negotiations were opened in 1779 at Teschen, where peace was signed on the 13th of May. Austria withdrew the claims which had been recognised in the treaty with the Elector Palatine, and received the 'quarter of the Inn,' i. e., the district from Passau to Wildshut. Frederick's eventual claims to the succession in the Franconian principalities of Anspach and Baireuth, which Austria had every interest in opposing, were recognised by the treaty. The claims of Saxony were bought off by a payment of 4,000,000 thalers. The most unsatisfactory part of the treaty was that it was guaranteed by France and Russia. ... On the whole, it was a great triumph for Frederick and an equal humiliation for Joseph II. His schemes of aggrandisement had been foiled."

R. Lodge, History of Modern Europe, chapter 20, section 3,

ALSO IN: T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 6, chapter 8 (volume 3).

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

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

{275}

BAVARIA: A. D. 1805-1806. Aggrandized by Napoleon. Created a Kingdom. Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

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

BAVARIA: A. D. 1809. The revolt in the Tyrol. Heroic struggle of Hofer and his countrymen.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1813. Abandonment of Napoleon and the Rhenish Confederation. Union with the Allies.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1814-1815. Restoration of the Tyrol to Austria. Territorial compensations.

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

BAVARIA: A. D. 1848 (March). Revolutionary outbreak. Expulsion of Lola Montez. Abdication of the King.

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

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

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

BAVARIA: 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.

----------BAVARIA: End----------

BAVAY, Origin of.

See NERVII.

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

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BAYARD, The Chevalier: His knightly deeds and his death.

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504, and FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

BAYEUX TAPESTRY.

A remarkable roll of mediæval tapestry, 214 feet long and 20 inches wide, preserved for centuries in the cathedral at Bayeux, Normandy, on which a pictorial history of the Norman invasion and conquest of England is represented, with more or less of names and explanatory inscriptions. Mr. E. A. Freeman (Norman Conquest, volume 3, note A) says: "It will be seen that, throughout this volume, I accept the witness of the Bayeux Tapestry as one of my highest authorities. I do not hesitate to say that I look on it as holding the first place among the authorities on the Norman side. That it is a contemporary work I entertain no doubt whatever, and I entertain just as little doubt as to its being a work fully entitled to our general confidence. I believe the tapestry to have been made for Bishop Odo, and to have been most probably designed by him as an ornament for his newly rebuilt cathedral church of Bayeux." The precious tapestry is now preserved in the public library at Bayeux, carefully stretched round the room under glass.

BAYEUX, The Saxons of.

See SAXONS OF BAYEUX

BAYLEN, Battle of (1808).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

BAYOGOULAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

BAYONNE: Conference of Catharine de'Medici and the Duke of Alva (1565).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

BAZAINE'S SURRENDER AT METZ.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER), and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

BEACONSFIELD (Disraeli) Ministries.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852; 1858-1859; 1868-1870, and 1873-1880.

BEAR FLAG, The.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

BEARN: The rise of the Counts.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

BEARN: A. D. 1620. Absorbed and incorporated in the Kingdom of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

BEARN: A. D. 1685. The Dragonnade. Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

----------BEARN: End----------

BEATOUN, Cardinal, The assassination of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.

BEAUFORT, N. C., Capture of, by the National forces (1862).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

BEAUGÉ, Battle of.

The English commanded by the Duke of Clarence, defeated in Anjou by an army of French and Scots, under the Dauphin of France; the Duke of Clarence slain.

BEAUMARCHAIS'S TRANSACTIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.

BEAUMONT, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BEAUREGARD, General G. T. Bombardment of Fort Sumter.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MARCH-APRIL).

At the first Battle of Bull Run.

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

Command in the Potomac district.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER- APRIL: VIRGINIA).

Command in the West.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE), and (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE--MISSISSIPPI).

The Defence of Charleston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

BEAUVAIS, Origin of.

See BELGÆ.

BEBRYKIANS, The.

See BITHYNIANS.

BEC, Abbey of.

One of the most famous abbeys and ecclesiastical schools of the middle ages. Its name was derived from the little beck or rivulet of a valley in Normandy, on the banks of which a pious knight, Herlouin, retiring from the world, had fixed his hermitage. The renown of the piety of Herlouin drew others around him and resulted in the formation of a religious community with himself at its head. Among those attracted to Herlouin's retreat were a noble Lombard scholar, Lanfranc of Pavia, who afterwards became the great Norman archbishop of Canterbury, and Anselm of Aosta, another Italian, who succeeded Lanfranc at Canterbury with still more fame. The teaching of Lanfranc at Bec raised it, says Mr. Green in his Short History of the English People, into the most famous school of Christendom; it was, in fact, the first wave of the intellectual movement which was spreading from Italy to the ruder countries of the West. The fabric of the canon law and of mediaeval scholasticism, with the philosophical skepticism which first awoke under its influence, all trace their origin to Bec. "The glory of Bec would have been as transitory as that of other monastic houses, but for the appearance of one illustrious man [Lanfranc] who came to be enrolled as a private member of the brotherhood, and who gave Bec for a while a special and honorable character with which hardly any other monastery in Christendom could compare."

E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 8.

{276}

BECHUANAS, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS; and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BECKET, Thomas, and King Henry II.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

BED-CHAMBER QUESTION, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.

BED OF JUSTICE.

"The ceremony by which the French kings compelled the registration of their edicts by the Parliament was called a 'lit de justice' [bed of justice]. The monarch proceeded in state to the Grand Chambre, and the chancellor, having taken his pleasure, announced that the king required such and such a decree to be entered on their records in his presence. It was held that this personal interference of the sovereign suspended for the time being the functions of all inferior magistrates, and the edict was accordingly registered without a word of objection. The form of registration was as follows: 'Le roi séant en son lit de justice a ordonné et ordonne que les présents édits seront enregistrés;' and at the end of the decree, 'Fait en Parlement, le roi y séant en son lit de justice.'"

Students' History of France, note to chapter 19.

See, also, PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

"The origin of this term ['bed of justice'] has been much discussed. The wits complained it was so styled because there justice was put to sleep. The term was probably derived from the arrangement of the throne on which the king sat. The back and sides were made of bolsters and it was called a bed."

J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, volume 1, page 388, foot-note.

An elaborate and entertaining account of a notable Bed of Justice held under the Regency, in the early part of the reign of Louis XV., will be found in the

Memoirs of the Duke de Saint Simon, abridged translation of St. John, volume 4, chapter 5-7.

BEDR, Battle of.

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

BEDRIACUM, Battles of.

See ROME: A. D. 69.

BEECHY HEAD, Battle of (A. D. 1690).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).

BEEF-EATERS, The.

See YEOMEN OF THE GUARD.

BEEF STEAK CLUB, The.

See CLUBS: THE BEEF STEAK.

BEER-ZATH, Battle of.

The field on which the great Jewish soldier and patriot, Judas Maccabæus, having but 800 men with him, was beset by an army of the Syrians and slain, B. C. 161.

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 5, section 2.

BEG.

A Turkish title, signifying prince or lord; whence, also, Bey.

See BEY.

BEGGARS (Gueux) of the Netherland Revolt.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

BEGGARS OF THE SEA.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.

BEGUINES, OR BEGHINES.--BEGHARDS. Weaving Brothers. Lollards. Brethren of the Free Spirit. Fratricelli. Bizochi. Turlupins.

"In the year 1180 there lived in Liege a certain kindly, stammering priest, known from his infirmity as Lambert le Bègue. This man took pity on the destitute widows of the town. Despite the impediment in his speech, he was, as often happens, a man of a certain power and eloquence in preaching. ... This Lambert so moved the hearts of his hearers that gold and silver poured in on him, given to relieve such of the destitute women of Liege as were still of good and pious life. With the moneys thus collected, Lambert built a little square of cottages, with a church in the middle and a hospital, and at the side a cemetery. Here he housed these homeless widows, one or two in each little house, and then he drew up a half monastic rule which was to guide their lives. The rule was very simple, quite informal: no vows, no great renunciation bound the 'Swestrones Brod durch Got.' A certain time of the day was set apart for prayer and pious meditation; the other hours they spent in spinning or sewing, in keeping their houses clean, or they went as nurses in time of sickness into the homes of the townspeople. ... Thus these women, though pious and sequestered, were still in the world and of the world. ... Soon we find the name' Swestrones Brod durch Got' set aside for the more usual title of Beguines or Beghines. Different authorities give different origins of this word. ... Some have thought it was taken in memory of the founder, the charitable Lambert le Bègut. Others think that, even as the Mystics or Mutterers, the Lollards or Hummers, the Popelhards or Babblers, so the Beguines or Stammerers were thus nicknamed from their continual murmuring in prayer. This is plausible; but not so plausible as the suggestion of Dr. Mosheim and M. Auguste Jundt, who derive the word Beguine from the Flemish word 'beggen,' to beg. For we know that these pious women had been veritable beggars; and beggars should they again become. With surprising swiftness the new order spread through the Netherlands and into France and Germany. ... Lambert may have lived to see a beguinage in every great town within his ken; but we hear no more of him. The Beguines are no longer for Liege, but for all the world. Each city possessed its quiet congregation; and at any sick-bed you might meet a woman clad in a simple smock and a great veil-like mantle, who lived only to pray and do deeds of mercy. ... The success of the Beguines had made them an example. ... Before St. Francis and St. Dominic instituted the mendicant orders, there had silently grown up in every town of the Netherlands a spirit of fraternity, not imposed by any rule, but the natural impulse of a people. The weavers seated all day long alone at their rattling looms, the armourers beating out their thoughts in iron, the cross-legged tailors and busy cobblers thinking and stitching together--these men silent, pious, thoughtful, joined themselves in a fraternity modelled on that of the Beguines. They were called the Weaving Brothers. Bound by no vows and fettered by no rule, they still lived the worldly life and plied their trade for hire. Only in their leisure they met together and prayed and dreamed and thought. ... Such were the founders of the great fraternity of 'Fratres Textores,' or Beghards as in later years the people more generally called them."

A. M. F. Robinson, The End of the Middle Ages, 1.

{277}

"The Lollards differed from the Beghards less in reality than in name. We are informed respecting them that, at their origin in Antwerp, shortly after 1300, they associated together for the purpose of waiting upon patients dangerously sick, and burying the dead. ... Very early, however, an element of a different kind began to work in those fellowships. Even about the close of the 13th century irregularities and extravagances are laid to their charge. .... The charges brought against the later Beghards and Lollards, in connection, on the one hand, with the fanatical Franciscans, who were violently contending with the Church, and on the other, with the Brethren and Sisters of the Free Spirit, relate to three particulars, viz., an a version to all useful industry, conjoined with a propensity to mendicancy and idleness, an intemperate spirit of opposition to the Church, and a skeptical and more or less pantheistical mysticism. ... They ... declared that the time of Antichrist was come, and on all hands endeavoured to embroil the people with their spiritual guides. Their own professed object was to restore the pure primeval state, the divine life of freedom, innocence, and nature. The idea they formed of that state was, that man, being in and of himself one with God, requires only to act in the consciousness of this unity, and to follow unrestrained the divinely implanted impulses and inclinations of his nature, in order to be good and godly."

C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, volume 2, pages 14-16.

"The names of beghards and beguines came not unnaturally to be used for devotees who, without being members of any regular monastic society, made a profession of religious strictness; and thus the applications of the names to some kinds of sectaries was easy--more especially as many of these found it convenient to assume the outward appearance of beghards, in the hope of disguising their differences from the church. But on the other hand, this drew on the orthodox beghards frequent persecutions, and many of them, for the sake of safety, were glad to connect themselves as tertiaries with the great mendicant orders. ... In the 14th century, the popes dealt hardly with the beghards; yet orthodox societies under this name still remained in Germany; and in Belgium, the country of their origin, sisterhoods of beguines flourish to the present day. ... Matthias of Janow, the Bohemian reformer, in the end of the 14th century, says that all who act differently from the profane vulgar are called beghardi or turlupini, or by other blasphemous names. ... Among those who were confounded with the beghards--partly because, like them, they abounded along the Rhine--were the brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit. These appear in various places under various names. They wore a peculiarly simple dress, professed to give themselves to contemplation, and, holding that labour is a hindrance to contemplation and to the elevation of the soul to God, they lived by beggary. Their doctrines were mystical and almost pantheistic. ... The brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit were much persecuted, and probably formed a large proportion of those who were burnt under the name of beghards."

J. C. Robertson, History of Christian Church, book 7, chapter 7 (volume 6).

"Near the close of this century [the 13th] originated in Italy the Fratricelli and Bizochi, parties that in Germany and France were denominated Beguards; and which, first Boniface VIII., and afterwards other pontiffs condemned, and wished to see persecuted by the Inquisition and exterminated in every possible way. The Fratricelli, who also called themselves in Latin 'Fratres parvi' (Little Brethren), or 'Fraterculi de paupere vita' (Little Brothers of the Poor Life), were Franciscan monks, but detached from the great family of Franciscans; who wished to observe the regulations prescribed by their founder St. Francis more perfectly than the others, and therefore possessed no property, either individually or collectively, but obtained their necessary food from day to day by begging. ... They predicted a reformation and purification of the church. ... They extolled Celestine V. as the legal founder of their sect; but Boniface and the succeeding pontiffs, who opposed the Fratricelli, they denied to be true pontiffs. As the great Franciscan family had its associates and dependents, who observed the third rule prescribed by St. Francis [which required only certain pious observances, such as fasts, prayers, continence, a coarse, cheap dress, gravity of manners, &c., but did not prohibit private property, marriage, public offices, and worldly occupations], and who were usually called Tertiarii, so also the sect of the Fratricelli ... had numerous Tertiarii of its own. These were called, in Italy, Bizochi and Bocasoti; in France Beguini; and in Germany Beghardi, by which name all the Tertiarii were commonly designated. These differed from the Fratricelli ... only in their mode of life. The Fratricelli were real monks, living under the rule of St. Francis; but the Bizochi or Beguini lived in the manner of other people. ... Totally different from these austere Beguini and Beguinæ, were the German and Belgic Beguinæ, who did not indeed originate in this century, but now first came into notice. ... Concerning the Turlupins, many have written; but none accurately. ... The origin of the name, I know not; but I am able to prove from substantial documents, that the Turlupins who were burned at Paris, and in other parts of France were no other than the Brethren of the Free Spirit whom the pontiffs and councils condemned."

J. L. Von Mosheim, Inst's of Ecclesiastical History, book 3, century 13, part 2, chapter 2, section 39-41, and chapter 5, section 9, foot-note.

ALSO IN: L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga), Fra Dolcino and his Times.

See, also, PICARDS.

BEGUMS OF OUDE, Warren Hastings and the.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

BEHISTUN, Rock of.

"This remarkable spot, lying on the direct route between Babylon and Ecbatana, and presenting the unusual combination of a copious fountain, a rich plain and a rock suitable for sculpture, must have early attracted the attention of the great monarchs who marched their armies through the Zagros range, as a place where they might conveniently set up memorials of their exploits. ... The tablet and inscriptions of Darius, which have made Behistun famous in modern times, are in a recess to the right of the scarped face of the rock, and at a considerable elevation."

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

The mountain or rock of Behistun fixes the location of the district known to the Greeks as Bagistana. "It lies southwest of Elvend, between that mountain and the Zagrus in the valley of the Choaspes, and is the district now known as Kirmenshah."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 8, chapter 1.

BEHRING SEA CONTROVERSY, and Arbitration.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

{278}

BEIRUT, Origin of.

See BERYTUS.

BELA I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1060-1063. Bela II., A. D. 1131-1141. Bela III., A. D. 1173-1196. Bela IV., A. D. 1235-1270.

BELCHITE, Battle of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

BELERION, OR BOLERIUM.

The Roman name of Land's End, England.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

BELFORT. Siege by the Germans (1870-1871).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

BELGÆ, The.

"This Belgian confederation included the people of all the country north of the Seine and Marne, bounded by the Atlantic on the west and the Rhine on the north and east, except the Mediomatrici and Treviri. ... The old divisions of France before the great revolution of 1789 corresponded in some degree to the divisions of the country in the time of Cæsar, and the names of the people are still retained with little alteration in the names of the chief towns or the names of the ante-revolutionary divisions of France. In the country of the Remi between the Marne and the Aisne there is the town of Reims. In the territory of the Suessiones between the Marne and the Aisne there is Soissons on the Aisne. The Bellovaci were west of the Oise (Isara) a branch of the Seine: their chief town, which at some time received the name of Cæsaromagus, is now Beauvais. The Nervii were between and on the Sambre and the Schelde. The Atrebates were north of the Bellovaci between the Somme and the upper Schelde: their chief place was Nemetacum or Nemetocenna, now Arras in the old division of Artois. The Ambiani were on the Somme (Samara): their name is represented by Amiens (Samarobriva). The Morini, or sea-coast men extended from Boulogne towards Dunkerque. The Menapii bordered on the northern Morini and were on both sides of the lower Rhine (B. G. iv., 4). The Caleti were north of the lower Seine along the coast in the Pays de Caux. The Velocasses were east of the Caleti on the north side of the Seine as far as the Oise; their chief town was Rotomagus (Rouen) and their country was afterwards Vexin Normand and Vexin Français. The Veromandui were north of the Suessiones: their chief town under the Roman dominion, Augusta Veromanduorum, is now St. Quentin. The Aduatuci were on the lower Maas. The Condrusi and the others included under the name of Germani were on the Maas, or between the Maas and the Rhine. The Eburones had the country about Tongern and Spa, and were the immediate neighbours of the Menapii on the Rhine."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 3.

"Cæsar ... informs us that, in their own estimation, they [the Belgæ] were principally descended from a German stock, the offspring of some early migration across the Rhine. ... Strabo ... by no means concurred in Cæsar's view of the origin of this ... race, which he believed to be Gaulish and not German, though differing widely from the Galli, or Gauls of the central region."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 12.

BELGÆ: B. C. 57. Cæsar's campaign against the confederacy.

In the second year of Cæsar's command in Gaul, B. C. 57, he led his legions against the Belgæ, whom he characterized in his Commentaries as the bravest of all the people of Gaul. The many tribes of the Belgian country had joined themselves in a great league to oppose the advancing Roman power, and were able to bring into the field no less than 290,000 men. The tribe of the Remi alone refused to join the confederacy and placed themselves on the Roman side. Cæsar who had quartered his army during the winter in the country of the Sequani, marched boldly, with eight legions, into the midst of these swarming enemies. In his first encounter with them on the banks of the Aisne, the Belgic barbarians were terribly cut to pieces and were so disheartened that tribe after tribe made submission to the proconsul as he advanced. But the Nervii, who boasted a Germanic descent, together with the Aduatuci, the Atrebates and the Veromandui, rallied their forces for a struggle to the death. The Nervii succeeded in surprising the Romans, while the latter were preparing their camp on the banks of the Sambre, and very nearly swept Cæsar and his veterans off the field, by their furious and tremendous charge. But the energy and personal influence of the one, with the steady discipline of the other, prevailed in the end over the untrained valour of the Nervii, and the proud nation was not only defeated but annihilated. "Their eulogy is preserved in the written testimony of their conqueror; and the Romans long remembered, and never failed to signalize their formidable valour. But this recollection of their ancient prowess became from that day the principal monument of their name and history, for the defeat they now sustained well nigh annihilated the nation. Their combatants were cut off almost to a man. The elders and the women, who had been left in secure retreats, came forth of their own accord to solicit the conqueror's clemency. ... 'Of 600 senators,' they said, 'we have lost all but three; of 60,000 fighting men 500 only remain.' Cæsar treated the survivors with compassion."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: Julius Cæsar, Gallic Wars, book 2.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 3.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 5.

BELGÆ OF BRITAIN, The. Supposed to be a colony from the Belgæ of the continent. The territory which they occupied is now embraced in the counties of Wiltshire and Somerset.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

BELGIUM: Ancient and Mediaeval History.

See BELGÆ, NERVII, FRANKS, LORRAINE, FLANDERS, LIEGE. NETHERLANDS.

BELGIUM: Modern History.

See NETHERLANDS.

BELGRADE: Origin.

During the attacks of the Avars upon the territory of the Eastern Empire, in the last years of the 6th century, the city of Singidunum, at the junction of the Save with the Danube, was taken and totally destroyed. The advantageous site of the extinct town soon attracted a colony of Sclavonians, who raised out of the ruins a new and strongly fortified city--the Belgrade, or the White City of later times. "The Sclavonic name of Belgrade is mentioned in the 10th century by Constantine Porphyorgenitus: the Latin appellation of Alba Græca is used by the Franks in the beginning of the 9th."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 46, note. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

BELGIUM: A. D. 1425. Acquired by Hungary and fortified against the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

{279}

BELGIUM: A. D. 1442. First repulse of the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1456. Second repulse of the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458; and TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1521. Siege and capture by Solyman the Magnificent.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1688-1690. Taken by the Austrians and recovered by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1717. Recovery from the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1739. Restored to the Turks.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1789-1791. Taken by the Austrians and restored to the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1806. Surprised and taken by the Servians.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

BELGIUM: A. D. 1862. Withdrawal of Turkish troops.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

----------BELGIUM: End----------

BELGRADE, The Peace of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

BELIK, Battle on the (Carrhæ--B. C. 53).

See ROME: B. C. 57-52.

BELISARIUS, Campaigns of.

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534, and ROME: A. D. 535-553.

BELIZE, or British Honduras.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

BELL ROLAND, The great.

See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

BELLE ALLIANCE, Battle of La. The battle of Waterloo

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE)--is so called by the Prussians.

BELLE ISLE PRISON-PEN, The.

See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

BELLOVACI, The.

See BELGÆ.

BELLVILLE, Battle, of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

BELMONT, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Bema, The.

See PNYX.

BEMIS HEIGHTS, Battle of.

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

BENARES.

"The early history of Benares is involved in much obscurity. It is, indisputably, a place of great antiquity, and may even date from the time when the Aryan race first spread itself over Northern India. ... It is certain that the city is regarded by all Hindus as coeval with the birth of Hinduism, a notion derived both from tradition and from their own writings. Allusions to Benares are exceedingly abundant in ancient Sanskrit literature; and perhaps there is no city in all Hindustan more frequently referred to. By reason of some subtle and mysterious charm, it has linked itself with the religious sympathies of the Hindus through every century of its existence. For the sanctity of its inhabitants--of its temples and reservoirs--of its wells and streams--of the very soil that is trodden--of the very air that is breathed--and of everything in and around it, Benares has been famed for thousands of years. ... Previously to the introduction of the Buddhist faith into India, she was already the sacred city of the land,--the centre of Hinduism, and chief seat of its authority. Judging from the strong feelings of veneration and affection with which the native community regard her in the present day, and bearing in mind that the founder of Buddhism commenced his ministry at this spot, it seems indisputable that, in those early times preceding the Buddhist reformation, the city must have exerted a powerful and wide-spread religious influence over the land. Throughout the Buddhist period in India--a period extending from 700 to 1,000 years--she gave the same support to Buddhism which she had previously given to the Hindu faith. Buddhist works of that era ... clearly establish the fact that the Buddhists of those days regarded the city with much the same kind of veneration as the Hindu does now."

_M. A. Sherring, The Sacred City of the Hindus, chapter 1._

For an account of the English annexation of Benares,

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

BENEDICT II., Pope, A. D. 684-685. Benedict III., Pope, A. D. 855-858. Benedict IV., Pope, A. D. 900-903. Benedict V., Pope, A. D. 964-965. Benedict VI., Pope, A. D. 972-974. Benedict VII., Pope, A. D. 975-984. Benedict VIII., Pope, A. D. 1012-1024. Benedict IX., Pope, A. D. 1033-1044, 1047-1048. Benedict X., Antipope, A. D. 1058-1059. Benedict XI., Pope, A. D. 1303-1304. Benedict XII., Pope, A. D. 1334-1342. Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1394-1423 (at Avignon). Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1724-1730. Benedict XIV., Pope, A. D. 1740-1758.

BENEDICTINE ORDERS. The rule of St. Benedict.

"There were many monasteries in the West before the time of St. Benedict of Nursia (A. D. 480); but he has been rightly considered the father of Western monasticism; for he not only founded an order to which many religious houses became attached, but he established a rule for their government which, in its main features, was adopted as the rule of monastic life by all the orders for more than five centuries, or until the time of St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi. Benedict was first a hermit, living in the mountains of Southern Italy, and in that region he afterwards established in succession twelve monasteries, each with twelve monks and a superior. In the year 520 he founded the great monastery of Monte Casino as the mother-house of his order, a house which became the most celebrated and powerful monastery, according to Montalembert, in the Catholic universe, celebrated especially because there Benedict prepared his rule and formed the type which was to serve as a model to the innumerable communities submitting to that sovereign code. ... Neither in the East nor in the West were the monks originally ecclesiastics; and it was not until the eighth century that they became priests, called regulars, in contrast with the ordinary parish clergy, who were called seculars. ... As missionaries, they proved the most powerful instruments in extending the authority and the boundaries of the church. The monk had no individual property: even his dress belonged to the monastery. ... To enable him to work efficiently, it was necessary to feed him well; and such was the injunction of Benedict, as opposed to the former practice of strict asceticism."

C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval History, chapter 12.

{280}

"Benedict would not have the monks limit themselves to spiritual labour, to the action of the soul upon itself; he made external labour, manual or literary, a strict obligation of his rule. ... In order to banish indolence, which he called the enemy of the soul, he regulated minutely the employment of every hour of the day according to the seasons, and ordained that, after having celebrated the praises of God seven times a-day, seven hours a-day should be given to manual labour, and two hours to reading. ... Those who are skilled in the practice of an art or trade, could only exercise it by the permission of the abbot, in all humility; and if anyone prided himself on his talent, or the profit which resulted from it to the house, he was to have his occupation changed until he had humbled himself. ... Obedience is also to his eyes a work, obedientiae laborem, the most meritorious and essential of all. A monk entered into monastic life only to make the sacrifice of self. This sacrifice implied especially that of the will. ... Thus the rule pursued pride into its most secret hiding-place. Submission had to be prompt, perfect, and absolute. The monk must obey always, without reserve, and without murmur, even in those things which seemed impossible and above his strength, trusting in the succour of God, if a humble and seasonable remonstrance, the only thing permitted to him, was not accepted by his superiors."

The Count de Montalembert, The Monks of the West, book 4, section 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages, chapter 2.

S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, No. 10.

J. H. Newman, Mission of St. Benedict (Hist. Sketches, volume 2).

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 2, chapter 4, section 43-45.

_E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 3, no. 1._

See, also, CAPUCHINS.

BENEFICIUM.--COMMENDATION.

Feudalism "had grown up from two great sources--the beneficium, and the practice of commendation, and had been specially fostered on Gallic soil by the existence of a subject population which admitted of any amount of extension in the methods of dependence. The beneficiary system originated partly in gifts of land made by the kings out of their own estates to their kinsmen and servants, with a special undertaking to be faithful; partly in the surrender by landowners of their estates to churches or powerful men, to be received back again and held by them as tenants for rent or service. By the latter arrangement the weaker man obtained the protection of the stronger, and he who felt himself insecure placed his title under the defence of the Church. By the practice of commendation, on the other hand, the inferior put himself under the personal care of a lord, but without altering his title or divesting himself of his right to his estate; he became a vassal and did homage. The placing of his hands between those of his lord was the typical act by which the connexion was formed."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 9, section 93.

ALSO IN: H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1.

See, also, SCOTLAND: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

BENEFIT OF CLERGY.

"Among the most important and dearly-prized privileges of the church was that which conferred on its members immunity from the operation of secular law, and relieved them from the jurisdiction of secular tribunals. ... So priceless a prerogative was not obtained without a long and resolute struggle. ... To ask that a monk or priest guilty of crime should not be subject to the ordinary tribunals, and that civil suits between laymen and ecclesiastics should be referred exclusively to courts composed of the latter, was a claim too repugnant to the common sense of mankind to be lightly accorded. ... The persistence of the church, backed up by the unfailing resource of excommunication, finally triumphed, and the sacred immunity of the priesthood was acknowledged, sooner or later, in the laws of every nation of Europe." In England, when Henry II. in 1164, "endeavored, in the Constitutions of Clarendon, to set bounds to the privileges of the church, he therefore especially attacked the benefit of clergy. ... The disastrous result of the quarrel between the King and the archbishop [Becket] rendered it necessary to abandon all such schemes of reform. ... As time passed on, the benefit of clergy gradually extended itself. That the laity were illiterate and the clergy educated was taken for granted, and the test of churchmanship came to be the ability to read, so that the privilege became in fact a free pardon on a first offence for all who knew their letters. ... Under Elizabeth, certain heinous offences were declared felonies without benefit of clergy. ... Much legislation ensued from time to time, effecting the limitation of the privilege in various offences. ... Early in the reign of Anne the benefit of clergy was extended to all malefactors by abrogating the reading test, thus placing the unlettered felon on a par with his better educated fellows, and it was not until the present century was well advanced that this remnant of mediæval ecclesiastical prerogative was abolished by 7 and 8 Geo. iv. c. 28."

H. C. Lea, Studies in Church History, part 2.

ALSO IN: William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, section 722-725 (chapter 19, page 3).

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

BENEVENTO, OR GRANDELLA, Battle of (1266).

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

BENEVENTUM: The Lombard Duchy.

The Duchy of Beneventum was a Lombard fief of the 8th and 9th centuries, in southern Italy, which survived the fall of the Lombard kingdom in northern Italy. It covered nearly the territory' of the modern kingdom of Naples. Charlemagne reduced the Duchy to submission with considerable difficulty, after he had extinguished the Lombard kingdom. It was afterwards divided into the minor principalities of Benevento, Salerno and Capua, and became part of the Norman conquest.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016; and 1000-1090; also, LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-774, and AMALFI.

BENEVENTUM, Battle of (B. C. 275).

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

BENEVOLENCES.

"The collection of benevolences, regarded even at the time [England, reign of Edward IV.] as an innovation, was perhaps a resuscitated form of some of the worst measures of Edward II. and Richard II., but the attention which it aroused under Edward IV. shows how strange it had become under the intervening kings. ... Such evidence as exists shows us Edward IV. canvassing by word of mouth or by letter for direct gifts of money from his subjects. Henry III. had thus begged for new year's gifts. Edward IV. requested and extorted 'free-will offerings' from everyone who could not say no to the pleadings of such a king. He had a wonderful memory, too, and knew the name and the particular property of every man in the country who was worth taxing in this way. He had no excuse for such meanness; for the estates had shown themselves liberal."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 18, section 696.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.

{281}

BENGAL, The English acquisition of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757; 1757; and 1757-1772.

BENGAL: "Permanent Settlement."

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

BENNINGTON, Battle of.

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

BENTINCK, Lord William, The Indian Administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

BENTONSVILLE, Battle of.

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

BEOTHUK, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.

BERBERS, The.

See LIBYANS; NUMIDIANS; EGYPT, ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT PEOPLE; and MAROCCO.

BERENICE, Cities of.

Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second of the Ptolemies, founded a city on the Egyptian shore of the Red Sea, to which he gave the name of his mother, Berenice. It became an important port of trade. Subsequently two other cities of the same name were founded at points further south on the same coast, while a fourth Berenice came into existence on the border of the Great Syrtis, in Cyrenaica.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography., chapter 15, section 1.

BERESINA, Passage of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BERESTECZKO, Battle of (1651).

See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

BERGEN, Battles of (1759 and 1799).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST); and FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

BERGEN-OP-ZOOM, A. D. 1588. The siege raised.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

BERGEN A. D. 1622. Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BERGEN: A. D. 1747-1748. Taken by the French and restored to Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747, and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

----------BERGEN: End----------

BERGER.

See BIRGER.

BERGERAC, Peace of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

BERING SEA CONTROVERSY AND ARBITRATION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

BERKELEY, Lord, The Jersey Grant to.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664.-1667, to 1688-1738.

BERKELEY, Sir William, Government of Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1642--1649, to 1660-1677.

BERLIN: A. D. 1631.--Forcible entry of Gustavus Adolphus.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

BERLIN: A. D. 1675. Threatened by the Swedes.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

BERLIN: A. D. 1757. Dashing Austrian attack.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER).

BERLIN: A. D. 1760. Taken and plundered by the Austrians and Russians.

See GERMANY: A.D. 1760.

BERLIN: A. D. 1806. Napoleon in possession.

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

BERLIN: A. D. 1848. Mistaken battle of soldiers and citizens. Continued disorder. State of siege.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), and 1848-1850.

----------BERLIN: End----------

BERLIN CONFERENCE (1884-5), The.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889; and CONGO FREE STATE.

BERLIN, Congress and Treaty of.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

BERLIN DECREE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

BERMUDA HUNDRED.

See HUNDRED, THE.

BERMUDA HUNDRED, Butler's Army at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA), THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.

BERMUDAS, The. English Discovery of the islands (1609).

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.

BERMUDO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 788-791. Bermudo II., A. D. 982-999. Bermudo III., A. D. 1027-1037.

BERN, Dietrich of.

See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

BERNADOTTE, Career of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL); 1799 (NOVEMBER); 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER); 1814(JANUARY-MARCH); 1806-1807; SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1810; GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813; 1813 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BERNARD, St., and the Second Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

BERNE, A. D. 1353. Joined to the original Swiss Confederation, or Old League of High Germany.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

BERNE: A. D. 1798. Occupation by the French. The plundering of the Treasury.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

----------BERNE: End----------

BERNICIA, The Kingdom of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633; and SCOTLAND: 7th CENTURY.

BERSERKER.--BÆRSÆRK.

"The word Bærsærk is variously spelt, and stated to be derived from 'bar' and 'særk,' or 'bareshirt.' The men to whom the title was applied [among the Northmen] ... were stated to be in the habit of fighting without armour, and wearing only a shirt of skins, or at times naked. In Iceland they were sometimes called Ulfrhedin, i. e., wolfskin. The derivation of Bærsærk has been questioned, as in philology is not uncommon. The habit of their wearing bear (björn) skins, is said to afford the meaning of the word. In philology, to agree to differ is best. The Bærsærks, according to the sagas, appear to have been men of unusual physical development and savagery. They were, moreover, liable to what was called Bærsærkegang, or a state of excitement in which they exhibited superhuman strength, and then spared neither friend nor foe. ... After an attack of Bærsærk frenzy, it was believed that the superhuman influence or spirit left the Bærsærk's body as a 'ham,' or cast-off shape or form, with the result that the Bærsærk suffered great exhaustion, his natural forces being used up."

J. F. Vicary, Saga Time, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: P. B. Du Chaillu, The Viking Age, volume 2, chapter 26.

{282}

BERWICK-UPON-TWEED: A. D. 1293-1333. Conquest by the English.

At the beginning, in 1293, of the struggle of the Scottish nation to cast off the feudal yoke which Edward I. had laid upon it, the English king, marching angrily northwards, made his first assault upon Berwick. The citizens, whose only rampart was a wooden stockade, foolishly aggravated his wrath by gibes and taunts. "The stockade was stormed with the loss of a single knight, and nearly 8,000 of the citizens were mown down in a ruthless carnage, while a handful of Flemish traders who held the town-hall stoutly against all assailants were burned alive in it. ... The town was ruined forever, and the great merchant city of the North sank from that time into a petty seaport." Subsequently recovered by the Scotch, Berwick was held by them in 1333 when Edward III. attempted to seat Edward Balliol, as his vassal, on the Scottish throne. The English laid siege to the place, and an army under the regent Douglas came to its relief. The battle of Halidon Hill, in which the Scotch were utterly routed, decided the fate of Berwick. "From that time the town remained the one part of Edward's conquests which was preserved by the English crown. Fragment as it was, it was viewed as legally representing the realm of which it had once formed a part. As Scotland, it had its chancellor, chamberlain, and other officers of state: and the peculiar heading of acts of Parliament enacted for England 'and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed' still preserves the memory of its peculiar position."-

J. R. Green, Short History of the English People, chapter 4, section 3 and 6.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 17.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

BERWICK, Pacification of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

BERWICK, Treaty of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

BERYTUS.

The colony of Berytus (modern Beirut) was founded by Agrippa, B. C. 15, and made a station for two legions.

BERYTUS: A. D. 551. Its Schools. Its Destruction by Earthquake.

The city of Berytus, modern Beirut, was destroyed by earthquake on the 9th of July, A. D. 551. "That city, on the coast of Phœnicia, was illustrated by the study of the civil law, which opened the surest road to wealth and dignity: the schools of Berytus were filled with the rising spirits of the age, and many a youth was lost in the earthquake who might have lived to be the scourge or the guardian of his country."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

BERYTUS: A. D. 1111. Taken by the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

----------BERYTUS: End----------

BESANÇON: Origin.

See VESONTIO.

BESANÇON: A. D. 1152-1648. A Free City of the Empire.

See FRANCHE COMTÉ.

BESANÇON: A. D. 1674. Siege and capture by Vauban.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

BESSI, The.

The Bessi were an ancient Thracian tribe who occupied the mountain range of Hæmus (the Balkan) and the upper valley of the Hebrus. They were subdued by Lucullus, brother of the conqueror of Mithridates.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 18, section 6.

BESSIN, The. The district of Bayeux.

See SAXONS OF BAYEUX.

BETH-HORON, Battles of.

The victory of Joshua over "the five kings of the Amorites" who laid siege to Gibeon; the decisive battle of the Jewish conquest of Canaan. "The battle of Beth-horon or Gibeon is one of the most important in the history of the world; and yet so profound has been the indifference, first of the religious world, and then (through their example or influence) of the common world, to the historical study of the Hebrew annals, that the very name of this great battle is far less known to most of us than that of Marathon or Cannæ."

_Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 11._

In the Maccabean war, Beth-horon was the scene of two of the brilliant victories of Judas Maccabeus, in B. C. 167 and 162.

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12.

Later, at the time of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, it witnessed the disastrous retreat of the Roman general Cestius.

BETHSHEMESH, Battle of.

Fought by Joash, king of Israel, with Amaziah, king of Judah, defeating the latter and causing part of the walls of Jerusalem to be thrown down.

2 Chronicles, xxv.

BETH-ZACHARIAH, Battle of.

A defeat suffered (B. C. 163) by the Jewish patriot, Judas· Maccabæus, at the hands of the Syrian monarch Antiochus Eupator: the youngest of the Maccabees being slain.

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 9.

BETHZUR, Battle of.

Defeat of an army sent by Antiochus, against Judas Maccabæus, the Jewish patriot, B. C. 165,

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 7.

BEVERHOLT, Battle of (1381).

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

BEY.--BEYLERBEY.--PACHA.--PADISCHAH.

"The administration of the [Turkish] provinces was in the time of Mahomet II. [the Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481, whose legislation organized the Ottoman government] principally intrusted to the Beys and Beylerbeys. These were the natural chiefs of the class of feudatories [Spahis], whom their tenure of office obliged to serve on horseback in time of war. They mustered under the Sanjak, the banner of the chief of their district, and the districts themselves were thence called Sanjaks, and their rulers Sanjak-beys. The title of Pacha, so familiar to us when speaking of a 'Turkish provincial ruler, is not strictly a term implying territorial jurisdiction, or even military authority. It is a title of honour, meaning literally the Shah's or sovereign's foot, and implying that the person to whom that title was given was one whom the sovereign employed. ... The title of Pacha was not at first applied among the Ottomans exclusively to those officers who commanded armies or ruled provinces or cities. Of the five first Pachas, that are mentioned by Ottoman writers, three were literary men. By degrees this honorary title was appropriated to those whom the Sultan employed in war and set over districts and important towns; so that the word Pacha became almost synonymous with the word governor. The title Padischah, which the Sultan himself bears, and which the Turkish diplomatists have been very jealous in allowing to Christian Sovereigns, is an entirely different word, and means the great, the imperial Schah or Sovereign. In the time of Mahomet II. the Ottoman Empire contained in Europe alone thirty-six Sanjaks, or banners, around each of which assembled about 400 cavaliers."

_Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 6._

{283}

BEYLAN, Battle of (1832).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

BEYROUT, Origin of.

See BERYTUS.

BEZANT, The.

The bezant was a Byzantine gold coin (whence its name), worth a little less than ten English shillings--$2.50.

BEZIERES, The Massacre at.

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.

BHARADARS.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

BHONSLA RAJA, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

BHURTPORE, Siege of(1805).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

BIANCHI AND NERI (The Whites and Blacks).

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.

BIANCHI, or White Penitents.

See WHITE PENITENTS.

BIBERACH, Battles of (1796 and 1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); and A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

BIBRACTE.

See GAULS.

BIBROCI, The.

A tribe of ancient Britons who dwelt near the Thames. It is suspected, but not known, that they gave their name to Berks County.

BICAMERAL SYSTEM, The.

This term was applied by Jeremy Bentham to the division of a legislative body into two chambers--such as the House of Lords and House of Commons in England, and the Senate and House of Representatives in the United States of America.

BICOQUE OR BICOCCA, La, Battle of (1522).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

BIG BETHEL, Battle of.

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

BIG BLACK, Battle of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

BIGERRIONES, The.

See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

BIGI, OR GREYS, The.

One of the three factions which divided Florence in the time of Savonarola, and after. The Bigi, or Greys, were the partisans of the Medici; their opponents were the Piagnoni, or Weepers, and the Arrabiati, or Madmen.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

BILL OF RIGHTS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).

BILLAUD-VARENNES and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

BILOXIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

BIMINI, The island of.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

BIRAPARACH, Fortress of.

See JUROIPACH.

BIRGER, King of Sweden, A. D. 1290-1319. Birger, or Berger Jarl, Regent of Sweden, A. D. 1250-1266.

BISHOPS' WAR, The First and Second.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640; and ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

BISMARCK'S MINISTRY.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, to 1888; and FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY); 1870-1871; and 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

BISSEXTILE YEAR.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

BITHYNIANS, THYNIANS.

"Along the coast of the Euxine, from the Thracian Bosphorus. eastward to the river Halys, dwelt Bithynians or Thynians, Mariandynians and Paphlagonians,--all recognized branches of the widely extended 'l'hracian race. The Bithynians especially, in the northwestern portion of this territory, and reaching from the Euxine to the Propontis, are often spoken of as Asiatic Thracians,--while on the other hand various tribes among the Thracians of Europe are denominated Thyni or Thynians,--so little difference was there in the population on the two sides of the Bosphorus, alike brave, predatory, and sanguinary. The Bithynians of Asia are also sometimes called Bebrykians, under which denomination they extend as far southward as the gulf of Kios in the Propontis."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 16.

The Bithynians were among the people in Asia Minor subjugated by Crœsus, king of Lydia, and fell, with his fall, under the Persian rule. But, in some way not clearly understood, an independent kingdom of Bithynia was formed, about the middle of the 5th century B. C. which resisted the Persians, successfully resisted Alexander the Great and his successors in Asia Minor, resisted Mithridates of Pontus, and existed until B. C. 74, when its last king Nicomedes III. bequeathed his kingdom to Rome and it was made a Roman province.

BITONTO, Battle of (1734).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

BITURIGES, The.

See ÆEDUI; also BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.

BIZOCHI, The.

See BEGUINES, ETC.

BIZYE.

See THRACIANS.

BLACK ACTS, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.

BLACK DEATH, The.

"The Black Death appears to have had its origin in the centre of China, in or about the year 1333. It is said that it was accompanied at its outbreak by various terrestrial and atmospheric phænomena of a novel and most destructive character, phænomena similar to those which characterized the first appearance of the Asiatic Cholera, of the Influenza, and even in more remote times of the Athenian Plague. It is a singular fact that all epidemics of an unusually destructive character have had their homes in the farthest East, and have travelled slowly from those regions towards Europe. It appears, too, that the disease exhausted itself in the place of its origin at about the same time in which it made its appearance in Europe. ... The disease still exists under the name of the Levant or Oriental Plague, and is endemic in Asia Minor, in parts of Turkey, and in Egypt. It is specifically a disease in which the blood is poisoned, in which the system seeks to relieve itself by suppuration of the glands, and in which, the tissues becoming disorganized, and the blood thereupon being infiltrated into them, dark blotches appear on the skin. {284} Hence the earliest name by which the Plague was described. The storm burst on the Island of Cyprus at the end of the year 1347, and was accompanied, we are told, by remarkable physical phænomena, as convulsions of the earth, and a total change in the atmosphere. Many persons affected died instantly. The Black Death seemed, not only to the frightened imagination of the people, but even to the more sober observation of the few men of science of the time, to move forward with measured steps from the desolated East, under the form of a dark and fetid mist. It is very likely that consequent upon the great physical convulsions which had rent the earth and preceded the disease, foreign substances of a deleterious character had been projected into the atmosphere. ... The Black Death appeared at Avignon in January 1348, visited Florence by the middle of April, and had thoroughly penetrated France and Germany by August. It entered Poland in 1349, reached Sweden in the winter of that year, and Norway by infection from England at about the same time. It spread even to Iceland and Greenland. ... It made its appearance in Russia in 1351, after it had well-nigh exhausted itself in Europe. It thus took the circuit of the Mediterranean, and unlike most plagues which have penetrated from the Eastern to the Western world, was checked, it would seem, by the barrier of the Caucasus. ... Hecker calculates the loss to Europe as amounting to 25,000,000."

J. E. T. Rogers, History of Agriculture and Prices, volume 1, chapter 15.

ALSO IN: J. F. C. Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349; FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348; FLORENCE: A. D. 1348; JEWS: A: D. 1348-1349.

BLACK EAGLE, Order of the.

A Prussian order of knighthood instituted by Frederick III., elector of Brandenburg, in 1701.

BLACK FLAGS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

BLACK FRIARS.

See MENDICANT ORDERS.

BLACK GUELFS (NERI).

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300, and 1301-1313.

BLACK HAWK WAR, The.

See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

BLACK HOLE OF CALCUTTA, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757:

BLACK PRINCE, The wars of the.

See POITIERS; FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380; and SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.

BLACK ROBE, Counsellors of the.

See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

BLACK ROD.

"The gentleman whose duty it is to preserve decorum in the House of Lords, just as it is the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms to maintain order in the House of Commons. These officials are bound to execute the commands of their respective chambers, even though the task involves the forcible ejection of an obstreperous member. ... His [Black Rod's] most disturbing occupation, now-a-days, is when he conveys a message from the Lords to the Commons. ... No sooner do the policemen herald his approach from the lobbies than the doors of the Lower Chamber are closed against him, and he is compelled to ask for admission with becoming humility and humbleness. After this has been granted, he advances to the bar, bows to the chair, and then--with repeated acts of obeisance--walks slowly to the table, where his request is made for the Speaker's attendance in the Upper House. The object may be to listen to the Queen's speech, or it may simply be to hear the Royal assent given to various bills. ... The consequence is nearly always the same. The Sergeant-at-Arms shoulders the mace, the Speaker joins Black Rod, the members fall in behind, and a more or less orderly procession then starts on its way to the Peer's Chamber. ... No matter what the subject under consideration, Black Rod's appearance necessitates a check ... till the journey to the Lords has been completed, The annoyance thus caused has often found expression during recent sessions. So great was the grumbling last year [1890], indeed, that the Speaker undertook to devise a better system."-

Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure, page 11.

BLACK ROOD, of Scotland.

See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.

BLACKBURN'S FORD, Engagement at.

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

BLACKFEET.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

BLADENSBURG, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BLAIR, Francis P., Sr., in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

BLAIR, General Francis P., Jr. Difficulties with General Fremont.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

BLANCHE, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1425-1441.

BLANCO, General Guzman, The dictatorship of.

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.

BLAND SILVER BILL, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1878.

BLANII, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

BLANKETEERS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

BLENEAU, Battle of (1652).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.

BLENHEIM, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

BLENNERHASSET, Harman, and Aaron Burr.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807.

BLENNERHASSETT'S ISLAND.

An island in the Ohio, near Marietta, on which Harman Blennerhassett, a gentleman from Ireland, had created a charming home, at the beginning of the present century. He was drawn into Aaron Burr's mysterious scheme (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807); his island became the rendezvous of the expedition, and he was involved in the ruin of the treasonable project.

BLOCK BOOKS.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

BLOCK ISLAND, The name.

See NEW YORK A. D. 1610-1614.

BLOCKADE, Paper.

This term has been applied to the assumption by a belligerent power, in war, of the right to declare a given coast or certain enumerated ports, to be in the state of blockade, without actual presence of blockading squadrons to enforce the declaration; as by the British "Orders in Council" and the "Berlin" and "Milan Decrees" of Napoleon, in 1806-1807.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

{285}

BLOIS, Treaties of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

BLOOD COUNCIL, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.

BLOOD, or Kenai Indians.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

BLOODY ANGLE, The.

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

BLOODY ASSIZE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).

BLOODY BRIDGE, Ambuscade at (A. D. 1763).

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BLOODY BROOK, Battle of.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.

BLOODY MARSH, The Battle of the.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

BLOREHEATH, Battle of (A. D. 1459).

Fought on a plain called Bloreheath, near Drayton, in Staffordshire, England, Sept. 23, 1459, between 10,000 Lancastrians, commanded by Lord Audley, and about half that number of Yorkists under the Earl of Salisbury. The latter won a victory by superior strategy. The battle was the second that occurred in the Wars of the Roses.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

BLUCHER'S CAMPAIGNS.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); 1812-1813; 1813 (APRIL-MAY) to (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and 1815.

BLUE, Boys in.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

BLUE LICKS, Battle of (A. D. 1782).

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

"An incident, real or imaginary, which had lately [in 1813] occurred at New London [Connecticut] was seized upon as additional proof of collusion between the Federalists and the enemy. [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.] As the winter approached, Decatur had expected to get to sea with his two frigates. Vexed to find himself thwarted in every attempt by the watchfulness of the enemy, he wrote to the Navy Department in a fit of disgust, that, beyond all doubt, the British had, by signals or otherwise, instantaneous information of all his movements; and as proof of it, he stated that, after several nights of favorable weather, the report circulating in the town that an attempt was to be made to get out, 'in the course of the evening two blue lights were burned on both points of the harbor's mouth.' These 'signals to the enemy,' for such he unhesitatingly pronounced them, had been repeated, so he wrote, and had been seen by twenty persons at least of the squadron, though it does not appear that Decatur himself was one of the number. ... Such a clamor was raised about it, that one of the Connecticut members of Congress moved for a committee of investigation. ... The inquiry was ... quashed; but the story spread and grew, and the more vehement opponents of the war began to be stigmatized as 'blue-light Federalists.'"--

R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., volume 6, page 467.

BLUE PARTY (of Venezuela), The.

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

BLUE RIBBON, The Order of the.

See SERAPHIM.

BLUES, Roman Faction of the.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

BOABDIL, The last Moorish King in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

BOADICEA, Revolt of.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

BOAIRE, The. A "Cow-lord," having certain wealth in cattle, among the ancient Irish.

BOARIAN TRIBUTE, The.

Also called the Boruwa, or Cow-tribute. An humiliating exaction said to have been levied on the province of Leinster by a King Tuathal of Erin, in the second century, and which was maintained for five hundred years.

BOCAGE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL).

BOCASOTI, The.

See BEGUINES, &c.

BOCLAND.--BOOKLAND.

See ALOD.

BŒOTARCHS.

See BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.

BŒOTIA.--BŒOTIANS.

"Between Phokis and Lokris on one side, and Attica (from which it is divided by the mountains Kithærôn and Parnes) on the other, we find the important territory called Bœotia, with its ten or twelve autonomous cities, forming a sort of confederacy under the presidency of Thebes, the most powerful among them. Even of this territory, destined during the second period of this history to play a part so conspicuous and effective, we know nothing during the first two centuries after 776 B. C. We first acquire some insight into it on occasion of the disputes between Thebes and Platæa, about the year 520 B. C."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 3.

In the Greek legendary period one part of this territory, subsequently Bœotian--the Copaic valley in the north--was occupied by the enterprising people called the Minyi, whose chief city was Orchomenus. Their neighbors were the Cadmeians of Thebes, who are "rich," as Grote expresses it, "in legendary antiquities." The reputed founder of Thebes was Cadmus, bringer of letters to Hellas, from Phœnicia or from Egypt, according to different representations. Dionysus (Bacchus) and Hêraklês were both supposed to recognize the Cadmeian city as their birth-place. The terrible legends of Œdipus and his unhappy family connect themselves with the same place, and the incident wars between Thebes and Argos--the assaults of the seven Argive chiefs and of their sons, the Epigoni--were, perhaps, real causes of a real destruction of the power of some race for whom the Cadmeians stand. They and their neighbors, the Minyi of Orchomenus, appear to have given way before another people, from Thessaly, who gave the name Bœotia to the country of both and who were the inhabitants of the Thebes of historic times.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 14;

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

"That the Bœotia of history should never have attained to a significance corresponding to the natural advantages of the locality, and to the prosperity of the district in the pre-Homeric age, is due above all to one principal cause. The immigration of the Thessalian Bœotians, from which the country derived its name and the beginnings of its connected history, destroyed the earlier civilization of the land, without succeeding in establishing a new civilization capable of conducting the entire district to a prosperous and harmonious development. It cannot be said that the ancient germs of culture were suppressed, or that barbarous times supervened. The ancient seats of the gods and oracles continued to be honoured and the ancient festivals of the Muses on Mount Helicon, and of the Charites at Orchomenus, to be celebrated. {286} In Bœotia too the beneficent influence of Delphi was at work, and the poetic school of Hesiod, connected as it was with Delphi, long maintained itself here. And a yet stronger inclination was displayed by the Æolian immigrants towards music and lyric poetry. The cultivation of the music of the flute was encouraged by the excellent reeds of the Copaic morasses. This was the genuinely national species of music in Bœotia. ... And yet the Bœotians lacked the capacity for attracting to themselves the earlier elements of population in such a way as to bring about a happy amalgamation. ... The Bœotian lords were not much preferable to the Thessalian; nor was there any region far or near, inhabited by Greek tribes, which presented a harsher contrast in culture or manners, than the district where the road led from the Attic side of Mount Parnes across to the Bœotian."

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

See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.

"The old Bœotian League, as far as its outward forms went, seems to have been fairly entitled to the name of a Federal Government, but in its whole history we trace little more than the gradual advance of Thebes to a practical supremacy over the other cities. ... The common government was carried on in the name of the whole Bœotian nation. Its most important magistrates bore the title of Bœotarchs: their exact number, whether eleven or thirteen, is a disputed point of Greek archæology, or rather of Bœotian geography. ... Thebes chose two Bœotarchs and each of the other cities one."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government., chapter 4, section 2.

BOERS, Boer War.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

BOGDANIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 14TH-15TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.)

BOGESUND, Battle of (1520).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BOGOMILIANS, The.

A religious sect which arose among the Sclavonians of Thrace and Bulgaria, in the eleventh century, and suffered persecution from the orthodox of the Greek church. They sympathized with the Iconoclasts of former times, were hostile to the adoration of the Virgin and saints, and took more or less from the heretical doctrines of the Paulicians. Their name is derived by some from the two Sclavonian words, "Bog," signifying God, and "milui," "have mercy." Others say that "Bogumil," meaning "one beloved by God," was the correct designation. Basilios, the leader of the Bogomilians, was burned by the Emperor Alexius Comnenos, in the hippodrome, at Constantinople, A. D. 1118.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, 716-1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, ETC.)

BOGOTA, The founding of the city (1538).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

BOHEMIA, Derivation of the name.

See BOIANS.

BOHEMIA: Its people and their early history.

"Whatever may be the inferences from the fact of Bohemia having been politically connected with the empire of the Germanic Marcomanni, whatever may be those from the element Boioas connecting its population with the Boii of Gaul and Bavaria (Baiovarii), the doctrine that the present Slavonic population of that kingdom--Tshekhs [or Czekhs] as they call themselves--is either recent in origin or secondary to any German or Keltic aborigines, is wholly unsupported by history. In other words, at the beginning of the historical period Bohemia was as Slavonic as it is now. From A. D. 526 to A. D. 550, Bohemia belonged to the great Thuringian Empire. The notion that it was then Germanic (except in its political relations) is gratuitous. Nevertheless, Schaffarik's account is, that the ancestors of the present Tshekhs came, probably, from White Croatia: which was either north of the Carpathians, or each side of them. According to other writers, however, the parts above the river Kulpa in Croatia sent them forth. In Bohemian the verb 'ceti' = 'to begin,' from which Dobrowsky derives the name Czekhs = the beginners, the foremost, i. e., the first Slavonians who passed westwards. The powerful Samo, the just Krok, and his daughter, the wise Libussa, the founder of Prague, begin the uncertain list of Bohemian kings, A. D. 624-700. About A. D. 722, a number of petty chiefs become united under P'remysl the husband of Libussa. Under his son Nezamysl occurs the first Constitutional Assembly at Wysegrad; and in A. D. 845, Christianity was introduced. But it took no sure footing till about A. D. 966. Till A. D. 1471 the names of the Bohemian kings and heroes are Tshekh--Wenceslaus, Ottokar, Ziska, Podiebrad. In A. D. 1564, the Austrian connexion and the process of Germanizing began. ... The history and ethnology of Moravia is nearly that of Bohemia, except that the Marcomannic Germans, the Turks, Huns, Avars, and other less important populations may have effected a greater amount of intermixture. Both populations are Tshekh, speaking the Tshekh language--the language, probably, of the ancient Quadi."

R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 11.

BOHEMIA: 7th Century. The Yoke of the Avars broken. The Kingdom of Samo.

See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

BOHEMIA: 9th Century. Subject to the Moravian Kingdom of Svatopluk.

See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.

BOHEMIA: 13th Century. The King made a Germanic Elector.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1276. War of King Ottocar with the Emperor Rodolph of Hapsburg. His defeat and death.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1310. Acquisition of the crown by John of Luxembourg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1347. Charles IV. elected to the imperial throne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355. The succession fixed in the Luxemburg dynasty. Incorporation of Moravia, Silesia, &c.

The diet of the nobles, in 1355, joined Charles IV. in "fixing the order of succession in the dynasty of Luxemburg, and in definitely establishing that principle of primogeniture which had already been the custom in the Premyslide dynasty. Moravia, Silesia, Upper Lusatia, Brandenburg, which had been acquired from the margrave Otto, and the county of Glatz (Kladsko), with the consent of the diets of these provinces, were declared integral and inalienable portions of the kingdom of Bohemia."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 11.

{287}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1364. Reversion of the crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1378-1400.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415. John Hus, and the movement of Religious Reformation.

"Some sparks of the fire which Wielif had lighted [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414], blown over half Europe, as far as remote Bohemia, quickened into stronger activity a flame which for long years burned and scorched and consumed, defying all efforts to extinguish it. But for all this, it was not Wiclif who kindled the Bohemian fires. His writing did much to fan and feed them; while the assumed and in part erroneously assumed, identity of his teaching with that of Hus contributed not a little to shape the tragic issues of the Bohemian reformer's life. But the Bohemian movement was an independent and eminently a national one. If we look for the proper forerunners of Hus, his true spiritual ancestors, we shall find them in his own land, in a succession of earnest and faithful preachers. ... John Hus (b. 1369, d. 1415), the central figure of the Bohemian Reformation, took in the year 1394 his degree as Bachelor of Theology in that University of Prague, upon the fortunes of which he was destined to exercise so lasting an influence; and four years later, in 1398, he began to deliver lectures there. ... He soon signalized himself by his diligence in breaking the bread of life to hungering souls, and his boldness in rebuking vice in high places as in low. So long as he confined himself to reproving the sins of the laity, leaving those of the Clergy and monks unassailed, he found little opposition, nay, rather support and applause from these. But when [1405] he brought them also within the circle of his condemnation, and began to upbraid them for their covetousness, their ambition, their luxury, their sloth, and for other vices, they turned angrily upon him, and sought to undermine his authority, everywhere spreading reports of the unsoundness of his teaching. ... While matters were in this strained condition, events took place at Prague which are too closely connected with the story that we are telling, exercised too great an influence in bringing about the issues that lie before us, to allow us to pass them by. ... The University of Prague, though recently founded--it only dated back to the year 1348--was now, next after those of Paris and Oxford, the most illustrious in Europe. ... This University, like that of Paris, on the pattern of which it had been modelled, was divided into four 'nations'--four groups, that is, or families of scholars--each of these having in academical affairs a single collective vote. These nations were the Bavarian, the Saxon, the Polish, and the Bohemian. This does not appear at first an unfair division--two German and two Slavonic; but in practical working the Polish was so largely recruited from Silesia, and other German or half-German lands, that its vote was in fact German also. The Teutonic votes were thus as three to one, and the Bohemians in their own land and their own University on every important matter hopelessly outvoted. When, by, aid of this preponderance, the University was made to condemn the teaching of Wiclif ... matters came to a crisis. Urged by Hus, who as a stout patriot, and an earnest lover of the Bohemian language and literature, had more than a theological interest in the matter,--by Jerome [of Prague],--by a large number of the Bohemian nobility,--King Wenzel published an edict whereby the relations of natives and foreigners were completely reversed. There should be henceforth three votes for the Bohemian nation, and only one for the three others. Such a shifting of the weights certainly appears as a redressing of one inequality by creating another. At all events it was so earnestly resented by the Germans, by professors and students alike, that they quitted the University in a body, some say of five, and some of thirty thousand, and founded the rival University of Leipsic, leaving no more than two thousand students at Prague. Full of indignation against Hus, whom they regarded as the prime author of this affront and wrong, they spread throughout all Germany the most unfavourable reports of him and of his teaching. This exodus of the foreigners had left Hus, who was now Rector of the University, with a freer field than before. But Church matters at Prague did not mend; they became more confused and threatening every day; until presently the shameful outrage against all Christian morality which a century later did a still more effectual work, served to put Hus into open opposition to the corrupt hierarchy of his time. Pope John XXIII., having a quarrel with the King of Naples, proclaimed a crusade against him, with what had become a constant accompaniment of this,--Indulgences to match. But to denounce Indulgences, as Hus with fierce and righteous indignation did now, was to wound Rome in her most sensitive part. He was excommunicated at once, and every place which should harbour him stricken with an interdict. While matters were in this frame the Council of Constance [see PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418] was opened, which should appease all the troubles of Christendom, and correct whatever was amiss. The Bohemian difficulty could not be omitted, and Hus was summoned to make answer at Constance for himself. He had not been there four weeks when he was required to appear before the Pope and Cardinals (Nov. 18, 1414). After a brief informal hearing he was committed to harsh durance from which he never issued as a free man again. Sigismund, the German King and Emperor Elect, who had furnished Hus with a safe-conduct which should protect him, 'going to the Council, tarrying at the Council, returning from the Council,' was absent from Constance at the time, and heard with real displeasure how lightly regarded this promise and pledge of his had been. Some big words too he spoke, threatening to come himself and release the prisoner by force; but, being waited on by a deputation from the Council, who represented to him that he, as a layman, in giving such a safe conduct had exceeded his powers, and intruded into a region which was not his, Sigismund was convinced, or affected to be convinced. ... More than seven months elapsed before Hus could obtain a hearing before the Council. This was granted to him at last. Thrice heard (June 5, 7, 8, 1415),--if indeed such tumultuary sittings, where the man speaking for his life, and for much more than his life, was continually interrupted and overborne by hostile voices, by loud cries of 'Recant,' 'Recant,' may be reckoned as hearings at all,--he bore himself, by the confession of all, with courage, meekness and dignity." He refused to recant. Some of the articles brought against him, he said, "charged him with teaching things which he had never taught, and he could not, by this formal act of retraction, admit that he had taught them." He was condemned, sentenced to the stake, and burned, on the 6th of July, 1415. His friend, Jerome, of Prague, suffered the same fate in the following May.

R. C. Trench, Lectures on Mediaeval Church History, lecture 22.

ALSO IN: E. H. Gillett, Life and times of John Hus.

A. H. Wratislaw, John Hus.

A. Neander, General History of Christian Religion, volume 9, part 2.

{288}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1410. Election of King Sigismund to the imperial throne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434. The Hussite Wars. The Reformation checked.

"The fate of Huss and Jerome created an instant and fierce excitement among the Bohemians. An address, defending them against the charge of heresy and protesting against the injustice and barbarity of the Council, was signed by 400 or 500 nobles and forwarded to Constance. The only result was that the Council decreed that no safe-conduct could be allowed to protect a heretic, that the University of Prague must be reorganized, and the strongest measures applied to suppress the Hussite doctrines in Bohemia. This was a defiance which the Bohemians courageously accepted. Men of all classes united in proclaiming that the doctrines of Huss should be freely taught, and that no Interdict of the Church should be enforced: the University, and even Wenzel's queen, Sophia, favored this movement, which soon became so powerful that all priests who refused to administer the sacrament 'in both forms' were driven from the churches. ... When the Council of Constance was dissolved [1418], Sigismund [the Emperor] hastened to Hungary to carry on a new war with the Turks, who were already extending their conquests along the Danube. The Hussites in Bohemia employed this opportunity to organize themselves for resistance; 40,000 of them, in July, 1419, assembled on a mountain to which they gave the name of Tabor, and chose as their leader a nobleman who was surnamed Ziska, 'the one-eyed.' The excitement soon rose to such a pitch that several monasteries were stormed and plundered. King Wenzel arrested some of the ringleaders, but this only inflamed the spirit of the people. They formed a procession in Prague, marched through the city, carrying the sacramental cup at their head, and took forcible possession of several churches. When they halted before the city-hall, to demand the release of their imprisoned brethren, stones were thrown at them from the windows, whereupon they broke into the building and hurled the Burgomaster and six other officials upon the upheld spears of those below. ... The Hussites were already divided into two parties, one moderate in its demands, called the Calixtines, from the Latin 'calix,' a chalice, which was their symbol [referring to their demand for the administration of the eucharistic cup to the laity, or communion 'sub utraque specie'--whence they were also called 'Utraquists']; the other radical and fanatic, called the 'Taborites,' who proclaimed their separation from the Church of Rome and a new system of brotherly equality through which they expected to establish the Millenium upon earth. The exigencies of their situation obliged these two parties to unite in common defence against the forces of the Church and the Empire, during the sixteen years of war which followed; but they always remained separated in their religious views, and mutually intolerant. Ziska, who called himself 'John Ziska of the Chalice, commander in the hope of God of the Taborites,' had been a friend and was an ardent follower of Huss. He was an old man, bald-headed, short, broad-shouldered, with a deep furrow across his brow, an enormous aquiline nose, and a short red moustache. In his genius for military operations, he ranks among the great commanders of the world; his quickness, energy and inventive talent were marvellous, but at the same time he knew neither tolerance nor mercy. . . . Sigismund does not seem to have been aware of the formidable character of the movement, until the end of his war with the Turks, some months afterwards, and he then persuaded the Pope to summon all Christendom to a crusade against Bohemia. During the year 1420 a force of 100,000 soldiers was collected, and Sigismund marched at their head to Prague. The Hussites met him with the demand for the acceptance of the following articles: 1.--The word of God to be freely preached; 2.--The sacrament to be administered in both forms; 3.---The clergy to possess no property or temporal authority; 4.--All sins to be punished by the proper authorities. Sigismund was ready to accept these articles as the price of their submission, but the Papal Legate forbade the agreement, and war followed. On the 1st of November, 1420, the Crusaders were totally defeated by Ziska, and all Bohemia was soon relieved of their presence. The dispute between the moderates and the radicals broke out again; the idea of a community of property began to prevail among the Taborites, and most of the Bohemian nobles refused to act with them. Ziska left Prague with his troops and for a time devoted himself to the task of suppressing all opposition through the country, with fire and sword. He burned no less than 550 convents and monasteries, slaying the priests and monks who refused to accept the new doctrines. ... While besieging the town of Raby, an arrow destroyed his remaining eye, yet he continued to plan battles and sieges as before. The very name of the blind warrior became a terror throughout Germany. In September, 1421, a second Crusade of 200,000 men, commanded by five German Electors, entered Bohemia from the west. ... But the blind Ziska, nothing daunted, led his wagons, his flail-men, and mace-wielders against the Electors, whose troops began to fly before them. No battle was fought; the 200,000 Crusaders were scattered in all directions, and lost heavily during their retreat. Then Ziska wheeled about and marched against Sigismund, who was late in making his appearance. The two armies met on the 8th of January, 1422 [at Deutschbrod], and the Hussite victory was so complete that the Emperor narrowly escaped falling into their hands. ... A third Crusade was arranged and Frederick of Brandenburg (the Hohenzollern) selected to command it, but the plan failed from lack of support. {289} The dissensions among the Hussites became fiercer than ever; Ziska was at one time on the point of attacking Prague, but the leaders of the moderate party succeeded in coming to an understanding with him, and he entered the city in triumph. In October, 1424, while marching against Duke Albert of Austria, who had invaded Moravia, he fell a victim to the plague. Even after death he continued to terrify the German soldiers, who believed that his skin had been made into a drum, and still called the Hussites to battle. A majority of the Taborites elected a priest, called Procopius the Great, as their commander in Ziska's stead; the others who thenceforth styled themselves 'Orphans,' united under another priest, Procopius the Little. The approach of another Imperial army, in 1426, compelled them to forget their differences, and the result was a splendid victory over their enemies. Procopius the Great then invaded Austria and Silesia, which he laid waste without mercy. The Pope called a fourth Crusade, which met the same fate as the former ones: the united armies of the Archbishop of Treves, the Elector Frederick of Brandenburg and the Duke of Saxony, 200,000 strong, were utterly defeated, and fled in disorder, leaving an enormous quantity of stores and munitions of war in the hands of the Bohemians. Procopius, who was almost the equal of Ziska as a military leader, made several unsuccessful attempts to unite the Hussites in one religious body. In order to prevent their dissensions from becoming dangerous to the common cause, he kept the soldiers of all sects under his command, and undertook fierce invasions into Bavaria, Saxony and Brandenburg, which made the Hussite name a terror to all Germany. During these expeditions one hundred towns were destroyed, more than 1,500 villages burned, tens of thousands of the inhabitants slain, and such quantities of plunder collected that it was impossible to transport the whole of it to Bohemia. Frederick of Brandenburg and several other princes were compelled to pay heavy tributes to the Hussites: the Empire was thoroughly humiliated, the people weary of slaughter, yet the Pope refused even to call a Council for the discussion of the difficulty. ... The German princes made a last and desperate effort: an army of 130,000 men, 40,000 of whom were cavalry, was brought together, under the command of Frederick of Brandenburg, while Albert of Austria was to support it by invading Bohemia from the south. Procopius and his dauntless Hussites met the Crusaders on the 14th of August, 1431, at a place called Thauss, and won another of their marvellous victories. The Imperial army was literally cut to pieces, 8,000 wagons, filled with provisions and munitions of war, and 150 cannons, were left upon the field. The Hussites marched northward to the Baltic, and eastward into Hungary, burning, slaying, and plundering as they went. Even the Pope now yielded, and the Hussites were invited to attend the Council at Basel, with the most solemn stipulations in regard to personal safety and a fair discussion of their demands. ... In 1433, finally 300 Hussites, headed by Procopius, appeared in Basel. They demanded nothing more than the acceptance of the four articles upon which they had united in 1420; but after seven weeks of talk, during which the Council agreed upon nothing and promised nothing, they marched away, after stating that any further negotiation must be carried on in Prague. This course compelled the Council to act; an embassy was appointed, which proceeded to Prague, and on the 30th of November, the same year, concluded a treaty with the Hussites. The four demands were granted, but each with a condition attached which gave the Church a chance to regain its lost power. For this reason, the Taborites and 'Orphans' refused to accept the compact; the moderate party united with the nobles and undertook to suppress the former by force. A fierce internal war followed, but it was of short duration. In 1434, the Taborites were defeated [at Lipan, May 30], their fortified mountain taken, Procopius the Great and the Little were both slain, and the members of the sect dispersed. The Bohemian Reformation was never again dangerous to the Church of Rome."

B. Taylor, History of Germany, chapter 22.

ALSO IN: _C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia, introductory chapter._

E. H. Gillett, Life and Times of John Hus, volume 2, chapter 13-18.

E. de Schweinitz, History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum, chapter 9.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457. Organization of the Utraquist National Church. Minority of Ladislaus Posthumus. Regency of George Podiebrad. Origin of the Unitas Fratrum.

"The battle of Lipan was a turning point in the history of the Hussites. It put Bohemia and Moravia into the hands of the Utraquists, and enabled them to carry out their plans unhindered. The man who was foremost in shaping events and who became more and more prominent, until he exercised a commanding influence, was John of Rokycana. ... At the diet of 1435 he was unanimously elected archbishop. ... Meantime Sigismund endeavored to regain his kingdom. The Diet made demands which were stringent and humiliating; but he pledged himself to fulfill them, and on the 5th of July, 1436, at a meeting held with great pomp and solemnity, in the market-place of Iglau, was formally acknowledged as King of Bohemia. On the same occasion, the Compactata were anew ratified and the Bohemians readmitted to the fellowship of the mother church. But scarcely had Sigismund reached his capital when he began so serious a reaction in favor of Rome that Rokycana secretly left the city and retired to a castle near Pardubic (1437). The king's treachery was, however, cut short by the hand of death, on the 9th of December, of the same year, at Znaim, while on his way to Hungary; and his successor and son-in-law, Albert of Austria, followed him to the grave in 1439, in the midst of a campaign against the Turks. Bohemia was left without a ruler, for Albert had no children except a posthumous son [Ladislaus Posthumus.]"

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458.

"A time of anarchy began and various leagues arose, the most powerful of which stood under Baron Ptacek. ... He ... called an ecclesiastical convention at Kuttenberg (October 4th). This convention brought about far-reaching results. ... Rokycana was acknowledged as Archbishop elect, the supreme direction of ecclesiastical affairs was committed into his hands, the priests promised him obedience, and 24 doctrinal and constitutional articles were adopted which laid the foundation of the Utraquist Church as the National Church of Bohemia. {290} But the Taborites stood aloof. ... At last a disputation was agreed upon," as the result of which the Taborites were condemned by the Diet. "They lost all prestige; their towns, with the exception of Tabor, passed out of their hands; their membership was scattered and a large part of it joined the National Church. In the following summer Ptacek died and George Podiebrad succeeded him as the head of the league. Although a young man of only 24 years, he displayed the sagacity of an experienced statesman and was distinguished by the virtues of a patriot. In 1448 a bold stroke made him master of Prague and constituted him practically Regent of all Bohemia; four years later his regency was formally acknowledged. He was a warm friend of Rokycana, whose consecration he endeavored to bring about." When it was found that Rome could not be reconciled, there were thoughts of cutting loose altogether from the Roman Catholic and uniting with the Greek Church. "Negotiations were actually begun in 1452, but came to an abrupt close in the following year, in consequence of the fall of Constantinople. About the same time Ladislaus Posthumus, Albert's son, assumed the crown, Podiebrad remaining Regent. The latter continued the friend of Rokycana; the former, who was a Catholic, conceived a strong dislike to him. As soon as Rokycana had given up the hope of conciliating Rome, he began to preach, with great power and eloquence, against its corruptions." It was at this time that a movement arose among certain of his followers which resulted in the formation of the remarkable religious body which called itself Unitas Fratrum. The leading spirit in this movement was Rokycana's nephew, commonly called Gregory the Patriarch. The teaching and influence which shaped it was that of Peter Chelcicky. Gregory and his companions, wishing to dwell together, in the Christian unity of which they had formed an ideal in their minds, found a retreat at the secluded village of Kunwald, on the estate of George Podiebrad. "The name which they chose was 'Brethren of the Law of Christ'--'Fratres Legis Christi'; inasmuch, however, as this name gave rise to the idea that they were a new order of Monks, they changed it simply into 'Brethren.' When the organization of their Church had been completed, they assumed the additional title of 'Jednota Bratrska,' or Unitas Fratrum, that is, the Unity of the Brethren, which has remained the official and significant appellation of the Church to the present day. .... It was often abbreviated into 'The Unity.' Another name by which the Church called itself was 'The Bohemian Brethren.' It related to all the Brethren, whether they belonged to Bohemia, Moravia, Prussia or Poland. To call them The Bohemian-Moravian Brethren, or the Moravian Brethren, is historically incorrect. The name Moravian arose in the time of the Renewed Brethren's Church, because the men by whom it was renewed came from Moravia. ... The organization of the Unitas Fratrum took place in the year 1457."

E. De Schweinitz, History of the Church known as Unitas Fratrum, chapter 10-12.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458. Election of George Podiebrad to the throne.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471. Papal excommunication and deposition of the king, George Podiebrad. A crusade. War with the Emperor and Matthias of Hungary. Death of Podiebrad and election of Ladislaus of Poland.

"George Podiebrad had scarcely ascended the throne before the Catholics, at the instigation of the pope, required him to fulfil his coronation oath, by expelling all heretics from the kingdom. He complied with their request, banished the Taborites, Picards, Adamites, and all other religious sects who did not profess the Catholic doctrines, and issued a decree that all his subjects should become members of the Catholic church, as communicants under one or both kinds. The Catholics, however, were not satisfied; considering the Calixtins as heretics, they entreated him to annul the compacts, or to obtain a new ratification of them from the new pope: To gratify their wishes he sent an embassy to Rome, requesting a confirmation of the compacts; but Pius, under the pretence that the compacts gave occasion to heresy, refused his ratification, and sent Fantino della Valle, as legate, to Prague, for the purpose of persuading the king to prohibit the administration of the communion under both kinds. In consequence of this legation the king called a diet, at which the legate and the bishops of Olmutz and Breslau were present. The ill success of the embassy to Rome having been announced, he said, 'I am astonished, and cannot divine the intentions of the pope. The compacts were the only means of terminating the dreadful commotions in Bohemia, and if they are annulled, the kingdom will again relapse into the former disorders. The council of Basle, which was composed of the most learned men in Europe, approved and granted them to the Bohemians, and pope Eugenius confirmed them. They contain no heresy, and are in all respects conformable to the doctrines of the holy church. I and my wife have followed them from our childhood, and I am determined to maintain them till my death.' ... Fantino replying in a long and virulent invective, the king ordered him to quit the assembly, and imprisoned him in the castle of Podiebrad, allowing him no other sustenance except bread and water. The pope, irritated by this insult, annulled the compacts, in 1463, and fulminated a sentence of excommunication against the king, unless he appeared at Rome within a certain time to justify his conduct. This bull occasioned a great ferment among the Catholics; Podiebrad was induced to liberate the legate, and made an apology to the offended pontiff; while Frederic, grateful for the assistance which he had recently received from the king of Bohemia, when besieged by his brother Albert, interposed his mediation with the pope, and procured the suspension of the sentence of excommunication. Pius dying on the 14th of August, 1464, the new pope, Paul II., persecuted the king of Bohemia with increasing acrimony. He sent his legate to Breslau to excite commotions among the Catholics, endeavoured without effect to gain Casimir, king of Poland, by the offer of the Bohemian crown, and applied with the same ill success to the states of Germany. He at length overcame the gratitude of the emperor by threats and promises, and at the diet of Nuremberg in 1467, the proposal of his legate Fantino, to form a crusade against the heretic king of Bohemia, was supported by the imperial ambassadors. {291} Although this proposal was rejected by the diet, the pope published a sentence of deposition against Podiebrad, and his emissaries were allowed to preach the crusade throughout Germany, and in every part of the Austrian territories. The conduct of Frederic drew from the king of Bohemia, in 1468, a violent invective against his ingratitude, and a formal declaration of war; he followed this declaration by an irruption into Austria, spreading devastation as far as the Danube. Frederic in vain applied to the princes of the empire for assistance: and at length excited Matthias king of Hungary against his father-in-law, by offering to invest him with the kingdom of Bohemia. Matthias, forgetting his obligations to Podiebrad, to whom he owed his life and crown, was dazzled by the offer, and being assisted by bodies of German marauders, who had assumed the cross, invaded Bohemia. At the same time the intrigues of the pope exciting the Catholics to insurrection, the country again became a prey to the dreadful evils of a civil and religious war. The vigour and activity of George Podiebrad suppressed the internal commotions, and repelled the invasion of the Hungarians; an armistice was concluded, and the two kings, on the 4th of April, 1469, held an amicable conference at Sternberg, in Moravia, where they entered into a treaty of peace. But Matthias, influenced by the perfidious maxim, that no compact should be kept with heretics, was persuaded by the papal legate to resume hostilities. After overrunning Moravia and Silesia, he held a mock diet at Olmutz with some of the Catholic party, where he was chosen king of Bohemia, and solemnly crowned by the legate. ... Podiebrad, in order to baffle the designs both of the emperor and Matthias, summoned a diet at Prague, and proposed to the states as his successor, Ladislaus, eldest son of Casimir, king of Poland, by Elizabeth, second daughter of the emperor Albert. The proposal was warmly approved by the nation, ... as the Catholics were desirous of living under a prince of their own communion, and the Calixtins anxious to prevent the accession of Frederic or Matthias, both of whom were hostile to their doctrines. The states accordingly assented without hesitation, and Ladislaus was unanimously nominated successor to the throne. The indignation of Matthias was inflamed by his disappointment, and hostilities were continued with increasing fury. The two armies, conducted by their respective sovereigns, the ablest generals of the age, for some time kept each other in check; till at length both parties, wearied by the devastation of their respective countries, concluded a kind of armistice, on the 22nd of July, 1470, which put a period to hostilities. On the death of Podiebrad, in the ensuing year, Frederic again presenting himself as a candidate, was supported by still fewer adherents than on the former occasion; a more numerous party espoused the interests of Matthias; but the majority declaring for Ladislaus, he was re-elected, and proclaimed king. Frederic supported Ladislaus in preference to Matthias, and by fomenting the troubles in Hungary, as well as by his intrigues with the king of Poland, endeavoured not only to disappoint Matthias of the throne of Bohemia, but even to drive him from that of Hungary."

W. Coxe. History of the House of Austria, chapter 18 (volume 1).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1471-1479. War with Matthias of Hungary. Surrender of Moravia and Silesia.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1490. King Ladislaus elected to the throne of Hungary.

See Hungary: A. D. 1487-1526.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1516-1576. Accession of the House of Austria. The Reformation and its strength. Alternating toleration and persecution.

In 1489 Vladislav "was elected to the throne of Hungary after the death of Mathias Corvinus. He died in 1516, and was succeeded on the throne of Bohemia and Hungary by his minor son, Louis, who perished in 1526 at the battle of Mohacz against the Turks [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526]. An equality of rights was maintained between the Hussites and the Roman Catholics during these two reigns. Louis left no children, and was succeeded on the throne of Hungary and Bohemia by Ferdinand of Austria [see, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1406-1526], brother of the Emperor Charles V., and married to the sister of Louis, a prince of a bigoted and despotic character. The doctrines of Luther had already found a speedy echo amongst the Calixtines under the preceding reign; and Protestantism gained so much ground under that of Ferdinand, that the Bohemians refused to take part in the war against the Protestant league of Smalkalden, and formed a union for the defence of the national and religious liberties, which were menaced by Ferdinand. The defeat of the Protestants at the battle of Muhlberg, in 1547, by Charles V., which laid prostrate their cause in Germany, produced a severe reaction in Bohemia. Several leaders of the union were executed, others imprisoned or banished; the property of many nobles was confiscated, the towns were heavily fined, deprived of several privileges, and subjected to new taxes. These measures were carried into execution with the assistance of German, Spanish, and Hungarian soldiers, and legalized by an assembly known under the name of the Bloody Diet. ... The Jesuits were also introduced during that reign into Bohemia. The privileges of the Calixtine, or, as it was officially called, the Utraquist Church, were not abolished; and Ferdinand, who had succeeded to the imperial crown after the abdication of his brother Charles V., softened, during the latter years of his reign, his harsh and despotic character. ... He died in 1564, sincerely regretting, it is said, the acts of oppression which he had committed against his Bohemian subjects. He was succeeded by his son, the Emperor Maximilian II., a man of noble character and tolerant disposition, which led to the belief that he himself inclined towards the doctrines of the Reformation. He died in 1576, leaving a name venerated by all parties. ... Maximilian's son, the Emperor Rudolph, was educated at the court of his cousin, Philip II. of Spain, and could not be but adverse to Protestantism, which had, however, become too strong, not only in Bohemia, but also in Austria proper, to be easily suppressed; but several indirect means were adopted, in order gradually to effect this object."

V. Krasinski, Lectures on the Religious History of the Slavonic Nations, lecture 2.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1576-1604. Persecution of Protestants by Rudolph.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

{292}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618. The Letter of Majesty, or Royal Charter, and Matthias's violation of it. Ferdinand of Styria forced upon the nation as king by hereditary right. The throwing of the Royal Counsellors from the window. Beginning of the Thirty Years War.

In 1611 the Emperor Rodolph was forced to surrender the crown of Bohemia to his brother Matthias. The next year he died, and Matthias succeeded him as Emperor also. "The tranquillity which Rodolph II.'s Letter of Majesty [see GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618] had established in Bohemia lasted for some time, under the administration of Matthias, till the nomination of a new heir to this kingdom in the person of Ferdinand of Gratz [Styria]. This prince, whom we shall afterwards become better acquainted with under the title of Ferdinand II., Emperor of Germany, had, by the violent extirpation of the Protestant religion within his hereditary dominions, announced himself as an inexorable zealot for popery, and was consequently looked upon by the Catholic part of Bohemia as the future pillar of their church. The declining health of the Emperor brought on this hour rapidly; and, relying on so powerful a supporter, the Bohemian Papists began to treat the Protestants with little moderation. The Protestant vassals of Roman Catholic nobles, in particular, experienced the harshest treatment. At length several of the former were incautious enough to speak somewhat loudly of their hopes, and by threatening hints to awaken among the Protestants a suspicion of their future sovereign. But this mistrust would never have broken out into actual violence, had the Roman Catholics confined themselves to general expressions, and not by attacks on individuals furnished the discontent of the people with enterprising leaders. Henry Matthias, Count Thurn, not a native of Bohemia, but proprietor of some estates in that kingdom, had, by his zeal for the Protestant cause, and an enthusiastic attachment to his newly adopted country, gained the entire confidence of the Utraquists, which opened him the way to the most important posts. ... Of a hot and impetuous disposition, which loved tumult because his talents shone in it--rash and thoughtless enough to undertake things which cold prudence and a calmer temper would not have ventured upon--unscrupulous enough, where the gratification of his passions was concerned, to sport with the fate of thousands, and at the same time politic enough to hold in leading-strings such a people as the Bohemians then were. He had already taken an active part in the troubles under Rodolph's administration; and the Letter of Majesty which the States had extorted from that Emperor, was chiefly to be laid to his merit. The court had intrusted to him, as burgrave or castellan of Calstein, the custody of the Bohemian crown, and of the national charter. But the nation had placed in his hands something far more important--itself --with the office of defender or protector of the faith. The aristocracy by which the Emperor was ruled, imprudently deprived him of this harmless guardianship of the dead, to leave him his full influence over the living. They took from him his office of burgrave, or constable of the castle, which had rendered him dependent on the court, thereby opening his eyes to the importance of the other which remained, and wounded his vanity, which yet was the thing that made his ambition harmless. From this moment he was actuated solely by a desire of revenge; and the opportunity of gratifying it was not long wanting. In the Royal Letter which the Bohemians had extorted from Rodolph II., as well as in the German religious treaty, one material article remained undetermined. All the privileges granted by the latter to the Protestants, were conceived in favour of the Estates or governing bodies, not of the subjects; for only to those of ecclesiastical states had a toleration, and that precarious, been conceded. The Bohemian Letter of Majesty, in the same manner, spoke only of the Estates and the imperial towns, the magistrates of which had contrived to obtain equal privileges with the former. These alone were free to erect churches and schools, and openly to celebrate their Protestant worship: in all other towns, it was left entirely to the government to which they belonged, to determine the religion of the inhabitants. The Estates of the Empire had availed themselves of this privilege in its fullest extent; the secular indeed without opposition; while the ecclesiastical, in whose case the declaration of Ferdinand had limited this privilege, disputed, not without reason, the validity of that limitation. What was a disputed point in the religious treaty, was left still more doubtful in the Letter of Majesty. ... In the little town of Klostergrab, subject to the Archbishop of Prague; and in Braunau, which belonged to the abbot of that monastery, churches were founded by the Protestants, and completed notwithstanding the opposition of their superiors, and the disapprobation of the Emperor. ... By the Emperor's orders, the church at Klostergrab was pulled down; that at Braunau forcibly shut up, and the most turbulent of the citizens thrown into prison. A general commotion among the Protestants was the consequence of this measure; a loud outcry was everywhere raised at this violation of the Letter of Majesty; and Count Thurn animated by revenge, and particularly called upon by his office of defender, showed himself not a little busy in inflaming the minds of the people. At his instigation deputies were summoned to Prague from every circle in the empire, to concert the necessary measures against the common danger. It was resolved to petition the Emperor to press for the liberation of the prisoners. The answer of the Emperor, already offensive to the states, from its being addressed, not to them, but to his viceroy, denounced their conduct as illegal and rebellious, justified what had been done at Klostergrab and Braunau as the result of an imperial mandate, and contained some passages that might be construed into threats. Count Thurn did not fail to augment the unfavourable impression which this imperial edict made upon the assembled Estates. ... He held it ... advisable first to direct their indignation against the Emperor's counsellors; and for that purpose circulated a report, that the imperial proclamation had been drawn up by the government at Prague and only signed in Vienna. Among the imperial delegates, the chief objects of the popular hatred, were the President of the Chamber, Slawata, and Baron Martinitz, who had been elected in place of Count Thurn, Burgrave of Calstein. ... Against two characters so unpopular the public indignation was easily excited, and they were marked out for a sacrifice to the general indignation. {293} On the 23rd of May, 1618, the deputies appeared armed, and in great numbers, at the royal palace, and forced their way into the hall where the Commissioners Sternberg, Martinitz, Lobkowitz, and Slawata were assembled. In a threatening tone they demanded to know from each of them, whether he had taken any part, or had consented to, the imperial proclamation. Sternberg received them with composure, Martinitz and Slawata with defiance. This decided their fate; Sternberg and Lobkowitz, less hated, and more feared, were led by the arm out of the room; Martinitz and Slawata were seized, dragged to a window, and precipitated from a height of 80 feet, into the castle trench. Their creature, the secretary Fabricius, was thrown after them. This singular mode of execution naturally excited the surprise of civilized nations. The Bohemians justified it as a national custom, and saw nothing remarkable in the whole affair, excepting that anyone should have got up again safe and sound after such a fall. A dunghill, on which the imperial commissioners chanced to be deposited, had saved them from injury. [The incident of the flinging of the obnoxious ministers from the window is often referred to as 'the defenestration at Prague.'] ... By this brutal act of self-redress, no room was left for irresolution or repentance, and it seemed as if a single crime could be absolved only by a series of violences. As the deed itself could not be undone, nothing was left but to disarm the hand of punishment. Thirty directors were appointed to organize a regular insurrection. They seized upon all the offices of state, and all the imperial revenues, took into their own service the royal functionaries and the soldiers, and summoned the whole Bohemian nation to avenge the common cause."

F. Schiller, History of the Thirty Years' War, book 1, pages 51-55.

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, The Thirty Years' War, chapter 2.

A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War, chapter 1.

F. Kohlrausch, History of Germany, chapter 22.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1618-1620. Conciliatory measures defeated by Ferdinand. His election to the Imperial throne, and his deposition in Bohemia. Acceptance of the crown by Frederick the Palatine Elector. His unsupported situation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1620. Disappointment in the newly elected King. His aggressive Calvinism. Battle of the White Mountain before Prague. Frederick's flight. Annulling of the Royal charter. Loss of Bohemian Liberties.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1620, and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648. The Reign of Terror. Death, banishment, confiscation, dragoonades. The country a desert. Protestantism crushed, but not slain.

"In June, 1621, a fearful reign of terror began in Bohemia, with the execution of 27 of the most distinguished heretics. For years the unhappy people bled under it; thousands were banished, and yet Protestantism was not fully exterminated. The charter was cut into shreds by the Emperor himself; there could be no forbearance towards 'such acknowledged rebels.' As a matter of course, the Lutheran preaching was forbidden under the heaviest penalties; heretical works, Bibles especially, were taken away in heaps. Jesuit colleges, churches, and schools came into power; but this was not all. A large number of distinguished Protestant families were deprived of their property, and, as if that were not enough, it was decreed that no non-Catholic could be a citizen, nor carry on a trade, enter into a marriage, nor make a will; anyone who harboured a Protestant preacher forfeited his property; whoever permitted Protestant instruction to be given was to be fined, and whipped out of town; the Protestant poor who were not converted were to be driven out of the hospitals, and to be replaced by Catholic poor; he who gave free expression to his opinions about religion was to be executed. In 1624 an order was issued to all preachers and teachers to leave the country within eight days under pain of death; and finally, it was ordained that whoever had not become Catholic by Easter, 1626, must emigrate. ... But the real conversions were few; thousands quietly remained true to the faith; other thousands wandered as beggars into foreign lands, more than 30,000 Bohemian families, and among them 500 belonging to the aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled Bohemians were to be found in every country of Europe, and were not wanting in any of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who could not or would not emigrate, held to their faith in secret. Against them dragoonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were sent into the various districts to torment the heretics till they were converted. The 'Converters' (Seligmacher) went thus throughout all Bohemia, plundering and murdering. ... No succour reached the unfortunate people; but neither did the victors attain their end. Protestantism and the Hussite memories could not be slain, and only outward submission was extorted. ... A respectable Protestant party exists to this day in Bohemia and Moravia. But a desert was created; the land was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had 4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or 800,000. These figures appear preposterous, but they are certified by Bohemian historians. In some parts of the country the population has not attained the standard of 1620 to this day."

L. Häusser, The Period of the Reformation, chapter 32.

ALSO IN: _C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia, volume 2._

_E. de Schweinitz, History of the Church known as the Unitas Fratrum, chapter 47-51._

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1631-1632. Temporary occupation by the Saxons. Their expulsion by Wallenstein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1640-1645. Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1646-1648. Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War. Surprise and capture of part of Prague by the Swedes. Siege of the old city. Peace.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1740. The question of the Austrian Succession. The Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1741. See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER), and (OCTOBER).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY). Prussian invasion. Battle of Chotusitz.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

{294}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER). Expulsion of the French. Belleisle's retreat. Maria Theresa crowned at Prague.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1757. The Seven Years War. Frederick's invasion and defeat. Battles of Prague and Kolin.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

----------BOHEMIA: End----------

BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457, and GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

BOHEMIANS (Gypsies).

See GYPSIES.

BOIANS, OR BOII.

Some passages in the earlier history and movements of the powerful Gallic tribe known as the Boii will be found touched upon under ROME: B. C. 390-347, and B. C. 295-191, in accounts given of the destruction of Rome by the Gauls, and of the subsequent wars of the Romans with the Cisalpine Gauls. After the final conquest of the Boians in Gallia Cisalpina, early in the second century, B. C., the Romans seem to have expelled them, wholly or partly, from that country, forcing them to cross the Alps. They afterwards occupied a region embraced in modern Bavaria and Bohemia, both of which countries are thought to have derived their names from these Boian people. Some part of the nation, however, associated itself with the Helvetii and joined in the migration which Cæsar arrested. He settled these Boians in Gaul, within the Æduan territory, between the Loire and the Allier. Their capital city was Gergovia, which was also the name of a city of the Arverni. The Gergovia of the Boians is conjectured to have been modern Moulius. Their territory was the modern Bourbonnais, which probably derived its name from them. Three important names, therefore, in European geography and history, viz.--Bourbon, Bavaria and Bohemia, are traced to the Gallic nation of the Boii.

Tacitus, Germany, translated by a Church and Brodribb, notes.

ALSO IN: C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12, note.

BOIS-LE-DUC. Siege and capture by the Dutch (1629).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BOKHARA (Ancient Transoxania).

"Taken literally, the name [Transoxania] is a translation of the Arabic Mavera-un-nehr (that which lies beyond or across the river), and it might therefore be supposed that Transoxania meant the country lying beyond or on the right shore of the Oxus. But this is not strictly speaking the case. ... From the period of the Samanides down to modern times, the districts of Talkan, Tokharistan and Zem, although lying partly or entirely on the left bank of the Oxus, have been looked on as integral portions of Bokhara. Our historical researches seem to prove that this arrangement dates from the Samanides, who were themselves originally natives of that part of Khorassan. ... It is almost impossible in dealing geographically with Transoxania to assign definitely an accurate frontier. We can and will therefore comprehend in our definition of Transoxania solely Bokhara, or the khanate of Bokhara; for although it has only been known by the latter name since the time of Sheïbani and of the Ozbegs [A. D. 1500], the shores of the Zerefshan and the tract of country stretching southwards to the Oxus and northwards to the desert of Kizil Kum, represent the only parts of the territory which have remained uninterruptedly portions of the original undivided state of Transoxania from the earliest historical times. ... Bokhara, the capital from the time of the Samanides, and at the date of the very earliest geographical reports concerning Transoxania, is said, during its prosperity, to have been the largest city of the Islamite world. ... Bokhara was not, however, merely a luxurious city, distinguished by great natural advantages; it was also the principal emporium for the trade between China and Western Asia; in addition to the vast warehouses for silks, brocades, and cotton stuffs, for the finest carpets, and all kinds of gold and silversmiths' work, it boasted of a great money-market, being in fact the Exchange of all the population of Eastern and Western Asia. ... Sogd ... comprised the mountainous part of Transoxania (which may be described as the extreme western spurs of the Thien-Shan). ... The capital was Samarkand, undoubtedly the Maracanda of the Greeks, which they specify as the capital of Sogdia. The city has, throughout the history of Transoxania been the rival of Bokhara. Before the time of the Samanides, Samarkand was the largest city beyond the Oxus, and only began to decline from its former importance when Ismail chose Bokhara for his own residence. Under the Khahrezmians it is said to have raised itself again, and become much larger than its rival, and under Timour to have reached the culminating point of its prosperity."

A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, introduction.

ALSO IN: J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 2-3.

BOKHARA: B. C. 329-327. Conquest by Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

BOKHARA: 6th Century. Conquest from the White Huns by the Turks.

See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

BOKHARA: A. D. 710. The Moslem Conquest.

See. MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

BOKHARA: A. D. 991-998. Under the Samanides.

See SAMANIDES.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1004-1193. The Seldjuk Turks.

See TURKS (THE SELDJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and after.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1209-1220. Under the Khuarezmians.

See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1219. Destruction of the city by Jingis Khan.

Bokhara was taken by Jingis Khan in the summer of 1219. "It was then a very large and magnificent city. Its name, according to the historian Alai-ud-din, is derived from Bokhar, which in the Magian language means the Centre of Science." The city surrendered after a siege of a few days. Jingis Khan, on entering the town, saw the great mosque and asked if it was the Sultan's palace. "Being told it was the house of God, he dismounted, climbed the steps, and said in a loud voice to his followers, 'The hay is cut, give your horses fodder.' They easily understood this cynical invitation to plunder. ... The inhabitants were ordered to leave the town in a body, with only their clothes, so that it might be more easily pillaged, after which the spoil was divided among the victors. 'It was a fearful day,' says Ibn al Ithir; 'one only heard the sobs and weeping of men, women and children, who were separated forever; women were ravished, while men died rather than survive the dishonour of their wives and daughters.' The Mongols ended by setting fire to all the wooden portion of the town, and only the great mosque and certain palaces which were built of brick remained standing."

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, chapter 3.

{295}

"The flourishing city on the Zerefshan had become a heap of rubbish, but the garrison in the citadel, commanded by Kok Khan, continued to hold out with a bravery which deserves our admiration. The Mongols used every imaginable effort to reduce this last refuge of the enemy; the Bokhariots themselves were forced on to the scaling-ladders: but all in vain, and it was not until the moat had been literally choked with corpses of men and animals that the stronghold was taken and its brave defenders put to death. The peaceable portion of the population was also made to suffer for this heroic resistance. More than 30,000 men were executed, and the remainder were, with the exception of the very old people among them, reduced to slavery, without any distinction of rank whatever; and thus the inhabitants of Bokhara, lately so celebrated for their learning, their love of art, and their general refinement, were brought down to a dead level of misery and degradation and scattered to all quarters."

A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, chapter 8.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1868. Subjection to Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

----------BOKHARA: End----------

BOLERIUM.

See BELERION.

BOLESLAUS I., King of Poland, A. D. 1000-1025. Boleslaus II., King of Poland, A. D. 1058-1083. Boleslaus III., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1102-1138. Boleslaus IV., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1146-1173. Boleslaus V., King of Poland, A. D. 1227-1279.

BOLEYN, Anne. Marriage, trial and execution.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and, 1536-1543.

BOLGARI.

See BULGARIA: ORIGIN OF.

BOLIVAR'S LIBERATION OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819, 1819-1830; and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

BOLIVIA: The aboriginal inhabitants.

"With the Toromonos tribe, who occupied, as Orbigny tells us, a district of from 11° to 13° of South latitude, it was an established rule for every man to build his house, with his own hands alone, and if he did otherwise he lost the title of man, as well as became the laughing-stock of his fellow citizens. The only clothing worn by these people was a turban on the head, composed of feathers, the rest of the body being perfectly naked; whilst the women used a garment, manufactured out of cotton, that only partially covered their persons. ... The ornament in which the soft sex took most pride was a necklace made of the teeth of enemies, killed by their husbands in battle. Amongst the Moxos polygamy was tolerated, and woman's infidelity severely punished. ... The Moxos cultivated the land with ploughs, and other implements of agriculture, made of wood. They fabricated canoes, fought and fished with bows and arrows. In the province of the Moxos lived also a tribe called Itonomos, who, besides these last named instruments of war, used two edged wooden scimitars. The immorality of these Itonomos was something like that of the Mormons of our time. ... The Canichanas, who lived near Machupo, between 13° and 14° South latitude and 67° to 68° West longitude, are reputed by M. d'Orbigny as the bravest of the Bolivian Indians. They are accredited to have been cannibals. ...Where Jujuy--the most northern province· of the Argentine Republic--joins Bolivia, we have in the present day the Mataguaya and Cambas Indians. The latter are represented to me by Dr. Matienzo, of Rosario, as intelligent and devoted to agricultural labor. They have fixed tolderias [villages], the houses of which are clean and neat. Each town is commanded by a capitan, whose sovereignty is hereditary to his male descendants only."

T. J. Hutchinson, The Parana, chapter 4.

See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS, and TUPI.

In the Empire of the Incas.

See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1559. Establishment of the Audiencia of Charcas.

See AUDIENCIAS.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826. The independent Republic founded and named in Upper Peru. The Bolivian Constitution.

"Upper Peru [or Las Charcas, as it was more specifically known] ... had been detached [in 1776--see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777] from the government of Lima ... to form part of the newly constituted Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres. The fifteen years' struggle for independence was here a sanguinary one indeed. There is scarcely a town, village, or noticeable place in this vast region where blood is not recorded to have been shed in this terrible struggle. ... The Spanish army afterwards succumbed to that of the independents of Peru; and thus Upper Peru gained, not indeed liberty, but independence under the rule of a republican army. This vast province was incapable of governing itself. The Argentines laid claim to it as a province of the confederation; but they already exercised too great a preponderance in the South American system, and the Colombian generals obtained the relinquishment of these pretensions. Sucre [Bolivar's Chief of Staff] assumed the government until a congress could be assembled: and under the influence of the Colombian soldiery Upper Peru was erected into an independent state by the name of the Republic of Bolivar, or Bolivia."--

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, page 290.

For an account of the Peruvian war of liberation--the results of which embraced Upper Peru--and the adoption of the Bolivian constitution by the latter,

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, and 1825-1826.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1834-1839. Confederation with Peru. War with Chile.

See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1879-1884. The war with Chile.

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

----------BOLIVIA: End----------

BOLIVIAN CONSTITUTION, or Code Bolivar.

See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

BOLOGNA: Origin of the city.

On the final conquest of the Boian Gauls in North Italy, a new Roman colony and frontier fortress were established, B. C. 189, called first Felsina and then Bononia, which is the Bologna of modern Italy.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 41.

BOLOGNA: Origin of the name.

See BOIANS.

{296}

BOLOGNA: B. C. 43. Conference of the Triumvirs.

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

BOLOGNA: 11th Century. School of Law. The Glossators.

"Just at this time [end of the 11th century] we find a famous school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all its instructions was the Corpus Juris Civilis. Its teachers, who constitute a series of distinguished jurists extending over a century and a half, devoted themselves to the work of expounding the text and elucidating the principles of the Corpus Juris, and especially the Digest. From the form in which they recorded and handed down the results of their studies, they have obtained the name of glossators. On their copies of the Corpus Juris they were accustomed to write glosses, i. e., brief marginal explanations and remarks. These glosses came at length to be an immense literature."

J. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 2.

BOLOGNA: 11th-12th Centuries. Rise and Acquisition of Republican Independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1275. Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1350-1447. Under the tyranny of the Visconti.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447; and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1512. Acquisition by Pope Julius II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1796-1797. Joined to the Cispadane Republic.

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

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1831. Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------BOLOGNA: End----------

BOMBAY. Cession to England (1661).

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

BON HOMME RICHARD AND THE SERAPIS.--Sea-fight.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER).

BONAPARTE, Jerome, and his Kingdom of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY); 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER--DECEMBER).

BONAPARTE, Joseph, King of Naples, King of Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER); SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.

BONAPARTE, Louis, and the Kingdom of Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

BONAPARTE, Louis Napoleon.

See NAPOLEON III.

BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON, The career of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815.

BONAPARTE FAMILY, The origin of the.

"About four miles to the south of Florence, on an eminence overlooking the valley of the little river Greve, and the then bridle-path leading towards Siena and Rome, there was a very strong castle, called Monte Boni, Mons Boni, as it is styled in sundry deeds of gift executed within its walls in the years 1041, 1085, and 1100, by which its lords made their peace with the Church, in the usual way, by sharing with churchmen the proceeds of a course of life such as needed a whitewashing stroke of the Church's office. A strong castle on the road to Rome, and just at a point where the path ascended a steep hill, offered advantages and temptations not to be resisted; and the lords of Monte Boni 'took toll' of passengers. But, as Villani very naïvely says, 'the Florentines could not endure that another should do what they abstained from doing.' So as usual they sallied forth from their gates one fine morning, attacked the strong fortress, and razed it to the ground. All this was, as we have seen, an ordinary occurrence enough in the history of young Florence. This was a way the burghers had. They were clearing their land of these vestiges of feudalism, much as an American settler clears his ground of the stumps remaining from the primeval forest. But a special interest will be admitted to belong to this instance of the clearing process, when we discover who those noble old freebooters of Monte Boni were. The lords of Monte Boni were called, by an easy, but it might be fancied ironical, derivation from the name of their castle 'Buoni del Monte,'--the Good Men of the Mountain;--and by abbreviation, Buondelmonte, a name which we shall hear more of anon in the pages of this history. But when, after the destruction of their fortress, these Good Men of the Mountain became Florentine citizens, they increased and multiplied; and in the next generation, dividing off into two branches, they assumed, as was the frequent practice, two distinctive appellations; the one branch remaining Buondelmonti, and the other calling themselves Buonaparte. This latter branch shortly afterwards again divided itself into two, of which one settled at San Miniato al Tedesco, and became extinct there in the person of an aged canon of the name within this century; while the other first established itself at Sarzaua, a little town on the coast about half-way between Florence and Genoa, and from thence at a later period transplanted itself to Corsica; and has since been heard of."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, volume 1, pages 50-51.

BONIFACE, ST., The Mission of.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.

BONIFACE, COUNT, and the Vandals.

See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

BONIFACE III., Pope, A. D. 607, FEBRUARY TO NOVEMBER. Boniface IV., Pope, A. D. 608-615. Boniface V., Pope, A. D. 619-625. Boniface VI., Pope, A. D. 896. Boniface VII., Pope, A. D. 974, 984-985. Boniface VIII., Pope, A. D. 1294-1303. Boniface IX., Pope, A. D. 1389-1404.

BONN, Siege and Capture by Marlborough (1703).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

BONNET ROUGE, The.

See LIBERTY CAP.

BONONIA IN GAUL.

See GESORIACUM.

BONONIA IN ITALY.

See BOLOGNA.

BOOK OF THE DEAD.

"A collection (ancient Egyptian) of prayers and exorcisms composed at various periods for the benefit of the pilgrim soul in his journey through Amenti (the Egyptian Hades); and it was in order to provide him with a safe conduct through the perils of that terrible valley that copies of this work, or portions of it, were buried with the mummy in his tomb. Of the many thousands of papyri which have been preserved to this day, it is perhaps scarcely too much to say that one half, if not two thirds, are copies more or less complete of the Book of the Dead."

A. B. Edwards, Academy, Sept. 10, 1887.

{297}

M. Naville published in 1887 a collation of the numerous differing texts of the Book of the Dead, on the preparation of which he had been engaged for ten years.

BOONE, Daniel, and the settlement of Kentucky.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778, and 1775-1784.

BOONVILLE, Battle of.

See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

BOONSBORO, or South Mountain, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

BOOTH, John Wilkes. Assassination of President Lincoln.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

BOR-RUSSIA.

See PRUSSIA: THE ORIGINAL COUNTRY AND ITS NAME.

BORDARII.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND; also MANORS.

BORDEAUX: Origin.

See BURDIGALA.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 732. Stormed and sacked by the Moslems.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1650. Revolt of the Frondeurs. Siege of the city. Treaty of Peace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653. The last phase of the Fronde. Rebellion of the Society of the Ormée. Cromwell's help invoked. Siege and submission of the city.

"The peace of Bordeaux in October, 1650. had left the city tranquil, but not intimidated, and its citizens were neither attached to the government nor afraid of it. ... There, as at Paris, a violent element obtained control, ready for disturbance, and not alarmed by the possibility of radical changes in the government. ... During the popular emotion against Épernon, meetings, mostly of the lower classes, had been held under some great elms near the city, and from this circumstance a party had taken the name of the Ormée. It now assumed a more definite form, and began to protest against the slackness of the officers and magistrates, who it was charged, were ready to abandon the popular cause. The Parliament was itself divided into two factions," known as the Little Fronde and the Great Fronde--the latter of which was devoted to the Prince of Condé. "The Ormée was a society composed originally of a small number of active and violent men, and in its organization not wholly unlike the society of the Jacobins. ... Troubles increased between this society and the parliament, and on June 3d [1652] it held a meeting attended by 3,000 armed men, and decided on the exile of fourteen of the judges who were regarded as traitors to the cause. ... The offending judges were obliged to leave the city, but in a few days the Parliament again obtained control, and the exiles were recalled and received with great solemnity. But the Ormée was not thus to be overcome. On June 25th these contests resulted in a battle in the streets, in which the society had the advantage. Many of the judges abandoned the conflict and left the city. The Ormée established itself at the Hotel de Ville, and succeeded in controlling for the most part the affairs of the city. ... Condé decided that he would recognize the Ormée as a political organization, and strengthen it by his approval. ... The restoration of the King's authority at Paris [see FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653] strengthened the party at Bordeaux that desired peace, and increased the violence of the party that was opposed to it. Plots were laid for the overthrow of the local authorities, but they were wholly unsuccessful. ... The desire of the people, the nobility, and the clergy was for peace. Only by speedy aid from Spain could the city be kept in hostility to its King and in allegiance to Condé. Spain was asked to send assistance and prevent this important loss, but the Spanish delayed any vigorous action, partly from remissness and partly from lack of troops and money. The most of the province of Guienne was gradually lost to the insurgents. ... Condé seems to have left Guienne to itself. ... In this condition, the people of Bordeaux turned to Cromwell as the only person who had the power to help them. ... The envoys were received by Cromwell, but he took no steps to send aid to Bordeaux. Hopes were held out which encouraged the city and alarmed the French minister, but no ships were sent." Meantime, the King's forces in Guienne advanced with steady success, and early in the summer of 1653 they began the siege of the city. The peace party within, thus encouraged, soon overthrew the Ormée, and arranged terms for the submission of the town. "The government proceeded at once to erect the castles of Trompette and Ho, and they were made powerful enough to check any future turbulence."

J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, chapter 15 (volume 2).

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1791. The Girondists in the National Legislative Assembly.

See France: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1793. Revolt against the Revolutionary Government of Paris. Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE); (JULY-DECEMBER); AND 1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1814. Occupied by the English.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

----------BORDEAUX: End----------

BORDER-RUFFIANS.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

BORGHETTO, Battle of.

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

BORGIAS, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

BORIS, Czar of Russia. A. D. 1598-1605.

BORLA, The.

See PERU: A.D. 1533-1548.

BORNHOVED, Battle of (1227).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

BORNY, OR COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

BORODINO, OR THE MOSKOWA, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

BOROUGH.--CITY.--TOWN.--VILLE.

"The burh of the Anglo-Saxon period was simply a more strictly organized form of the township. It was probably in a more defensible position; had a ditch and mound instead of the quickset hedge or 'tun' from which the township took its name; and as the 'tun' originally was the fenced homestead of the cultivator, the burh was the fortified house and court-yard of the mighty man--the king, the magistrate, or the noble."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 5.

{298}

"I must freely confess that I do not know what difference, except a difference in rank, there is in England between a city and a borough. ... A city does not seem to have any rights or powers as a city which are not equally shared by every other corporate town. The only corporate towns which have any special powers above others are those which are counties of themselves; and all cities are not counties of themselves, while some towns which are not cities are. The city in England is not so easily defined as the city in the United States. There, every corporate town is a city. This makes a great many cities, and it leads to an use of the word city in common talk which seems a little strange in British ears. In England, even in speaking of a real city, the word city is seldom used, except in language a little formal or rhetorical; in America it is used whenever a city is mentioned. But the American rule has the advantage of being perfectly clear and avoiding all doubt. And it agrees very well with the origin of the word: a corporate town is a 'civitas,' a commonwealth; any lesser collection of men hardly is a commonwealth, or is such only in a much less perfect degree. This brings us to the historical use of the word. It is clear at starting that the word is not English. It has no Old-English equivalent; burh, burgh, borough, in its various spellings and various shades of meaning, is our native word for urbes of every kind from Rome downward. It is curious that this word should in ordinary speech have been so largely displaced by the vaguer word tun, town, which means an enclosure of any kind, and in some English dialects is still applied to a single house and its surroundings. ... In common talk we use the word borough hardly oftener than the word city; when the word is used, it has commonly some direct reference to the parliamentary or municipal characters of the town. Many people, I suspect, would define a borough as a town which sends members to Parliament, and such a definition, though still not accurate, has, by late changes, been brought nearer to accuracy than it used to be. City and borough, then, are both rather formal words; town is the word which comes most naturally to the lips when there is no special reason for using one of the others. Of the two formal words, borough is English; city is Latin; it comes to us from Gaul and Italy by some road or other. It is in Domesday that we find, by no means its first use in England, but its first clearly formal use, the first use of it to distinguish a certain class of towns, to mark those towns which are 'civitates' as well as burgi from those which are burgi only. Now in Gaul the 'civitas' in formal Roman language was the tribe and its territory, the whole land of the Arverni, Parisii, or any other tribe. In a secondary sense it meant the head town of the tribe. ... When Christianity was established, the 'civitas' in the wider sense marked the extent of the bishop's diocese; the 'civitas' in the narrower sense became the immediate seat of his bishopstool. Thus we cannot say that in Gaul a town became a city because it was a bishop's see; but we may say that a certain class of towns became bishops' sees because they were already cities. But in modern French use no distinction is made between these ancient capitals which became bishoprics and other towns of less temporal and spiritual honour. The seat of the bishopric, the head of the ancient province, the head of the modern department, the smaller town which has never risen to any of those dignities, are all alike ville. Lyons, Rheims, Paris, are in no way distinguished from meaner places. The word cité is common enough, but it has a purely local meaning. It often distinguishes the old part of a town, the ancient 'civitas,' from later additions. In Italy on the other hand, città is both the familiar and the formal name for towns great and small. It is used just like ville in French."

_E. A. Freeman, City and Borough Macmillan's Mag., May, 1889._

BOROUGH-ENGLISH.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

BOROUGHBRIDGE, Battle of.

Fought March 16, 1322, in the civil war which arose in England during the reign of Edward II. on account of the King's favorites, the Déspensers. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the leader of opposition, was defeated, captured, summarily tried and beheaded.

BOROUGHS, Rotten and Pocket.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830, and 1830-1832.

BORROMEAN, OR GOLDEN LEAGUE, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

BORYSTHENES, The.

The name which the Greeks gave anciently to the river now known as the Dnieper. It also became the name of a town near the mouth of the river, which was originally called Olbia,--a very early trading settlement of the Milesians.

BOSCOBEL, The Royal Oak of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.

BOSNIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BOSPHORUS, OR BOSPORUS, The.

The word means literally an 'ox-ford,' and the Greeks derived it as a name from the legend of Io, who, driven by a gad-fly, swam across the straits from Europe into Asia. They gave the name particularly to that channel, on which Constantinople lies, but applied it also to other similar straits, such as the Cimmerian Bosporus, opening the Sea of Azov.

BOSPHORUS: The city and kingdom.

"Respecting Bosporus, or Pantikapæum (for both names denote the same city, though the former name often comprehends the whole annexed dominion) founded by Milesian settlers on the European side of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch) we first hear, about the period when Xerxes was repulsed from Greece (480-479 B. C.) It was the centre of a dominion including Phanagoria, Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities on the Asiatic side of the strait; and it is said to have been governed by what seems to have been an oligarchy--called the Archæanaktidæ--for forty-two years (480--438 B. C.) After them we have a series of princes standing out individually by name, and succeeding each other in the same family, [438-284 B. C.]. ... During the reigns of these princes, a connexion of some intimacy subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connexion not political, since the Bosporanic princes had little interest in the contentions about Hellenic hegemony--but of private intercourse, commercial exchange and reciprocal good offices. The eastern corner of the Tauric Chersonesus, between Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was well suited for the production of corn; while plenty of fish, as well as salt, was to be had in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted fish and meat, hides and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers, were in demand among all Greeks round the Ægean, and not least at Athens, where Scythian slaves were numerous; while oil and wine, and other products of more southern regions, were acceptable in Bosporus and the other Pontic ports. {299} This important traffic seems to have been mainly carried on in ships and by capital belonging to Athens and other Ægean maritime towns, and must have been greatly under the protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as their maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens went to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus), to push their fortunes. ... We have no means of following [the fortunes of the Bosporanic princes] in detail; but we know that, about a century B. C., the then reigning prince, Parisades IV. found himself so pressed and squeezed by the Scythians, that he was forced (like Olbia and the Pentapolis) to forego his independence, and to call in, as auxiliary or master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from whom a new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began--subject, however, after no long interval, to the dominion and interference of Rome."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 98.

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7.

See MITHRIDATIC WARS, and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

Acquisition by the Goths.

See GOTHS, ACQUISITION OF BOSPHORUS.

BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574. Capture by the Turks.

"During the reign of Justin [A. D. 565-574] the city of Bosporus, in Tauris, had been captured by the Turks, who then occupied a considerable portion of the Tauric Chersonesus. The city of Cherson alone continued to maintain its independence in the northern regions of the Black Sea."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 8.

See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

----------BOSPHORUS: End----------

BOSSISM.

The "Spoils System" in American politics [see SPOILS SYSTEM] developed enormously the influence and power of certain leaders and managers of party organizations, in the great cities and some of the states, who acquired the names of "Bosses," while the system of politics which they represented was called "Bossism." The notorious William H. Tweed, of the New York "Tammany Ring" [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871] seems to have been the first of the species to be dubbed "Boss Tweed" by his "heelers," or followers, and the title passed from him to others of like kind.

BOSTON: A. D. 1628-1630. The first white inhabitant. The founding and naming of the city.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628, and 1630.

BOSTON: A. D. 1631-1651. The Puritan Theocracy. Troubles with Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson and the Presbyterians.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1646-1651.

BOSTON: A. D. 1656-1661. The persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669. The Halfway Covenant and the founding of the Old South Church.

"In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground that all baptised persons of upright and decorous lives ought to be considered, for practical purposes, as members of the church, and therefore entitled to the exercise of political rights, even though unqualified for participation in the Lord's Supper. This theory of church membership, based on what was at that time stigmatized as the Halfway Covenant, aroused intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In 1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the principle of the Halfway Covenant; and as this decision was far from satisfying the churches, a synod of all the clergymen in Massachusetts was held five years later, to reconsider the great question. The decision of the synod substantially confirmed the decision of the council, but there were some dissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished to retain the old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was Charles Chauncey, the president of Harvard College, and Increase Mather agreed with him at the time, though he afterward saw reason to change his opinion and published two tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter of all toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally enough, Mr. Davenport of New Haven. This burning question was the source of angry contentions in the First Church of Boston. Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, died in 1663, and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followed him. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to declare itself in opposition to the liberal decision of the synod, and in token thereof invited Davenport to come from New Haven to take charge of it. Davenport, who was then seventy years old, was disgusted at the recent annexation of his colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitation and came to Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Boston congregation, who did not like the illiberal principle which he represented. In little more than a year his ministry at Boston was ended by death; but the opposition to his call had already proceeded so far that a secession from the old church had become inevitable. In 1669 the advocates of the Halfway Covenant organized themselves into a new society under the title of the 'Third Church in Boston.' A wooden meeting-house was built on a lot which had once belonged to the late governor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the town, so that the society and its meeting-house became known as the South Church; and after a new church founded in Summer Street in 1717 took the name of the New South, the church of 1669 came to be further distinguished as the Old South. As this church represented a liberal idea which was growing in favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing church in America. After sixty years its numbers had increased so that the old meeting-house could not contain them; and in 1729 the famous building which still stands was erected on the same spot,--a building with a grander history than any other on the American continent, unless it be that other plain brick building in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: H. M. Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last 300 years, lecture 9.

B. B. Wisner, History of the Old South Church, sermon 1.

W. Emerson, Historical Sketch of the First Church in Boston, section 4-7.

BOSTON: A. D. 1674-1678. King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

BOSTON: A. D. 1689. The rising for William and Mary and the downfall of Andros.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.

{300}

BOSTON: A. D. 1697. Threatened attack by the French.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1692-1697.

BOSTON: A. D. 1704. The first newspaper.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.

BOSTON: A. D. 1740-1742. The origin of Faneuil Hall.

See FANEUIL HALL.

BOSTON: A. D. 1761. The question of the Writs of assistance and James Otis's speech.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 176l.

BOSTON: A. D. 1764-1767. Patriotic self-denials. Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

BOSTON: A. D. 1765-1767. The doings under the Liberty Tree.

See LIBERTY TREE.

BOSTON: A. D. 1768. The seizure of the sloop "Liberty." Riotous patriotism.

"For some years these officers [of the customs] had been resisted in making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were frequently rescued from their possession by interested parties, and the determination of the commissioners of customs to break up this practice frequently led to collisions; but no flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of John Hancock's sloop 'Liberty' (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of Madeira wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was removed, and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the whole cargo. This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have been the first made by the commissioners, and for security she was placed under the guns of the 'Romney,' a man-of-war in the harbor. For this the revenue officers were roughly handled by the mob. Their boat was burned, their houses threatened, and they, with their alarmed families, took refuge on board the 'Romney,' and finally in the Castle. These proceedings undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to Boston in September. The General Court was in session at the time, but no effectual proceedings were taken against the rioters. Public sympathy was with them in their purposes if not in their measures."

M. Chamberlain, The Revolution Impending (Narrative and Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 1).

BOSTON: A. D. 1768. The quartering of British troops.

"Before news had reached England of the late riot in Boston, two regiments from Halifax had been ordered thither. When news of that riot arrived, two additional regiments were ordered from Ireland. The arrival of an officer, sent by Gage from New York, to provide quarters for these troops, occasioned a town meeting in Boston, by which the governor was requested to summon a new General Court, which he peremptorily refused to do. The meeting then recommended a convention of delegates from all the towns in the province to assemble at Boston in ten days; 'in consequence of prevailing apprehensions of a war with France'--such was the pretence--they advised all persons not already provided with fire-arms to procure them at once; they also appointed a day of fasting and prayer, to be observed by all the Congregational societies. Delegates from more than a hundred towns met accordingly at the day appointed [Sept. 22], chose Cushing, speaker of the late House, as their chairman, and petitioned Bernard to summon a General Court. The governor not only refused to receive their petition, but denounced the meeting as treasonable. In view of this charge, the proceedings were exceedingly cautious and moderate. All pretensions to political authority were expressly disclaimed. In the course of a four days' session a petition to the King was agreed to, and a letter to the agent, De Berdt, of which the chief burden was to defend the province against the charge of a rebellious spirit. Such was the first of those popular conventions, destined within a few years to assume the whole political authority of the colonies. The day after the adjournment the troops from Halifax arrived. There was room in the barracks at the castle, but Gage, alarmed at the accounts from Massachusetts, had sent orders from New York to have the two regiments quartered in the town. The council were called upon to find quarters, but, by the very terms of the Quartering Act, as they alleged, till the barracks were full there was no necessity to provide quarters elsewhere. Bernard insisted that the barracks had been reserved for the two regiments expected from Ireland, and must, therefore, be considered as already full. The council replied, that, even allowing that to be the case, by the terms of the act, the provision of quarters belonged not to them, but to the local magistrates. There was a large building in Boston belonging to the province, known as the 'Manufactory House,' and occupied by a number of poor families. Bernard pressed the council to advise that this building be cleared and prepared for the reception of the troops; but they utterly refused. The governor then undertook to do it on his own authority. The troops had already landed, under cover of the ships of war, to the number of a thousand men. Some of them appeared to demand an entrance into the Manufactory House; but the tenants were encouraged to keep possession; nor did the governor venture to use force. One of the regiments encamped on the common; for a part of the other regiment, which had no tents, the temporary use of Faneuil Hall was reluctantly yielded; to the rest of it, the Town House, used also as a State House, all except the council chamber, was thrown open by the governor's order. It was Sunday. The Town House was directly opposite the meeting-house of the First Church. Cannon were planted in front of it; sentinels were stationed in the streets; the inhabitants were challenged as they passed. The devout were greatly aggravated and annoyed by the beating of drums and the marching of the troops. Presently Gage came to Boston to urge the provision of quarters. The council directed his attention to the terms of the act, and referred him to the selectmen. As the act spoke only of justices of the peace, the selectmen declined to take any steps in the matter. Bernard then constituted what he called a Board of Justices, and required them to find quarters; but they did not choose to exercise a doubtful and unpopular authority. Gage was finally obliged to quarter the troops in houses which he hired for the purpose, and to procure out of his own military chest the firing, bedding, and other articles mentioned in the Quartering Act, the council having declined to order any expenditure for those purposes, on the ground that the appropriation of money belonged exclusively to the General Court."

R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., chapter 29 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 6.

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1749-1774, pages 202-217.

{301}

BOSTON: A. D. 1769. The patriots threatened and Virginia speaking out.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.

BOSTON: A. D. 1770. Soldiers and citizens in collision. The "Massacre." Removal of the troops.

"As the spring of the year 1770 appeared, the 14th and 29th regiments had been in Boston about seventeen months. The 14th was in barracks near the Brattle Street Church; the 29th was quartered just south of King Street; about midway between them, in King Street, and close at hand to the town-house, was the main guard, whose nearness to the public buildings had been a subject of great annoyance to the people. ... One is forced to admit ... that a good degree of discipline was maintained; no blood had as yet been shed by the soldiers, although provocations were constant, the rude element in the town growing gradually more aggressive as the soldiers were never allowed to use their arms. Insults and blows with fists were frequently taken and given, and cudgels also came into fashion in the brawls. Whatever awe the regiments had inspired at their first coming had long worn off. In particular the workmen of the rope-walks and ship-yards allowed their tongues the largest license and were foremost in the encounters. About the 1st of March fights of unusual bitterness had occurred near Grey's rope-walk, not far from the quarters of the 29th, between the hands of the rope-walk and soldiers of that regiment, which had a particularly bad reputation. The soldiers had got the worst of it, and were much irritated. Threats of revenge had been made, which had called out arrogant replies, and signs abounded that serious trouble was not far off. From an early hour on the evening of the 5th of March the symptoms were very ominous. ... At length an altercation began in King Street between a company of lawless boys and a few older brawlers on the one side, and the sentinel, who paced his beat before the custom-house, on the other. ... The soldier retreated up the steps of the custom-house and called out for help. A file of soldiers was at once despatched from the main guard, across the street, by Captain Preston, officer of the guard, who himself soon followed to the scene of trouble. A coating of ice covered the ground, upon which shortly before had fallen a light snow. A young moon was shining; the whole transaction, therefore, was plainly visible. The soldiers, with the sentinel, nine in number, drew up in line before the people, who greatly outnumbered them. The pieces were loaded and held ready, but the mob, believing that the troops would not use their arms except upon requisition of a civil magistrate, shouted coarse insults, pressed upon the very muzzles of the pieces, struck them with sticks, and assaulted the soldiers with balls of ice. In the tumult precisely what was said and done cannot be known. Many affidavits were taken in the investigation that followed, and, as always at such times, the testimony was most contradictory. Henry Knox, afterwards the artillery general, at this time a bookseller, was on the spot and used his influence with Preston to prevent a command to fire. Preston declared that he never gave the command. The air, however, was full of shouts, daring the soldiers to fire, some of which may have been easily understood as commands, and at last the discharge came. If it had failed to come, indeed, the forbearance would have been quite miraculous. Three were killed outright, and eight were wounded, only one of whom, Crispus Attucks, a tall mulatto who faced the soldiers, leaning on a stick of cordwood, had really taken any part in the disturbance. The rest were bystanders or were hurrying into the street, not knowing the cause of the tumult. ... A wild confusion ... took possession of the town. The alarm-bells rang frantically; on the other hand the drums of the regiments thundered to arms. ... What averted a fearful battle in the streets was the excellent conduct of Hutchinson"--the lieutenant-governor, who made his way promptly to the scene, caused the troops to be sent back to their barracks, ordered the arrest of Captain Preston and the nine soldiers who had done the firing, and began an investigation of the affair the same night. The next day a great town meeting was held, and, as crowds from the surrounding towns pressed in, it was adjourned from Faneuil Hall to the Old South Church, and overflowed in the neighboring streets. A formal demand for the removal of the troops was sent to the governor and council by a committee which had Samuel Adams at its head. Governor Hutchinson disclaimed authority over the troops; but their commanding officer, Colonel Dalrymple, proposed to compromise by sending away the 29th regiment and retaining the 14th. As the committee returned to the meeting with this proposal, through the crowd, Adams dropped right and left the words, "Both regiments or none."--"Both regiments or none." So he put into the mouths of the people their reply, which they shouted as with one voice when the report of the committee was made to them. There was a determination in the cry which overcame even the obstinacy of Governor Hutchinson, and the departure of both regiments was ordered that same day. "In England the affair was regarded as a 'successful bully' of the whole power of the government by the little town, and when Lord North received details of these events he always referred to the 14th and 29th as the 'Sam Adams regiments.'"

J. K. Hosmer, Samuel Adams, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: _R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 6._

_R. Frothingham, The Sam Adams Regiments (Atlantic Monthly, volume 9, 10, and 12; 1862-63)._

J. Q. Adams, Life of John Adams, chapter 3 (volume l).

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Mass. Bay, 1749-1774, pages 270-280.

_H. Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution (Centennial edition), pages 15-79._

F. Kedder, History of the Boston Massacre.

BOSTON: A. D. 1770. The fair trial of the soldiers.

"The episode [of the affray of March 5th] had ... a sequel which is extremely creditable to the American people. It was determined to try the soldiers for their lives, and public feeling ran so fiercely against them that it seemed as if their fate was sealed. The trial, however, was delayed for seven months, till the excitement had in some degree subsided. Captain Preston very judiciously appealed to John Adams, who was rapidly rising to the first place both among the lawyers and the popular patriots of Boston, to undertake his defence. Adams knew well how much he was risking by espousing so unpopular a cause, but he knew also his professional duty, and, though violently opposed to the British government, he was an eminently honest, brave, and humane man. {302} In conjunction with Josiah Quincy, a young lawyer who was also of the patriotic party, he undertook the invidious task, and he discharged it with consummate ability. ... There was abundant evidence that the soldiers had endured gross provocation and some violence. If the trial had been the prosecution of a smuggler or a seditious writer, the jury would probably have decided against evidence, but they had no disposition to shed innocent blood. Judges, counsel, and jurymen acted bravely and honourably. All the soldiers were acquitted, except two, who were found guilty of manslaughter, and who escaped with very slight punishment. It is very remarkable that after Adams had accepted the task of defending the incriminated soldiers, he was elected by the people of Boston as their representative in the Assembly, and the public opinion of the province appears to have fully acquiesced in the verdict. In truth, although no people have indulged more largely than the Americans in violent, reckless, and unscrupulous language, no people have at every period of their history been more signally free from the thirst for blood, which in moments of great political excitement has been often shown both in England and France."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 12 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: J. Adams, Autobiography (Works, volume 2, page 230).

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, volume 5, page 269._

BOSTON: A. D 1773. The Tea Party.

"News reached Boston in the spring of this year [1773] that the East India Company, which was embarrassed by the accumulation of tea in England, owing to the refusal of the Americans to buy it, had induced parliament to permit its exportation to America without the payment of the usual duty [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773]. This was intended to bribe the colonists to buy; for there had been a duty both in England and in America. That in England was six pence a pound, that in America three pence. Ships were laden and sent to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, and they were now expected to arrive in a short time. ... On the 28th of November, 1773, which was Sunday, the first tea-ship (the 'Dartmouth ') entered the harbor [of Boston]. The following morning the citizens were informed by placard that the 'worst of plagues, the detested tea,' had actually arrived, and that a meeting was to be held at nine in the morning, at Faneuil Hall, for the purpose of making 'a united and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most destructive measure of administration.' The Cradle of Liberty was not large enough to contain the crowd that was called together, Adams rose and made a stirring motion expressing determination that the tea should not be landed, and it was unanimously agreed to. The meeting then adjourned to the Old South meeting-house, where the motion was repeated, and again adopted without an opposing voice. The owner of the ship protested in vain that the proceedings were illegal; a watch of twenty-five persons was set, to see that the intentions of the citizens were not evaded, and the meeting adjourned to the following morning. The throng at that time was as great as usual, and while the deliberations were going on, a message was received from the governor, through the sheriff, ordering them to cease their proceedings. It was voted not to follow the advice, and the sheriff was hissed and obliged to retreat discomfited. It was formally resolved that any person importing tea from England should be deemed an enemy to his country, and it was declared that at the risk of their lives and properties the landing of the tea should be prevented, and its return effected. It was necessary that some positive action should be taken in regard to the tea within twenty days from its arrival, or the collector of customs would confiscate ships and cargoes. ... The twenty days would expire on the 16th of December. On the fourteenth a crowded meeting was held at the Old South, and the importer was enjoined to apply for a clearance to allow his vessel to return with its cargo. He applied, but the collector refused to give an answer until the following day. The meeting therefore adjourned to the 16th, the last day before confiscation would be legal, and before the tea would be placed under protection of the ships of war in the harbor. There was another early morning meeting, and 7,000 people thronged about the meeting-house, all filled with a sense of the fact that something notable was to occur. The importer appeared and reported that the collector refused a clearance. He was then directed to ask the governor for a pass to enable him to sail by the Castle. Hutchinson had retreated to his mansion at Milton, and it would take some time to make the demand. The importer started out in the cold of a New England winter, apologized to his Excellency for his visit, but assured him that it was involuntary. He received a reply that no pass could be given him. ... It was six o'clock before the importer returned, and a few candles were brought in to relieve the fast-increasing darkness. He reported the governor's reply, and Samuel Adams rose and exclaimed: 'This meeting can do nothing more to save the country!' In an instant there was a shout on the porch; there was a war-whoop in response, and forty or fifty of the men disguised as Indians rushed out of the doors, down Milk Street towards Griffin's (afterwards Liverpool) Wharf, where the vessels lay. The meeting was declared dissolved, and the throng followed their leaders, forming a determined guard about the wharf. The 'Mohawks' entered the vessel; there was tugging at the ropes; there was breaking of light boxes; there was pouring of precious tea into the waters of the harbor. For two or three hours the work went on, and three hundred and forty-two chests were emptied. Then, under the light of the moon, the Indians marched to the sound of fife and drum to their homes, and the vast throng melted away, until not a man remained to tell of the deed. The committee of correspondence held a meeting next day, and Samuel Adams and four others were appointed to prepare an account of the affair to be posted to other places. Paul Revere, who is said to have been one of the 'Mohawks,' was sent express to Philadelphia with the news, which was received at that place on the 26th. It was announced by ringing of bells, and there was every sign of joy. ... The continent was universally stirred at last."

A. Gilman, The Story of Boston, chapter 23.

ALSO IN: _E. G. Porter, The Beginning of the Revolution (Memorial History of Boston, volume 3, chapter 1)._

B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Revolution, volume 1, chapter 21.

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of

303

Mass. Bay, 1749-1774, pages 429-440.

Same, Diary and Letters, page 138.

G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's last revision), volume 3, chapter 34.

_J. Kimball, The 100th Anniversary of the Destruction of Tea (Essex Inst. Hist. Coll., volume 12, number 3)._

BOSTON: A. D. 1774. The Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act. Commerce interdicted. Town Meetings forbidden.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL).

BOSTON: A. D. 1774. The enforcement of the Port Bill and its effects. Military occupation of the city by General Gage.

"The execution of this measure [the Port Bill] devolved on Thomas Gage, who arrived at Boston May 13, 1774, as Captain General and Governor of Massachusetts. He was not a stranger in the colonies. He had exhibited gallantry in Braddock's defeat. ... He had married in one of the most respectable families in New York, and had partaken of the hospitalities of the people of Boston. His manners were pleasing. Hence he entered upon his public duties with a large measure of popularity. But he took a narrow view of men and things about him. ... General Gage, on the 17th of May, landed at the Long Wharf and was received with much parade. ... On the first day of June the act went into effect. It met with no opposition from the people, and hence, there was no difficulty in carrying it into rigorous execution. 'I hear from many,' the governor writes, 'that the act has staggered the most presumptuous; the violent party men seem to break, and people to fall off from them.' Hence he looked for submission; but Boston asked assistance from other colonies, and the General Court requested him to appoint a day of fasting and prayer. The loyalists felt uneasy at the absence of the army. ... Hence a respectable force was soon concentrated in Boston. On the 4th of June, the 4th or king's own regiment, and on the 15th the 43d regiment, landed at the Long Wharf and encamped on the common." The 5th and 38th regiments arrived on the 4th and 5th of July; the 59th regiment was landed at Salem August 6, and additional troops were ordered from New York, the Jerseys and Quebec. "The Boston Port Bill went into operation amid the tolling of bells, fasting and prayer. ... It bore severely upon two towns, Boston and Charlestown, which had been long connected by a common patriotism. Their laborers were thrown out of employment, their poor were deprived of bread, and gloom pervaded their streets. But they were cheered and sustained by the large contributions sent from every quarter for their relief, and by the noble words that accompanied them. ... The excitement of the public mind was intense; and the months of June, July, and August, were characterized by varied political activity. Multitudes signed a solemn league and covenant against the use of British goods. The breach between the whigs and loyalists daily became wider. Patriotic donations from every colony were on their way to the suffering towns. Supplies for the British troops were refused. ... It was while the public mind was in this state of excitement that other acts arrived which General Gage was instructed to carry into effect." These were the acts which virtually annulled the Massachusetts charter, which forbade town meetings, and which provided for the sending of accused persons to England or to other colonies for trial. "Should Massachusetts submit to the new acts? Would the other colonies see, without increased alarm, the humiliation of Massachusetts? This was the turning-point of the Revolution. It did not find the patriots unprepared. They had an organization beyond the reach alike of proclamations from the governors, or of circulars from the ministry. This was the Committees of Correspondence, chosen in most of the towns in legal town-meetings, or by the various colonial assemblies, and extending throughout the colonies. ... The crisis called for all the wisdom of these committees. A remarkable circular from Boston addressed to the towns (July, 1774), dwelt upon the duty of opposing the new laws; the towns, in their answers, were bold, spirited, and firm and echoed the necessity of resistance. Nor was this all. The people promptly thwarted the first attempts to exercise authority under them. Such councillors as accepted their appointments were compelled to resign, or, to avoid compulsion, retired into Boston." General Gage now began (in September) movements to secure the cannon and powder in the neighborhood. Some 250 barrels of powder belonging to the province were stealthily removed by his orders from a magazine at Charlestown and two field-pieces were carried away from Cambridge. "The report of this affair, spreading rapidly, excited great indignation. The people collected in large numbers, and many were in favor of attempting to recapture the powder and cannon. Influential patriots, however, succeeded in turning their attention in another direction. ... Meantime the fact of the removal of the powder became magnified into a report that the British had cannonaded Boston, when the bells rang, beacon-fires blazed on the hills, the neighbor colonies were alarmed, and the roads were filled with armed men hastening to the point of supposed danger. These demonstrations opened the eyes of the governor to the extent of the popular movement. ... General Gage saw no hope of procuring obedience but by the power of arms; and the patriot party saw no safety in anything short of military preparation. Resistance to the acts continued to be manifested in every form. On the 9th of September the memorable Suffolk resolves [drawn by Joseph Warren] were adopted [by a convention of Suffolk county, which embraced Boston] ... and these were succeeded by others in other counties equally bold and spirited. These resolves were approved by the Continental Congress, then in session. Everywhere the people either compelled the unconstitutional officers to resign, or opposed every attempt to exercise authority, whether by the governor or constable. They also made every effort to transport ammunition and stores to places of security. Cannon and muskets were carried secretly out of Boston. The guns were taken from an old battery at Charlestown, where the navy yard is, ... silently, at night. ... General Gage immediately began to fortify Boston Neck. This added intensity to the excitement. The inhabitants became alarmed at so ominous a movement; and, on the 5th of September, the selectmen waited on the general, represented the public feeling, and requested him to explain his object. The governor stated in reply that his object was to protect his majesty's troops and his majesty's subjects; and that he had no intention to stop up the avenue, or to obstruct the free passage over it, or to do anything hostile against the inhabitants. He went on with the works and soon mounted on them two twenty-four pounders and eight nine pounders."

R. Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 11, and appendix 1 (giving text of the Suffolk Resolves).

W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, volume 2, pages 164-232.

W. Tudor, Life of James Otis, chapter 27-29.

{304}

BOSTON: A. D. 1775. The beginning of war. Lexington. Concord. The British troops beleaguered in the city. Battle of Bunker Hill.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

BOSTON: A. D. 1775-1776. The siege directed by Washington. Evacuation of the city by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.

----------BOSTON: End----------

BOSWORTH, Battle of (A. D. 1485).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.

BOTANY BAY.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D, 1601-1800.

BOTHWELL BRIDGE, Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).

BOTOCUDOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

BOUCHAIN, Marlborough's capture of (1711).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.

BOUIDES, The.

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

Also, TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063;

Also, SAMANIDES.

BOULANGER, General, The intrigues of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

BOULE, The. The Council of Chiefs in Homeric Greece.

G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 20.

See, also, AREOPAGUS.

BOULOGNE: Origin.

See GESORIACUM.

BOULOGNE: A. D. 1801. Bonaparte's preparations for the invasion of England. Nelson's attack.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

BOULON, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

BOUQUET'S EXPEDITION.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BOURBON, The Constable: His treason and his attack on Rome.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, 1523-1525, 1525-1526;

And ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, 1527.

BOURBON: Origin of the name.

See BOIANS; also ROME: B. C. 390-347.

BOURBON, The House of: Its origin.

From King Louis IX. (St. Louis), of France, "through his last male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of Béatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name which they have retained, that of France being reserved for the Royal branch. ... The House which had the honour of supplying sovereigns to our country was called 'France.' But our kings, jealous of that great name, reserved it for their own sons and grandsons. Hence the designation 'fils' and 'petit-fils de France.' The posterity of each 'fils de France' formed a cadet branch which took its name from the title borne by its head, Valois, Artois, Bourbon, &c. At the time of the accession of Henry IV. the name of Bourbon remained with those younger branches of Condé and Montpensier, which had sprung from the main branch before the death of Henry III. But Henry IV.'s children, those of Louis XIII., and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed 'de France'; whilst in conformity with the law the descendants of Louis XIII.'s second son received the surname d' Orleans, from the title borne by their grandfather. ... Possessors of vast territories which they [the Bourbons] owed more to family alliances than to the generosity of kings, they had known how to win the affection of their vassals. Their magnificent hospitality drew around them a numerous and brilliant nobility. Thus the 'hôtel' of those brave and august princes, the 'gracieux ducs de Bourbon,' as our ancient poet called them, was considered the best school in which a young nobleman could learn the profession of arms. The order of the Écu, instituted by one of them, had been coveted and worn by the bravest warriors of France. Sufficiently powerful to outshine the rank and file of the nobility, they had at the same time neither the large estates nor the immense power which enabled the Dukes of Bourgogne, of Bretagne, and other great vassals, to become the rivals or the enemies of the royal authority." The example of the treason of the Constable Bourbon [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523] "was not followed by any of the princes of his House. ... The property of the Connétable was definitely alienated from his House, and Vendôme [his brother] did not receive the hereditary possessions of the Dukes d' Alençon, to which his wife was entitled. He died on the 25th of March, 1538, leaving but a scanty patrimony to his numerous descendants. ... Five only of his sons obtained their majority. ... Two of these princes founded families: Antoine [Duc de Vendôme and afterwards King of Navarre through his marriage with Jeanne d' Albret, see NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563], father of Henry IV., who was the ancestor of all the Bourbons now living, and Louis [Prince de Condé, born 1530], who was the root of the House of Condé and all its branches."

Duc d' Aumale, History of the Princes of the House of Condé, book 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1327.

BOURBON: The Spanish House.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and 1701-1702.

BOURBON FAMILY COMPACT, The First.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

The Second.

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

The Third.

See FRANCE: A. D: 1761 (AUGUST).

BOURGEOIS.--BOURG.

In France, "the word Bourg originally meant any aggregation of houses, from the greatest city to the smallest hamlet. But ... the word shifted its meaning, and came to signify an assemblage of houses surrounded with walls. Secondly, the word Bourgeois also was at first used as synonymous with the inhabitant of a bourg. Afterward, when corporate franchises were bestowed on particular bourgs, the word acquired a sense corresponding with that of the English designation Burgess; that is a person entitled to the privileges of a municipal corporation. Finally, the word Bourgeoisie, in its primitive sense, was the description of the burgesses when spoken of collectively. But, in its later use, the word would be best rendered into English by our term citizenship; that is, the privilege of franchise of being a burgess."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 5.

{305}

BOURGES, Origin of.

The city of Bourges, France, was originally the capital city of the Gallic tribe of the Bituriges, and was called Avaricum. "As with many other Gaulish towns, the original name became exchanged for that of the people, i. e., Bituriges, and thence the modern Bourges and the name of the province, Berri."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12.

See, also, ÆDUI, and GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

BOUVINES, Battle of (A. D. 1214).

The battle of Bouvines, fought at Bouvines, in Flanders, not far from Tournay, on the 27th of August, A. D. 1214, was one of the important battles of European history. On one side were the French, led by their king Philip Augustus, and fighting ostensibly as the champions of the Pope and the church. On the other side was an allied army of English, under king John, of Germans, under Otho, the Guelf--one of two rival claimants of the imperial crown--and of Flemings and Lotharingians, led by their several lords. Philip Augustus had expelled the English king from his Norman dukedom and caused a court of the peers of France to declare the title forfeit. From that success his ambition rose so high that he had aspired to the conquest of the English crown. A terrible pope--Innocent III.--had approved his ambition and encouraged it; for John, the miserable English king, had given provocations to the church which had brought the thunders of the Vatican upon his head. Excommunicated, himself, his kingdom under interdict,--the latter offered itself a tempting prey to the vigorous French king, who posed as the champion of the pope. He had prepared a strong army and a fleet for the invasion of England; but fate and papal diplomacy had baffled his schemes. At the last moment, John had made a base submission, had meekly surrendered his kingdom to the pope and had received it back as a papal fief. Whereupon the victorious pope commanded his French champion to forego his intended attack. Philip, under these circumstances, determined to use the army he had assembled against a troublesome and contumacious vassal, the count of Flanders. The pope approved, and Flanders was overrun. King John led an English force across the channel to the help of the Flemish count, and Otho, the German king or emperor, who was king John's nephew, joined the coalition, to antagonize France and the pope. The battle of Bouvines was the decisive conflict of the war. It humbled, for the time, the independent spirit of Flanders, and several remoter consequences can be traced to it. It was "the first real French victory. It roused the national spirit as nothing else could have roused it; it was the nation's first taste of glory, dear above all things to the French heart. ... The battle somewhat broke the high spirit of the barons: the lesser barons and churches grouped themselves round the king; the greater lords came to feel their weakness in the presence of royalty. Among the incidental consequences of the day of Bouvines was the ruin of Otho's ambition. He fled from the field into utter obscurity. He retired to the Hartz mountains, and there spent the remaining years of his life in private. King John, too, was utterly discredited by his share in the year's campaign. To it may partly be traced his humiliation before his barons, and the signing of the Great Charter in the following year at Runnymede."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France, book 3, chapter 7, section 4.

"The battle of Bouvines was not the victory of Philip Augustus alone, over a coalition of foreign princes; the victory was the work of king and people, barons, burghers, and peasants, of Ile de France, of Orleanness, of' Picardy, of Normandy, of Champagne, and of Burgundy. ... The victory of Bouvines marked the commencement of the time at which men might speak, and indeed did speak, by one single name, of 'the French.' The nation in France and the kingship in France on that day rose out of and above the feudal system."

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 18.

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250, and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213, and 1215.

BOVATE, OR OXGANG.

"Originally as much as an ox-team could plough in a year. Eight Bovates are usually said to have made a Carucate, but the number of acres which made a Bovate are variously stated in different records from 8 to 24."

N. H. Nicolas, Notitia Historica, page 134.

BOVIANUM, Battle of (B. C. 88).

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

BOWIDES, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945; also, SAMANIDES; also, TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063.

BOYACA, Battle of (1819).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

BOYARS.

"In the old times, when Russia was merely a collection of independent principalities, each reigning prince was surrounded by a group of armed men, composed partly of Boyars, or large landed proprietors, and partly of knights, or soldiers of fortune. These men, who formed the Noblesse of the time, were to a certain extent under the authority of the Prince, but they were by no means mere obedient, silent executors of his will. The Boyars might refuse to take part in his military expeditions. ... Under the Tartar domination this political equilibrium was destroyed. When the country had been conquered, the princes became servile vassals of the Khan, and arbitrary rulers towards their own subjects. The political significance of the nobles was thereby greatly diminished."

D. M. Wallace, Russia, chapter 17.

BOYNE, Battle of the (1690).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

BOYS IN BLUE.--BOYS IN GRAY. Soldier nicknames of the American Civil War.

"During the first year of the war [of the Rebellion, in the United States] the Union soldiers commonly called their opponents 'Rebs' and 'Secesh'; in 1862, 'Confeds'; in 1863, 'Gray-backs' and 'Butternuts'; and in 1864, 'Johnnies.' The nickname 'Butternuts' was given the Confederates on account of their homespun clothes, dyed reddish-brown with a dye made of butternut bark. The last name, 'Johnnies,' is said to have originated in a quarrel between two pickets, which began by the Union man's saying that the Confederates depended on England to get them out of their scrape. ... The Union man ... said that a 'Reb' was no better than a Johnny Bull, anyhow. ... The name stuck, and in the last part of the war the Confederate soldiers were almost universally called 'Johnnies.' Throughout the war the Confederates dubbed all the Union soldiers 'Yankees' and 'Yanks,' without any reference to the part of the country they came from. ... Other nicknames for Union soldiers, occasionally used, were 'Feds,' 'Blue Birds' and 'Blue Bellies.' Since the war the opponents have been commonly called 'Boys in Blue' and 'Boys in Gray.'"

J. D. Champlin, Jr., Young Folks' History of the War for the Union, page 137.

{306}

BOZRA.

See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS, &c.

BOZZARIS, Marco, The death of.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

BRABANT: Mythical Explanation of the name.

See ANTWERP.

BRABANT: 4th century. First settlement of the Franks.

See TOXANDRIA.

BRABANT: 9th century. Known as Basse Lorraine.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

BRABANT: A. D. 1096-1099. Duke Godfrey de Bouillon in the First Crusade, and his kingdom of Jerusalem.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

BRABANT: 12th to 15th centuries. The county and duchy.

From the beginning of the 12th century, the county, afterwards the duchy, of Brabant, existed under its own counts and dukes, until the beginning of the 15th century, when it drifted under the influences which at that time were drawing all the Netherland States within the sphere of the sovereignty of the Burgundian dukes.

BRABANT: A. D. 1430. Acquisition by the House of Burgundy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.

----------BRABANT: End----------

BRACCATI, The.

See ROME: B. C. 275.

BRACHYCEPHALIC MEN.

See DOLICHOCEPHALIC.

BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT.

See Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

BRADFORD, Governor, and the Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.

BRADFORD'S PRESS.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709, 1704-1729, and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

BRAGANZA, The House of: A. D. 1640. Accession to the throne of Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

BRAGG, General Braxton. Invasion of Kentucky.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE--KENTUCKY).

The Battle of Stone River.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1863 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

The Tullahoma Campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: TENNESSEE).

Chickamauga. The Chattanooga Campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, and OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

BRAHMANISM.

See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE AHYAS.

BRAHMANS.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA. Also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

BRANCHIDÆ, The.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142. Beginnings of the Margravate.

"A. D. 928, Henry the Fowler, marching across the frozen bogs, took Brannibor, a chief fortress of the Wends; first mention in human speech of the place now called Brandenburg: Bor or 'Burg of the Brenns' (if there ever was any Tribe of Brenns,--Brennus, there as elsewhere, being name for King or Leader); 'Burg of the Woods,' say others,--who as little know. Probably, at that time, a town of clay huts, with ditch and palisaded sod-wall round it; certainly 'a chief fortress of the Wends,'--who must have been a good deal surprised at sight of Henry on the rimy winter morning near a thousand years ago. ... That Henry appointed due Wardenship in Brannibor was in the common course. Sure enough, some Murkgraf must take charge of Brannibor,--he of the Lausitz eastward, for example, or he of Salzwedel westward:--that Brannibor, in time, will itself be found the fit place, and have its own Markgraf of Brandenburg; this, and what in the next nine centuries Brandenburg will grow to, Henry is far from surmising. ... In old books are lists of the primitive Markgraves of Brandenburg, from Henry's time downward; two sets, Markgraves of the Witekind race,' and of another: but they are altogether uncertain, a shadowy intermittent set of Markgraves, both the Witekind set and the Non-Witekind; and truly, for a couple of centuries, seem none of them to have been other than subaltern Deputies, belonging mostly to Lausitz or Salzwedel; of whom therefore we can say nothing here, but must leave the first two hundred years in their natural gray state,--perhaps sufficiently conceivable by the reader. ... The Ditmarsch-Stade kindred, much slain in battle with the Heathen, and otherwise beaten upon, died out, about the year 1130 (earlier perhaps, perhaps later, for all is shadowy still); and were succeeded in the Salzwedel part of their function by a kindred called 'of Ascanien and Ballenstadt'; the Ascanier or Anhalt Margraves; whose History, and that of Brandenburg, becomes henceforth articulate to us. ... This Ascanien, happily, has nothing to do with Brute of Troy or the pious Æneas's son; it is simply the name of a most ancient Castle (etymology unknown to me, ruins still dimly traceable) on the north slope of the Hartz Mountains; short way from Aschersleben,--the Castle and Town of Aschersleben are, so to speak, a second edition of Ascanien. ... The kindred, called Grafs and ultimately Herzogs (Dukes) of 'Ascanien and Ballenstädt,' are very famous in old German History, especially down from this date. Some reckon that they had intermittently been Markgrafs, in their region, long before this; which is conceivable enough; at all events it is very plain they did now attain the Office in Salzwedel (straightway shifting it to Brandenburg); and held it continuously, it and much else that lay adjacent, for centuries, in a highly conspicuous manner. In Brandenburg they lasted for about two-hundred years."

T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 3-4.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152. The Electorate.

"He they call 'Albert the Bear (Albrecht der Bär),' first of the Ascanien Markgraves of Brandenburg;--first wholly definite Markgrave of Brandenburg that there is; once a very shining figure in the world, though now fallen dim enough again, ... got the Northern part of what is still called Saxony, and kept it in his family; got the Brandenburg Countries withal, got the Lausitz; was the shining figure and great man of the North in his day. The Markgrafdom of Salzwedel (which soon became of Brandenburg) he very naturally acquired (A. D. 1142 or earlier); very naturally, considering what Saxon and other honours and possessions he had already got hold of. We can only say, it was the luckiest of events for Brandenburg, and the beginning of all the better destinies it has had. {307} A conspicuous Country ever since in the world, and which grows ever more so in our late times. ... He transferred the Markgrafdom to Brandenburg, probably as more central in his wide lands; Salzwedel is henceforth the led Markgrafdom or Marck, and soon falls out of notice in the world. Salzwedel is called henceforth ever since the 'Old Marck (Alte Marck, Altmarck)'; the Brandenburg countries getting the name of 'New Marck.' ... Under Albert the Markgrafdom had risen to be an Electorate withal. The Markgraf of Brandenburg was now furthermore the Karfürst of Brandenburg: officially 'Arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire'; and one of the Seven who have a right (which became about this time an exclusive one for those Seven) to choose, to 'kieren' the Romish Kaiser; and who are therefore called 'Kur-Princes,' Kurfürste or Electors, as the highest dignity except the Kaiser's own."

T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 4.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417. Under the Ascanian, the Bavarian and the Luxemburg lines, to the first of the Hohenzollern.

Albert the Bear was succeeded in 1168 by his son Otho. "In 1170, as it would appear, the name of Brandenburg was substituted for that of North Mark, which had ceased to describe more than the original nucleus of the colony, now one of the several districts into which it was divided. The city and territory of Brandenburg were not probably included in the imperial grant, but were inherited from the Wendish prince, Pribislaw, whom Albert had converted to Christianity. ... Under Otho II., brother of the preceding, the family inheritance was sorely mismanaged. The Margrave becoming involved in some quarrel with the See of Magdeburg, the Archbishop placed him under the ban; and as the price of release Otho was required to accept the Suzerainty of the prelate for the older and better part of his dominions. His brother and successor, Albert II., was also unfortunate in the beginning of his career: but recovered the favor of the Emperor, and restored the prestige of his house before his death. ... Very important acquisitions were made during the reign of these two princes. The preoccupations of the King of Denmark gave them a secure foothold in Pomerania, which the native nobility acknowledged; the frontiers were pushed eastward to the Oder, where the New Mark was organized, and the town of Frankfort was laid out; purchase put them in possession of the district of Lebus; and the bride of Otho III., a Bohemian princess, brought him as her dowry an extensive region on the Upper Spree with several thriving villages--all this in spite of the division of power and authority. ... Otho III. died in 1267, John one year later; and a new partition of the estate was made between their several sons, the oldest, Otho IV., receiving, however, the title and prerogatives of head of the house." The last margrave of the Ascanian line, Waldemar, died in 1310. "His cousin and only heir, Henry, was a minor, and survived him but a year." Then "a host of claimants arose for the whole or parts of the Mark. The estates showed at first a gallant devotion to the widow, and intrusted the reins of authority to her; but she repaid this fidelity by hastily espousing the Duke of Brunswick, and transferring her rights to him. The transaction was not, however, ratified by the estates, and the Duke failed to enforce it by arms. Pomerania threw off the yoke which it had once unwillingly accepted; Bohemia reclaimed the wedding portion of Otho's bride; the Duke of Liegnitz sought to recover Lebus, although it had once been regularly sold; and in the general scramble the Church, through its local representatives, fought with all the energy of mere worldly robbers. But in this crisis the Emperor forgot neither the duties of his station nor the interests of his house. Louis II. of Bavaria then wore the purple. By feudal law a vacant fief reverted to its suzerain. ... It was not therefore contrary to law, nor did it shock the moral sense of the age, when Louis drew the Mark practically into his own possession by conferring it nominally upon his minor son. ... During the minority of Louis the Margrave, the province was administered by Louis the Emperor, and with some show of vigor." But troubles so thickened about the Emperor, in his conflict with the House of Austria, on the one hand, and with the Pope on the other [see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1317], that he could not continue the protection of his son. The Mark of Brandenburg was invaded by the King of Poland, and its Margrave "watched the devastation in helpless dismay." The people defended themselves. "The young city of Frankfort was the leader in the tardy but successful uprising. The Poles were expelled; the citizens had for the time saved the Mark. ... The Margrave finally wearied even of the forms of authority, and sold his unhappy dominions to his two brothers, another Louis and Otho. In the meantime his father had died. The Electors--or five of them--had already deposed him and chosen in his place Charles of Moravia, a prince of the house of Luxemburg, as his successor. He became respectably and even creditably known in history as Charles IV. ... Although he failed in the attempt to subdue by arms the Margrave of Brandenburg, who had naturally espoused his father's cause, he was persistent and ingenious in diplomatic schemes for overthrowing the House of Bavaria and bringing the Mark under his own sceptre. ... From Louis he procured ... a treaty of succession, by which he should acquire Brandenburg in case of the death of that Margrave and his brother Otho without heirs. His intrigues were finally crowned with complete success. Louis died suddenly in 1365. Otho, thenceforth alone in the charge, vacillated between weak submission to the Emperor's will, and spurts of petulant but feeble resistance; until Charles put an end to the farce by invading the Mark, crushing the army of the Margrave, and forcing him to an abject capitulation. In 1371, after a nominal rule of half a century, and for the price of a meagre annuity, the Bavarian line transferred all its rights to the family of Charles IV." Charles died in 1378. His son Wenzel, "for whom the Mark had been destined in the plans of Charles, acquired, meanwhile, the crown of Bohemia, a richer prize, and Brandenburg passed to the next son, Sigismond. The change was a disastrous one." Sigismond pawned the Mark to his kinsman, Jobst, of Moravia, and it fell into great disorder. "Imperial affairs during this period were in scarcely less confusion. Wenzel of Bohemia had been chosen emperor, and then deposed for obvious unfitness. Rupert, Count Palatine, had next been ejected, and had died. Again the post was vacant, and Sigismond, still the real Elector of Brandenburg, ... issued successfully from the contest. His good fortune was due in a conspicuous degree to the influence and the money of Frederic, Burggrave of Nuremberg [see HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF]; and it is to the credit of Sigismond that he did not add ingratitude to his other vices, but on his election as emperor hastened [1411] to make his patron statthalter, or viceroy of the Mark." Six years later, in 1417, Frederic was formally invested with the sovereignty of the Mark, as Margrave and Elector.

_H. Tuttle, History of Prussia to the Accession of Frederick the Great, chapter 1 and 3._

{308}

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1355. Declared an integral part of the Kingdom of Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640. Rising importance of the Hohenzollern family. Acquisition of the Duchy of Prussia.

On being invested with the Electorate of Brandenburg, Frederick of Nuremberg sold the office of Burggrave to the Nurembergers and devoted himself to his new province. "Temperate, just, and firm in his dealings, he succeeded in reducing Brandenburg from anarchy to order. Already as deputy for Sigismund he had begun the task. ... During the reign of his son and successor, characteristically known as Frederick Ironteeth [1440-1472], the strong hand was not relaxed; and Brandenburg became thenceforward tamed to law and order. The Electorate, which during the preceding century had been curtailed by losses in war and by sales, began again to enlarge its borders. The New March, which had been sold in the days of Sigismund to the Teutonic Knights, was now [1455] bought back from them in their need. ... Albert Achilles, the brother and successor of Frederick II., was a man as powerful and as able as his predecessor. By his accession the principalities of Baireuth and Anspach, which had been separated from the Electorate for the younger sons of Frederick I., were reunited to it; and by a scheme of cross-remainders new plans were laid for the acquisition of territory. ... It was already understood that the Electorate was to descend according to the law of primogeniture; but Anspach and Baireuth were still reserved as appanages for younger sons; and upon the death of Albert Achilles, in 1484, his territories were again divided, and remained so for more than a hundred years. The result of the division, however, was to multiply and not to weaken the strength of the House. The earlier years of the 16th century saw the Hohenzollerns rising everywhere to power. Albert Achilles had been succeeded [1486] by John, of whom little is known except his eloquence, and by Joachim [1499], who was preparing to bear his part against the Reformation. A brother of Joachim had become, in 1514, Elector of Mentz; and the double vote of the family at the election of Charles V. had increased their importance. The younger branch was rising also to eminence. George of Brandenburg, Margrave of Anspach, and grandson of Albert Achilles, was able in 1524 to purchase the Duchy of Jagerndorf in Silesia, and with it the reversions to the principalities of Oppeln and Ratibor, which eventually fell to him. His younger brother, Albert, had been chosen in 1511 Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, and was already converting his office into the hereditary Dukedom of Prussia," which it became in 1525 (see POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572). "The Elector Joachim I. of Brandenburg is perhaps the least prominent, but was not the least prudent, of his family. Throughout his life he adhered to the old faith, and preserved his dominions in tranquility. His son and successor, Joachim II., to the joy of his people, adopted the new religion [1539]; and found in the secularized bishoprics of Brandenburg, Havelburg, and Lebus, some compensation for the ecclesiastical Electorate which was about to pass, upon the death of Albert of Mentz, from his family. But he also was able to secure the continuance of peace. Distrustful of the success of the League of Smalkald he refused to join in it, and became chiefly known as a mediator in the struggles of the time. The Electors John George [1571-1598] and Joachim Frederick [1598-1608] followed the same policy of peace. ... Peace and internal progress had characterized the 16th century; war and external acquisitions were to mark the 17th. The failure of the younger line in 1603 caused Bayreuth, Anspach, and Jagerndorf to fall to the Elector Joachim Frederick; but as they were re-granted almost at once to younger sons, and never again reverted to the Electorate, their acquisition became of little importance. The Margrave, George Frederick, however, had held, in addition to his own territories, the office of administrator for Albert Frederick, second Duke of Prussia, who had become imbecile; and, by his death, the Elector of Brandenburg became next of kin, and claimed to succeed to the office. The admission of this claim placed the Electors in virtual possession of the Duchy. By a deed of co-infeoffment, which Joachim II. had obtained in 1568 from his father-in-law the King of Poland, they were heirs to the Duchy upon failure of the younger line. ... Duke Albert died in 1618; and Brandenburg and Prussia were then united under the Elector John Sigismund. It was well that the Duchy had been secured before the storm which was already gathering over the Empire had burst. ... During the long struggle of the Thirty Years' War, the history of Brandenburg is that of a sufferer rather than an actor. ... George William, who died in 1640, bequeathed a desert to his successor. That successor was Frederick William, to be known in history as the Great Elector."

C. F. Johnstone, Historical Abstracts, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Frederick the Great. book 3 (volume 1).

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1609. The Jülich-Cleve contest.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1627. Occupied by Wallenstein and the Imperial army.

See GERMANY: 1627-1629.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1630-1631. Compulsory alliance of the Elector with Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, and 1631.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1632. Refusal to enter the Union of Heilbronn.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1634. Desertion of the Protestant cause. Alliance with the Emperor.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

{309}

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688. The Great Elector. His development of the strength of the Electorate. His successful wars. His acquisition of the complete sovereignty of Prussia. Fehrbellin.

"Frederic William, known in history as the Great Elector, was only twenty years old when he succeeded his father. He found everything in disorder: his country desolate, his fortresses garrisoned by troops under a solemn order to obey only the mandates of the Emperor, his army to be counted almost on the fingers. His first care was to conclude a truce with the Swedes; his second to secure his western borders by an alliance with Holland; his third--not in order of action, for in that respect it took first place--to raise the nucleus of an army; his fourth, to cause the evacuation of his fortresses. ... To allay the wrath of the Emperor, he temporised until his armed force had attained the number of 8,000. That force once under arms, he boldly asserted his position, and with so much effect that in the discussions preceding the Peace of Westphalia he could exercise a considerable influence. By the terms of that treaty, the part of Pomerania known as Hinter Pommern, the principalities of Magdeburg and Halberstadt, and the bishoprics of Minden and Kammin were ceded to Brandenburg. ... The Peace once signed, Frederic William set diligently to work to heal the disorders and to repair the mischief which the long war had caused in his dominions. ... He specially cherished his army. We have seen its small beginning in 1640-42. Fifteen years later, in 1655, or seven years after the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia, it amounted to 25,000 men, well drilled and well disciplined, disposing of seventy-two pieces of cannon. In the times in which he lived he had need of such an army. In 1654, Christina, the wayward and gifted daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, had abdicated. Her successor on the throne of Sweden was her cousin, Charles Gustavus, Duke of Zweibrücken. ... The right of Charles Gustavus to the succession was, however, contested by John Casimir, King of Poland. ... War ensued. In that war the star of Charles Gustavus was in the ascendant, and the unfortunate John Casimir was forced to abandon his own dominions and to flee into Silesia. The vicinity of the two rivals to his own outlying territories was, however, too near not to render anxious Frederic William of Brandenburg. To protect Prussia, then held in fief from the King of Poland, he marched with 8,000 men to its borders. But even with such a force he was unable, or perhaps, more correctly, he was prudently unwilling, to resist the insistence put upon him at Königsberg by the victorious King of Sweden (1656) to transfer to him the feudal overlordship of that province. Great results followed from this compliance. Hardly had the treaty been signed, when John Casimir, returning from Silesia with an Imperial army at his back, drove the Swedes from Poland, and recovered his dominions. He did not evidently intend to stop there. Then it was that the opportunity arrived to the Great Elector. Earnestly solicited by the King of Sweden to aid him in a contest which had assumed dimensions so formidable, Frederic William consented, but only on the condition that he should receive the Polish palatinates (Woiwodshaften) of Posen and Kalisch as the price of a victorious campaign. He then joined the King with his army, met the enemy at Warsaw, fought with him close to that city a great battle, which lasted three days (28th to 30th July 1656), and which terminated then, thanks mainly to the pertinacity of the Brandenburgers--in the complete defeat of the Poles. The victory gained, Frederic William withdrew his troops. ... Again did John Casimir recover from his defeat; again, aided by the Imperialists, did he march to the front, reoccupy Warsaw, and take up a threatening position opposite to the Swedish camp. The King of Sweden beheld in this action on the part of his enemy the prelude to his own certain destruction, unless by any means he could induce the Elector of Brandenburg once more to save him. He sent, then, urgent messengers after him to beg him to return. The messengers found Frederic William at Labian. There the Elector halted and there, joined the next day, 20th November 1656, by King Charles Gustavus, he signed a treaty, by which, on condition of his material aid in the war, the latter renounced his feudal overlordship over Prussia, and agreed to acknowledge the Elector and his male descendants as sovereign dukes of that province. In the war which followed, the enemies of Sweden and Brandenburg multiplied on every side. The Danes and Lithuanians espoused the cause of John Casimir. Its issue seemed to Frederic William more than doubtful. He asked himself, then, whether--the new enemies who had arisen being the enemies of Sweden and not of himself--he had not more to gain by sharing in the victories of the Poles than in the defeats of the Swedes. Replying to himself affirmatively, he concluded, 29th September 1657, through the intermediation of the Emperor, with the Poles, at Wehlau, a treaty whereby the dukedom of Prussia was ceded in absolute sovereignty to the Elector of Brandenburg and his male issue, with reversion to Poland in case of the extinction of the family of the Franconian Hohenzollerns; in return, Frederic William engaged himself to support the Poles in their war against Sweden with a corps of 4,000 men. But before this convention could be acted upon, fortune had again smiled upon Charles Gustavus. Turning in the height of winter against the Danes, the King of Sweden had defeated them in the open field, pursued them across the frozen waters of the Belt to Fünen and Seeland, and had imposed upon their king the humiliating peace of Roeskilde (1658). He seemed inclined to proceed still further in the destruction of the ancient rival of his country, when a combined army of Poles and Brandenburgers suddenly poured through Mecklenburg into Holstein, drove thence the Swedes, and gave them no rest till they had evacuated likewise Schleswig and Jutland (1659). In a battle which took place shortly afterwards on the island of Fünen, at Nyborg, the Swedes suffered a defeat. This defeat made Charles Gustavus despair of success, and he had already begun to treat for peace, when death snatched him from the scene (January 1660). The negotiations which had begun, however, continued, and finally peace was signed on the 1st May 1660, in the monastery of Oliva, close to Danzig. This peace confirmed to the Elector of Brandenburg his sovereign rights over the duchy of Prussia. From this epoch dates the complete union of Brandenburg and Prussia--a union upon which a great man was able to lay the foundation of a powerful North German Kingdom!" During the next dozen years, the Great Elector was chiefly busied in establishing his authority in his dominions and curbing the power of the nobles, particularly in Prussia. {310} In 1674, when Louis XIV. of France provoked war with the German princes by his attack on the Dutch, Frederic William led 20,000 men into Alsace to join the Imperial forces. Louis then called upon his allies, the Swedes, to invade Brandenburg, which they did, under General Wrangel, in January, 1675. "Plundering and burning as they advanced, they entered Havelland, the granary of Berlin, and carried their devastations up to the very gates of that capital." The Elector was retreating from Alsace before Turenne when he heard of the invasion. He paused for some weeks, to put his army in good condition, and then he hurried northwards, by forced marches. The enemy was taken by surprise, and attacked while attempting to retreat, near Fehrbellin, on the 18th of June. After two hours of a tremendous hand-to-hand conflict, "the right wing of the Swedes was crushed and broken; the centre and left wing were in full retreat towards Fehrbellin. The victors, utterly exhausted--they had scarcely quitted their saddles for eleven days--were too worn out to pursue. It was not till the following morning that, refreshed and recovered, they followed the retreating foe to the borders of Mecklenburg. ... The Great Elector promptly followed up his victory till he had compelled the Swedes to evacuate all Pomerania. Three years later, when they once more crossed the border from Livonia, he forced them again to retreat; and although in the treaty signed at St. Germain in 1670 he was forced to renounce his Pomeranian conquests, he did not the less establish the ultimate right of the State of which he was the real founder to those lands on the Baltic for which he had so hardly struggled at the negotiations which preceded the Peace of Westphalia. When he died (9th May 1688) he left the Kingdom already made in a position of prosperity sufficient to justify his son and successor in assuming, thirteen years later, on the anniversary of the victory of FehrbeIlin, the title of King."

G. B. Malleson, The Battle Fields of Germany, chapter 8.

See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1648. The Peace of Westphalia. Loss of part of Pomerania. Compensating acquisitions.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1672-1679. In the Coalition against Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678; also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1689-1696. The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1697. The Treaty of Ryswick. Restitutions by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1700. The Elector made King of Prussia.

See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.

----------BRANDENBURG: End----------

BRANDY STATION, OR FLEETWOOD. Battle of,

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

BRANDYWINE, Battle of the (A. D. 1777).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

BRANKIRKA, Battle of (1518).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BRANT, CHIEF, and the Indian warfare of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER), and (JULY).

BRASIDAS IN CHALKIDIKE.

See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

BRAZIL: Origin of the name.

"As the most valuable part of the cargo which Americus Vespucius carried back to Europe was the well-known dye-wood, 'Cæsalpina Braziliensis,'--called in the Portuguese language 'pau brazil,' on account of its resemblance to 'brazas,' 'coals of fire,'--the land whence it came was termed the 'land of the brazil-wood'; and finally this appellation was shortened to Brazil, and completely usurped the names Vera Cruz, or Santa Cruz."

_J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the Brazilians, chapter 3._

See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.

BRAZIL: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.--GUARANI.--TUPUYAS; also GUCK or Coco GROUP.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1500-1504. Discovery, exploration of the coast and first settlement.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500, 1500-1514, and 1503-1504.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661. Portuguese colonization and agriculture. Introduction of Slavery. The coming of the Jesuits. Conquests of the Dutch, and the Portuguese recovery of them.

"Brazil, on which the Portuguese ships had been cast by accident, had been found to unite in itself the capabilities of every part of the world in which Europeans have settled, though happily gold and silver had not yet been discovered, and the colonists betook themselves from the first to agriculture. 'The first permanent settlements on this coast were made by Jews, exiled by the persecution of the Inquisition; and the government supplemented these by sending out criminals of all kinds. But gradually the consequence of Brazil became recognized, and, as afterwards happened in New England, the nobility at home asked to share the land among themselves. Emmanuel would not countenance such a claim, but this great prince died in 1521, and his successor, John III., extended to Brazil the same system which had been adopted in Madeira and the Azores. The whole sea-coast of Brazil was parcelled out by feudal grants. It was divided into captaincies, each 50 leagues in length, with no limits in the interior; and these were granted out as male fiefs, with absolute power over the natives, such as at that time existed over the serfs who tilled the soil in Europe. But the native Brazilians were neither so easy a conquest as the Peruvians, nor so easily induced to labour; and the Portuguese now began to bring negros from the Guinea coast. This traffic in human flesh had long been vigorously pursued in various parts of Europe; the Portuguese now introduced it to America. The settlers of Brazil were, properly speaking, the first European colonists. For they sold their own possessions at home, and brought their households with them to the new country. Thus they gradually formed the heart of a new nation, whereas the chief Spaniards always returned home after a certain tenure of their offices, and those who remained in the colony descended to the rank of the conquered natives. Many of those who came to Brazil had already served in the expeditions to the East; and they naturally perceived that the coast of America might raise the productions of India. Hence Brazil early became a plantation colony, and its prosperity is very much due to the culture of the sugar cane. {311} The Portuguese were greatly assisted, both in the East and the West, by the efforts of the newly founded order of the Jesuits. ... John III. in [1549] sent out six of the order with the first governor of Brazil. ... The Dutch, made bold by their great successes in the East, now sought to win the trade of Brazil by force of arms, and the success of the East India Company encouraged the adventurers who subscribed the funds for that of the West Indies, incorporated in 1621. The Dutch Admiral, Jacob Willekens, successfully assaulted San Salvador [Bahia] in 1624, and though the capital was afterwards retaken by the intrepid Archbishop Texeira, one half of the coast of Brazil submitted to the Dutch. Here, as in the East, the profit of the company was the whole aim of the Dutch, and the spirit in which they executed their design was a main cause of its failure. ... But ... the profits of the company ... rose at one time to [cent?] per cent. The visions of the speculators of Amsterdam became greater; and they resolved to become masters of all Brazil. ... The man whom they despatched [1637] to execute this design was Prince John Maurice of Nassau. ... In a short time he had greatly extended the Dutch possessions. But the Stad-houder was subject, not to the wise and learned men who sat in the States-General, but to the merchants who composed the courts of the company. They thought of nothing but their dividends; they considered that Maurice kept up more troops and built more fortresses than were necessary for a mercantile community, and that he lived in too princely a fashion for one in their service. Perhaps they suspected him of an intention of slipping into that royal dignity which the feudal frame of Brazilian society seemed to offer him. At any rate, in 1643, they forced him to resign. A recent revolution had terminated the subjection of Portugal to Spain, and the new king of Portugal concluded a truce for ten years with Holland. War was therefore supposed to be out of the question. ... But the recall of Maurice was the signal for an independent revolt in Brazil. Though the mother countries were at peace, war broke out between the Dutch and the Portuguese of Brazil in 1645. The Jesuits had long preached a crusade against the heretic Dutch. ... John Ferdinand de Vieyra, a wealthy merchant of Pernambuco, led a general uprising of the Brazilians, and although the Dutch made a stubborn resistance, they received no assistance from home; they were driven from one post after another, until, in 1654, the last of the company's servants quitted Brazil. The Dutch declared war against Portugal; but in 1661 peace was made, and the Dutch sold their claims for 8,000,000 florins, the right of trading being secured to them. But after the expulsion of the Dutch, the trade of Brazil came more and more into the hands of the English."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 2-3.

ALSO IN: _R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume 1, chapter 9 and 15; volume 2, chapter 1-4._

R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 1-2.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1524. Conceded to Portugal.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641. The Republic of St. Paul. The Paulistas or Mamelukes.

"The celebrated republic of St. Paul, as it is usually denominated, had its rise about the year 1531, from a very inconsiderable beginning. A mariner of the name of Ramalho, having been shipwrecked on this part of the coast, was received among a small Indian tribe called the Piratininga, after the name of their chief. Here he was found by De Sousa some years afterwards, and, contrary to the established policy of permitting no settlement excepting immediately on the sea-coast, he allowed this man to remain, on account of his having intermarried and having a family. The advantages of this establishment were such, that permission was soon after given to others to settle here, and as the adventurers intermarried with the natives, their numbers increased rapidly. ... A mixed race was formed, possessing a compound of civilized and uncivilized manners and customs. The Jesuits soon after established themselves with a number of Indians they had reclaimed, and exerted a salutary influence in softening and harmonizing the growing colony. In 1581, the seat of government was removed from St. Vincent on the coast to St. Pauls; but its subjection to Portugal was little more than nominal. ... The mixture produced an improved race, 'the European spirit of enterprise,' says Southey, 'developed itself in constitutions adapted to the country.' But it is much more likely that the free and popular government which they enjoyed produced the same fruits here as in every other country. ... They soon quarreled with the Jesuits [1581], on account of the Indians whom they had reduced to slavery. The Jesuits declaimed against the practice; but as there were now many wealthy families among the Paulistas, the greater part of whose fortunes consisted in their Indians, it was not heard with patience. The Paulistas first engaged in war against the enemies of their allies, and afterwards on their own account, on finding it advantageous. They established a regular trade with the other provinces whom they supplied with Indian slaves. They by this time acquired the name of Mamelukes, from the peculiar military discipline they adopted, bearing some resemblance to the Mamelukes of Egypt. The revolution in Portugal, when Philip II. of Spain placed himself on its throne, cast the Paulistas in a state of independence, as they were the only settlers in Brazil which did not acknowledge the new dynasty. From the year 1580 until the middle of the following century, they may be regarded as a republic, and it was during this period they displayed that active and enterprising character for which they were so much celebrated. ... While a Spanish king occupied the throne of Portugal, they attacked the Spanish settlements on the Paraguay, alleging that the Spaniards were encroaching on their territory. ... They attacked the Jesuit missions [1629]. ... As they had fixed themselves east of the Parana, the Paulistas laid hold of this as a pretext. They carried away upwards of 2,000 of their Indians into captivity, the greater part of whom were sold and distributed as slaves. The Jesuits complained to the king of Spain and to the pope; the latter fulminated his excommunication. The Paulistas attacked the Jesuits in their college, and put their principal to death, expelled the remainder, and set up a religion of their own; at least no longer acknowledged the supremacy of the pope. In consequence of the interruption of the African trade during the Dutch war, the demand for Indian slaves was very much increased. The Paulistas redoubled their exertions, and traversed every part of the Brazils in armed troops. ... The foundation was laid of enmity to the Portuguese, which continues to this day, although a complete stop was put to the infamous practice in the year 1756. ... When the house of Braganza, in 1640, ascended the throne, the Paulistas, instead of acknowledging him, conceived the idea of electing a king for themselves. They actually elected a distinguished citizen of the name of Bueno, who persisted in refusing to accept, upon which they were induced to acknowledge Joam IV. [1641]. It was not until long afterwards that they came under the Portuguese government."

H. M. Brackenridge, Voyage to South America, volume 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil, chapter 23 (volume 2).

{312}

BRAZIL: A. D. 1540-1541. Orellana's voyage down the Amazons.

See AMAZONS RIVER.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1555-1560. Attempted Huguenot colony on the Bay of Rio Janeiro.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1654-1777. The Portuguese policy of exclusion and restriction.-Boundary disputes with Spain.

"The period of peace which followed these victories [over the Dutch] ... was used by the Portuguese government only to get up a kind of old Japanese system of isolation, by which it was intended to keep the colony in perpetual tutelage. In consequence of this even now, after the lapse of half a century since it violently separated itself, Brazilians generally entertain a bitter grudge against the mother country. All the trade to and from Brazil was engrossed by Portugal; every functionary, down to the last clerk, was Portuguese. Any other European of scientific education was looked at with suspicion; and particularly they sought to prevent by all means the exploration of the interior, as they feared not only that the eyes of the natives might be opened to their mode of administration, but also that such travellers might side with the Spaniards in their long dispute regarding the boundaries of the two nations, as the French astronomer, La Condamine, had done. This question, which arose shortly after the discovery, and was hushed up only during the short union of both crowns (from 1581-1640), broke out with renewed vigor now and then, maugre the Treaty of Tordesilhas in 1494 [see AMERICA: A. D. 1494]. ... By the Treaty of Sao Ildefonso, in 1777, both parties having long felt how impracticable the old arrangements were--at least, for their American colonies--the boundaries were fixed upon the principle of the 'uti possidetis,' at any rate so far as the imperfect knowledge of the interior allowed; but this effort also proved to be vain. ... The unsolved question descended as an evil heritage to their respective heirs, Brazil and the South American Republics. A few years ago it gave rise to the terrible war with Paraguay; and it will lead to fresh conflicts between Brazil and the Argentine Republic."

F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, pages 23-24.

ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 3.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1713. The Portuguese title confirmed.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1759. Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822. Becomes the asylum of Portuguese royalty. The founding of the independent Empire.

"While anarchy and ruin ... overspread the greater part of the beautiful continent of South America, the Empire of Brazil won an independent existence without bloodshed, and kept it with credit. The Dutch conquest of Brazil, and its reconquest by the Portuguese, has been mentioned in a former chapter. The country long remained under the close and oppressive monopoly imposed upon it by the Portuguese; but in 1808 [1807] when Napoleon invaded Portugal, the regent embarked [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807], with the royal insignia, for Brazil, which at once assumed the dignity of an integral part of the kingdom. The ports were opened to the commerce of the world; the printing-press was introduced; learning was encouraged; the enormous resources of the country were explored; foreign settlers were invited to establish themselves; embassies were sent to European powers of the first rank, and diplomatic agents received. New towns and harbours were planned; new life was breathed into every department of the state. After a few years, the state of affairs in Europe compelled King John VI. to return to Europe, as the only chance of preserving the integrity of the monarchy. The Cortes of Lisbon invited their sovereign to revisit his ancient capital, and deputies from Brazil were summoned to attend the sittings of the National Assembly. But before the deputies could arrive, the Cortes had resolved that Brazil should be again reduced to absolute dependence on Portugal. A resolution more senseless or more impracticable can hardly be imagined. The territory of Brazil was as large as all Europe put together; Portugal was a little kingdom, isolated and without influence among the monarchies of the Old World; yet it was deliberately decreed that all the monopolies of the exploded colonial system should be revived, and that England should be deprived of her free trade to Brazil. The king appointed his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent of the new kingdom, and soon after took his departure for Lisbon, with many of the emigrant nobility. Dom Pedro assumed the government under the perplexing circumstances of an empty treasury, a heavy public debt, and the provinces almost in revolt. Bahia disavowed his authority, and the Cortes withheld their support from him. The regent reduced his expenditure to the monthly sum allowed to his princess for pin money; he retired to a country house, and observed the most rigid economy. By great exertions he reduced the public expenditure from $50,000,000 to $15,000,000; but the northern and internal provinces still withheld their taxes; the army became mutinous, and the ministers of his father, who still remained in power, were unpopular; the regent in despair demanded his recall. But the Brazilians were at length disarmed by his noble conduct; they recognized his activity, his beneficence, his assiduity in the affairs of government, and the habitual feelings of affection and respect for the House of Braganza, which had for a moment been laid asleep by distrust, were reawakened with renewed strength. It was fortunate that the quarrels which disturbed Brazil were accommodated before the arrival of intelligence from Portugal. Hardly had the king arrived in Lisbon when he found himself obliged to assent to a constitution which treated his Brazilian subjects as mere colonists; succeeding mails brought orders more and more humiliating to the Brazilians. {313} The design of declaring Brazil an independent kingdom, grew more and more in public favour; but the prince was unwilling to place himself in direct rebellion to the crown of Portugal, and steadily adhered to his determination to leave America. At length, it is related, a despatch was delivered to the regent, which he declined to show to any of his ministers, but which evidently excited in his mind no ordinary emotions of anger: he crushed the paper in his hand, and moved away to a window, where he stood for a few moments in thought; at length he turned to his council with the words 'Independencia ou morte':--the exclamation was received with tumultuous cheers, and was adopted as the watchword of the Revolution. The Portuguese troops were sent back to Europe. The Cortes of Lisbon were now anxious to recall their obnoxious decrees; to admit the deputies from Brazil; to make any concession that might be demanded. But it was too late: the independence of Brazil was formally proclaimed in August, 1822, and in December of the same year, Dom Pedro was crowned Emperor of Brazil. This is the first, and as yet the only instance of a modern colony achieving its independence, and separating itself completely from its metropolis without bloodshed."

Viscount Bury, Exodus of the Western Nations, volume 2, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: J. Armitage, History of Brazil, chapter 1-7.

See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865. Wars with the Argentines. Abdication of Dom Pedro I, The Guerra dos Cabanos.

"In 1825, chiefly through the mediation of England, Brazil was acknowledged as an independent empire. But the inner commotions continued, and were not even soothed by a new Constitution, drawn up in 1823, and sworn to by the Emperor in 1824. New revolts in Pernambuco, and some of the other Northern provinces, and a war of three years with the Argentine Republic, which ended in 1828 by Brazil giving up Banda Oriental, annexed only eleven years before, disturbed and weakened the land. The foreign soldiers, enlisted for this war, and retained after its conclusion to keep down the Opposition, and the extravagant private life of the Emperor, who recklessly trampled down the honour of respectable families, provoked dissatisfaction and murmurs, which rose to the highest pitch when he insisted upon carrying on a most unpopular war in Portugal to defend the rights of his daughter, Dona Maria da Gloria (in whose favour he had abdicated the Portuguese Crown), against his brother. Don Miguel [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889]. In April, 1831, Dom Pedro I., so enthusiastically raised to the Brazilian throne only nine years before, was forced to abdicate it, deserted and betrayed by everyone, in behalf of his younger son, Pedro. The next period was the most disturbed one that the young Empire had yet witnessed. Slave revolts at Bahia, a civil war in the South, which almost cost it the province of Rio Grande do Sul, and the bloody rebellion known as the Guerra dos Cabanos, in Pará and Amazon, from 1835 to 1837, followed each other quickly. In this last revolt, the Brazilians had stirred up the Indians and mestizoes against the abhorred Portuguese, without considering that they should not be able to quench the fire, they had themselves kindled. In a short time, the fury of the whole colored population turned against all whites, Brazilians and Portuguese alike, without any distinction. More than 10,000 persons are said to have perished in this Guerra dos Cabanos; and, to the present day, those terrible times and the barbarous cruelties committed by the Indians, half-castes, and mulattoes, continue to be talked of with awe in the two provinces. A revolution in Minas, got up by the personal ambitions of a few political leaders, rather than emanating from the spirit of the people, and the war against Rosas, the Dictator of the Argentine Republic, passed over Brazil without leaving deep traces, at least when compared with the last war against Paraguay; which, besides the stimulus of the old differences about boundaries, was occasioned by the endless vexations and restrictions with which the Dictator Lopez strove to ruin the Brazilian trade on the Paraguay, and to prejudice the province of Mato Grosso."

F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, pages 25-26.

ALSO IN: J. Armitage, History of Brazil, 1808-1831.

See, also, ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1865-1870. The war with Paraguay,

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888. Emancipation of Slaves.

The Brazilian act of emancipation, known as the Law of Rio Branco (taking that name from the Minister who carried it through) was passed on the 28th of September, 1871, "and from that date it was enacted 'that children henceforth born of slave women shall be considered of free condition.' ... Such children are not to be actually free, but are 'bound to serve the owners of their mothers for a term of 21 years, under the name of 'apprentices.' These must work, under severe penalties, for their hereditary masters; but if the latter inflict on them excessive bodily punishment, they are allowed to bring suit in a criminal court, which may declare their freedom. A provision was also made for the emancipation of government slaves; and there was a clause which insured a certain sum, to be annually set aside from fines, which was to aid each province in emancipating by purchase a certain number of slaves. ... The passage of this law did not prove merely prospective in its effects. In a very short time the sums placed aside for emancipating slaves by purchase resulted in the freedom of many bondmen. And more than this, there seemed to be a generous private rivalry in the good work, from motives of benevolence and from religious influence. Many persons in various parts of Brazil liberated their slaves without compensation. ... I am happy to say that the number liberated, either by the provisions of the State or by private individuals, is always in an increasing ratio. When the writer first went to Brazil [1852] ... it was estimated that there were 3,000,000 in slavery. ... There were at the beginning of 1875, when the law of emancipation had been but a little more than three years in operation, 1,476,567 slaves."

_J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the Brazilians, chapter 28._

"On the 25th of March, 1884, slavery was abolished in the province of Ceará. The Rio News says, 'The movement began only 15 months ago, the first municipality liberating its slaves on the 1st of January, 1883. The new tax law of last November greatly accelerated this progress, because it made slave-holding impossible, the value of the slave being less than the tax.'" On the 28th of September, 1885, the impatience of the Brazilians to rid themselves of slavery expressed itself in a new Emancipation Act, known as the Saraiva law. It provided for facilitating and hastening the extension of freedom, by increasing the public fund appropriated to it, by defining the valuation of slaves, and by other effective provisions, so that "within ten years [from its date] it is supposed that slavery will have ceased to exist in Brazil."

H. C. Dent, A Year in Brazil, pages 281-296.

{314}

"On March 30, 1887, the official return gave the number of slaves in Brazil as 723,419, of the legal value of $485,225,212. On May 13, 1888, the Crown Princess, as regent, gave the royal assent to a short measure of two clauses, the first declaring that slavery was abolished in Brazil from the day of the promulgation of the law, and the second repealing all former Acts on the subject. Both Chambers refused to consider the claim for compensation made by the slave owners."

Statesman's Year-Book, 1890, page 391.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891. Revolution. Overthrow of the Empire. Establishment of the Republic of the United States of Brazil. Religious freedom declared

"The sudden collapse of the Imperial Government in November [1889], resulting in the downfall of Dom Pedro and his banishment, caused universal surprise. For some time the Government had been credited by the Republican journals with the wish and intention to disperse the army throughout the provinces and along the frontier, so that, with the assistance of the newly-organised National Guard, the succession of the Princess Imperial to the throne might be secured in the event of the death or incapacity through old age of the Emperor Dom Pedro. An infantry battalion, ordered to embark for a distant province, mutinied and refused to go. The War Department resolved to compel them by force to depart." The result was a general mutiny (November 15, 1889), which soon became a revolution. "The organiser of the mutiny was Colonel Benjamin Constant Botelho de Magalhaes, an officer of exceptional ability and Professor in the Military Academy. The movement seemed directed at first only against the obnoxious Ouro Preto Ministry; but the enthusiasm of the Republicans, under the leadership of a popular agitator, Jose de Patrocinio, was so very pronounced, that at a meeting held in the city hall, in the afternoon of November 15, a resolution proclaiming the Republic was passed by acclamation. About the same hour, a self-constituted committee, consisting of General Deodoro [da Fonseca], Benjamin Constant, and Quintino Bocayuva, met and organised a Provisional Government," with Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca for its Chief, Colonel Botelho de Magalhaes for Minister of War. "A formal decree was issued declaring a federal Republic, the several provinces of the late Empire constituting the States and each State arranging its own constitution and electing its deliberative bodies and local governments. On the morning of the 16th the deposed Emperor received intimation that he and his family must leave the country within twenty-four hours:--'Between 2 and 3 o'clock on the morning of the 17th an officer appeared at the palace and informed the Emperor that he must at once embark, with all the members of his family. The wretched old man protested that he was not a fugitive, and that he preferred to embark by day; but after listening to the officer's explanation that a conflict might occur and blood might be shed, he finally yielded, protesting that in such a crisis his old grey head was the only one that was cool. And so at the dead hour of night, with no one to say a farewell and bid him God-speed, the aged Emperor, with his devoted wife and children, went down to the Caes Pharonx, where a launch was waiting to convey them out to the small gunboat Parnahyba. About 10 o'clock the gunboat steamed out of the harbour and went down to Ilha Grande to wait for the merchant steamer Alagoas, which had been chartered to convey the exiles to Europe'. ... It was said that the Imperial Ministry, principally through the instrumentality of Ouro Preto, had arranged with Dom Pedro to abdicate at the end of January, 1890, in favour of his daughter, the Countess d'Eu. But the Countess, with her husband, was extremely unpopular with the army and navy, and from these the feeling of disloyalty spread rapidly among the people. By decree of the Provisional Government, the provinces of Brazil, united by the tie of federation, were to be styled the 'United States of Brazil,' and general elections were to take place in August, 1890, to confirm the establishment of the Republic. A counter-revolution broke out in Rio on December 18. A number of soldiers, sailors, and civilians took part in it, and troops had to be ordered out to disperse them. It was not until the 20th that the disturbance was finally quelled."

Annual Register, 1889, part 1, pages 444-448.

"The revolution was the work of leaders who were not only conscious of their power, but also confident that the nation would inevitably condone their temporary acts of usurpation. There were no signs of weakness, vacillation or uncertainty in their action. ... A coalition of the army officers and the constitution-makers and political dreamers of the League would have been impracticable if the leaders had not known that the 20 provinces of the Empire were profoundly disaffected and would readily acquiesce in a radical change of government. ... The Emperor of Brazil has enjoyed the reputation of being one of the most enlightened and progressive sovereigns of his time. ... He was a ruler with many fascinating and estimable traits, who endeared himself to his people. This and much more may be said in praise of the deposed and banished Emperor; but when the record of his public services and of his private virtues is complete, the fact remains that he stood for a system of centralization that practically deprived the great series of federated provinces of their autonomy and his subjects of the privileges of self-government. Dom Pedro II. was not a constitutional reformer. The charter which he had received from his father was not modified in any essential respect during his long reign."

New York Tribune Extra, volume 1, number 12 (1889).

"A new Constitution ... was ratified by the first National Congress, convened on November 15, 1890. By this instrument the Brazilian nation constituted itself into a federal republic, under the name of the United States of Brazil. Each of the old provinces was declared a self-governing state, to be administered under a republican form of government, with power to impose taxes, and subject to no interference from the Central Government, except for purposes of national defense or the preservation of internal order or for the execution of Federal laws. {315} Legislation relating to customs, paper currency, and postal communications is reserved to the Federal Government. The right of suffrage is secured to all male citizens over 21 years old, with the exception of beggars, persons ignorant of the alphabet, soldiers in actual service, and persons under monastic vows, registration being the only prerequisite. The executive authority is vested in the President ... elected by the people directly for the term of six years, and .... not eligible for the succeeding term. ... Senators are elected by the Legislatures of the States for nine years, three from each State, one retiring and his successor being chosen every three years. ... The Chamber of Deputies has the initiative in all laws relating to taxation. Deputies are elected for three years by direct popular vote in the proportion of one to every 70,000 inhabitants. ... It is declared that no sect or church shall receive aid from the National or State governments." In 1891, differences arose between the President and Congress, at first over financial measures passed by the Chambers and vetoed by the President and schemes recommended by the President that were voted down by Congress. In November the President published a decree dissolving Congress, closed the Chambers by force, proclaimed himself Dictator on the invitation of officers of the army, and convoked a new Congress, to be charged with the revision of the constitution. The State of Rio Grande do Sul led off in a revolt against this usurpation, and on the 23d of November, after some shots had been fired into the city of Rio de Janeiro by a naval squadron acting against him, President Fonseca resigned. "Floriano Peixoto was immediately installed by the revolutionary committee as President in his stead ... and the country soon settled down under the new government."--

Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia 1891, pages 91-96.

"When Deodoro, after struggling for twelve months with the factions in Congress, closed the doors of São Christovão Palace and proclaimed a dictatorship, he had recourse to a familiar expedient of Latin-American civilization. The speedy collapse of his administration, when it was wholly dependent upon military force, was a good augury for the future of Brazil. ... In the early days of the Republic, the Provisional Ministry were unable to agree upon the radical policy of disestablishing the Church. ... Fortunately for Brazil there was no compromise of the disestablishment question. ... Under the Constitution no religious denomination was permitted to hold relations of dependence upon, or alliance with, the federal or State governments. ... Every church was made free in the free State. Civil marriage was recognized as essential. ... Perhaps the most hopeful sign for the cause of progress and religion is the adoption of educational suffrage."

I. N. Ford, Tropical America, chapter 4.

See CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.

----------BRAZIL: End----------

BREAD AND CHEESE WAR.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

BRECKINRIDGE, John C. Defeat in Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

BREDA: A. D. 1575. Spanish-Dutch Congress.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

BREDA: A. D. 1590. Capture by Prince Maurice of Nassau-Orange.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

BREDA: A. D. 1624-1625. Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BREDA: A. D. 1637. Taken by the Prince of Orange.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

BREDA: A. D. 1793. Taken and lost by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

----------BREDA: End----------

BREDA, Declaration from.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.

BREDA, Treaty of (1666).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.

BREED'S HILL (Bunker Hill), Battle of.

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

BREHON LAWS.

"The portion of the Irish tribe system which has attracted most attention is the mode in which the judicial authority was withdrawn from the chief and appropriated by the hereditary caste of the Brehons, and also the supposed anomalous principles which they applied to the decision of the cases which came before them. The earlier English writers found no terms too strong to express their abhorrence and contempt of these native judges, and their contempt for the principles upon which they proceeded. On the other hand, Irish writers attributed to these professional arbitrators advanced principles of equity wholly foreign to an early community. ... The translation of the existing vast mass of Brehon law books, and the translation [publication?] of the most important of them by the order of the government, have disposed of the arguments and assertions on both sides. It is now admitted, that the system and principles of the Brehon jurisprudence present no characteristics of any special character, although in them primitive ideas of law were elaborated in a manner not found elsewhere; ... the laws which existed among the native Irish were in substance those which are found to have prevailed among other Aryan tribes in a similar stage of social progress; as the social development of the nation was prematurely arrested, so also were the legal ideas of the same stage of existence retained after they had disappeared in all other nations of Europe. This legal survival continued for centuries the property of an hereditary caste, who had acquired the knowledge of writing, and some tincture of scholastic philosophy and civil law. ... The learning of the Brehons consisted (1) in an acquaintance with the minute ceremonies, intelligible now only to an archæologist, and not always to him, by which the action could be instituted, and without which no Brehon could assume the role of arbitrator; and (2) in a knowledge of the traditions, customs and precedents of the tribe, in accordance with which the dispute should be decided."

A. G. Richey, Short History of the Irish People, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: Sir H. Maine, Early History of Institutions, lecture 2.

BREISACH: A. D. 1638. Siege and capture by Duke Bernhard.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

BREISACH: A. D. 1648. Cession to France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BREITENFELD, Battle of (or first battle of Leipsic).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

The second battle of (1642).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

{316}

BREMEN: 13th-15th Centuries. In the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

BREMEN: A. D. 1525 Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

BREMEN: A. D. 1648. Cession of the Bishoprick to Sweden.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BREMEN: A. D. 1720. The Duchy ceded to the Elector of Hanover.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.

BREMEN: A. D. 1801-1803. One of six free cities which survive the Peace of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

BREMEN: A. D. 1810. Annexed to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).

BREMEN: A. D. 1810-1815. Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

BREMEN: A. D. 1815. Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic Confederation.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

BREMEN: A. D. 1888. Surrender of free privileges. Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

----------BREMEN: End----------

BREMI: A. D. 1635-1638. Taken by the French. Recovered by the Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

BRÊMULE, Battle of (1119).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

BRENHIN, The Cymric title.

See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

BRENNI, The.

See RHÆTIANS.

BRENTFORD, Battle of.

Fought and won by Edmund Ironsides in his contest with Cnut, or Canute, for the English throne A. D. 1016.

BRESCIA: A. D. 1512. Capture and pillage by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

BRESCIA: A. D. 1849. Bombardment, capture and brutal treatment by the Austrian Haynau.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

----------BRESCIA: End----------

BRESLAU: A. D. 1741-1760. In the wars of Frederick the Great.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (MAY-JUNE); 1742 (JANUARY-MAY); 1742 (JUNE); GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1760.

BREST: A. D. 1694. Repulse of the English fleet.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.

BRETAGNE.

See BRITTANY.

BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT OR COMMON LIFE.

"The Societies of the Beguines, Beghards, and Lollards [see BEGUINES], which from the first laboured under various defects and imperfections, had in course of time degenerated, and by their own fault, either fallen to pieces of themselves, or been suppressed. The two things, however, still existed, viz., the propensity to religious association, ... and, likewise, the outward condition, which required and rendered practicable the efforts of benevolence and charity, strengthened by cooperation. The last was particularly the case in the Netherlands, and most in the northern provinces. ... Here, then, the Institute of the Common Lot takes its rise. ... The first author of this new series of evolutions was Gerhard Groot (Geert Groete or de Groot, Gerhardus Magnus), a man of glowing piety and great zeal in doing good, a powerful popular orator and an affectionate friend of youth [1340-1384]. ... His affection for Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers kindled in Gerhard's bosom the liveliest zeal for collecting the records of Christian antiquity. ... Hence, he had long before employed young men, under his oversight, as copyists, thereby accomplishing the threefold end of multiplying these good theological works, giving profitable employment to the youths, and obtaining an opportunity of influencing their minds. This he continued more and more to do. The circle of his youthful friends, scholars, and transcribers, became from day to day larger, and grew at length into a regular society. Having thus in part owed its origin to the copying of the Scriptures and devotional books, the Society from the outset, and through its whole continuance, made the Holy Scripture and its propagation, the copying, collecting, preserving, and utilizing of good theological and ascetical books, one of its main objects. ... The members were called 'Brethren of the Common Lot,' [or of the Common Life] or 'Brethren of Good Will,' 'Fratres Collationarii,' 'Jeronymians,' and 'Gregorians.' ... Imitating the Church at Jerusalem, and prompted by brotherly affection, they mutually shared with each other their earnings and property, or consecrated also their fortune, if they possessed any, to the service of the community. From this source, and from donations and legacies made to them, arose the 'Brother-houses,' in each of which a certain number of members lived together, subjected, it is true, in dress, diet, and general way of life, to an appointed rule, but yet not conventually sequestered from the world, with which they maintained constant intercourse, and in such a way as, in opposition to Monachism [monasticism], to preserve the principle of individual liberty."

C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation, volume 2, part 2, chapter l.

"Through the wonderful activity of that fraternity of teachers, begun about 1360, called the Brethren of the Common Life, the Netherlands had the first system of common schools in Europe. These schools flourished in every large town and almost in every village, so that popular education was the rule."

W. E. Griffis, The Influence of the Netherlands, page 3.

ALSO IN: S. Kettlewell, Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of Common Life, chapter 5-6 (volume 1).

BRETHREN OF THE FREE SPIRIT.

See BEGUINES.

BRETIGNY, Treaty of.

The treaty, called at the time "the great peace," concluded May 8, 1360, between Edward III. of England and John II. of France, in which Edward renounced his pretensions to the French crown, released for a ransom King John, then a prisoner in his hands, and received the full sovereignty of Guienne, Poitou and Ponthieu in France, besides retaining Calais and Guisnes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

BRETWALDA.

A title given to some of the early English kings. "Opinions differ as to the meaning of the word Bretwalda. Palgrave and Lappenberg take it as equivalent to 'ruler of Britain': Kemble construes it 'broad-ruling,' and sees in it a dignity without duty, hardly more than an accidental predominance.' (Saxons in England, ii., 18.) The list of those who obtained this 'ducatus' includes Ethelbert of Kent, who broke the power of the petty kings as far as the Humber, Redbald of East Anglia, who obtained it by some means even in the lifetime of Ethelbert, and the three great Northumbrian kings, Edwin, Oswold and Oswy, whose supremacy however did not extend to Kent."

O. Elton, Origins of English History, page 392, note.

ALSO IN: _E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, volume 1, appendix B._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527, and ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

{317}

BREWSTER, William, and the Plymouth Pilgrims.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617, and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.

BREYZAD. The people and the language of Brittany, or Bretagne.

See BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.

BRIAN BORU, The reign in Ireland of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

BRIDGE, Battle of the.

A serious reverse suffered by the Arab followers of Mahomet in their early movements against the Persians, A. D. 634. A force of 9,000 or 10,000 having crossed the Euphrates by a bridge of boats were beaten back, their bridge destroyed and half of them slain or drowned.

_G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 26._

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

BRIDGEWATER, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRIDGEWATER, Storming of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRIENNE, Battle of.

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

BRIGANTES, The.

One of the strongest and fiercest of the tribes of ancient Britain, believed by some historians to have been the original pre-Celtic inhabitants of the island. At the time of the Roman conquest they held the whole interior northward from the Humber and Mersey to the Forth and Clyde. They were subdued by Agricola.

E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 1.

See, also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES, and A. D. 43-53; also, IRELAND, TRIBES of EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

BRIGANTINE.--BERGANTIN.

See CARAVELS.

BRIHUEGA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

BRILL, The capture of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.

BRISBANE.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.

BRISSOT DE WARVILLE AND THE GIRONDISTS.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER), to 1793 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

BRISSOTINS.

The party of the Girondists, in the French Revolution, was sometimes so called, after Brissot de Warville, one of its leaders.

BRISTOE STATION, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BRISTOL: 12th Century. Its slave trade and other commerce.

"Within its comparatively narrow limits Bristol must have been in general character and aspect not unlike what it is to-day--a busy, bustling, closely-packed city, full of the eager, active, surging life of commercial enterprise. Ostmen from Waterford and Dublin, Northmen from the Western Isles and the more distant Orkneys, and even from Norway itself, had long ago learnt to avoid the shock of the 'Higra,' the mighty current which still kept its heathen name derived from the sea-god of their forefathers, and make it serve to float them into the safe and commodious harbour of Bristol, where a thousand ships could ride at anchor. As the great trading centre of the west Bristol ranked as the third city in the kingdom, surpassed in importance only by Winchester and London. The most lucrative branch of its trade, however, reflects no credit on its burghers. All the eloquence of S. Wulfstan and all the sternness of the Conqueror had barely availed to check for a while their practice of kidnapping men for the Irish slave-market; and that the traffic was in full career in the latter years of Henry I. we learn from the experiences of the canons of Laon."

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

BRISTOL: A. D. 1497. Cabot's voyage of discovery.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.

BRISTOL: A. D. 1645. The storming of the city by Fairfax.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRISTOL: A. D. 1685. The commerce and wealth of the city.

"Next to the capital, but next at an immense distance, stood Bristol, then the first English seaport. ... Pepys, who visited Bristol eight years after the Restoration, was struck by the splendour of the city. But his standard was not high; for he noted down as a wonder the circumstance that, in Bristol, a man might look round him and see nothing but houses. ... A few churches of eminent beauty rose out of a labyrinth of narrow lanes built upon vaults of no great solidity. If a coach or cart entered those alleys, there was danger that it would be wedged between the houses, and danger also that it would break in the cellars. Goods were therefore conveyed about the town almost exclusively in trucks drawn by dogs; and the richest inhabitants exhibited their wealth, not by riding in carriages, but by walking the streets with trains of servants in rich liveries and by keeping tables loaded with good cheer. The hospitality of the city was widely renowned, and especially the collations with which the sugar refiners regaled their visitors. ... This luxury was supported by a thriving trade with the North American Plantations and with the West Indies. The passion for colonial traffic was so strong that there was scarcely a small shopkeeper in Bristol who had not a venture on board of some ship bound for Virginia or the Antilles. Some of these venturers indeed were not of the most honourable kind. There was, in the Transatlantic possessions of the crown, a great demand for labour; and this demand was partly supplied by a system of crimping and kidnapping at the principal English seaports. Nowhere was this system in such active and extensive operation as at Bristol. ... The number of houses appears, from the returns of the hearth-money, to have been, in the year 1685, just 5,300. ... The population of Bristol must therefore have been about 29,000."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 3 (volume 1).

BRISTOL: A. D. 1831. The Reform Bill Riots.

The popular excitement produced in England in 1831 by the action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Reform Bill, led to riots in several places, but most seriously at Bristol. "The Bristol mobs have always been noted for their brutality; and the outbreak now was such as to amaze and confound the the whole kingdom. ... {318} The lower parts of the city were the harbourage of probably a worse seaport populace than any other place in England, while the police was ineffective and demoralised. There was no city in which a greater amount of savagery lay beneath a society proud, exclusive, and mutually repellent, rather than enlightened and accustomed to social co-operation. These are circumstances which go far to account for the Bristol riots being so fearfully bad as they were. Of this city, Sir Charles Wetherell--then at the height of his unpopularity as a vigorous opponent of the Reform Bill--was recorder; and there he had to go, in the last days of October, in his judicial capacity. ... The symptoms of discontent were such as to induce the mayor, Mr. Pinney, to apply to the home-office for military aid. Lord Melbourne sent down some troops of horse, which were quartered within reach, in the neighbourhood of the city. ... Sir Charles Wetherell could not be induced to relinquish his public entry, though warned of the danger by the magistrates themselves. ... On Saturday, October 29, Sir Charles Wetherell entered Bristol in pomp; and before he reached the Mansion House at noon, he must have been pretty well convinced, by the hootings and throwing of stones, that he had better have foregone the procession. For some hours the special constables and the noisy mob in front of the Mansion House exchanged discourtesies of an emphatic character, but there was no actual violence till night. At night, the Mansion House was attacked, and the Riot Act was read; but the military were not brought down, as they ought to have been, to clear the streets. The mayor had 'religious scruples,' and was 'humane'; and his indecision was not overborne by any aid from his brother-magistrates. When the military were brought in, it was after violence had been committed, and when the passions of the mob were much excited. Sir Charles Wetherell escaped from the city that night. During the dark hours, sounds were heard provocative of further riot; shouts in the streets, and the hammering of workmen who were boarding up the lower windows of the Mansion House and the neighbouring dwellings. On the Sunday morning, the rioters broke into the Mansion House without opposition; and from the time they got into the cellars, all went wrong. Hungry wretches and boys broke the necks of the bottles, and Queen Square was strewed with the bodies of the dead-drunk. The soldiers were left without orders, and their officers without that sanction of the magistracy in the absence of which they could not act, but only parade; and in this parading, some of the soldiers naturally lost their tempers, and spoke and made gestures on their own account, which did not tend to the soothing of the mob. This mob never consisted of more than five or six hundred. ... The mob declared openly what they were going to do; and they went to work unchecked--armed with staves and bludgeons from the quays, and with iron palisades from the Mansion House--to break open and burn the bridewell, the jail, the bishop's palace, the custom-house, and Queen Square. They gave half an hour's notice to the inhabitants of each house in the square, which they then set fire to in regular succession, till two sides, each measuring 550 feet, lay in smoking ruins. The bodies of the drunken were seen roasting in the fire. The greater number of the rioters were believed to be under twenty years of age, and some were mere children; some Sunday scholars, hitherto well conducted, and it may be questioned whether one in ten knew anything of the Reform Bill, or the offences of Sir Charles Wetherell. On the Monday morning, after all actual riot seemed to be over, the soldiery at last made two slaughterous charges. More horse arrived, and a considerable body of foot soldiers; and the constabulary became active; and from that time the city was in a more orderly state than the residents were accustomed to see it. ... The magistrates were brought to trial, and so was Colonel Brereton, who was understood to be in command of the whole of the military. The result of that court-martial caused more emotion throughout the kingdom than all the slaughtering and burning, and the subsequent executions which marked that fearful season. It was a year before the trial of the magistrates was entered upon. The result was the acquittal of the mayor, and the consequent relinquishment of the prosecution of his brother-magistrates."

H. Martineau, A History of the Thirty Years' Peace, book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

----------BRISTOL: End----------

BRITAIN, Count and Duke of. The military commanders of Roman Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337, also ARTHUR, KING.

BRITAIN, The name.

See BRITANNIA.

BRITAIN: Celtic Tribes.

"It appears that the southeastern part of the island, or the district now occupied by the county of Kent, was occupied by the Cantii, a large and influential tribe, which in Cæsar's time, was divided among four chiefs or kings. To the west, the Regni held the modern counties of Sussex and Surrey, from the sea-coast to the Thames. Still farther west, the Belgæ occupied the country from the southern coast to the Bristol Channel, including nearly the whole of Hampshire, Wiltshire and Somersetshire. The whole of the extensive district extending from the Belgæ to the extreme western point of the island, then called Antivestæum or Bolerium (now the Land's End) including Devonshire and Cornwall, was occupied by the Dumnonii, or Damnonii. On the coast between the Dumnonii and the Belgæ the smaller tribe of the Durotriges held the modern county of Dorset. On the other side of the Thames, extending northwards to the Stour, and including the greater part of Middlesex as well as Essex, lay the Trinobantes. To the north of the Stour dwelt the Iceni, extending over the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon. The Coritavi possessed the present counties of Northampton, Leicester, Rutland, Derby, Nottingham and Lincoln; and the south-eastern part of Yorkshire was held by the Parisi. Between the tribes last enumerated, in the counties of Buckingham, Bedford and Hertford, lay the tribe called by Ptolemy the Catyeuchlani, and by others Catuvellani. Another name, apparently, for this tribe, or for a division of it, was the Cassii. West of these were the Atrebates, in Berkshire; and still further west were the Dobuni, in the counties of Oxford and Gloucester. ... The interior of the island northward was occupied by the Brigantes, who held the extensive districts, difficult of approach on account of their mountains and woods, extending from the Humber and the Mersey to the present borders of Scotland. This extensive tribe appears to have included several smaller ones [the Voluntii, the Sestuntii, the Jugantes and the Cangi]. {319} The Brigantes are believed to have been the original inhabitants of the island, who had been driven northward by successive invasions. ... Wales, also, was inhabited by a primitive population. The northern counties ... was the territory of the Ordovices. The southeastern counties ... were held by the Demetae. The still more celebrated tribe of the Silures inhabited the modern counties of Hereford, Radnor, Breeknoek, Monmouth and Clamorgan. Between these and the Brigantes lay the Cornabii or Carnabii. The wilder parts of the island of Britain, to the north of the Brigantes, were inhabited by a great number of smaller tribes, some of whom seem to have been raised in the scale of civilization little above savages. Of these we have the names of no less than twenty-one. Bordering on the Brigantes were the Otadeni, inhabiting the coast from the Tyne to the Firth of Forth. ... Next to them were the Gadeni. ... The Selgovæ inhabited Annandale, Nithsdale and Eskdale, in Dumfriesshire, with the East of Galloway. The Novantes inhabited the remainder of Galloway. The Damnii, a larger tribe, held the country from the chain of hills separating Galloway from Carrick, northward to the river Ern. These tribes lay to the south of the Forth and Clyde. Beyond the narrow boundary formed by these rivers lay [the Horestii, the Venricones or Vernicomes, the Taixali or Taexali, the Vacomagi, the Albani, the Cantæ, the Logi, the Carnabii, the Catini, the Mertæ, the Carnonacæ, the Creones, the Cerones, and the Epidii]. The ferocious tribe of the Attacotti inhabited part of Argyleshire, and the greater part of Dumbartonshire. The wild forest country of the interior, known as the Caledonia Sylva (or Forest of Celyddon), extended from the ridge of mountains between Inverness and Perth, northward to the forest of Balnagowan, including the middle parts of Inverness and Ross, was held by the Caledonii, which appears to have been at this time [of the conquests of Agricola] the most important and powerful of all the tribes north of the Brigantes."

T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: J. Rhys, Celtic Britain.

J. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 2.

BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54. Cæsar's invasions.

Having extended his conquests in Gaul to the British Channel and the Strait of Dover (see GAUL: B. C. 58-51), Cæsar crossed the latter, in August, B. C. 55, and made his first landing in Britain, with two legions, numbering 8,000 to 10,000 men. Portus Itius, from which he sailed, was probably either Wissant or Boulogne, and his landing place on the British coast is believed to have been near Deal. The Britons disputed his landing with great obstinacy, but were driven back, and offered to submit; but when a few days afterwards, Cæsar's fleet suffered greatly from a storm, they reconsidered their submission and opened hostilities again. Routed in a second battle, they once more sued for peace, and gave hostages; whereupon Cæsar reembarked his troops and returned to the continent, having remained in Britain not more than three weeks and penetrated the island a short distance only. The following summer he crossed to Britain again, determined on making a thorough conquest of the country. This time he had five legions at his back, with two thousand horse, and the expedition was embarked on more than eight hundred ships. He sailed from and landed at the same points as before. Having established and garrisoned a fortified camp, he advanced into the country, encountering and defeating the Britons, first, at a river, supposed to be the Stour which flows past Canterbury. A storm which damaged his fleet then interrupted his advance, compelling him to return to the coast. When the disaster had been repaired he marched again, and again found the enemy on the Stour, assembled under the command of Cassivelaunus, whose kingdom was north of the Thames. He dispersed them, after much fighting, with great slaughter, and crossed the Thames, at a point, it is supposed, near the junction of the Wey. Thence he pushed on until he reached the "oppidum" or stronghold of Cassivelaunus, which is believed by some to have been on the site of the modern town of St. Albans,--but the point is It disputed one. On receiving the submission of Cassivelaunus, and of other chiefs, or kings, fixing the tribute they should pay and taking hostages, Cæsar returned to the coast, reembarked his army and withdrew. His stay in Britain on this occasion was about sixty days.

Cæsar, Gallic War, book 4, chapter 20-36, and book 7, chapter 7-33.

ALSO IN: H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 2.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 9 and 11-12.

T. Lewin, Invasion of Britain by Cæsar.

F. T. Vine, Cæsar in Kent.

E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2.

BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53. Conquests of Claudius.

Nearly a hundred years passed after Cæsar's hasty invasion of Britain before the Romans reappeared on the island, to enforce their claim of tribute. It was under the fourth of the imperial successors of Julius Cæsar, the feeble Claudius, that the work of Roman conquest in Britain was really begun. Aulus Plautius, who commanded in Gaul, was sent over with four legions, A. D. 43, to obtain a footing and to smooth the way for the Emperor's personal campaign. With him went one, Vespasian, who began in Britain to win the fame which pushed him into the imperial seat and to a great place in Roman history. Plautius and Vespasian made good their occupation of the country as far as the Thames, and planted their forces strongly on the northern bank of that river; before they summoned the Emperor to their aid. Claudius came before the close of the military season, and his vanity was gratified by the nominal leading of an advance on the chief oppidum, or stronghold of the Britons, called Camulodunum, which occupied the site of the modern city of Colchester. The Trinobantes, whose capital it was, were beaten and the place surrendered. Satisfied with this easy victory, the Emperor returned to Rome, to enjoy the honors of a triumph; while Vespasian, in command of the second legion, fought his way, foot by foot, into the southwest of the island, and subjugated the obstinate tribes of that region. During the next ten years, under the command of Ostorius Scapula, who succeeded Plautius, and Avitus Didius Gallus, who succeeded Ostorius, the Roman power was firmly settled in southern Britain, from the Stour, at the East, to the Exe and the Severn at the West. The Silures, of South Wales, who had resisted most stubbornly, under Caractacus, the fugitive Trinobantine prince, were subdued and Caractacns made captive. The Iceni (in Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridge-shire) were reduced from allies to sullen dependents. The Brigantes, most powerful of all the tribes, and who held the greater part of the whole north of modern England, were still independent, but distracted by internal dissensions which Roman influence was active in keeping alive. This, stated briefly, was the extent to which the conquest of Britain was carried during the reign of Claudius, between A. D. 43 and 54.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.

ALSO IN: E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2, part 2, chapter 13.

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 4.

See, also, COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.

{320}

BRITAIN: A. D. 61. Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus.

From A. D. 50 to 61, while Didius Gallus and his successor Veranius commanded in Britain, nothing was done to extend the Roman acquisitions. In the latter year, Suetonius Paulinus came to the command, and a stormy period of war ensued. His first movement was to attack the Druids in the isle of Mona, or Anglesey, into which they had retreated from Gaul and Britain, in successive flights, before the implacable hostility of Rome. "In this gloomy lair, secure apparently, though shorn of might and dignity, they still persisted in the practice of their unholy superstition. ... Here they retained their assemblies, their schools, and their oracles; here was the asylum of the fugitives; here was the sacred grove, the abode of the awful deity, which in the stillest noon of night or day the priest himself scarce ventured to enter lest he should rush unwittingly into the presence of its lord." From Segontium (modern Caernarvon) Suetonius crossed the Menai Strait on rafts and boats with one of his legions, the Batavian cavalry swimming their horses. The landing was fiercely disputed by women and men, priests and worshippers; but Roman valor bore down all resistance. "From this moment the Druids disappear from the page of history; they were exterminated, we may believe, upon their own altars; for Suetonius took no half measures." This accomplished, the Roman commander was quickly called upon to meet a terrific outburst of patriotic rage on the part of the powerful nation of the Iceni, who occupied the region now forming the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdon. They had been allies of the Romans, first; then tributaries, under their own king, and finally subjects, much oppressed. Their last king, Prasutagus, had vainly hoped to win favor for his wife and children, when he died, by bequeathing his kingdom to the Roman State. But the widowed queen, Boudicea, or Boadicea, and her daughters, were only exposed with more helplessness to the insolence and the outrages of a brutal Roman officer. They appealed to their people and maddened them by the exposure of indescribable wrongs. The rising which ensued was fierce and general beyond precedent. "The Roman officials fled, or, if arrested, were slaughtered; and a vast multitude, armed and unarmed, rolled southward to overwhelm and extirpate the intruders. To the Colne, to the Thames, to the sea, the country lay entirely open." The colony at Camulodunum (Colchester), was destroyed; Verulamium (St. Albans), and Londinium (London), were sacked and burned; not less than 70,000 of the Romans in Britain were slaughtered without mercy. Suetonius made haste to quit Anglesey when the dreadful news reached him, and pressed, with all speed, along the great highway of Watling Street--gathering up his forces in hand as he went--to reach the awful scene of rage and terror. He had collected but 10,000 men when he confronted, at last, the vast swarm of the insurgents, on a favorable piece of ground that he had secured, in the neighborhood of Camulodunum. But, once more, the valor of undisciplined semi-barbarism wrecked itself on the firm shields of the Roman cohorts, and 80,000 Britons are said to have fallen in the merciless fight. The insurrection was crushed and Roman authority in Britain reaffirmed. But the grim Suetonius dealt so harshly with the broken people that even Rome remonstrated, and he was, presently, recalled, to give place to a more pacific commander.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.

ALSO IN: H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 5.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84. Campaigns of Agricola.

For seventeen years after the recall of Suetonius Paulinus (A. D. 61) there was a suspension of Roman conquest in Britain. The military power in the island suffered great demoralization, resulting naturally from the chaos of affairs at Rome, between Nero and Vespasian. These conditions ceased soon after the accession of the Flavian Emperor, and he, who had attained first in Britain the footing from which he climbed to the throne, interested himself in the spreading of his sovereignty over the whole of the British island. C. Julius Agricola was the soldier and statesman--a great man in each character--whom he selected for the work. Agricola was made prefect or Governor of Britain, A. D. 78. "Even in his first summer, when he had been but a few months in the island, and when none even of his own officers expected active service, Agricola led his forces into the country of the Ordovices, in whose mountain passes the war of independence still lingered, drove the Britains across the Menai Straits and pursued them into Anglesey, as Suetonius had done before him, by boldly crossing the boiling current in the face of the enemy. Another summer saw him advance northward into the territory of the Brigantes, and complete the organization of the district, lately reduced, between the Humber and Tyne. Struck perhaps with the natural defences of the line from the Tyne to the Solway, where the island seems to have broken, as it were, in the middle and soldered unevenly together, he drew a chain of forts from sea to sea. ... In the third year of his command, Agricola pushed forward along the eastern coast, and, making good with roads and fortresses every inch of his progress, reached, as I imagine, the Firth of Forth. ... Here he repeated the operations of the preceding winter, planting his camps and stations from hill to hill, and securing a new belt of territory, ninety miles across, for Roman occupation." The next two years were spent in strengthening his position and organizing his conquest. In A. D. 83 and 84 he advanced beyond the Forth, in two campaigns of hard fighting, the latter of which was made memorable by the famous battle of the Grampians, or Graupius, fought with the Caledonian hero Galgacus. At the close of this campaign he sent his fleet northward to explore the unknown coast and to awe the remoter tribes, and it is claimed that the vessels of Agricola circumnavigated the island of Britain, for the first time, and saw the Orkneys and Shetlands. The further plans of the successful prefect were interrupted by his sudden recall. Vespasian, first, then Titus, had died while he pursued his victorious course in Caledonia, and the mean Domitian was envious and afraid of his renown.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 61.

ALSO IN: Tacitus, Agricola.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

{321}

BRITAIN: 2d-3d Centuries. Introduction of Christianity.

See Christianity: A. D. 100-312.

BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211. Campaigns of Severus.

A fresh inroad of the wild Caledonians of the north upon Roman Britain, in the year 208, caused the Emperor Severus to visit the distant island in person, with his two worthless sons, Caracalla and Geta. He desired, it is said, to remove those troublesome youths from Rome and to subject them to the wholesome discipline of military life. The only result, so far as they were concerned, was to give Caracalla opportunities for exciting mutiny among the troops and for making several attempts against his father's life. But Severus persisted in his residence in Britain during more than two years, and till his death, which occurred at Eboracum (York) on the 4th of February, A. D. 211. During that time he prosecuted the war against the Caledonians with great vigor, penetrating to the northern extremity of the island, and losing, it is said; above 50,000 men, more by the hardships of the climate and the march than by the attacks of the skulking enemy. The Caledonians made a pretence of submission, at last, but were soon in arms again. Severus was then preparing to pursue them to extermination, when he died.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 6. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297. Rebellion of Carausius.

"During the reign of Gallienus [A. D. 260-268] ... the pirate fleets of the Franks infested the British seas, and it became needful to have a fleet to protect the coast. The command of this fleet had been conferred on Carausius, a Menapian by birth; but he was suspected of conniving at piracy, in order that he might enrich himself by becoming a sharer in their booty, when they returned laden with plunder. To save himself, therefore, from punishment, he usurped the imperial power, A. D. 288, and reigned over Britain for seven years. A vast number of his coins struck in Britain have been preserved, so many that the history of Carausius has been written from his medals. He was slain at length by his minister Allectus, who usurped his power. The Franks [as allies of Allectus] had well-nigh established their power over the south portion of Britain when it was broken by Constantius, the father of Constantine the Great, who defeated Allectus in a decisive battle, in which that usurper was slain. ... Allectus held the government of Britain for three years. Many of his coins are found."

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 4.

BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337. Constantine's Organization.

Under the scheme of government designed by Diocletian and amended by Constantine, "Britain formed part of a vast pro-consulate, extending from Mount Atlas to the Caledonian deserts, and was governed by the Gallic prefect, through a 'vicar' or deputy at York. The island was divided into five new provinces. ... Britain was under the orders of the Count of Britain, assisted by the subordinate officers. The Duke of Britain commanded in the north. The Count of the Saxon Shore, governed the 'Maritime Tract' and provided for the defence of the southeastern coast. The Saxon Shore on the coast of Britain must not be mistaken for the Saxon Shore on the opposite coast of France, the headquarters of which were the harbour of Boulogne. The names of the several provinces into which Britain was divided are given in the 'Notitia,' viz:--

1. Britannia Prima, which included all the south and west of England, from the estuary of the Thames to that of the Severn.

2. Britannia Secunda, which included the Principality of Wales, bounded by the Severn on the east and the Irish Channel on the west.

3. Flavia Cæsariensis,--all the middle portion of Britain, from the Thames to the Humber and the· estuary of the Dee.

4. Maxima Cæsariensis,--the Brigantian territory, lying between the estuaries of the Humber and Dee, and the Barrier of the Lower Isthmus.

5. Valentia,--the most northern portion, lying between the barrier of Hadrian and that of Antoninus."

H. M. Scarth. Roman Britain, chapter 10.

Britain: A. D. 367-370. Deliverance By Theodosius.

The distracted condition of affairs in the Roman Empire that soon followed the death of Constantine, which was relieved by Julian for a brief term, and which became worse at his death, proved especially ruinous to Roman Britain. The savage tribes of Caledonia--the Picts, now beginning to be associated with the Scots from Ireland--became bolder from year to year in their incursions, until they marched across the whole extent of Britain. "Their path was marked by cruelties so atrocious, that it was believed at the time and recorded by St. Jerome that they lived on human flesh. London, even, was threatened by them, and the whole island, which, like all the other provinces of the Empire, had lost every spark of military virtue, was incapable of opposing any resistance to them. Theodosius, a Spanish officer, and father of the great man of the same name who was afterwards associated in the Empire, was charged by Valentinian with the defence of Britain. He forced the Scots to fall back (A. D. 367-370), but without having been able to bring them to an engagement."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 5.

"The splendour of the cities and the security of the fortifications were diligently restored by the paternal care of Theodosius, who with a strong hand confined the trembling Caledonians to the northern angle of the island, and perpetuated, by the name and settlement of the new province of Valentia, the glories of the reign of Valentinian."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388. Revolt of Maximus.

In 383, four years after Theodosius the Great had been associated in the Roman sovereignty by the young Emperor Gratian, and placed on the throne of the East, the generous Gratian lost his own throne, and his life, through a revolt that was organized in Britain. "One Maximus, a Spaniard by birth, occupying a high official position in that province, forced on step by step into insurrection, by a soldiery and a people of whom he appears to have been the idol, raised the standard of revolt in the island, and passed over into Gaul, attended by a large multitude,--130,000 men and 70,000 women, says Zosimus, the Byzantine historian. This colony, settling in the Armorican peninsula, gave it the name of Brittany, which it has since retained. The rebel forces were soon victorious over the two Emperors who had agreed to share the Roman throne [Gratian and his boy-brother Valentinian who divided the sovereignty of the West between them, while Theodosius ruled the East]. Gratian they slew at Lyons; Valentinian they speedily expelled from Italy. ... Theodosius adopted the cause of his brother Emperor" and overthrew Maximus (see ROME: A. D. 379-395).

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 5.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 27. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{322}

BRITAIN: A. D. 407. The Usurpation Of Constantine.

"The Roman soldiers in Britain, seeing that the Empire was falling to pieces under the feeble sway of Honorius, and fearing lest they, too, should soon he ousted from their dominion in the island (part of which was already known as the Saxon Shore) clothed three usurpers successively with the imperial purple [A. D. 407], falling, as far as social position was concerned, lower and lower in their choice each time. The last and least ephemeral of these rulers was a private soldier named Constantine, and chosen for no other reason but his name, which was accounted lucky, as having been already borne by a general who had been carried by a British army to supreme dominion."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 5.

The usurper Constantine soon led his legions across the channel into Gaul, then ravaged by the Vandals, Sueves, Alans and Burgundians who passed the Rhine in 406. He was welcomed with joy by the unhappy people who found themselves abandoned to the barbarians. Some successes which the new Constantine had, in prudent encounters with detached parties of the German invaders, were greatly magnified, and gave prestige to his cause. He was still more successful, for a time, in buying the precarious friendship of some tribes of the enemy, and made, on the whole, a considerable show of dominion in Gaul during two or three years. The seat of his government was established at Arles, to which city the offices and court of the Roman Prefect of Gaul had retreated from Trèves in 402. With the help of a considerable army of barbarian auxiliaries (a curious mixture of Scots, Moors and Marcomanni) he extended his sovereignty over Spain. He even extorted from the pusillanimous court at Ravenna a recognition of his usurped royalty, and promised assistance to Honorius against the Goths. But the tide of fortune presently turned. The lieutenant of Constantine in Spain, Count Gerontius, became for some reason disaffected and crowned a new usurper, named Maximus. In support of the latter he attacked Constantine and shut him up in Arles. At the same time, the Emperor Honorius, at Ravenna, having made peace with the Goths, sent his general Constantius against the Gallo-British usurper. Constantius, approaching Arles, found it already besieged by Gerontius. The latter was abandoned by his troops, and fled, to be slain soon afterwards. Arles capitulated to the representative of the great name which Honorius still bore, as titular Imperator of Rome. Constantine was sent to Ravenna, and put to death on the way (A. D. 411).

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN: P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 3, chapter 10.

BRITAIN: A. D. 410. Abandoned By The Romans.

"Up to the moment ... when the Imperial troops quitted Britain, we see them able easily to repel the attacks of its barbarous assailants. When a renewal of their inroads left Britain weak and exhausted at the accession of the Emperor Honorius, the Roman general Stilicho renewed the triumphs which Theodosius had won. The Pict was driven back afresh, the Saxon boats chased by his galleys as far as the Orkneys, and the Saxon Shore probably strengthened with fresh fortresses. But the campaign of Stilicho was the last triumph of the Empire in its western waters. The struggle Rome had waged so long drew in fact to its end; at the opening of the fifth century her resistance suddenly broke down; and the savage mass of barbarism with which she had battled broke in upon the Empire. ... The strength of the Empire, broken everywhere by military revolts, was nowhere more broken than in Britain, where the two legions which remained quartered at Richborough and York set up more than once their chiefs as Emperors and followed them across the channel in a march upon Rome. The last of these pretenders, Constantine, crossed over to Gaul in 407 with the bulk of the soldiers quartered in Britain, and the province seems to have been left to its own defence; for it was no longer the legionaries, but 'the people of Britain' who, 'taking up arms,' repulsed a new onset of the barbarians. ... They appealed to Honorius to accept their obedience, and replace the troops. But the legions of the Empire were needed to guard Rome itself: and in 410 a letter of the Emperor bade Britain provide for its own government and its own defence. Few statements are more false than those which picture the British provincials as cowards, or their struggle against the barbarian as a weak and unworthy one. Nowhere, in fact, through the whole circuit of the Roman world, was so long and so desperate a resistance offered to the assailants of the Empire. ... For some thirty years after the withdrawal of the legions the free province maintained an equal struggle against her foes. Of these she probably counted the Saxons as still the least formidable. .... It was with this view that Britain turned to what seemed the weakest of her assailants, and strove to find ... troops whom she could use as mercenaries against the Pict."

J. R. Green, The Making of England, introduction.

ALSO IN: _J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, pages 57-66._

BRITAIN: A. D. 446. The Last Appeal To Rome.

"Yet once again a supplicating embassy was sent to the Roman general Ætius, during his third consulship, in the year 446. ... Ætius was unable to help them."

_J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, page 63._

"The date of the letters of appeal is fixed by the form of their address: 'The groans of the Britons to Ætius for the third time Consul. The savages drive us to the sea and the sea casts us back upon the savages: so arise two kinds of death, and we are either drowned or slaughtered.' The third Consulate of Aetius fell in A. D. 446, a year memorable in the West as the beginning of a profound calm which preceded the onslaught of Attila. The complaint of Britain has left no trace in the poems which celebrated the year of repose; and our Chronicles are at any rate wrong when they attribute its rejection to the stress of a war with the Huns. It is possible, indeed, that the appeal was never made, and that the whole story represents nothing but a rumour current in the days of Gildas among the British exiles in Armorica."

C. Elton, Origins of English History, chapter 12.

{323}

BRITAIN: A. D. 449-633. The Anglo-Saxon Conquest.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473, to 547-633.

BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY. The Unsubdued Britons.

"The Britons were soon restricted to the western parts of the island, where they maintained themselves in several small states, of which those lying to the east yielded more and more to Germanic influence; the others protected by their mountains, preserved for a considerable time a gradually decreasing independence. ... In the south-west we meet with the powerful territory of Damnonia, the kingdom of Arthur, which bore also the name of West Wales. Damnonia, at a later period, was limited to Dyvnaint, or Devonshire, by the separation of Cernau, or Cornwall. The districts called by the Saxons those of the Sumorsætas, of the Thornsætas (Dorsetshire). and the Wiltsætas were lost to the kings of Dyvnaint at an early period; though for centuries afterwards a large British population maintained itself in those parts among the Saxon settlers, as well as among the Defnsætas, long after the Saxon conquest of Dyvnaint, who for a considerable time preserved to the natives of that shire the appellation of the 'Welsh kind.' Cambria (Cymru), the country which at the present day we call Wales, was divided into several states." The chief of these early states was Venedotia (Gwynedd), the king of which was supreme over the other states. Among these latter were Dimetia (Dyved), or West Wales; Powys, which was east of Gwynedd and Snowdon mountain; Gwent (Monmouthshire) or South-east Wales, the country of the Silures. "The usages and laws of the Cambrians were in all these states essentially the same. An invaluable and venerable monument of them, although of an age in which the Welsh had long been subject to the Anglo-Saxons, and had adopted many of their institutions and customs, are the laws of the king Howel Dda, who reigned in the early part of the 10th century. ... The partition of Cambria into several small states is not, as has often been supposed, the consequence of a division made by king Rodri Mawr, or Roderic the Great, among his sons. ... Of Dyfed, during the first centuries after the coming of the Saxons, we know very little; but with regard to Gwynedd, which was in constant warfare with Northumbria and Mercia, our information is less scanty: of Gwent, also, as the bulwark of Dimetia, frequent mention occurs. On the whole we are less in want of a mass of information respecting the Welsh, than of accuracy and precision in that which we possess. ... An obscurity still more dense than that over Wales involves the district lying to the north of that country, comprised under the name of Cumbria."

_J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, page 119-122._

See CUMBRIA AND STRATH-CLYDE.

BRITAIN: A. D. 635. Defeat Of The Welsh By The English Of Bernicia.

See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.

----------BRITAIN: End----------

BRITAIN, GREAT: ADOPTION Of The Name For The United Kingdoms Of England And Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

BRITAIN, Roman Walls In.

See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

BRITANNIA, The Origin Of The Name.

"Many are the speculations which have been started as to the etymology of the word Britannia, and among the later ones have been some of the most extraordinary. Yet surely it is not one of those philological difficulties which we need despair of solving. Few persons will question that the name Britannia is connected with the name Britanni, in the same way as Germania, Gallia, Graecia, &c., with Germani, Galli, Graeci, &c., and it is not unreasonable to assume that Britanni was originally nothing more than the Latinized form of the Welsh word Brython, a name which we find given in the Triads to one of the three tribes who first colonized Britain. ... From the Welsh 'brith' and Irish 'brit,' parti-coloured, may have come Brython, which on this hypothesis would signify the painted men. ... As far then as philology is concerned, there seems to be no objection to our assuming Brython, and therefore also Britanni, to signify the painted men. How this Celtic name first came to denote the inhabitants of these islands is a question, the proper answer to which lies deeper than is generally supposed. ... The 'Britannic Isles' is the oldest name we find given to these islands in the classical writers. Under this title Polybius (3. 57) refers to them in connection with the tin-trade, and the well-known work on the Kosmos (c. 3) mentions 'The Britannic Isles, Albion and Ierne.' ... But in truth neither the authorship nor the age of this last-named work has been satisfactorily settled, and therefore we cannot assert that the phrase 'The Britannic Isles' came into use before the second century B. C. The name Britannia first occurs in the works of Cæsar and was not improbably invented by him."

E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2, chapter 1.

The etymology contended for by Dr. Guest is scouted by Mr. Rhys, on principles of Celtic phonology. He, on the contrary, traces relations between the name Brython and "the Welsh vocables 'bethyn,' cloth, and its congeners," and concludes that it signified "a clothed or cloth-clad people."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6.

BRITANNIA PRIMA AND SECUNDA.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

{324}

BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871. Establishment of provincial government. Union with the Dominion of Canada.

"British Columbia, the largest of the Canadian provinces, cannot be said to have had any existence as a colony until 1858. Previous to that year provision had been made by a series of Acts for extending the Civil and Criminal Laws of the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada over territories not within any province, but otherwise the territory was used as a hunting ground of the Hudson's Bay Company. The disputes and difficulties that arose from the influx of miners owing to the gold discoveries in 1856, resulted in the revocation of the licence of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the passing of the Imperial Act 21 & 22 Vic., c. 99, to provide for the government of British Columbia. ... Sir James Douglas was appointed Governor and by his commission he was authorised to make laws, institutions and ordinances for the peace, order and good government of British Columbia, by proclamation issued under the public seal of the colony. ... The Governor continued to legislate by proclamation until 1864, when his proclamations gave way to Ordinances passed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council. ... Up to this time the Governor of British Columbia was also Governor of the neighbouring island of Vancouver. Vancouver's Island is historically an older colony than British Columbia. Though discovered in 1592 it remained practically unknown to Europeans for two centuries, and it was not until 1849, when the island was granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, that a Governor was appointed. ... In 1865 the legislature of the island adopted a series of resolutions in favour of union with British Columbia, and by the Imperial Act 29 & 30 Vic. (i), c. 67, the two colonies were united. ... By an Order in Council dated the 16th day of May, 1871, British Columbia was declared to be a province of the Dominion [see CANADA: A. D. 1867, and 1869-1873] from the 20th of July, 1871."

J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 27: British Columbia.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1872. Settlement Of The San Juan Water Boundary Dispute.

See SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER BOUNDARY QUESTION.

----------BRITISH COLUMBIA: End----------

BRITISH EAST AFRICA AND SOUTH AFRICA COMPANIES.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

BRITISH HONDURAS.

See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

BRITONS, OR BRITHONS.

See CELTS; ALSO, BRITANNIA; and BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

BRITONS OF CUMBRIA AND STRATHCLYDE.

See CUMBRIA.

BRITTANY, OR BRITANNY: In The Roman Period.

See ARMORICA; also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

BRITTANY: A. D. 383. Alleged Origin Of The British Settlement And Name.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.

BRITTANY: A. D. 409. Independence Asserted.

At the time that the British island practically severed its connection with the expiring Roman Empire (about 409) the Britons of the continent,--of the Armorican province, or modern Brittany,--followed the example. "They expelled the Roman magistrates, who acted under the authority of the usurper Constantine; and a free government was established among a people who had so long been subject to the arbitrary will of a master."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"From this time, perhaps, we ought to date that isolation of Brittany from the politics of the rest of France which has not entirely disappeared even at the present day."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3.

The Armoricans, however, were found fighting by the side of the Romans and the Goths, against the Huns, on the great day at Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912. The Breyzad Kingdom. Subjection To The Norman Dukes.

"Charlemagne's supremacy over the Armoricans may be compared to the dominion exercised by Imperial Russia amongst the Caucasian tribes--periods during which the vassals dare not claim the rights of independence, intercalated amongst the converse periods when the Emperor cannot assert the rights of authority; yet the Frank would not abandon the prerogative of the Cæsars, whilst the mutual antipathy between the races inflamed the desire of dominion on the one part, and the determination of resistance on the other. Britanny is divided into Bretagne Bretonnante and Bretagne Gallicante, according to the predominance of the Breyzad and the Romane languages respectively. The latter constituted the march-lands, and here the Counts-marchers were placed by Charlemagne and his successors, Franks mostly by lineage; yet one Breyzad, Nominoë, was trusted by Louis-le-débonnaire [A. D. 818] with a delegated authority. Nominoë deserved his power; he was one of the new men of the era, literally taken from the plough. ... The dissensions among the Franks enabled Nominoë to increase his authority. Could there be any adversary of the Empire so stupid as not to profit by the battle of Fontenay. ... Nominoë assumed the royal title, vindicated the independence of his ancient people, and enabled them, in the time of Rollo, to assert with incorrect grandiloquence, pardonable in political argument, that the Frank had never reigned within the proper Armorican boundaries." Nominoë transmitted his crown to his son Herispoë; but the latter reigned briefly, succumbing to a conspiracy which raised his nephew, Solomon, to the throne. Solomon was a vigorous warrior, sometimes fighting the Franks, and sometimes struggling with the Normans, who pressed hard upon his small kingdom. He extended his dominions considerably, in Maine, Anjou, and the future Normandy, and his royal title was sanctioned by Charles the Bald. But he, too, was conspired against, blinded and dethroned, dying in prison; and, about 912, the second duke of Normandy established his lordship over the distracted country. "Historical Britanny settled into four great counties, which also absorbed the Carlovingian march-lands, Rennes, Nantes, Vannes and Cornouailles, rivalling and jealousing, snarling and warring against each other for the royal or ducal dignity, until the supremacy was permanently established in Alan Fergant's line, the ally, the opponent, the son-in-law of William the Bastard. But the suzerainty or superiority of all Britanny was vested in the Conqueror's and the Plantagenet's lineage, till the forfeiture incurred by King John--an unjust exercise of justice."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 3.

BRITTANY: A. D. 992-1237. The First Dukes.

"After the death of Solomon ... all these districts or territories merged in the three dominations of Nantes, Rennes, and Cornouaille. Amongst the Celts concord was impossible. In early times Nomenoe, the Ruler of Cornouaille, had assumed, by Papal authority, the royal style, but the Counts of Rennes acquired the pre-eminence over the other chieftains. Regality vanished. Geoffrey, son of Conan [A. D. 992-1008] ... must be distinguished as the first Duke of Brittany. He constituted himself Duke simply by taking the title. This assumption may possibly have been sanctioned by the successor of Saint Peter; and, by degrees, his rank in the civil hierarchy became ultimately recognized. ... The Counts of Brittany, and the Dukes in like manner, in later times, rendered homage 'en parage' to Normandy in the first instance, and that same homage was afterwards demanded by the crown of France. But the Capetian monarchs refused to acknowledge the 'Duke,' until the time of Peter Mauclerc, son of Robert, Count of Dreux, Earl of Richmond [A. D. 1213-1237]."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England., volume 3, page 165.

{325}

BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365. The Long Civil War. Montfort Against Blois.

Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the Hundred Years War of the English kings in France, there broke out a malignant and destructive civil war in Brittany, which French and English took part in, on the opposing sides. "John III. duke of that province, had died without issue, and two rivals disputed his inheritance. The one was Charles de Blois, husband of one of his nieces and nephew of the King of France; the other, Montfort, ... younger brother of the last duke and ... disinherited by him. The Court of Peers, devoted to the king, adjudged the duchy to Charles de Blois, his nephew. Montfort immediately made himself master of the strongest places, and rendered homage for Brittany to king Edward [III. of England], whose assistance he implored. This war, in which Charles de Blois was supported by France and Montfort by England, lasted twenty-four years without interruption, and presented, in the midst of heroic actions, a long course of treacheries and atrocious robberies." The war was ended in 1365 by the battle of Auray, in which Charles de Blois was slain, and Bertrand Du Guesclin, the famous Breton warrior, was taken prisoner. This was soon followed by the treaty of Guérande, which established Montfort in the duchy.

E. De Bonnechose, History of France, volume 1, book 2, chapter 2 and 4.

ALSO IN: Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 1, chapter 64-227.

BRITTANY: A. D. 1491. Joined By Marriage To The French Crown.

The family of Montfort, having been established in the duchy of Brittany by the arms of the English, were naturally inclined to English connections; "but the Bretons would seldom permit them to be effectual. Two cardinal feelings guided the conduct of this brave and faithful people; the one an attachment to the French nation and monarchy in opposition to foreign enemies; the other, a zeal for their own privileges, and the family of Montfort, in opposition to the encroachments of the crown. In Francis II., the present duke [at the time of the accession of Charles VIII. of France, A. D. 1483], the male line of that family was about to be extinguished. His daughter Anne was naturally the object of many suitors, among whom were particularly distinguished the duke of Orleans, who seems to have been preferred by herself; the lord of Albret, a member of the Gascon family of Foix, favoured by the Breton nobility, as most likely to preserve the peace and liberties of their country, but whose age rendered him not very acceptable to a youthful princess; and Maximilian, king of the Romans [whose first wife, Mary of Burgundy, died in 1482]. Britany was rent by factions and overrun by the armies of the regent of France, who did not lose this opportunity of interfering with its domestic troubles, and of persecuting her private enemy, the duke of Orleans. Anne of Britany, upon her father's death, finding no other means of escaping the addresses of Albret, was married by proxy to Maximilian. This, however, aggravated the evils of the country, since France was resolved at all events to break off so dangerous a connexion. And as Maximilian himself was unable, or took not sufficient pains to relieve his betrothed wife from her embarrassments, she was ultimately compelled to accept the hand of Charles VIII. He had long been engaged by the treaty of Arras to marry the daughter of Maximilian, and that princess was educated at the French court. But this engagement had not prevented several years of hostilities, and continual intrigues with the towns of Flanders against Maximilian. The double injury which the latter sustained in the marriage of Charles with the heiress of Britany seemed likely to excite a protracted contest; but the king of France, who had other objects in view, and perhaps was conscious that he had not acted a fair part, soon came to an accommodation, by which he restored Artois and Franche-comté. ... France was now consolidated into a great kingdom: the feudal system was at an end."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.

In the contract of marriage between Charles VIII. and Anne of Brittany, "each party surrendered all separate pretensions upon the Duchy, and one stipulation alone was considered requisite to secure the perpetual union of Bretany with France, namely, that in case the queen should survive her consort, she should not remarry unless either with the future king, or, if that were not possible, with the presumptive heir of the crown."

E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 18.

ALSO IN: F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 26.

BRITTANY: A. D. 1532. Final Reunion With The Crown Of France.

"Duprat [chancellor of Francis I. of France], whose administration was ... shameful, promoted one measure of high utility. Francis I. until then had governed Brittany only in the quality of duke of that province; Duprat counselled him to unite this duchy in an indissoluble manner with the crown, and he prevailed upon the States of Brittany themselves to request this reunion, which alone was capable of preventing the breaking out of civil wars at the death of the king. It was irrevocably voted by the States assembled at Vannes in 1532. The king swore to respect the rights of Brittany, and not to raise any subsidy therein without the consent of the States Provincial."

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, book 1, chapter 2.

BRITTANY: A. D. 1793. Resistance To The French Revolution. The Vendean War.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE); (JULY-DECEMBER).

BRITTANY: A. D. 1794-1796. The Chouans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

----------BRITTANY: End----------

BRIXHAM CAVE.

A cavern near Brixham, Devonshire, England, in which noted evidences of a very early race of men, contemporaneous with certain extinct animals, have been found.

J. Geikie, Prehistoric Europe.

ALSO IN: W. B. Dawkins, Cave Hunting.

{326}

BROAD-BOTTOMED ADMINISTRATION, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.

BROAD CHURCH, The.

See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

BROCK, General Isaac, and the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

BROMSEBRO, PEACE OF (1645).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

BRONKHORST SPRUIT, Battle of (1880).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1880.

BRONZE AGE.

See STONE AGE.

BROOKLYN, New York: A. D. 1624. The First Settlers.

"A few families of Walloons, in 1624, built their cottages on Long Island, and began the cultivation of the lands they had secured, the women working in the fields, while the men were engaged in the service of the company [the Dutch West India Company, controlling the colony of New Netherland]. These were the first settlers of Brooklyn. They were joined in time by a few others, until there were enough to be incorporated as a village. The numbers were not large, for Brooklyn, nearly forty years afterward, contained only 31 households and 134 souls."

G. V. Schuyler, Colonial New York, York, v 1, page 27.

BROOKLYN: A. D. 1646. The Town Named And Organized.

"The occupation of land within the limits of the present city of Brooklyn ... had steadily progressed, until now (1646) nearly the whole water-front, from Newtown Creek to the southerly side of Gowanus Bay, was in the possession of individuals who were engaged in its actual cultivation. ... The village ... which was located on the present Fulton Avenue, in the vicinity of the junction of Hoyt and Smith streets with said avenue, and southeast of the present City Hall, was called Breuckelen, after the ancient village of the same name in Holland, some 18 miles from Amsterdam." The town of Breuckelen was organized under a commission from the Colonial Council in 1646, and two schepens appointed. The following winter Jan Teunissen was commissioned as schout.

H. R. Stiles, History of Brooklyn, chapter 1.

BROOKLYN: A. D. 1776. The Battle Of Long Island And Defeat Of The Americans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

----------BROOKLYN: End----------

BROTHERS.--BROTHERHOODS.

See BRETHREN.

BROTHERS' CLUB, The.

See CLUBS.

BROWN, GEORGE, AND THE CANADIAN "CLEAR GRITS."

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

BROWN, GENERAL JACOB, AND THE WAR OF 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER); 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BROWN, John. Attack On Harper's Ferry. Trial And Execution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

BROWNISTS.

See INDEPENDENTS.

BROWNLOW, PARSON, AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

BRUCE, Robert, King of Scotland, A. D. 1305-1329.

BRUCHIUM, The.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 273.

BRUCTERI, The.

"After the Tencteri [on the Rhine] came, in former days, the Bructeri; but the general account now is, that the Chamavi and Angrivarii entered their settlements, drove them out and utterly exterminated them with the common help of the neighbouring tribes, either from hatred of their tyranny, or from the attractions of plunder, or from heaven's favourable regard for us. It did not even grudge us the spectacle of the conflict. More than 60,000 fell, not beneath the Roman arms and weapons, but, grander far, before our delighted eyes."

"The original settlements of the Bructeri, from which they were driven by the Chamavi and Angrivarii, seem to have been between the Rhine and the Ems, on either side of the Lippe. Their destruction could hardly have been so complete as Tacitus represents, as they are subsequently mentioned by Claudian."

Tacitus, Minor works, translated by Church and Brodribb: The Germany, with geographical notes.

See, also, FRANKS.

BRUGES: 13th CENTURY. The Great Fair.

See FLANDERS: 13th CENTURY.

BRUGES: A. D. 13th-15th CENTURIES. Commercial Importance In The Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

BRUGES: A. D. 1302. Massacre Of The French. "The Bruges Matins."

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.

BRUGES: A. D. 1341. Made the Staple for English trade.

See STAPLE.

BRUGES: A. D. 1379-1381. Hostilities With Ghent.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

BRUGES: A. D. 1382. Taken And Plundered By The People Of Ghent.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

BRUGES: A. D. 1482-1488. At War With Maximilian.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

BRUGES: A. D. 1584. Submission to Philip of Spain.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

BRUGES: A. D. 1745-1748. Taken By The French, And Restored.

See NETHERLANDS (AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745; and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.

----------BRUGES: End----------

BRULÉ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

BRUMAIRE, THE MONTH.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

BRUMAIRE, THE EIGHTEENTH OF.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER).

BRUNDISIUM: Origin.

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

BRUNDISIUM: B. C.49. Flight of Pompeius before Cæsar.

See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

BRUNDISIUM: B. C. 40. The Peace Of Antony And Octavius.

The peace which Antony and Octavius were forced by their own soldiers to make at Brundisium, B. C. 40, postponed for ten years the final struggle between the two chief Triumvirs. For a much longer time it "did at least secure the repose of Italy. For a period of three hundred and fifty years, except one day's fighting in the streets of Rome, from Rhegium to the Rubicon no swords were again crossed in war."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 27.

See also, ROME: B. C. 31.

----------BRUNDISIUM: End----------

BRUNKEBURG, Battle of the (1471).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BRUNNABURGH, OR BRUNANBURH, BATTLE OF.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 938.

BRUNSWICK, THE CITY OF. Origin And Name.

In the tenth century, a prince named Bruno, younger son of the reigning duke of Bavaria, and grandson of the Emperor Henry the Fowler, received as his patrimony the country about the Ocker. "Having fixed his residence at a village established by Charlemagne on the banks of that river, it became known as the 'Vicus Brunonis,' and, when enlarged and formed into a city, afterwards gave its name to the principality of which it formed the capital."

Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover, volume 1, book 4.

{327}

BRUNSWICK: IN THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE.

See HANSA TOWNS.

BRUNSWICK-LÜNEBURG, OR HANOVER.

See HANOVER.

BRUNSWICK-WOLFENBÜTTEL, OR BRUNSWICK: Origin Of The House And Dukedom.

See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY, and A. D. 1178-1183.

BRUNSWICK: THE GUELF CONNECTION.

See GUELF AND GHIBELLINE, AND ESTE, HOUSE OF.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1543. Expulsion Of Duke Henry By The League Of Smalcald.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1546. Final Separation From The Lüneburg Or Hanoverian Branch Of The House.

See HANOVER: A. D. 1546.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1806. The Duke's Dominions Confiscated By Napoleon.

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

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1807. Absorbed In The Kingdom Of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1830. Deposition of the Duke.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.

----------BRUNSWICK: End----------

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1577. The Union Of The Patriots.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1585. Surrender to the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1695. BOMBARDMENT BY THE FRENCH.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1706. Taken By Marlborough And The Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1746-1748. Taken By The French And Restored To Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747, and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1815. The Battle Of Waterloo.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1830. Riot And Revolution. Dutch Attack On The City Repelled.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us