History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen (part 5 of 10)

History for ready reference, Volume 3, Greece to Nibelungen (part 5 of 10)

"The first war mentioned in the days of the Judges is with the Syrians, at a time when the Israelites, or a northern portion of them, were held in servitude for eight years by a king whose name, Cushan-rish-athaim, which may be translated the 'Most Wicked Negress,' seems to place him in the region of imaginary tradition rather than of history. … The next war mentioned was an invasion by the Moabites, who, being joined with a body of Ammonites, and Amalakites, harassed the Israelites of the neighbourhood of Gilgal and Jericho. … After a servitude of 18 years under the Moabites, Ehud, a Benjamite, found an opportunity of stabbing Eglon, the king of Moab; and shortly afterwards the Benjamites were relieved by a body of their neighbours from the hill country of Ephraim. The Israelites then defeated the Moabites, and seized the fords of the Jordan to stop their retreat, and slew them all to a man. While this war was going on on one side of the land, the Philistines from the south were harassing those of the Israelites who were nearest to their country. … The history then carries us back to the northern Israelites, and we hear of their struggle with the Canaanites of that part of the country which was afterwards called Galilee. These people were under a king named Jabin, who had 900 chariots of iron, and they cruelly oppressed the men of Naphtali and Zebulun, who were at that time the most northerly of the Israelites. After a suffering of 20 years, the two tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali, under the leadership of Barak, rallied against their oppressors, and called to their help their stronger neighbours, the men of Ephraim. The tribe of Ephraim was the most settled portion of the Israelites, and they had adopted some form of government, while the other tribes were stragglers scattered over the land, every man doing what was right in his own eyes. The Ephraimites were at that time governed, or, in their own language, judged, by a brave woman of the name of Deborah, who led her followers, together with some of the Benjamites, to the assistance of Barak, the leader of Zebulun and Naphtali; and, at the foot of Mount Tabor, near the brook Kishon, their united forces defeated Sisern, the general of the Canaanites. Sisera fled, and was murdered by Jael, a woman in whose tent he had sought for refuge. … The next war that we are told of is an invasion by the Midianites and Amalakites and Children of the East. They crossed the Jordan to attack the men of Manasseh, who were at the same time struggling with the Amorites, the natives who dwelt amongst them. Gideon, the leader of Manasseh, called together the fighting men of his own tribe, together with those of Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali. The men of Gilead, who had come over to help him, seem to have deserted him. Gideon, however, routed his enemies, and then he summoned the Ephraimites to guard the fords of the Jordan, and to cut off the fugitives. … This victory of Gideon, or Jerubbaal, as he was also named, marked him out as a man fit to be the ruler of Israel, and to save them from the troubles that arose from the want of a single head to lead them against the enemies that surrounded them and dwelt among them. Accordingly, he obtained the rank of chief of all the northern Israelites. Gideon had dwelt at Ophrah, in the land of Manasseh; but his son Abimelech, who succeeded him in his high post, was born in Shechem, in the land of Ephraim, and had thus gained the friendship of some of that tribe. Abimelech put to death all but one of his brethren, the other sons of Gideon, and got himself made king at Shechem; and he was the first who bore that title among the Israelites. {1900} But his thus violently seizing upon the power was the cause of a long civil war between Ephraim and Manasseh, which ended in the death of the usurper Abimelech, and the transfer of the chieftainship to another tribe. Tola, a man of Issachar, was then made Judge, or ruler of the northern tribes. … After Tola, says the historian, Jair of Gilead judged Israel. … Jair and his successors may have ruled in the east at the same time that Deborah and Gideon and their successors were ruling or struggling against their oppressors in the west. Jephtha of Gilead is the next great captain mentioned. … The Ammonites, who dwelt in the more desert country to the east of Gilead, had made a serious incursion on the Israelites on both sides of the Jordan; and the men of Gilead, in their distress, sent for Jephtha, who was then living at Tob, in Syria, whither he had fled from a quarrel with his brethren. … It seems that the Ammonites invaded Gilead on the plea that they had possessed that land before the Israelites arrived there, to which Jephtha answered that the Israelites had dispossessed the Amorites under Sihon, king of Heshbon, and that the Ammonites had not dwelt in that part of the country. In stating the argument, the historian gives a history of their arrival on the banks of the Jordan. On coming out of Lower Egypt, they crossed the desert to the Red Sea, and then came to Kadesh. From thence they asked leave of the Edomites and Moabites to pass through their territory; but, being refused, they went round Moab till they came to the northern bank of the river Arnon, an eastern tributary of the Jordan. There they were attacked by Sihon, king of the Amorites; and on defeating him they seized his territory, which lay between the Arnon and the Jabbok. There the Israelites had dwelt quietly for 300 years, without fighting against either the Moabites or the Ammonites, who were both too strong to be attacked. This is a most interesting narrative, both for what it tells and for what it omits, as compared with the longer narrative in the Pentateuch. … It omits all mention of the delivery of the Law, or of the Ark, or of any supernatural events as having happened on the march, and of the fighting with Og, king of Bashan. Og, or Gog, as it is spelled by other writers, was the name of the monarch whose imaginary castles, seen upon the mountains in the distance, the traveller thought it not wise to approach. They were at the limits of all geographical knowledge. At this early time this fabulous king held Mount Bashan; in Ezekiel's time he had retreated to the shores of the Caspian Sea; and ten centuries later the Arabic travellers were stopped by him at the foot of the Altai Mountains, in Central Asia. His withdrawing before the advance of geographical explorers proves his unreal character. He is not mentioned in this earlier account of the Israelites settling in the land of the Amorites; it is only in the more modern narrative in the Book of Numbers that he is attacked and defeated in battle, and only in the yet more modern Book of Deuteronomy that we learn about his iron bedstead of nine cubits in length."

S. Sharpe, History of the Hebrew Nation, pages 4-9.

"At the close of the period of the Judges the greater part of the Israelites had quite lost their pastoral habits. They were an agricultural people living in cities and villages, and their oldest civil laws I are framed for this kind of life. All the new arts which this complete change of habit implies they must have derived from the Canaanites, and as they learned the ways of agricultural life they could hardly fail to acquire many of the characteristics of their teachers. To make the transformation complete only one thing was lacking —that Israel should also accept the religion of the aborigines. The history and the prophets alike testify that to a great extent they actually did this. Canaanite sanctuaries became Hebrew holy places, and the vileness of Canaanite nature-worship polluted the Hebrew festivals. For a time it seemed that Jehovah, the ancestral God of Israel, who brought their fathers up out of the house of bondage and gave them their goodly land, would be forgotten or transformed into a Canaanite Baal. If this change had been completed Israel would have left no name in the world's history; but Providence had other things in store for the people of Jehovah. Henceforth the real significance of Israel's fortunes lies in the preservation and development of the national faith, and the history of the tribes of Jacob is rightly set forth in the Bible as the history of that divine discipline by which Jehovah maintained a people for Himself amidst the seductions of Canaanite worship and the ever-new backslidings of Israel. … In the end Jehovah was still the God of Israel, and had become the God of Israel's land. Canaan was His heritage, not the heritage of the Baalim, and the Canaanite worship appears henceforth, not as a direct rival to the worship of Jehovah, but as a disturbing element corrupting the national faith, while unable to supplant it altogether. This, of course, in virtue of the close connection between religion and national feeling, means that Israel had now risen above the danger of absorption in the Canaanites, and felt itself to be a nation in the true sense of the word. We learn from the books of Samuel how this great advance was ultimately and permanently secured. The earlier wars recorded in the book of Judges had brought about no complete or lasting unity among the Hebrew tribes. But at length a new enemy arose, more formidable than any whom they had previously encountered. The Philistines from Caphtor, who, like the Israelites, had entered Canaan as emigrants, but coming most probably by sea had displaced the aboriginal Avvim in the rich coastlands beneath the mountains of Judah (Deuteronomy ii. 23; Amos ix. 7), pressed into the heart of the country, and broke the old strength of Ephraim in the battle of Ebenezer. This victory cut the Hebrew settlements in two, and threatened the independence of all the tribes. The common danger drew Israel together."

W. Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel, lecture 1.

JEWS: The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

"No one appeared again in the character at once of judge and warrior, to protect the people by force of arms. It was the Levite Samuel, a prophet dedicated to God even before his birth, who recalled them to the consciousness of religious feeling. He succeeded in removing the emblems of Baal and Astarte from the heights, and in paving the way for renewed faith in Jehovah. … It was the feeling of the people that they could only carry on the war upon the system employed by all their neighbors. {1901} They demanded a king—a request very intelligible under existing circumstances, but one which nevertheless involved a wide and significant departure from the impulses which had hitherto moved the Jewish community and the forms in which it had shaped itself. … The Israelites demanded a king, not only to go before them and fight their battles, but also to judge them. They no longer looked for their preservation to the occasional efforts of the prophetic order and the ephemeral existence of heroic leaders. … The argument by which Samuel, as the narrative records, seeks to deter the people from their purpose, is that the king will encroach upon the freedom of private life which they have hitherto enjoyed, employing their sons and daughters in his service, whether in the palace or in war, exacting tithes, taking the best part of the land for himself, and regarding all as his bondsmen. In this freedom of tribal and family life lay the essence of the Mosaic constitution. But the danger that all may be lost is so pressing that the people insist upon their own will in opposition to the prophet. Nevertheless, without the prophet nothing can be done, and it is he who selects from the youth of the country the man who is to enjoy the new dignity in Israel. … At first the proceeding had but a doubtful result. Many despised a young man sprung from the smallest family of the smallest tribe of Israel, as one who could give them no real assistance. In order to make effective the conception of the kingly office thus assigned to him, it was necessary in the first place that he should gain for himself a personal reputation. A king of the Ammonites, a tribe in affinity to Israel, laid siege to Jabesh in Gilead, and burdened the proffered surrender of the place with the condition that he should put out the right eyes of the inhabitants. … Saul, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, designated by the prophet as king, but not as yet recognized as such, was engaged, as Gideon before him, in his rustic labors, when he learned the situation through the lamentations of the people. … Seized with the idea of his mission, Saul cuts in pieces a yoke of oxen, and sends the portions to the twelve tribes with the threat, 'Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.' … Thus urged, … Israel combines like one man; Jabesh is rescued and Saul acknowledged as king. … With the recognition of the king, however, and the progress of his good-fortune, a new and disturbing element appears. A contest breaks out between him and the prophet, in which we recognize not so much opposition as jealousy between the two powers. … On the one side was the independent power of monarchy, which looks to the requirements of the moment, on the other the prophet's tenacious and unreserved adherence to tradition. … The relations between the tribes have also some bearing on the question. Hitherto Ephraim had led the van, and jealously insisted on its prerogative. Saul was of Benjamin, a tribe nearly related to Ephraim by descent. He had made the men of his own tribe captains, and had given them vineyards. On the other hand, the prophet chose Saul's successor from the tribe of Judah. This successor was David, the son of Jesse. … In the opposition which now begins we have on the one side the prophet and his anointed, who aim at maintaining the religious authority in all its aspects, on the other the champion and deliverer of the nation, who, abandoned by the faithful, turns for aid to the powers of darkness and seeks knowledge of the future through witchcraft. Saul is the first tragic personage in the history of the world. David took refuge with the Philistines. Among them he lived as an independent military chieftain, and was joined not only by opponents of the king, but by others, ready for any service, or, in the language of the original, 'men armed with bows, who could use both the right hand and the left in hurling stones and shooting arrows out of a bow.' … In any serious war against the Israelites, such as actually broke out, the Sarim of the Philistines would not have tolerated him amongst them. David preferred to engage in a second attack upon the Amalekites, the common enemy of Philistines and Jews. At this juncture Israel was defeated by the Philistines. The king's sons were slain; Saul, in danger of falling into the enemy's hands, slew himself. Meanwhile David with his freebooters had defeated the Amalekites, and torn from their grasp the spoil they had accumulated, which was now distributed in Judah. Soon after, the death of Saul is announced. … David, conscious of being the rightful successor of Saul—for on him too, long ere this, the unction had been bestowed—betook himself to Hebron, the seat of the ancient Canaanitish kings, which had subsequently been given up to the priests and made one of the cities of refuge. It was in the province of Judah; and there, the tribe of Judah assisting at the ceremony, David was once more anointed. This tribe alone, however, acknowledged him; the others, especially Ephraim and Benjamin, attached themselves to Ishbosheth, the surviving son of Saul. … The first passage of arms between the two hosts took place between twelve of the tribe of Benjamin and twelve of David's men-at-arms. It led, however, to no result; it was a mutual slaughter, so complete as to leave no survivor. But in the more serious struggle which succeeded this the troops of David, trained as they were in warlike undertakings of great daring as well as variety, won the victory over Ishbosheth; and as the unanointed king could not rely upon the complete obedience of his commander-in-chief, who considered himself as important as his master, David, step by step, won the upper hand. … The Benjamites had been the heart and soul of the opposition which David experienced. Nevertheless, the first action which he undertook as acknowledged king of all the tribes redounded specially to their advantage, whilst it was at the same time a task of the utmost importance for the whole Israelitish commonwealth. Although Joshua had conquered the Amorites, one of their strongholds, Jebus, still remained unsubdued, and the Benjamites had exerted all their strength against it in vain. It was to this point that David next directed his victorious arms. Having conquered the place, he transferred the seat of his kingdom thither without delay [see JERUSALEM]. This seat is Jerusalem; the word Zion has the same meaning as Jebus."

L. von Ranke, Universal History: The Oldest Historical Groups of Nations, chapter 2.

{1902}

"After Saul's death it was at first only in Judah, where David maintained his government, that a new Kingdom of Israel could be established at all, so disastrous were the consequences of the great Philistine victory. The Philistines, who must have already conquered the central territory, now occupied that to the north, also, while the inhabitants of the cities of the great plain of Jezreel and of the western bank of the Jordan, fled, we are very distinctly informed, across the river."

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 3.

But Abner, the strong warrior and the faithful kinsman of Saul's family, took Ishbosheth, the oldest surviving son of his dead king, and throned him in the city of Mahanaim, beyond the Jordan, proceeding gradually to gather a kingdom for him by reconquest from the Philistines. Thus the Israelite nation was first divided into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and there was bitter war between them. But that first division was not to endure long. Abner and Ishbosheth fell victims to treachery, and the tribes which had held by them offered allegiance to David, who then became king over "all Israel and Judah." By the conquest of the city of Jebus from its Canaanite founders and possessors, he acquired a new, impregnable capital, which, under the name of Jerusalem, grew to be the most reverently looked upon of all the cities of the world. "History has been completely distorted in representing David as the head of a powerful kingdom, which embraced nearly the whole of Syria. David was king of Judah and of Israel, and that was all; the neighboring peoples, Hebrews, Canaanites, Arameans and Philistines, as far as Mahul Hermon and the desert, were sternly subjected, and were more or less its tributaries. In reality, with the exception, perhaps, of the small town of Ziklag, David did not annex any non-Israelite country to the domain of Israel. The Philistines, the Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Arameans of Zoba, of Damascus, of Rehob and of Maacah were, after his day, very much what they were before, only a little weaker. Conquest was not a characteristic of Israel; the taking possession of the Canaanite lands was an act of a different order, and it came to be more and more regarded as the execution of a decree of Iahveh. As this decree did not extend to the lands of Edom, of Moab, of Ammon and of Aram, the Israelites deemed themselves justified in treating the Edomites, the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Arameans with the utmost severity, in carrying off their precious stones and objects of price, but not in taking their land, or in changing their dynasty. None of the methods employed by great empires such as Assyria was known to these small peoples, which had scarcely got beyond the status of tribes. They were as cruel as Assur, but much less politic and less capable of a general plan. The impression produced by the appearance of this new royalty was none the less extraordinary. The halo of glory which enveloped David remained like a star upon the forehead of Israel."

E. Renan, History of the People of Israel, book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).

David died about 1000 B. C. and was succeeded by his son Solomon, whose mother, Bathsheba, secured the throne for him by intrigue. "Solomon was a younger son, to whom the throne had been allotted contrary to ordinary laws of succession, whilst Adonijah, whom a portion of the people had recognised as king, was considered the rightful heir. So long as the latter lived. Solomon's government could not be on a firm basis, and he could never feel himself secure. Adonijah had therefore to be removed; the leader of the body guard, Benaiah, forcibly entered his house and killed him. As an excuse for this act of violence, it was asserted that Adonijah had attempted to win the hand of Abishag, the young widow of David, and thus had revealed his traitorous intention of contesting the throne with his brother. No sooner had he fallen than Joab, the former adherent of Adonijah, feared that a similar fate would overtake him. This exemplary general, who had contributed so considerably to the aggrandisement of the people of Israel and to the power of the house of David, fled to the altar on Mount Zion, and clung to it, hoping to escape death. Benaiah, however, refused to respect his place of refuge, and shed his blood at the altar. In order to excuse this crime, it was circulated that David himself, on his death-bed, had impressed on his successor the duty of preventing Joab's grey head from sinking in peace to its last rest. … Adonijah's priestly partisan, Abiathar, whom Solomon did not dare to touch, was deprived of his office as high priest, and Zadok was made the sole head of the priesthood. His descendants were invested with the dignity of high priest for over a thousand years, whilst the offspring of Abiathar were neglected. The Benjamite Shimei, who had attacked David with execrations on his flight from Jerusalem, was also executed, and it was only through this three-fold deed of blood that Solomon's throne appeared to gain stability. Solomon then directed his attention to the formation of a court of the greatest magnificence."

H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 1, chapter 9.

"The main characteristic of Solomon's reign was peace. The Philistines, allies of the new dynasty, and given profitable employment by it as mercenaries, were no longer tempted to cross the frontier. … The decay of military strength was only felt in the zone of countries which were tributary to the kingdom. Hadad, or Hadar, the Edomite, who had been defeated by Joab and had taken refuge in Egypt, having heard of David's death, and that of Joab as well, left Pharaoh, whose sister-in-law he had married. We have no details of this war. … We only know that Hadad braved Israel throughout the whole of Solomon's reign, that he did it all the injury he could, and that he was an independent ruler over a great part at all events of Edom. A still more formidable adversary was Rezon, son of Eliadah, an Aramean warrior who, after the defeat of his lord, Hadadezer, king of Zobah, had assembled about him those who had fled before the sword of David. … A lucky 'coup-de-main' placed the city of Damascus at their mercy, and they succeeded in maintaining themselves there. During the whole of Solomon's reign Rezon continued to make war against Israel. The kingdom of Zobah does not appear, however, to have been re-established. Damascus became henceforth the centre and capital of that part of Aramea which adjoined Mount Hermon. David's horizon never extended beyond Syria. With Solomon, fresh perspectives opened up for the Israelites, especially for Jerusalem. Israel is no longer a group of tribes, continuing to lead in its mountains the patriarchal life of the past. It is a well-organised kingdom, small according to our ideas, but rather large judged by the standard of the day. The worldly life of the people of Iahveh is about to begin. If Israel had no other life but that it would not have found a place in history. … An alliance with Egypt was the first step in that career of profane politics which the prophets afterwards interlarded with so much that was impossible. … {1903} The king of Egypt gave Gezer as a dowry to his daughter, and married her to Solomon. … It is not too much to suppose that the tastes of this princess for refined luxury had a great influence upon the mind of her husband. … The relations of Solomon with Tyre exercised a still more civilising influence. Tyre, recently separated from Sidon, was then at the zenith of its activity, and, so to speak, in the full fire of its first foundation. A dynasty of kings named Hiram, or rather Ahiram, was at the head of this movement. The island was covered with constructions imitated from Egypt. … Hiram is the close ally of the king of Israel; it is he who provides Solomon with the artists who were lacking at Jerusalem; the precious materials for the buildings in Zion; seamen for the fleet of Eziongeber. The region of the upper Jordan, conquered by David, appears to have remained tributary to Solomon. What has been related as to a much larger extension of the kingdom of Solomon is greatly exaggerated. … The fables as to the pretended foundation of Palmyra by Solomon come from a letter intentionally added to the text of the ancient historiographer by the compiler of the Chronicles. The construction of Baalbec by Solomon rests upon a still more inadmissible piece of identification. … In reality, the dominion of Solomon was confined to Palestine. … What was better than peoples kept under by force, the Arab brigands were held in check from pillage. The Amalekites, the Midianites, the Beni-Quedem and other nomads were confronted with an impassable barrier all around Israel. The Philistines preserved their independence. … When it is surmised that Solomon reigned over all Syria, the size of his kingdom is exaggerated at least fourfold. Solomon's kingdom was barely a fourth of what is now called Syria. … Solomon … built 'cities of store,' or warehouses, the commercial or military object of which cannot well be defined. There was, more especially, a place named Tamar, in the direction of Petra, of which Solomon made a city, and which became a calling-place for the caravans. … With very good reason, too, Solomon had his attention constantly fixed upon the Red Sea, a broad canal which placed the dawning civilisation of the Mediterranean in communication with India, and thus opened up a new world, that of Ophir. The Bay of Suez belonged to Egypt, but the Gulf of Akaba was, one may say, at the mercy of anyone who cared to take it. Elath and Asiongaber, according to all appearances, had been of very little importance in earlier times. Without regularly occupying the country, Solomon secured the route by the Valley of Araba. He built a fleet at Asiongaber, though the Israelites had never much liking for the sea. Hiram provided Solomon with sailors, or, what is more probable, the two fleets acted together. On leaving the Straits of Aden, they went to Ophir, that is to say, to Western India, to Guzarate, or to the coast of Malabar."

E_. Renan, History of the People of Israel, book 3, chapter 10 (volume 2)._

The government of Solomon was extravagant and despotic; it imposed burdens upon the people which were borne impatiently until his death; and when his son Rehoboam refused to lessen them, the nation was instantly broken again on the lines of the earlier rupture. The two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, only, remained faithful to the house of David and constituted the kingdom of Judah. The other ten tribes made Jeroboam their king and retained the name of Israel for their kingdom. The period of this division is fixed at 978 B. C. Jerusalem continued to be the capital of the kingdom of Judah. In the kingdom of Israel several changes of royal residence occurred during the first half century, until Samaria was founded by King Omri and thenceforth became the capital city. "Six miles from Shechem, in the same well-watered valley, here opening into a wide basin, rises an oblong hill, with steep yet accessible sides, and a long level top. This was the mountain of Samaria, or, as it is called in the original, Shômeron, so named after its owner Shemer, who there lived in state, and who sold it to the King for the great sum of two talents of silver."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lectures 29-30 (volume 2).

For two centuries, until the overthrow of the kingdom, Samaria continued to be the queen of the land, and the seat of government, often giving its name to the whole state, so that the kings were called "Kings of Samaria." "Under the dynasties of Omri and Jehu [10th-8th centuries, B. C.] the Northern Kingdom took the leading part in Israel; even to the Judæan Amos it was Israel 'par excellence.' Judah was not only inferior in political power, but in the share it took in the active movements of national life and thought. In tracing the history of religion and the work of the prophets, we have been almost exclusively occupied with the North; Amos himself, when charged with a message to the whole family that Jehovah brought up out of Egypt, leaves his home to preach in a Northern sanctuary. During this whole period we have a much fuller knowledge of the life of Ephraim than of Judah; the Judæan history consists of meagre extracts from official records, except where it comes into contact with the North, through the alliance of Jehoshaphat with Ahab; through the reaction of Jehu's revolution in the fall of Athaliah, the last scion of the house of Ahab, and the accompanying abolition of Baal worship at Jerusalem, or, finally, through the presumptuous attempt of Amaziah to measure his strength with the powerful monarch of Samaria. While the house of Ephraim was engaged in the great war with Syria, Judah had seldom to deal with enemies more formidable than the Philistines or the Edomites; and the contest with these foes, renewed with varying success generation after generation, resolved itself into a succession of forays and blood-feuds such as have always been common in the lands of the Semites (Amos i.), and never assumed the character of a struggle for national existence. It was the Northern Kingdom that had the task of upholding the standard of Israel; its whole history presents greater interest and more heroic elements; its struggles, its calamities, and its glories were cast in a larger mould. It is a trite proverb that the nation which has no history is happy, and perhaps the course of Judah's existence ran more smoothly than that of its greater neighbor, in spite of the raids of the slave-dealers of the coast, and the lawless hordes of the desert. But no side of national existence is likely to find full development where there is little political activity; if the life of the North was more troubled, it was also larger and more intense. {1904} Ephraim took the lead in literature and religion as well as in politics; it was in Ephraim far more than in Judah that the traditions of past history were cherished, and new problems of religion became practical and called for solution by the word of the prophets. So long as the Northern Kingdom endured Judah was content to learn from it for evil or for good. It would be easy to show in detail that every wave of life and thought in Ephraim was transmitted with diminished intensity to the Southern Kingdom. In many respects the influence of Ephraim upon Judah was similar to that of England upon Scotland before the union of the crowns, but with the important difference that after the accession of Omri the two Hebrew kingdoms were seldom involved in hostilities. … The internal condition of the [Judæan] state was stable, though little progressive; the kings were fairly successful in war, though not sufficiently strong to maintain unbroken authority over Edom, the only vassal state of the old Davidic realm over which they still claimed suzerainty, and their civil administration must have been generally satisfactory according to the not very high standard of the East; for they retained the affections of their people, the justice and mercy of the throne of David are favourably spoken of in the old prophecy against Moab quoted in Isaiah XV., xvi., and Isaiah contrasts the disorders of his own time with the ancient reputation of Jerusalem for fidelity and justice (i. 21). … The religious conduct of the house of David followed the same general lines. Old abuses remained untouched, but the cultus remained much as David and Solomon had left it. Local high places were numerous, and no attempt was made to interfere with them; but the great temple on Mount Zion, which formed part of the complex of royal buildings erected by Solomon, maintained its prestige, and appears to have been a special object of solicitude to the kings, who treated its service as part of their royal state. It is common to imagine that the religious condition of Judah was very much superior to that of the North, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this opinion."

W. Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel, lecture 5.

In the year B. C. 745 the throne of Assyria was seized by a soldier of great ability, called Pul, or Pulu, who took the name of Tiglath-pileser III. and who promptly entered on an ambitious career of conquest, with imperial aims and plans. "In B. C. 738 we find him receiving tribute from Menahem of Samaria, Rezon of Damascus, and Hiram of Tyre. … The throne of Israel was occupied at the time by Pekah, a successful general who had murdered his predecessor, but who was evidently a man of vigour and ability. He and Rezon endeavoured to form a confederacy of the Syrian and Palestinian states against their common Assyrian foe. In order to effect their object they considered it necessary to displace the reigning king of Judah, Ahaz, and substitute for him a creature of their own. … They were aided by a party of malcontents in Judah itself (Isaiah viii. 6), and the position of Ahaz seemed desperate. … In this moment of peril Isaiah was instructed to meet and comfort Ahaz. He bade him 'fear not, neither be fainthearted,' for the confederacy against the dynasty of David should be broken and overthrown. … But Ahaz … had no faith either in the prophet or in the message he was commissioned to deliver. He saw safety in one course only—that of invoking the assistance of the Assyrian king, and bribing him by the offer of homage and tribute to march against his enemies. In vain Isaiah denounced so suicidal and unpatriotic a policy. In vain he foretold that when Damascus and Samaria had been crushed, the next victim of the Assyrian king would be Judah itself. The infatuated Ahaz would not listen. He 'sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.'" The king of Assyria responded to the call (B. C. 734). He defeated Rezon in battle, laid siege to Damascus, swept the tribes east of the Jordan into captivity, overran the territory of Israel, captured Samaria and put to death Pekah the king. In place of Pekah he set up a vassal-king Hoshea. Six years later, Tiglath-pileser having died, and the Assyrian throne having been seized by another strong soldier, Shalmaneser IV., Hoshea attempted a revolt, looking to Egypt for help. But before Sabako king of Egypt could move to his assistance, "Hoshea was defeated by the Assyrian king or his satraps, and thrown into chains. The ruling classes of Samaria, however, still held out. An Assyrian army, accordingly, once more devastated the land of Israel, and laid siege to the capital. For three years Samaria remained untaken. Another revolution had meanwhile broken out in Assyria; Shalmaneser had died or been put to death, and a fresh military adventurer had seized the crown, taking the name of Sargon, after a famous monarch of ancient Babylonia. Sargon had hardly established himself upon the throne when Samaria fell (B. C. 722). … He contented himself with transporting only 27,280 of its inhabitants into captivity, only the upper classes, in fact, who were implicated in the revolt of Hoshea. An Assyrian satrap, or governor, was appointed over Samaria, while the bulk of the population was allowed to remain peaceably in their old homes."

A. H. Sayce, Life and Times of Isaiah, chapter 3.

"Much light is thrown upon the conditions of the national religion then and upon its subsequent development by the single fact that the exiled Israelites were absorbed by the surrounding heathenism without leaving a trace behind them, while the population of Judah, who had the benefit of a hundred years of respite, held their faith fast throughout the period of the Babylonian exile, and by means of it were able to maintain their own individuality afterwards in all the circumstances that arose. The fact that the fall of Samaria did not hinder but helped the religion of Jehovah is entirely due to the prophets."

J. Wellhausen, Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah, chapter 6.

"The first generation of the exiles lived to see the fall of their conquerors. … After this it is difficult to discover any distinct trace of the northern tribes. Some returned with their countrymen of the southern kingdom. … The immense Jewish population which made Babylonia a second Palestine was in part derived from them; and the Jewish customs that have been discovered in the Nestorian Christians, with the traditions of the sect itself, may indicate at any rate a mixture of Jewish descent. That they [the 'lost Ten Tribes'] are concealed in some unknown region of the earth, is a fable with no foundation either in history or prophecy."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 34 (volume 2).

See, also, JERUSALEM.

{1905}

JEWS: B. C. 724-604. The kingdom of Judah to the end of the Egyptian domination.

Three years before Sargon's destruction of Samaria, "Hezekiah had succeeded his father Ahaz upon the throne of Jerusalem. … Judah was tributary to Assyria, and owed to Assyria its deliverance from a great danger. But the deliverer and his designs were extremely dangerous, and made Judah apprehensive of being swallowed up presently, when its turn came. The neighbouring countries,—Phœnicia on the north, Moab, Ammon, and the Arabian nations on the east, Philistia on the west, Egypt and Ethiopia on the south,—shared Judah's apprehensions. There were risings, and they were sternly quelled; Judah, however, remained tranquil. But the scheme of an anti-Assyrian alliance was gradually becoming popular. Egypt was the great pillar of hope. By its size, wealth, resources, pretensions, and fame, Egypt seemed a possible rival to Assyria. Time went on. Sargon was murdered in 705; Sennacherib succeeded him. Then on all sides there was an explosion of revolts against the Assyrian rule. The first years of Sennacherib's reign were spent by him in quelling a formidable rising of Merodach Baladan, king of Babylon. The court and ministers of Hezekiah seized this opportunity for detaching their master from Assyria, for joining in the movement of the insurgent states of Palestine and its borders, and for allying themselves with Egypt. … In the year 701, Sennacherib, victorious in Babylonia, marched upon Palestine."

M. Arnold, Isaiah of Jerusalem, introduction.

Sennacherib advanced along the Phœnician coast. "Having captured Ascalon, he next laid siege to Ekron, which, after the Egyptian army sent to its relief had been defeated at Eltekeh, fell into the enemy's hand, and was severely dealt with. Simultaneously various fortresses of Judah were occupied, and the level country was devastated (Isaiah i.). The consequence was that Hezekiah, in a state of panic, offered to the Assyrians his submission, which was accepted on payment of a heavy penalty, he being permitted, however, to retain possession of Jerusalem. He seemed to have got cheaply off from the unequal contest. The way being thus cleared, Sennacherib pressed on southwards, for the Egyptians were collecting their forces against him. The nearer he came to the enemy the more undesirable did he find it that he should leave in his rear so important a fortress as Jerusalem in the hands of a doubtful vassal. Notwithstanding the recently ratified treaty, therefore, he demanded the surrender of the city, believing that a policy of intimidation would be enough to secure it from Hezekiah. But there was another personality in Jerusalem of whom his plans had taken no account. Isaiah had indeed regarded the revolt from Assyria as a rebellion against Jehovah Himself, and therefore as a perfectly hopeless undertaking, which could only result in the utmost humiliation and sternest chastisement for Judah. But much more distinctly than Amos and Hosea before him did he hold firm as an article of faith the conviction that the kingdom would not be utterly annihilated; all his speeches of solemn warning closed with the announcement that a remnant should return and form the kernel of a new commonwealth to be fashioned after Jehovah's own heart. … Over against the vain confidence of the multitude Isaiah had hitherto brought into prominence the darker obverse of his religious belief, but now he confronted their present depression with its bright reverse; faintheartedness was still more alien to his nature than temerity. In the name of Jehovah he bade King Hezekiah be of good courage, and urged that he should by no means surrender. The Assyrians would not be able to take the city, not even to shoot an arrow into it, nor to bring up their siege train against it. 'I know thy sitting, thy going, and thy standing,' is Jehovah's language to the Assyrian, 'and also thy rage against Me. And I will put my ring in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.' And thus it proved in the issue. By a still unexplained catastrophe, the main army of Sennacherib was annihilated on the frontier between Egypt and Palestine, and Jerusalem thereby freed from all danger. The Assyrian king had to save himself by a hurried retreat to Nineveh; Isaiah was triumphant. A more magnificent close of a period of influential public life can hardly be imagined."

J. Wellhausen, Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah, chapter 7.

"We possess in duplicate, on the Taylor Cylinder, found at Nineveh in 1830, and now in the British Museum, and on the Bull-inscription of Kouyunjik, Sennacherib's own account of the stages of his campaign. Sidon and the cities of Phœnicia were the first to be attacked; and, after reducing these, and receiving homage from several of the kings of the countries bordering on Palestine, who apparently were not this time implicated in the plan of revolt, Sennacherib started southwards, aiming to recover similarly Ashkelon, Ekron, and Jerusalem. In Ashkelon he deprived Zedek of his crown, which he bestowed upon Sarludari, the son of a former king, doubtless on the ground that he was friendly to Assyrian interests: at the same time four subject-cities belonging to Zedek, Beth-dagon, Joppa, Bene-Barak, and Azuru were captured and plundered. Sennacherib next proceeds to deal with Ekron. The people of Ekron, in order to carry through their plan for the recovery of independence without hindrance, had deposed their king Padi, who remained loyal to Assyria, and sent him bound in chains to Hezekiah. Upon news of the approach of the Assyrians, they had summoned the Egyptians to their aid; they arrive now 'with forces innumerable;' the encounter takes place at Altaku (probably not far from Ekron); victory declares for the Assyrian; and the Egyptians retire without effecting the desired relief. After this Sennacherib soon reduces Ekron; he obtains, moreover, the surrender of Padi from Jerusalem, and restores him to his throne. Now follows the account of the aggressive measures adopted by him against Judah and Jerusalem. 'And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong cities, fortresses and smaller towns round about their border without number, with laying low of the walls, and with open (?) attack, with battle … of feet, … hewing about and trampling down (?), I besieged, I took 200,150 people, small and great, male and female, horses, mules,' asses, camels, oxen, and sheep without number, from the midst of them I brought out, and I counted them as spoil. {1906} Himself, as a bird in a cage, in the midst of Jerusalem, his royal city, I shut up. Siege-works against him I erected, and the exit of the great gate of his city I blocked up. His cities which I had plundered, from his domain I cut off; and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, and to Zilbel, king of Gaza, I gave them; I diminished his territory. To the former payment of their yearly tribute, the tribute of subjection to my sovereignty I added; I laid it upon them. Himself, Hezekiah, the terror of the splendour of my sovereignty overwhelmed: the Arabians and his dependents, whom he had introduced, for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal city, and to whom he had granted pay, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, bullion (?) … precious (?) stones of large size, couches of ivory, lofty thrones of ivory, elephant-skins, ivory, … wood, … woods of every kind, an abundant treasure, and in addition, his daughters, the women of his palace, his male and female harem(?)-attendants unto Nineveh, my royal city, he caused to be brought after me. For the payment of tribute, and the rendering of homage: he sent his envoy.' Here the account on the Inscription closes, the lines which follow relating to the campaign of the subsequent year."

S. R. Driver, Isaiah: His Life and Times, chapter 7.

"Between the retreat of Sennacherib's army and the capture of the capital by Nebuchadrezzar there was an interval of little more than a century, yet, meanwhile, upon the basis of the prophetical teaching, the foundations of Judaism were laid. … But though Sennacherib had retreated from Palestine, Judah still remained the vassal of Assyria. The empire of Assyria was scarcely affected by the event which was to change the face of the world, and for more than half-a-century its power was undiminished and supreme. Yet, as regards the internal condition of Judah, the great deliverance was the occasion of a reform which at first may well have made Isaiah's heart beat high. … Influential as he was at the court and with the king, and with reputation enormously enhanced by the fulfilment of his promise of deliverance, he probably urged and prompted Hezekiah to the execution of a religious reform. The meagre verse in the Book of Kings which describes this reform is both inaccurate and misplaced. There is no hint in the authentic writings of Isaiah or Micah that any religious innovations had been attempted before the Assyrian war. It was the startling issue of Sennacherib's invasion which afforded the opportunity and suggested the idea. Moreover, wider changes are attributed to Hezekiah than he can actually have effected. … The residuum of fact contained in the 18th chapter of the Second Book of Kings must be probably limited to the destruction of the Nehushtan, or brazen serpent, that mysterious image in which the contemporaries of Hezekiah, whatever may have been its original signification, doubtless recognized a symbol of Yahveh. Yet indirect evidence would incline us to believe that Hezekiah's reform involved more than the annihilation of a single idol; it is more probably to be regarded as an attempt at a general abolition of images, as well as a suppression of the new Assyrian star-worship and of the 'Moloch' sacrifices which had been introduced into Judah in the reign of Ahaz. Whether this material iconoclasm betokened or generated any wide moral reformation is more than doubtful. … Hezekiah's reign extended for about fourteen years after the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701. To the early part of this, its second division, the religious reformation must be assigned. A successful campaign against the Philistines, alluded to in the Book of Kings, probably fell within the same period. Beyond this, we know nothing, though we would gladly know much, of these fourteen concluding years of an eventful reign. In 686 Hezekiah died, and was succeeded by his son Manasseh, who occupied the throne for forty-five years (686-641). The Book of Kings does not record a single external incident throughout his long reign. It must have been a time of profound peace and of comparative prosperity. Manasseh remained the vassal of Assyria, and the Assyrian inscriptions speak of him as paying tribute to the two kings, Esarhaddon (681-669), Sennacherib's successor, and Asurbanipal (669-626), till whose death the supremacy of Assyria in Palestine was wholly undisputed. Uneventful as Manasseh's reign was in foreign politics, it was all the more important in its internal and religious history. In it, and in the short reign of Amon, who maintained the policy of his father, there set in a period of strong religious reaction, extending over nearly half-a-century (686-638). Manasseh is singled out by the historian for special and repeated reprobation. In the eyes of the exilic redactor, his iniquities were the immediate cause of the destruction of the national life. Not even Josiah's reformation could turn Yahveh 'from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal.' Jeremiah had said the same. Exile and dispersion are to come 'because of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.' … What were the sins of Manasseh? It has already been indicated that the Assyrians made their influence felt, not only in politics, but also in religion. It was the old Babylonian worship of the luminaries of heaven which was introduced into Judah in the eighth century, and which, after receiving a short check during the reign of Hezekiah, became very widely prevalent under his son. … There are many tokens in the literature of the seventh century that the idolatrous reaction of Manasseh penetrated deep, making many converts. … Manasseh would apparently brook no opposition to the idolatrous proclivities of his court; he met the indignation of Isaiah's disciples and of the prophetical party by open and relentless persecution. … The older historian of the Book of Kings speaks of 'Manasseh shedding innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another.' This innocent blood must have mainly flowed from those who opposed his idolatrous tendencies. … From the accession of Manasseh to the death of Amon (686-638), a period of forty-eight years, this internal conflict continued; and in it, as always, the blood of martyrs was the seed of the Church. In 638, Amon was succeeded by his son Josiah; then only eight years old. {1907} It is possible that his accession brought about some amelioration in the condition of the prophetical party, and that active persecution ceased. But the syncretistic and idolatrous worship was still maintained for another eighteen years, though those years are passed over without any notice in the Book of Kings. They were, however, years of great importance in the history of Asia, for they witnessed the break-up of the Assyrian empire, and the inroads of the Scythians. The collapse of Assyria followed hard upon the death of Asurbanipal in 626: Babylon revolted, the northern and north-western provinces of the empire fell into the hands of the Medes, and the authority of Assyria over the vassal kingdoms of the west was gradually weakened."

C. G. Montefiore, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as illustrated by the Religion of the ancient Hebrews, (Hibbert Lectures, 1892), lecture 4.

"The Assyrian empire was much weakened and the king could not think of maintaining his power in the more distant provinces. … In the year 610 B. C., Nineveh was again besieged, this time by the Medes and Babylonians in league together. In the same year Psammetichus, king of Egypt, died and was succeeded by his son Necho. If Psammetichus had already tried to enlarge his kingdom at the expense of Assyria, Necho was not the man to miss the golden opportunity that now presented itself: he proposed to seize Syria and Palestine, the Assyrian provinces that bordered on his own kingdom, and thus to obtain his share of the spoil, even if he did not help to bring down the giant. By the second year after his accession to the throne he was on the march to Syria with a large army. Probably it was transported by sea and landed at Acco, on the Mediterranean, whence it was to proceed overland. But in carrying out this plan he encountered an unexpected obstacle: Josiah went to meet him with an army and attempted to prevent his march to Syria. … Josiah must have firmly believed that Jahveh would fight for his people and defeat the Egyptian ruler. From what Jeremiah tells us of the attitude of the prophets in the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, we must infer that many of them strengthened the king in his intention not to endure an encroachment such as that of the Pharaoh. The Chronicler relates that Necho himself endeavored to dissuade Josiah from the unequal contest. But [uselessly]. … The decisive battle was fought in the valley of Megiddo: Judah was defeated; Josiah perished. … After the victory in the valley of Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho was master of the kingdom of Judah. Before he arrived there, 'the people of the land' made Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, king, presumably because he was more attached than his elder brother to his father's policy. At all events, Necho hastened to depose him and send him to Egypt. He was superseded by Eliakim, henceforward called Jehoiakim. At first Jehoiakim was a vassal of Egypt, and it does not appear that he made any attempt to escape from this servitude. But it was not long before events occurred elsewhere in Asia that entirely changed his position. Nineveh had fallen; the Medes and the Chaldeans or Babylonians now ruled over the former territory of the Assyrians; Syria and Palestine fell to the share of the Babylonians. Of course, the Egyptians were not inclined to let them have undisputed possession. A battle was fought at Carchemish (Circesium), on the Euphrates, between the armies of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar, who then commanded in the name of his father, Nabopolassar, but very shortly afterwards succeeded him. The Egyptians sustained a crushing defeat (604 B. C). This decided the fate of Western Asia, including Judæa."

A. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel, chapter 6 (volume 2).

JEWS: B. C. 604-536. Fall of the kingdom of Judah. The Babylonian captivity.

"In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B. C. 604) the mightiest monarch who had wielded the Assyrian power, Nebuchadnezzar, was associated in the empire with his father, and assumed the command of the armies of Assyria. Babylon now takes the place of Nineveh as the capital of the Assyrian empire. … Vassalage to the dominion of Egypt or of Babylon is now the ignominious doom of the king of Judah. … Nebuchadnezzar, having retaken Carchemish (B. C. 601), passed the Euphrates, and rapidly overran the whole of Syria and Palestine. Jerusalem made little resistance. The king was put in chains to be carried as a prisoner to Babylon. On his submission, he was reinstated on the throne; but the Temple was plundered of many of its treasures, and a number of well-born youths, among whom were Daniel, and three others, best known by their Persian names, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. From this date commence the seventy years of the Captivity. Jehoiakim had learned neither wisdom nor moderation from his misfortunes. Three years after, he attempted to throw off the yoke of Chaldea. … At length this weak and cruel king was slain (B. C. 598). … Jehoiachin (Jeconias or Coniah), his son, had scarcely mounted the throne, when Nebuchadnezzar himself appeared at the gates of Jerusalem. The city surrendered at discretion. The king and all the royal family, the remaining treasures of the Temple, the strength of the army and the nobility, and all the more useful artisans, were carried away to Babylon. Over this wreck of a kingdom, Zedekiah (Mattaniah), the younger son of Josiah, was permitted to enjoy an inglorious and precarious sovereignty of eleven years, during which he abused his powers, even worse than his imbecile predecessors. In his ninth year, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the wise Jeremiah, he endeavoured to assert his independence; and Jerusalem, though besieged by Nebuchadnezzar in person, now made some resistance. … At length, in the city, famine reduced the fatal obstinacy of despair. Jerusalem opened its gates to the irresistible conqueror. The king, in an attempt to break through the besieging forces, or meditating flight towards his ally, the king of Ammon, was seized on the plain of Jericho. His children were slain before his face, his eyes put out, and thus the last king of the royal house of David, blind and childless, was led away into a foreign prison. The capture of Jerusalem took place on the ninth day of the fourth month: on the seventh day of the fifth month (two days on which Hebrew devotion still commemorates the desolation of the city by solemn fast and humiliation) the relentless Nebuzaradan executed the orders of his master by levelling the city, the palaces, and the Temple, in one common ruin. The few remaining treasures, particularly the two brazen pillars which stood before the Temple, were sent to Babylon; the chief priests were put to death, the rest carried into captivity. … {1908} The miserable remnant of the people were placed under the command of Gedaliah, as a pasha of the great Assyrian monarch; the seat of government was fixed at Mizpeh. … Nebuzaradan (the general of Nebuchadnezzar) only left, according to the strong language of the Second Book of Kings, xxv. 12, 'of the poor of the land, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen.' … In general it seems that the Jewish exiles [in Babylonia] were allowed to dwell together in considerable bodies, not sold as household or personal or prædial slaves, at least not those of the better order of whom the Captivity chiefly consisted. They were colonists rather than captives, and became by degrees possessed of considerable property. … They had free enjoyment of their religion, such at least as adhered faithfully to their belief in Jehovah. We hear of no special and general religious persecution. The first deportation of chosen beautiful youths, after the earlier defeat of Jehoiakim, for hostages, or as a kind of court-pages, was not numerous. The second transportation swept away the king, his wife, all the officers and attendants of his court, 7,000 of the best of the army, 1,000 picked artisans, armourers, and others, amounting to 10,023 men. The last was more general: it comprehended the mass of the people, according to some calculations towards 300,000 or 400,000 souls."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, books 8-9, with foot-note (volume 1).

The inhabitants left behind in Judæa "formed but a pitiful remnant of the former kingdom of Judah. Part of them had grown wild and led the lives of freebooters. Others busied themselves with agriculture, but they had much to suffer from the bands of Chaldean soldiers that roved about the land, and from the neighbouring tribes, who took advantage of Israel's abasement to extend their territories. … We do not know with certainty the number of the exiles carried off by Nebuchadnezzar: the returns given in the Old Testament are evidently incomplete. But that their number was very considerable, can be gathered from the number of those who afterwards went back. For their intrinsic worth, even more than for their numerical strength, these exiles had a right to be regarded as the real representatives of the kingdom of Judah and thus of all Israel. … It was … the kernel of the nation that was brought to Babylonia. Our information as to the social condition of the exiles is very defective. Even to the question, where they had to settle, we can only return an imperfect answer. We meet with a colony of exiles, companions of Jeconiah, at Tel-abib, in the neighbourhood of the river Chebar, usually supposed to be the Chaboras, which runs into the Euphrates not far from Circesium, but considered by others to be a smaller river, nearer to Babylon. It lay in the nature of the case, that the second and third company of captives received another destination. Even had it been possible, prudence would have opposed their settling in the immediate vicinity of their predecessors. We are not surprised therefore that Ezekiel, who lived at Tel-abib, does not mention their arrival there. Where they did go we are not told. The historian says 'to Babylon,' to which place, according to him, the first exiles (597 B. C.) were also brought; probably he does not, in either passage, mean only the capital of the Chaldean kingdom, but rather the province of that name to which the city of course belonged. … Nebuchadnezzar's purpose, the prevention of fresh disturbances, having been attained by their removal from Judæa, he could now leave them to develop their resources. It was even for the interest of the districts in which they settled, that their development should not be obstructed. Many unnecessary and troublesome conflicts were avoided and the best provision was made for the maintenance of order, by leaving them free, within certain limits, to regulate their own affairs. So the elders of the families and tribes remained in possession of the authority which they had formerly exercised."

A. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel, chapter 7 (volume 2).

"About the middle of the sixth century before Christ, Cyrus, King of Elam, began the career of conquest which left him master of Western Asia. Greek writers of history have done full justice to the character of this extraordinary man, but what they tell of his origin, his early adventures and rise to power, is for the most part mere fable. … Within recent years a new light has been thrown on one of the dimmest figures of the old world by the discovery of contemporary documents, in which the Conqueror of Babylon himself records his victories and the policy of his reign. … It appears from the Inscriptions that the founder of the Persian Empire was by no means the parvenu prince described by Herodotus. Cyrus was a king's son, and in early youth, by legitimate succession, himself became a king. From Susa (Shushan) on the Choaspes, his capital city, he ruled over the fertile and populous region lying eastward of the Lower Tigris which bore the name of Elam or Susiana. This realm was one of the most ancient in Western Asia. … Nabonidus became king of Babylon in the year 555 B. C. He had raised himself to the throne by conspiracy and murder, and his position at first was insecure. The eastern provinces, Syria and Phœnicia, rose in revolt against the usurper, while the Medes on the north began a harassing warfare and threatened an invasion of Babylonia. This latter danger was averted for the time by an unlooked-for deliverance. In the sixth year of Nabonidus (550 B. C.) Cyrus led his army against Astyages, the Median king. The discontented soldiery of Astyages mutinied on the eve of battle, seized the person of their sovereign, and delivered him up to the enemy. … This bloodless victory added Media to the dominions of Cyrus, gave him Ecbatana as a second capital and place of arms, and more than doubled his military strength. … The real aim of Cyrus was the overthrow of Babylon, and the construction of a new and still wider empire on the ruins of the old. … Within the two years following his conquest of the Medes he had extended his sway over the kindred race of the Persians, from which he himself had sprung. The wild tribes of Iran had long looked greedily on the rich Chaldæan plains and cities, and only waited a leader before swooping down like ravenous birds on their prey. This leader appeared in Cyrus. … Forty years had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the great mass of the Jewish people to Babylonia (588 B. C.). During this period, under Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors on the throne, the exiles had lived in peace, following without interference their own customs, religious and social. … Nothing hindered them from leading a quiet and comfortable life among the Chaldæans, if only they were content to break with their past and give up hope for the future. {1909} But this was impossible for all true Israelites. They could not forget what they had been, or reconcile themselves to be what they now were. They had the means of livelihood in abundance, but to them their drink was as vinegar, their meat as gall. … The home-sickness of the people finds manifold expression in the literature of the Exile. … Now, as at every crisis in the national history, the Prophets stood forth, the true leaders of Israel. They kept the people constantly in mind of their high destinies, and comforted and encouraged them in their darkest hours. … Among the Jewish exiles, enlightened by the prophetic word, the name Koresh passed from lip to lip, and the movements of this new Conqueror were followed with straining eyes. … In the month Nisan (March) of the year 547 B. C., the ninth year of Nabonidus, Cyrus crossed the Tigris at the fords of Arbela, eastward of the modern Mosul, and began his first invasion of Babylonia. … Meanwhile the fainéant king Nabonidus lingered in his palace near Babylon, leaving the defence of the empire to his eldest son, the Prince Royal Belshazzar. Whether worsted in battle or, as is more likely, baffled by the difficulties in the way of an invader—the country seamed with water-courses, the numerous fortified towns, the Median Wall—Cyrus was forced to retreat. … In the seventeenth year of Nabonidus (539 B. C.) the King of Elam once more took the field against Babylon. This time the attack was made from the southeast. An opportune revolt of the southern provinces, probably fomented by Cyrus himself, opened the way for him into the heart of the land. … On all sides the disaffected subjects of Nabonidus went over to the invader, who passed on at the head of his 'vast army, innumerable, like the waters of a river,' without meeting any serious resistance. The last hope of Nabonidus rested on his Army of the North. In the month Tammuz (June) a pitched battle was fought near Routou, a town in Accad, and ended in the defeat of the Babylonians. A revolution followed at once. … Some days later the victorious army, under a lieutenant of the King, appeared before the walls of Babylon. The collapse of all authority made useless defences which were the wonder of the world; friendly hands threw open the brazen gates, and without a struggle the great city fell. … Four months later Cyrus entered Babylon in triumph. … The hitherto accepted opinion that Cyrus was an Aryan monotheist, a worshipper of Ormazd, and therefore so far in religious sympathy with the Jews, is seriously shaken if not overthrown by the Inscriptions which record his Babylonian conquest. Even if allowance be made for the fact that these are state documents, and reveal only what the monarch professed, not necessarily what he believed, there still remains the strong probability that Cyrus was not Zoroastrian in creed, but polytheist like his people of Elam. The Cyrus of the Inscriptions is either a fanatical idolater or simply an opportunist in matters of religion. The latter alternative is the more probable."

P. H. Hunter, After the Exile, part 1, chapters 1-2.

JEWS: B. C. 537. The return from Babylon.

"The fall of the metropolis had decided the fortune of the Babylonian kingdom, and the provinces. The most important of these was Syria, with the great trading places of the Phenicians on the Mediterranean. … The hopes of the Jews were at last fulfilled. The fall of Babylon had avenged the fall of Jerusalem, and the subjugation of Syria to the armies of Babylon opened the way for their return. Cyrus did not belie the confidence which the Jews had so eagerly offered him; without hesitation he gave the exiles permission to return and erect again their shrine at Jerusalem. The return of the captives and the foundation of a new state of the Jews was very much to his interest; it might contribute to support his empire in Syria. He did not merely count on the gratitude of the returning exiles, but as any revival of the Babylonian kingdom, or rebellion of the Syrians against the Persian empire, imperilled the existence of this community, which had not only to be established anew, but would never be very strong, it must necessarily oppose any such attempts. Forty-nine years—seven Sabbatical years, instead of the ten announced by Jeremiah—had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem, and more than sixty since Jeremiah had first announced the seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Cyrus commissioned Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, a grandson of Jechoniah, the king who had been carried away captive, and therefore a scion of the ancient royal race, and a descendant of David, to be the leader of the returning exiles, to establish them in their abode, and be the head of the community; he bade his treasurer Mithridates give out to him the sacred vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away as trophies to Babylon, and placed in the temple of Bel; there are said to have been more than 5,000 utensils of gold and silver, baskets, goblets, cups, knives, etc. But all the Jews in Babylon did not avail themselves of the permission. Like the Israelites deported by Sargon into Media and Assyria some 180 years previously, many of the Jews brought to Mesopotamia and Babylonia at the time of Jechoniah and Zedekiah, had found there a new home, which they preferred to the land of their fathers. But the priests (to the number of more than 3,000), many of the families of the heads of the tribes, all who cared for the sanctuary and the old country, all in whom Jehovah 'awoke the spirit,' as the Book of Ezra says, began the march over the Euphrates. With Zerubbabel was Joshua, the high priest, the most distinguished among all the Jews, a grandson of the high priest, Zeraiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had executed after the capture of Jerusalem. … It was a considerable multitude which left the land 'beyond the stream,' the waters of Babylon, to sit once more under the fig-tree in their ancient home, and build up the city of David and the temple of Jehovah from their ruins; 42,360 freemen, with 7,337 Hebrew men-servants and maid-servants; their goods were carried by 435 camels, 736 horses, 250 mules, and 6,720 asses (537 B. C.). The exodus of the Jews from Babylon is accompanied by a prophet with cries of joy, and announcements filled with the wildest hopes. … 'Go forth from Babylon,' he cries; 'fly from the land of the Chaldæans! Proclaim it with shouts of joy, tell it to the end of the earth and say: "Jehovah hath redeemed his servant Jacob."' {1910} 'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth glad tidings, that publisheth peace, that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth. Up, up, go forth, touch no unclean person; go forth from among them. Cleanse yourselves, ye that bear Jehovah's vessels. Ye shall go forth in joy, and be led in peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands. Jehovah goes before you, and the God of Israel brings up the rear. … Jehovah calls thee as an outcast sorrowful woman, and thy God speaks to thee as to a bride who has been put away; thy ruins, and deserts, and wasted land, which was destroyed from generation to generation—thy people build up the ruins, and renew the ancient cities. Behold, I will make thy desert like Eden, and thy wilderness like the garden of the Lord; I will lay thy stones with bright lead, and thy foundations with sapphires, and make thy towers of rubies and thy gates of carbuncles. Joy and delight is in them, thanksgiving and the sound of strings. The wealth of the sea shall come to thee, and the treasures of the nations shall be thine; like a stream will I bring salvation upon Israel, and the treasures of the nations like an overflowing river. Thy sons hasten onward; those that laid thee waste go forth from thee. Lift up thine eyes and see; thy sons come from far, and I will gather them to those that are gathered together. The islands and the ships of Tarshish wait to bring thy children from afar, their gold and their silver with them. The land will be too narrow for the inhabitants; widen the place for thy tent, let the carpets of thy habitation be spread—delay not. Draw out the rope; to the right and to the left must thou be widened. I will set up my banner for the nations, that they bring thy sons in their arm, and thy daughters shall be carried on the shoulders. Kings shall be thy guardians, and queens thy nursing-mothers; I will bow them to the earth before thee, and they shall lick the dust of thy feet, and thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, and they who wait patiently for me shall not be put to shame.' Such expectations and hopes were far from being realised. The Edomites had, in the mean-time, extended their borders and obtained possession of the South of Judah, but the land immediately round Jerusalem was free and no doubt almost depopulated. As the returning exiles contented themselves with the settlement at Jerusalem, the towns to the North, Anathoth, Gebah, Michmash, Kirjath-Jearim, and some others—only Bethlehem is mentioned to the South—they found nothing to impede them. Their first care was the restoration of the worship, according to the law and the custom of their fathers. … Then voluntary gifts were collected from all for the rebuilding of the temple; contributions even came in from those who had remained in Babylonia, so that 70,000 pieces of gold and 5,000 mimæ of silver are said to have been amassed. Tyrian masons were hired, and agreements made with Tyrian carpenters, to fell cedars in Lebanon, and bring them to Joppa, for which Cyrus had given his permission. The foundation of the temple was laid in the second year of the return (536 B. C.). … The fortunate beginning of the restoration of the city and temple soon met with difficulties. The people of Samaria, who were a mixture of the remnant of the Israelites and the strangers whom Sargon had brought there after the capture of Samaria, … and Esarhaddon at a later date, … came to meet the exiles in a friendly spirit, and offered them assistance, from which we must conclude that in spite of the foreign admixture the Israelitish blood and the worship of Jehovah were preponderant in Samaria. The new temple would thus have been the common sanctuary of the united people of Israel. But the 'sons of captivity' were too proud of the sorrows which they had undergone, and the fidelity which they had preserved to Jehovah, and their pure descent, to accept this offer. Hence the old quarrel between Israel and Judah broke out anew, and the exiles soon felt the result. After their repulse the Samaritans set themselves to hinder the building by force; 'they terrified the exiles that they built no more, and hired counsellors to make the attempt vain during the whole of the remainder of the reign of Cyrus.'"

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 8, chapter 8 (volume 6).

The duration of the Captivity, strictly speaking, "was only forty-seven years, if we reckon by the Canon of Ptolemy, from the 19th year of Nabuchodrozzor to the first of Cyrus; or, better, forty-nine years, if we add on, as we probably ought to do, the two years' reign of the Median king whom Cyrus set on the throne of Babylon."

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 5, introduction.

"The decree of Cyrus, at the close of the captivity, extended only to the rebuilding of the Temple. 'Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven … hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem.' And under this decree Jeshua and Zerubbabel 'builded the altar of the God of Israel. … But the foundation of the Temple of the Lord was not yet laid.' Afterwards they 'laid the foundation of the Temple of the Lord,' including, apparently, the outer wall, for their enemies made a representation to the king of Persia that the Jews were rebuilding the walls of their city: 'The Jews which came up from thee to us are … building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations.' And as the wall of the Temple, which was about twelve feet thick, gave a colour to the charge, a decree was issued by Artaxerxes to prohibit the further prosecution of the work. 'Then ceased the work of the house of God, which is at Jerusalem.' On the accession of Darius to the throne of Persia, Jeshua and Zerubbabel recommenced the restoration of the Temple, including the wall of the Outer Temple, for they 'began to build the house of God,' when their enemies again stepped forward, saying, 'Who hath commanded you to build this house, and to make up this wall?' And on a renewed complaint to the king of Persia, search was made for the decree of Cyrus, and when it was found, Darius permitted the Jews to proceed with the Temple; 'Let the governor of the Jews and the 'elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place;' and thereupon the structure and the outer walls thereof (the square of 600 feet) were completed: 'They builded and finished it … on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.' Thus far the rebuilding extended to the Temple only, and not to the walls of the city. Ezra afterwards obtained a decree to restore the nationality of the Jews, viz., to 'set magistrates and judges, which might judge all the people;' and afterwards Nehemiah, the cupbearer to the king, was enabled in a favourable moment to win from him express permission to rebuild the Baris, or Vestry, afterwards Antonia, and also the city: 'Send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it;' and a direction was given to the governors beyond the Euphrates to forward Nehemiah and his company to Jerusalem; and the king's forester was required to supply the necessary timber."

T. Lewin, Jerusalem, chapter 2.

{1911}

"The Jews returned home sobered and improved by their sufferings in exile, and entirely cured of their early hankering after idolatry. Having no political independence, and living under a governor, they devoted themselves all the more to religion, the only source and support of their nationality, and became zealots for the law, and for a devout carrying out of all its precepts, as far as practicable. All, indeed, could not be again restored, The most holy of the new temple was empty, for it was without the lost and irreplaceable ark of the covenant; the oracular ornaments of the high-priest had disappeared. As Jerusalem was now, far more than formerly, the head and heart of the nation, the high-priesthood … was the authority to which the nation willingly submitted; it served as the representative and pillar of unity, and the sons of David were forgotten. Another of the abiding consequences of their exile was, the altered mode of life which the nation led. At first they had been exclusively devoted to agriculture; but after mixing with strangers they learnt to engage in trade, and this inclination went on always increasing; it contributed essentially to their being spread far beyond the borders of Palestine, and to their multiplying their settlements in foreign lands."

J. J. I. Dollinger, The Gentile and the Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ, book 10, section 1 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 9.

JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50. The Babylonian Jews.

"There is something very remarkable in the history of this race, for the most part descendants of those families which had refused to listen to the summons of Zorobabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and to return to the possession of their native country. … The singular part of their history is this, that, though willing aliens from their native Palestine, they remained Jews in character and religion; they continued to be a separate people, and refused to mingle themselves with the population of the country in which they were domiciliated. While those who returned to the Holy Land were in danger of forming a mixed race, by intermarriages with the neighbouring tribes, which it required all the sternest exercise of authority in their rulers to prevent, the Babylonian Jews were still as distinct a people as the whole race of Israel has been since the final dispersion. … Nor did they, like the Jews of Alexandria, become in any degree independent of the great place of national worship; they were as rigid Jews as if they had grown up within sight of the Temple. … The Temple became what the Caaba of Mecca is to the Mohammedans, the object of the profoundest reverence, and sometimes of a pious pilgrimage; but the land of their fathers had lost its hold on their affections; they had no desire to exchange the level plains of Babylonia for the rich pastures, the golden cornfields, or the rocky vineyards of Galilee and Judæa. This Babylonian settlement was so numerous and flourishing, that Philo more than once intimates the possibility of their marching in such force to the assistance of their brethren in Palestine, in case the Roman oppression was carried to excess, as to make the fate of the war very doubtful. Their chief city Nearda, was strongly situated in a bend of the river Euphrates, which almost surrounded the town." About the middle of the first century (of the Christian era) a band of freebooters, formed by two brothers of this Jewish community, gave great provocation to the Babylonians, and to the Parthian king whose subjects they then were. They were finally, but with much difficulty, destroyed, and the Babylonians then "began to commit dreadful reprisals on the whole Jewish population. The Jews, unable to resist, fled in great numbers to Seleucia; six years after many more took refuge from a pestilence in the same city. Seleucia happened to be divided into two factions: one of the Greeks, the other of the Syrians. The Jews threw themselves into the scale of the Syrians, who thus obtained a superiority, till the Greeks came to terms with the Syrians; and both parties agreed to fall upon the unhappy Jews. As many as 50,000 men were slain. The few who escaped fled to Ctesiphon. Even there the enmity of the Seleucians pursued them; and at length the survivors took refuge in their old quarters, Nearda and Nisibis."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 12 (volume 2).

JEWS: B. C. 433-332. The century of Silence.

"The interval between the Testaments has been called 'The Centuries of Silence.' The phrase is most untrue; for, as a whole, this time was vocal with the cry of a battle in which empire contended with empire, and philosophy with philosophy: it was an age of earnest and angry contention. But the hundred years succeeding the death of Nehemiah are for us, so far as any record remains of that Judæan history, a century of silence. For some reason which does not appear, the period from the death of this sturdy old captain at Jerusalem to the time of the Greek conquest of Persia has no Jewish history. That it was a period of growth and development with the Judæans—especially in their theological and ecclesiastical life—is evident from the changes which the close of the century shows. The stress of external events made it a time of heavy taxation and distress,—a time of struggle with Samaria, and of internal conflict for the control of the high priest's office."

_T. R Slicer, Between the Testaments (The New World, March, 1892)._

JEWS: B. C. 413-332. The rule of the High Priests.

"After the death of Nehemiah and the high priest, Eliashib (413 B. C.), the Persian Court did not appoint governors of Judea. Samaria was the seat of the Persian Satrap for Syria, Phœnicia and Palestine. The sons of David had lost prestige under Nehemiah (Psalm lxxxix.). The ruler acknowledged by the Law, the prophet (Deuteronomy xviii. 15), was no more; the last prophets under Nehemiah, with the exception of Malachi, had proved unworthy of their illustrious predecessors. Therefore, the high priest was now the first man in the theocracy, and, contrary to the Laws of Moses (Leviticus x. 3), he was acknowledged the chief ruler of the nation, although he was no longer the bearer of the Urim and Thumim (Ezra ii. 63). He presided over the Great Synod, was the representative of the people before the king and his satrap, and gradually he established himself in the highest dignity of the nation."

I. M. Wise, History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, 1st period, chapter 4.

{1912}

JEWS: B. C. 332-167. The Greek domination. Jewish dispersion. Hellenism.

On the fall of the Persian monarchy, Judea, with all the rest of western Asia, was gathered into the empire of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after), Jerusalem submitting to him without a siege, and so avoiding the fate of Tyre. In the wars between Alexander's generals and successors, which followed his death, Palestine changed masters several times, but does not seem to have been much disturbed. The High Priests continued to be the chiefs of the nation, and neither the religion nor the internal government of the Hebrew state suffered much interference. The final partition made among the new Macedonian kings (B. C. 302), gave Palestine to Ptolemy of Egypt, and it remained subject to Egypt for a century. This period was a happy one, on the whole, for the Jews. The Ptolemies were friendly to them, with one exception, respecting their religion and laws. Large numbers of them settled in Egypt, and especially in the rising new capital and emporium of trade—Alexandria. But in 201 B. C. Antiochus the Great, king of the Syrian or Seleucid monarchy, wrested Cœlosyria and Palestine from the Ptolemies and added it to his own dominions.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

Antiochus dealt favorably with the Jews, but his successors proved harder masters than the Egyptian Greeks.

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 5, section 2 (volume 5).

"These kings promoted the settlement of Greeks and Syrians in Palestine, so that it was by degrees all covered with cities and towns of Grecian nomenclature. The narrow territory of Judea alone kept free of them, but was surrounded with settlers whose speech, customs, and creed were Greek. On the other hand, the Jews went on spreading in lands where Greek was spoken. A good many of these were planted in Egypt, in the newly founded capital Antioch, in Lydia and Phrygia. Led on by their love of trade, they soon became numerous in the commercial cities of western Asia, Ephesus, Pergamus, Miletus, Sardis, &c. From Egypt and Alexandria, in which city, at a later period, they formed two-fifths of the inhabitants, they drew along the coast of Africa to Cyrene and the towns of the Pentapolis, and from Asia Anterior to the Macedonian and Greek marts; for the national love of commerce became more and more developed, till it absorbed all other occupations, and to this certainly the general inclination for commercial intercourse, prevalent at that period, greatly contributed. Thus it happened that two movements, identical in their operation, crossed each other, viz., an influx of Greek, or of Asiatic but hellenised, settlers into Palestine, and an outpouring of Jews and Samaritans into the, cities speaking the Greek tongue. In olden times, while the Israelites still possessed a national kingdom, they felt their isolation from other people as a burden. It was as an oppressive yoke to them, which they bore impatiently, and were always trying to shake off. They wanted to live like other nations, to eat, drink, and intermarry with them, and, together with their own God, to honour the gods of the stranger also; for many raw and carnally-minded Jews only looked upon the one special God and protector of their nation as one god amongst many. But now there was a complete change in this respect. The Jews everywhere lived and acted upon the fundamental principle, that between them and all other nations there was an insurmountable barrier; they shut themselves off, and formed in every town separate corporations, with officers of their own; while at the same time they kept up a constant connexion with the sanctuary at Jerusalem. They paid a tribute to the temple there, which was carefully collected everywhere, and from time to time conveyed in solemn procession to Jerusalem. There alone, too, could the sacrifices and gifts which were demanded by the law be offered. In this wise they preserved a centre and a metropolis. And yet there followed from all this an event, which in its consequences was one of the most important in history, namely, the hellenising of the Jews who were living out of Judea, and even, in a degree, of those who remained in their own land. They were a people too gifted intellectually to resist the magnetic power by which the Hellenistic tongue and modes of thought and action worked even upon such as were disposed to resist them on principle. The Jews in the commercial towns readily acquired the Greek, and soon forgot their mother tongue; and as the younger generation already in their domestic circle were not taught Greek by natives, as might be supposed, this Jewish Greek grew into a peculiar idiom, the Hellenistic. During the reign of the second Ptolemy, 284-247 B. C., the law of Moses was translated at Alexandria into Greek, probably more to meet the religious wants of the Jews of the dispersion than to gratify the desire of the king. The necessity of a knowledge of Hebrew for the use of the holy Scriptures was thereby done away with, and Greek language and customs became more and more prevalent. Individuals began to join this or that school of philosophy, according to predilection and intellectual bias. The Platonic philosophy had necessarily most attractions for the disciples of Moses. The intrusion of Hellenism into Judea itself met with a much more considerable resistance from the old believing and conservative Jews. Those of the heathen dispersion were obliged to be satisfied with mere prayer, Bible readings and expositions, in their proseuchæ and synagogues, and to do without the solemn worship and sacrifices of the temple; but in Jerusalem the temple-worship was carried out with all its ancient usages and symbols. There presided the Sopherim, the Scribes or skilled expounders of the law, a title first appropriated to Esdras (about 450 B. C.). He was one of the founders of the new arrangements in the restored state, and was a priest, and at the same time a judge appointed by the king of Persia. … From that time forth dependence on the law, pride in its possession as the pledge of divine election, and the careful custody of this wall of partition, sank deep into the character of the nation, and became the source of many advantages as well as of serious faults. … The later Jewish tradition makes much mention of the great synagogue believed to have existed already in the time of Esdras, or to have been founded by him. It is supposed to have mustered 120 members, and, under the presidency of the high-priest, was to be the guardian of the law and doctrine. {1913} One of its last rulers was Simon the Just, who was high-priest, and the most distinguished doctor of his time (that of the first Ptolemys). Afterwards this threefold dignity or function of high-priest, scribe or rabbi, and of Nasi or prince of the synagogue, were never united in one person. … The high-priesthood fell into contempt, the more it served foreign rulers as the venal instrument of their caprice; but the Scribes flourished as being the preservers of all theological and juridical knowledge, and were supported by the respect and confidence of the people. … By the year 170 B. C., Hellenism had undoubtedly made such progress among the Jews, in Palestine even, that the Assyrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, was able to plan the extirpation of the Jewish religion, and the conversion of the temple at Jerusalem into a temple of Jupiter Olympius."

J. J. I. Döllinger, The Gentile and the Jew in the Courts of the Temple of Christ, book 10, section 1 (volume 2).

Twice, Antiochus Epiphanes crushed rebellion in Jerusalem with awful ferocity. On the last occasion, the slain were believed to number 80,000, while 10,000 captives were led away and sold as slaves. The city was sacked and partly burned; the Temple was plundered and polluted. "Not content with these enormities, Antiochus determined to abolish altogether the Jewish religion, and, if possible, entirely to exterminate the race. With this intention, he issued an edict throughout his dominions, calling upon all the nations who were subject to his authority to renounce their religion and worship his gods, and this order he enforced with the most severe pains and penalties. The Jews were the only people who ventured to disobey the edict, whereupon, Antiochus ordered them to be treated with the utmost rigour, and sent to Jerusalem an old man named Atheneas, who was well versed in the rites of the Greek worship, as commissioner, to enforce obedience to his commands. This old pagan dedicated the Temple to Jupiter Olympus, and placed a statue of that false deity upon the altar of burnt offering. This desecration was not confined to Jerusalem, for everywhere throughout the Syrian empire groves and temples were dedicated, and statues and altars erected, to the heathen deities, and the worship of the true God was everywhere prohibited, and punished as the worst of crimes. That the chief fury of Antiochus's impious rage was directed against the Jews is evident from the fact that, whilst a general edict was published, condemning to death or torture all those who refused to worship the idols, a special decree was promulgated, by which it was made death to offer sacrifices to the God of Israel, observe the Sabbath, practise circumcision, or indeed to conform in the smallest degree to the precepts of the Mosaic law. Every effort was also made to destroy the copies of the Holy Scriptures; and persons refusing to deliver them up were punished by death. In this terrible distress, many of the Jews abandoned their homes and took shelter in the wilderness, where 'they lived in the mountains after the manner of beasts, and fed on herbs continuously lest they should be partakers of the pollution' (Maccabees v.). Of those who remained behind, some few yielded to the temptation, and saved themselves by apostacy, but the majority remained faithful to the God of their forefathers, Who, in His own good time, hearkened to the prayers of His people, and sent them a deliverer."

E. H. Palmer, History of the Jewish Nation, chapter 7.

JEWS: B. C. 166-40. Revolt of the Maccabees. Reign of the Asmoneans. Rise of Herod.

The heroic family called The Maccabees, which began and led the revolt of the Jewish people against the oppression and persecution of the Seleucidæan kings, bore, also, the name of the Asmonean or Hasmonean family, derived from the name of "its chief of four generations back, Chasmon, or Asmon, 'the magnate.'" The head of the family at the time of the outbreak of the revolt, and who precipitated it, was Mattathias. He had five sons, the third of whom, Judas, became the military leader and great hero of the nation in its struggle. To Judas was given the surname or appellation of Makkabi, from whence came his historical name of Judas Maccabæus, and the general name of The Maccabees by which his family at large is commonly designated. The surname "Makkabi" is conjectured to have had the same meaning as that of Charles the "Martel"—viz., the "Hammerer"; but this is questioned. "Under Judas the revolt assumed larger proportions, and in a short time he was able to meet and defeat the Syrians in the open field. The situation which the Romans had created in Syria was favourable to the Jewish cause. In order to find money to pay the tribute imposed by Rome upon his house; Antiochus had to undertake an expedition into the Far East, which depleted Syria of a large number of troops. During the king's absence the government of the country was entrusted to a high functionary named Lysias. Lysias took a serious view of the rebellion in Judæa, and despatched a force under the command of three generals to suppress it. But this army met with alarming reverses at the hands of Judas, and Lysias was obliged to go to Palestine in person to conduct the campaign. Meanwhile Antiochus had been apprised of the disasters which had befallen his captains, and was hastening homewards to assume the supreme direction of affairs, when death put a termination to his career (B. C. 164). The pressure of Roman policy upon Antiochus was the indirect cause of the Jewish revolt, and the immediate cause of the king's inability to suppress it. After the death of Antiochus, the distracted state of Syria and the struggles of rival pretenders for the crown strengthened the position of the Jewish patriots. Antiochus V., son of the late king, was only nine years old when he began to reign (B. C. 164). His father had appointed a courtier named Philip regent during his son's minority. But this arrangement did not satisfy Lysias, who had the young king in his custody, and who was carrying on the campaign in Palestine when the news of his supersession by Philip arrived. Lysias immediately left off the contest with Judas, and devoted his energies to the task of resisting Philip's claims. At this juncture, if any historic value can be attached to a statement in the Second Book of the Maccabees, two Roman envoys, Quintus Memmius and Titus Manlius, who were probably on their way from Alexandria to Antioch, offered to take charge of Jewish interests at the Syrian capital. Peace is said to have been the outcome of their efforts (B. C. 162). But it was a peace which did not endure. {1914} In the following year the Syrian king once more invaded Palestine at the head of a great army, and, in spite of the strenuous opposition of Judas, laid siege to the Holy City. Famine soon reduced the garrison to the last extremities, and their fate would have been a hard one had not the disordered condition of Syria compelled the besiegers to accept honourable terms. Whilst the siege was in progress news came to the Syrian camp that Philip had put himself at the head of a large army, with the intention of enforcing his claims to the regency. No time was to be lost, and the king, acting on the advice of Lysias, accorded the Jews religious liberty. Jerusalem capitulated; and the same order of things was established as had existed previous to the insurrection. Soon after these events Antiochus V. was dethroned and executed by his relative, Demetrius I. In Judæa the new monarch allowed the people to retain the religious liberties granted them by his predecessor, and had he exercised more judgment in the selection of a High Priest it would have been impossible for Judas to renew the struggle against Syria with any prospect of success. The Assidæans, or Pious Ones, who afterwards developed into the party known as the Pharisees, and who, while their religion was at stake, were devoted followers of Judas, were satisfied with the attainment of religious freedom. But Judas and his friends, who formed the party which afterwards became the Sadducees, … were unwilling to relax their efforts till the country was completely independent. The Assidæans, consisting of the scribes and the bulk of the population, accepted Alcimus, the High Priest whom Demetrius had appointed, and were disposed for peace. But the senseless barbarities of Alcimus threw the Assidæans once more into the arms of the war party, and the struggle began afresh. The High Priest was obliged to flee from Jerusalem; Demetrius sent an army to reinstate him, but Judas defeated the Syrian forces, and the Jews enjoyed a short period of repose. … Two Jewish delegates, Eupolemos and Jason, were sent to Italy to form an alliance with Rome. The Senate, which never neglected an opportunity of crippling the Syrian monarchy, accorded a favourable reception to the Jewish envoys, and acknowledged the independence of their country. … While these negotiations were taking place the Syrian army again invaded Palestine. Judas went forth to meet them, and, after a desperate conflict, was defeated and slain [at Beer-Zath] (B. C. 161). The death of their leader shattered the party of freedom, and the Romans, probably because they saw no distinct centre of authority left standing in the country, ignored the treaty they had just made with the Jewish envoys, and left Judæa to its fate. It was not by direct intervention that the Romans helped the Jews forward on the path of independence; it was by the disintegrating action of Roman policy on the kingdom of Syria. The Jewish leaders did not fail to take advantage of the opportunities which were thus afforded them. About nine years after the death of Judas Maccabæus, the Romans started a new pretender to the Syrian crown in the person of Alexander Balas, a young man of unknown origin (B. C. 152). Supported by the allies of Rome, Balas was able to take the field against Demetrius, who became alarmed at the threatening aspect of affairs: Jonathan, a brother of Judas, was then at the head of the Jewish patriots (B. C. 161-142), and Demetrius attempted by concessions to win him over to his side. When the pretender Balas heard of this, he immediately outbade Demetrius, and offered Jonathan the High Priesthood as the price of his support. Jonathan sold himself to the highest bidder, and, notwithstanding further profuse promises from Demetrius, the Jewish leader remained true to his allegiance. The war between the two rivals did not last long; Demetrius was overthrown and slain (B. C. 151), and at the marriage of the new king, Jonathan was appointed civil and military governor of Judæa." The spiritual and the temporal government of the Jews was now united in the office of High Priest. Jonathan, captured and murdered by one of the Syrian pretenders, was succeeded in the office (B. C. 142), by another brother, Simon, who was assassinated, B. C. 135, by an ambitious son-in-law. Simon's son, John Hyrcanus, took his place.

W. D. Morrison, The Jews under Roman Rule, chapter 1.

The Asmonean family had now become so established in its princely character that the next of the line, Judas (who took the Greek name Aristobulus), assumed the crown and title of King (B. C. 105). Aristobulus reigned less than two years, and was succeeded by his brother Jonathan (Jannæus) Alexander. "These Jewish princes were as wide apart in character as in name from the house whose honours they inherited. Aristobulus, the bloody, … starved in prison his mother, whom John had left as regent. … Alexander, named Jannæus, in a reign of five and twenty years, was mostly occupied in petty wars,—generally unsuccessful, but indefatigable to begin afresh. He signalized himself in successive revolts of his people, first by the barbarous slaughter of 6,000, then by a civil war of some six years, which cost 10,000 lives, and finally by crucifying 800. … A restless, dissolute, ambitious man, called 'the Thracian' for his barbarities, his rule abhorred except for the comparative mercy he showed in the cities he had conquered, he died [B. C. 79] before the age of fifty, having done the one service of confirming the Jewish power upon the soil of Palestine."

J. H. Allen, Hebrew Men and Times, chapter 10.

"When … Jannæus Alexander died, the Jewish kingdom stretched towards the south over the whole Philistian territory as far as the Egyptian frontier; towards the south-east as far as the Nabatæan kingdom of Petra, from which Jannæus had wrested considerable tracts on the right bank of the Jordan and the Dead Sea; towards the north over Samaria and the Decapolis up to the lake of Gennesareth; here he was already making arrangements to occupy Ptolemais (Acco) and victoriously to repel the aggressions of the Ityræans. The coast obeyed the Jews from Mount Carmel as far as Rhinocorura, including the important Gaza—Ascalon alone was still free; so that the territory of the Jews, once almost cut off from the sea, could now be enumerated among the asylums of piracy. Now that the Armenian invasion, just as it approached the borders of Judæa, was averted by the intervention of Lucullus, … the gifted rulers of the Hasmonæan house would probably have carried their arms still further, had not the development of the power of that remarkable conquering sacerdotal state been arrested by internal divisions. {1915} The spirit of religious independence and the national patriotism—the energetic union of which had called the Maccabee state into life—very soon became dissociated and even antagonistic. The Jewish orthodoxy [or Pharisaism] gaining fresh strength in the times of the Maccabees, … proposed as its practical aim a community of Jews composed of the orthodox in all lands essentially irrespective of the secular government—a community which found its visible points of union in the tribute to the temple at Jerusalem obligatory on every conscientious Jew and in the schools of religion and spiritual courts, and its canonical superintendence in the great temple consistory at Jerusalem, which was reconstituted in the first period of the Maccabees and may be compared as respects its sphere of jurisdiction to the Roman pontifical college. Against this orthodoxy, which was becoming more and more ossified into theological formalism and a painful ceremonial service, was arrayed the opposition of the so-called Sadducees—partly dogmatic, in so far as these innovators acknowledged only the sacred books themselves and conceded authority merely, not canonicity, to the 'bequests of the scribes,' that is canonical tradition; partly political, in so far as instead of a fatalistic waiting for the strong arm of the Lord of Zebaoth they taught that the salvation of the nation was to be expected from the weapons of this world, and above all from the internal and external strengthening of the kingdom of David as re-established in the glorious times of the Maccabees. The partisans of orthodoxy found their support in the priesthood and the multitude. … Jannæus had kept down the priesthood with a strong hand; under his two sons there arose … a civil and fraternal war, since the Pharisees opposed the vigorous Aristobulus and attempted to obtain their objects under the nominal rule of his brother, the good-natured and indolent Hyrcanus. This dissension not merely put a stop to the Jewish conquests, but gave also foreign nations opportunity to interfere and to obtain a commanding position in southern Syria. This was the case first of all with the Nabatæans. This remarkable nation has often been confounded with its eastern neighbours, the wandering Arabs, but it is more closely related to the Aramæan branch than to the proper children of Ishmael. This Aramæan, or, according to the designation of the Occidentals, Syrian, stock must have in very early times sent forth from its most ancient settlements about Babylon a colony, probably for the sake of trade, to the northern end of the Arabian gulf; these were the Nabatæans on the Sinaitic peninsula, between the gulf of Suez and Aila, and in the region of Petra (Wadi Mousa). In their ports the wares of the Mediterranean were exchanged for those of India; the great southern caravan-route, which ran from Gaza to the mouth of the Euphrates and the Persian gulf, passed through the capital of the Nabatæans—Petra—whose still magnificent rock-palaces and rock-tombs furnish clearer evidence of the Nabatæan civilization than does an almost extinct tradition. The party of the Pharisees, to whom after the manner of priests the victory of their faction seemed not too dearly bought at the price of the independence and integrity of their country, solicited Aretas the king of the Nabatæans for aid against Aristobulus, in return for which they promised to give back to him all the conquests wrested from him by Jannæus. Thereupon Aretas had advanced with, it was said, 50,000 men into Judæa and, reinforced by the adherents of the Pharisees, he kept king Aristobulus besieged in his capital."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4).

"While this was going on, Pompey had meanwhile begun his victorious campaign in Asia [see ROME: B. C. 69-63]. He had conquered Mithridates in B. C. 66, and had in the same year received the voluntary submission of Tigranes. While he himself now pressed on farther into Asia, he sent Scaurus to Syria in B. C. 65. When that general arrived at Damascus he heard of the war between the brothers in Judea, and pushed forward without delay to see how he might turn to account this strife between the rival princes. He had scarcely reached Judea when ambassadors presented themselves before him, both from Aristobulus and from Hyrcanus. They both sought his favour and support. Aristobulus offered him in return four hundred talents; and Hyrcanus could not be behind, and so promised the same sum. But Scaurus trusted Aristobulus rather because he was in a better position to fulfil his engagement, and so decided to take his side. He ordered Aretas to withdraw if he did not wish to be declared an enemy of the Romans. Aretas did not venture to show opposition. He therefore raised the siege, and thereupon Scaurus returned to Damascus. But Aristobulus pursued Aretas on his way homeward, and inflicted upon him a crushing defeat. But the Roman favour which Aristobulus had so exerted himself to secure, under the protection of which he believed himself to be safe, soon proved fatal to his well-being and that of his country. He himself left no stone unturned in order to win the goodwill of Pompey as well as of Scaurus. He sent Pompey a costly present, a skilfully wrought golden vine worth five hundred talents, which Strabo found still on view at Rome in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. But all this could not save Aristobulus, whenever Pompey found it to be for his advantage to withdraw his favour and take the side of Hyrcanus. In the spring of B. C. 63, Pompey proceeded from his winter quarters into Syria, subdued the greater and smaller princes in the Lebanon, and advanced by way of Heliopolis and Chalcis upon Damascus. There he was met at one and the same time by representatives of three Jewish parties. Not only did Aristobulus and Hyrcanus appear, but the Jewish people also sent an embassy. Hyrcanus complained that Aristobulus, in defiance of all law, had violently assumed the government; Aristobulus justified his conduct by pointing out the incapacity of Hyrcanus. But the people wished to have nothing to do with either, asked for the abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of the old theocratic constitution of the priests. Pompey heard them, but cautiously deferred any decision, and declared that he would put all things in order when he had accomplished his contemplated expedition against the Nabatheans. Till then all parties were to maintain the peace. Aristobulus, however, was by no means satisfied with this arrangement, and betrayed his discontent by suddenly quitting Dium, whither he had accompanied Pompey on his expedition against the Nabatheans. Pompey grew suspicious, postponed his campaign against the Nabatheans, and marched immediately against Aristobulus. {1916} He … pursued him through Jericho, and soon appeared in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. But now Aristobulus lost heart. He betook himself to the camp of Pompey, gave him further presents, and promised to surrender to him the city if Pompey would suspend hostilities. Pompey was satisfied with this, and sent his general Gabinius to take possession of the city, while he retained Aristobulus in the camp. But Gabinius returned without having obtained his object, for the people in the city had shut the gates against him. Pompey was so enraged at this that he put Aristobulus in prison, and immediately advanced against the city. … The city was surrendered to Pompey, who sent in his legate Piso, and without drawing sword took possession of it. But the war faction gathered together on the temple mount and there prepared themselves for resistance. The temple mount was then, as afterwards, the strongest point in Jerusalem. It presented to the east and the south a sheer precipice. Also on the west it was separated from the city by a deep ravine. Only on the north was there a gradual slope; but even there approach was made almost impossible by the construction of strong fortifications. In this fortress, well nigh impregnable, the adherents of Aristobulus had now taken refuge, and Pompey, whether he would or not, had to engage upon a regular siege. … After a three months' siege, a breach was made in the wall. A son of the dictator Sulla was the first to make way through it with his troops. Others quickly followed. Then began a frightful massacre. The priests, who were then engaged offering sacrifice, would not desist from the execution of their office, and were hewn down at the altar. No less than 12,000 Jews are said to have lost their lives in this general butchery. It was towards the close of autumn of the year B. C. 63, under Cicero's consulship, according to Josephus on the very day of atonement, according to Dio Cassius on a Sabbath, that this holy city bowed its head before the Roman commander. Pompey himself forced his way into the Most Holy Place, into which only the feet of the high priest had ever before entered. But he left the treasures and precious things of the temple untouched, and also took care that the service of God should be continued without interruption. On the besieged he passed a severe sentence. Those who had promoted the war were beheaded; the city and the country were made tributary. … The boundaries of the Jewish territories were greatly curtailed. All the coast towns from Raphia to Dora were taken from the Jews; and also all non-Jewish towns on the east of the Jordan, such as Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Dium, and others; also Scythopolis and Samaria, with the regions around them. All these towns were immediately put under the rule of the governor of the newly-formed Roman province of Syria. The contracted Jewish territory was given over to Hyrcanus II., who was recognised as high priest, without the title of king. … With the institutions of Pompey the freedom of the Jewish people, after having existed for scarcely eighty years, if we reckon it as beginning in B. C. 142, was completely overthrown. Pompey, indeed, was acute enough to insist upon no essential change in the internal government of the country. He suffered the hierarchical constitution to remain intact, and gave the people as their high priest Hyrcanus II., who was favoured by the Pharisees. But the independence of the nation was at an end, and the Jewish high priest was a vassal of the Romans."

E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, division 1, volume 1, pages 317-324.

Hyrcanus II. was not merely the vassal of the Romans; he was the puppet of one of his own partisans—the able Idumean, Antipater, who gathered the reins of government into his own hands. "Antipater ruled without interfering with Hyrcanus; he rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, and appointed Phasael, the eldest of his four heroic sons (whose mother was Kypros, an Arabian), to be ruler of the district of the holy city, and Herod the younger to be ruler of Galilee. This young man, who was at that time scarcely twenty-five years old, was soon able to surpass even his father. … He purified Galilee from the robber-bands, of which Hezekiah was the most dreaded leader, and by so doing, although he was already a mark for the hatred borne by the national and priestly party against the Edomites, as friends of their new tyrants the Romans, he distinguished himself by dealing summarily with the robbers, without appealing to the legal authorities. He therefore appeared before the Sanhedrim of Jerusalem, to which he was summoned by Hyrcanus, with a military escort, wearing purple, with his head anointed, and bearing a letter of safe-conduct from his patron Sextus Cæsar, the ruler of Syria. … Hyrcanus allowed him to withdraw in defiance: he hastened to Syria, bought the governments of Cœle-Syria and Samaria (B. C. 46), marched thence with an army towards Jerusalem, and when he had with difficulty been persuaded by his father and brother to return, he rejoiced that he had at least menaced the country. Neither the death of Julius Cæsar (B. C. March 44), the civil war at Rome, nor the poisoning of his father Antipater at the table of Hyrcanus in the year 43, interfered with Herod's success: He bought the favour of Cæsar's murderers by the unexampled haste with which he brought in large contributions, amounting to a hundred talents (more than £20,000) from Galilee alone, so that Cassius appointed him Procurator of Syria, and promised him the dignity of king, in the event of a victory over Anthony and Octavianus, a prospect which indeed cost his father his life. Nor was Herod's power destroyed by the unfortunate battle of Philippi in the autumn of B. C. 42. He succeeded in gaining Anthony by the influence of his person and of his wealth; and in spite of all the embassies of the Jews, Phasael and Herod were appointed tetrarchs of the whole of Judea in the year B. C. 41. His betrothal to Mariamne, grand-child of Hyrcanus, which took place at the same time, added the illusion of national and hereditary right to Herod's previous good fortune. But there was first an interval of hardship. Immediately afterwards, the Parthian armies overran Upper Asia, while Anthony remained in Egypt, ensnared by Cleopatra: they took Jerusalem [B. C. 40], and to please that place as well as the Jews of Babylon, they installed Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, as king, taking Phasael and Hyrcanus prisoners, while Herod escaped with difficulty. All was ended with a blow, Herod was put to flight, Phasael killed himself, and Antigonus cut off the cars of Hyrcanus the high priest. Herod landed in Italy as an adventurer. {1917} He met Anthony, and by his means also gained over Octavianus. Fear and hatred of the Parthians effected even more than old acquaintance and new engagements: and beyond his most daring hopes a decree of the senate [B. C. 40] bestowed the kingdom of Judea upon him."

T. Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, volume I, page 231.

JEWS: B. C. 40-A. D. 44. Herod and the Herodians. Roman rule.

Returning to Judæa with his new rank and the confirmed support of Rome, "Herod slowly obtained possession of the country, not without the help of Roman legions, and in a third campaign, in June (Sivan), B. C. 37, occupied Jerusalem [after a siege of half a year] and the Temple, in the halls of which fire raged, contrary to his wish, and blood streamed through its courts. This was the second Roman occupation of Jerusalem, after an interval of twenty-six years, even to a day. Antigonus fell, by the king's wish, beneath the axe of Anthony, and the Maccabean house had ceased to reign. The new kingdom underwent its final crisis in the war between Octavianus and Anthony, in which Herod was constrained to take part with Anthony. … The frankness with which, after the battle of Actium (September, B. C. 31), he proclaimed his friendship for Anthony to Octavianus at the island of Rhodes, in order to set before him the prospect of a like faithfulness, procured the crown for him afresh, which Octavianus set upon his head." Octavianus "restored to him all the possessions which his intriguing enemy Cleopatra had obtained at his expense in the south of the country and on its western coast, giving to him Gadra, Hippo, Samaria, and on the coast Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, the tower of Strato, and in short the whole country, and even more than he had lost by Pompey's conquests. A few years later the same benefactor enlarged the kingdom on the north-east, by making over to Herod, between the years B. C. 24-21, the wide extent of territory reaching to Anti-Lebanon, and Damascus, in order to protect that city from attacks on the side of the desert. He was appointed Procurator-General of Syria, and afterwards nearly obtained the government of Arabia. It was in fact almost the kingdom of David which was again united under Herod. Herod enjoyed the favour of Octavianus, with few intervals, to the last. … Herod did not merely owe his success to that officious attention which displayed the greatness of Rome in costly hospitalities, gifts, and edifices of every kind, but to his genuine fidelity and manly heroism, his pre-eminent wisdom and readiness to accept the culture of the West, qualities which were recognized as adapting him to be a most useful ally in the territory which bounded the eastern empire of Rome, where the inhabitants were so ready to take offence. Herod, in a certain sense, emulated his friend in Rome, in introducing an Augustan era into his land. He, as well as Octavianus, put an end to war, and the dominion which had been cemented together by the blood of its citizens enjoyed a long peace, lasting for almost forty years. … The prosperity of the country increased so much in these quiet times that Herod, when he began to build the Temple, boasted of the wealth and income which had accumulated in an unprecedented manner, so as to confirm the most fabulous accounts of the luxurious expenditure of his reign. … Herod was not devoid of nobler qualities, even although they have been forgotten by the Jews and Christians. He was not merely a brave leader in war, a bold hunter and rider, and a sagacious ruler; there was in him a large-heartedness and an innate nobility of mind which enabled him to be a benefactor of his people. This fundamental characteristic of his nature, inherited from his father, is admitted by the Jewish historian, times out of number, and has been shown by his affection for his father, mother, and brothers, and also for his friends, by his beneficence in good fortune, and even in adversity. … When in the thirteenth year of his reign (B. C. 25), some years before the building of the Temple, famine and sickness devastated the land, he sold the gold and silver treasures in his house, and himself became poor, while he bespoke great quantities of grain from Egypt, which he dispensed, and caused to be made into bread: he clothed the poor, and fed 50,000 men at his own expense: he himself sent help to the towns of Syria, and obtained the immediate, and indeed the enduring gratitude of the people as a second Joseph. Yet it was only the large-heartedness of a barbarian, without true culture, or deeper morality. Hence came the unscrupulousness, the want of consideration for the national peculiarities which he opposed, the base cunning and vanity which coloured all his actions, and hence again, especially in later life, he became subject to caprices, to anger and repentance, to mistrust and cruelty, to the wiles of women and of eunuchs. He was, in short, only the petty tyrant, the successful upstart who was self-seeking, and at once rash and timid; a beggar before Augustus; a foolish time-server before the Greek and Roman world; a tyrant in his own house, and incapable either of resisting influence or of enduring contradiction. … The dangerous position of the upstart, with respect to the earlier royal family and to the national aversion, the divisions of his numerous family, the intrigues of a court of women, eunuchs, barbers, and frivolous flatterers of every description, drew him on, as if with demoniacal power, from one stage of cruelty to another. … Daily executions began on his entry into Jerusalem in the year B. C. 37 with the execution of Antigonus, of the nephew of Hyrcanus, and of his own dependants. … He pardoned no one whom he suspected: he enforced obedience by an oath, and whoever would not swear forfeited his life. Innumerable people disappeared mysteriously in the fortress of Hyrcania. Life was forfeited even for the offence of meeting or standing together, when it was noticed by the countless spies in the city and on the highways, and indeed by himself in his rounds by night. The bloody decimation of his own family was most revolting. About the year B. C. 35 he caused his wife's brother Aristobulus, who had been high priest for eighteen years, to be stifled by his Gallic guards in a pond at Jericho, because he was popular, and belonged to the old family: in the year B. C. 31, after the battle of Actium, he murdered his grandfather-in-law Hyrcanus, aged eighty years, and in the year B. C. 30 or 29 his wife Mariamne, and a little later her intriguing mother Alexandra, since they had become objects of suspicion to him: in the year B. C. 25 his brother-in-law, Kostobar, find a long line of friends were slain: about the year B. C. 6, the sons of Mariamne, Alexander and Aristobulus, were judicially condemned and strangled in Samaria: and finally the diabolical Antipater, the son of the first marriage, who, together with Salome, Herod's sister, and with Alexandra, his mother-in-law, had taken the greatest part in the crimes of the family."

T. Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, volume 1, pages 233-246.

{1918}

Herod died within the year (B. C. 4) which has been most generally agreed upon as that of the birth of Jesus. By ten wives he had had many children, and had slain not a few; but a large family survived, to quarrel over the heritage, disputing a will which Herod left. There was a hearing of the disputants at Rome, and also a hearing given to deputies of the Jewish people, who prayed to be delivered from the Herodian family, all and singly. The latter prayer, however, received small consideration. The imperial judgment established Archelaus, eldest son of Herod's sixth wife, Malthace, in the sovereignty of Judæa, Idumæa, and Samaria, with the title of Ethnarch. To Herod Antipas, second son of the same mother, it gave Galilee and Peræa. Philip, another son, by a seventh wife, was made tetrarch of a small principality. Archelaus governed so oppressively that, after some years (A. D. 6), he was deposed by the Romans and banished to Gaul. Judæa was then joined to the præfecture of Syria, under a succession of Roman governors, the fifth of whom was Pontius Pilate. "Judaea thus became in the year 6 A. D. a Roman province of the second rank, and, apart from the ephemeral restoration of the kingdom of Jerusalem under Claudius in the years 41-44, thenceforth remained a Roman province. Instead of the previous native princes holding office for life and, under reservation of their being confirmed by the Roman government, hereditary, came an official of the equestrian order, nominated and liable to recall by the emperor. The port of Caesarea rebuilt by Herod after a Hellenic model became, probably at once, the seat of Roman administration. The exemption of the land from Roman garrison, as a matter of course, ceased, but, as throughout in provinces of second rank, the Roman military force consisted only of a moderate number of cavalry and infantry divisions of the inferior class; subsequently one ala and five cohorts—about 3,000 men—were stationed there. These troops were perhaps taken over from the earlier government, at least in great part formed in the country itself, mostly, however, from Samaritans and Syrian Greeks. The province did not obtain a legionary garrison, and even in the territories adjoining Judaea there was stationed at the most one of the four Syrian legions. To Jerusalem there came a standing Roman commandant, who took up his abode in the royal castle, with a weak standing garrison; only during the time of the Passover, when the whole land and countless strangers flocked to the temple, a stronger division of Roman soldiers was stationed in a colonnade belonging to the temple. … For the native authorities in Judaea as everywhere the urban communities were, as far as possible, taken as a basis. Samaria, or as the town was now called, Sebaste, the newly laid out Caesarea, and the other urban communities contained in the former kingdom of Archelaus, were self-administering, under superintendence of the Roman authority. The government also of the capital with the large territory belonging to it was organised in a similar way. Already in the pre-Roman period under the Seleucids there was formed … in Jerusalem a council of the elders, the Synhedrion, or as Judaised, the Sanhedrin. The presidency in it was held by the high priest, whom each ruler of the land, if he was not possibly himself high priest, appointed for the time. To the college belonged the former high priests and esteemed experts in the law. This assembly, in which the aristocratic element preponderated, acted as the supreme spiritual representative of the whole body of Jews, and, so far as this was not to be separated from it, also as the secular representative in particular of the community of Jerusalem. It is only the later Rabbinism that has by a pious fiction transformed the Sanhedrion of Jerusalem into a spiritual institute of Mosaic appointment. It corresponded essentially to the council of the Greek urban constitution, but certainly bore, as respected its composition as well as its sphere of working, a more spiritual character than belonged to the Greek representations of the community. To this Synhedrion and its high priest, who was now nominated by the procurator as representative of the imperial suzerain, the Roman government left or committed that jurisdiction which in the Hellenic subject communities belonged to the urban authorities and the common councils. With indifferent short-sightedness it allowed to the transcendental Messianism of the Pharisees free course, and to the by no means transcendental land-consistory—acting until the Messiah should arrive—tolerably free sway in affairs of faith, of manners, and of law, where Roman interests were not directly affected thereby. This applied in particular to the administration of justice. It is true that, as far as Roman burgesses were concerned in the matter, justice in civil as in criminal affairs must have been reserved for the Roman tribunals even already before the annexation of the land. But civil justice over the Jews remained even after that annexation chiefly with the local authority. Criminal justice over them was exercised by the latter probably in general concurrently with the Roman procurator; only sentences of death could not be executed by it otherwise than after confirmation by the imperial magistrate. In the main those arrangements were the inevitable consequences of the abolition of the principality, and when the Jews had obtained this request of theirs, they in fact obtained those arrangements along with it. … The local coining of petty moneys, as formerly practised by the kings, now took place in the name of the Roman ruler; but on account of the Jewish abhorrence of images the head of the emperor was not even placed on the coins. Setting foot within the interior of the temple continued to be forbidden in the case of every non-Jew under penalty of death. … In the very beginning of the reign of Tiberius the Jews, like the Syrians, complained of the pressure of the taxes; especially the prolonged administration of Pontius Pilatus is charged with all the usual official crimes by a not unfair observer. But Tiberius, as the same Jew says, had during the twenty-three years of his reign maintained the time-hallowed holy customs, and in no part set them aside or violated them. This is the more to be recognised, seeing that the same emperor in the West interfered against the Jews more emphatically than any other, and thus the long-suffering and caution shown by him in Judaea cannot be traced back to personal favour for Judaism. In spite of all this both the opposition on principle to the Roman government and the violent efforts at self-help on the part of the faithful developed themselves even in this time of peace."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome: The Provinces, from Caesar to Diocletian, book 8, chapter 11.

{1919}

In the year 41 A. D. the house of Herod rose to power again, in the person of his grandson, Herod Agrippa, descendant of the unfortunate Mariamne. Agrippa had lived long at Rome and won the favor of two successive emperors, Caligula and Claudius. Caligula deposed Herod Antipas from the tetrarchy of Galilee and conferred it on Agrippa. Claudius, in 41, added Judæa and Samaria to his dominions, establishing him in a kingdom even greater than that of his grandfather. He died suddenly in 44 A. D. and Judæa again relapsed to the state of a Roman province. His young son, also named Herod Agrippa, was provided, after a few years, with a small kingdom, that of Chalcis, exchanged later for one made up of other districts in Palestine. After the destruction of Jerusalem he retired to Rome, and the line of Herod ended with him.

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 12.

ALSO IN: Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, books 15-20.

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 5, section 2.

JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1. Uncertainty of the date of the birth of Jesus.

"The reigning Christian computation of time, that sovereign authority in accordance with which we reckon our life, and which is surely above the assault of any critical doubts, goes, be it remembered, but a very little way towards the settlement of this question [as to the year of the birth of Jesus] in as much as its inventor, a Scythian by birth, Dionysius the Less, Abbot of a Roman monastery (died 556 A. D.) [see ERA, CHRISTIAN], … had certainly no entire immunity from human frailty. … The comparatively best assured and best supported account places the birth of Jesus in the reign of King Herod the Great. Matthew knows no other chronology: Luke gives the same, along with another, or, if we will, along with two others. Matthew more particularly, in his own account, puts the birth in the last years of that king. Jesus is a little child at the time of the coming of the Magi, and he is still a child at the return of Joseph from the flight into Egypt, after the death of Herod has taken place. We shall hit the sense of the writer most exactly if we assume that Jesus, at the time of the coming of the Magi, who gave King Herod ground for conjecturing a Messiah of about the age of two,—was about two years old; at the time of Herod's death, about four. … Now since Herod died … shortly before Easter of the year 750 A. U. C., i. e., 4 years before the Christian era, Jesus must have been born four years before. 746 A. U. C., or 8 years before the reputed Christian era, a view which is expressly espoused in the fifth Christian century; according to Apocrypha, 3 years before Herod's death, 747 A. U. C., 7 years B. C. If we are able in addition to build upon Kepler's Conjunction of Planets, which Bishop Münter, in his book, 'The Star of the Wise Men,' 1827, called to remembrance, we get with complete certainty 747 or 748, the latter, that is, if we attach any value to the fact that in that year Mars was added to Jupiter and Saturn. Desirable however as such certainty might be, it is nevertheless hard to abandon oneself to it with enthusiastic joy. … An actual reminiscence on the part of the Christian community of the approximate point of time at which the Lord was born, would be hard to call in question, even though it might have overlooked or forgotten every detail of the youth of Jesus besides. Finally, there is after all a trace of such reminiscence independent of all legendary formation. The introductory history of Luke without any appreciable historical connexion, rather in conflict with the world of legend represented in his Gospel, places the birth of John the Baptist and of Jesus in Herod's time. At the same time there is just as little, or even less, sign than elsewhere in Luke's preliminary story, of any dependence on the account in Matthew, or any world of legend like his. We should thus still be inclined to infer that Jesus, according to ancient Christian tradition, was born under King Herod, and more particularly, according to the legend of Matthew, which after all is the better guaranteed of the two, towards the close of his reign. … Luke appears … so far to give the most precise boundary line to the birth of Jesus, inasmuch as he brings it into immediate connexion with the first taxing of Judæa by the Romans, which admits of exact historical computation. The Roman taxing was indeed the occasion of Joseph and Mary's journey to Bethlehem, and of the birth of Jesus in the inn there. This taxing took place, as Luke quite rightly observes, for the first time in Judæa, under the Emperor Augustus, and more precisely, under Quirinius' Governorship of Syria, and moreover, … not only after the death of Herod, but also after his son Archelaos had been reigning about ten years, in consequence of the dethronement of Archelaos and the annexation of Judæa and Samaria by the Romans in the year 760 A. U. C. 7 A. D. But here too at once begins the difficulty. According to this statement Jesus would have been born from ten to fourteen years later than the Gospels otherwise assert, Luke himself included. This late birth would not only clash with the first statement of the Gospels themselves, but equally with all probability, inasmuch as Jesus would then not have been as much as thirty years old at his death, which in any case took place before the recall of the Procurator Pilate (781 A. U. C. 35 A. D.). We are here therefore compelled to acknowledge a simple error of the writer. … Once more … does Luke incidentally compute the time of the birth of Jesus. By describing the time of John the Baptist's appearance and speaking of Jesus at that period as about thirty years old, he favours the assumption, that Jesus was born about thirty years before the fifteenth year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius. … We shall … see grounds for considering the commencement of the Baptist's ministry, as fixed far too early anywhere near the date 28 A. D. But if after all we assume the figure, as it stands, the fifteenth year of Tiberius, reckoning his reign from the 19th of August, 767, or 14 A. D., was the year 781-782, or 28-29 A. D. In that case Jesus must have been born, reckoning about 30 years backwards, towards the year 751-752, i. e., 2-3 years before our reputed era. … Of the later attempts to restore the year of Jesus' birth, those of antiquity and of modern times claim our attention in different ways. … {1920} Irenæus, followed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Jerome, gives the forty-first year of the Emperor Augustus, Clement of Alexandria the twenty-eighth year of the same, as the year of birth: much the same in both cases, viz. (751-752), inasmuch as the former reckons from the first consulate of Augustus after the death of Cæsar (731 A. U. C.); Clement from his conquest of Egypt (724). Later authorities since Eusebius, the first Church historian, marked the forty-second year of Augustus, following a notice of their predecessors, that is 752-753, which date however Eusebius would make out to agree with the year of Clement, with the twenty-eighth year from the occupation of Egypt. But how many other years besides were possible! Here Sulpicius Severus (400 A. D.) pushed back beyond the limit set by Irenæus, naming at one time 746-747 as the time of Jesus' birth, at another the consuls of 750, and the later date has also been found … by the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy. Here again the date was shifted lower down than the figure of Eusebius to the forty-third year of Augustus, i. e., 753-754. This date is found already in Tertullian in one reading, though in conflict with the year 41; the Chronograph of the year 354 puts it down with the express mention of the Consuls Cæsar and Paulus at 754 A. U. C., the Egyptian monk Panodorus (400 A. D.) has so reckoned it; and the founder of the Christian reckoning, the Abbot Dionysius (Easter Table 525 A. D.) introduced it for all time. … What is certain is that this year 754 A. U. C. 1 A. D., this official Christian calendar, does not hit the tradition of the Gospels. In modern times, thanks to the efforts of great astronomers and chronologists, Kepler, Ideler, and Münter, the year 747 or 748 has found the greatest favour as the year of the Wise Men's star. But since people have come back from their enthusiasm for the discovery of this conjunction to a more faithful regard for the Gospels, it has always commended itself afresh, to place the birth of Jesus at latest in the first beginning of the year 750 (4 B. C.), i. e., before the death of King Herod, but if possible from two to four years earlier still 746-748, or 8-6 B. C. Thus Ewald inclines half to the year 748, and half to 749: Petavius, Usher, Lichtenstein to 749, Bengal, Anger, Winer, Wieseler to 750, Wurm indeed following Scaliger to 751, finally in latest times Rösch, attaching great weight to the statements of the Fathers, as well as to the Chinese star, actually gets by a multifariously laborious method, at 751-752, in which year, as he decides, even Herod must have been alive in spite of Josephus, and on the strength of an innocuous observation by a Jewish Rabbi. If it was hard enough to arrive at any certainty, or, at all events, probability with respect to the year of Jesus' birth, we must entirely waive all pretensions to tell the month or the day, however justifiable may be our curiosity on this head. Our traditional observance of the Day of Jesus on the 25th of December is not prescribed in any ancient calendar."

Dr. T. Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara, volume 2, pages 109-126.

ALSO IN: W. H. Anderdon, Fasti Apostolici, introd.

JEWS: A. D. 26. Political situation of Judæa at the time of the appearance of Jesus.

"Let us recall, in a few outlines, the political situation of Judæa at the exact moment when Jesus appeared before His countrymen. The shadow of independence, which had been left to it under the vassal kingdom of Herod the Great, had long vanished. Augustus had annexed Judæa to the Roman empire, not by making it one of those senatorial provinces governed by proconsuls, but as a direct dependant on his authority. He associated it with the government of Syria, the capital of which was Antioch, the residence of the imperial legate. In consequence, however, of its importance, and the difficulties presented by the complete subjection of such a people, the procurator of Judæa enjoyed a certain latitude in his administration; he at the same time managed the affairs of Samaria, but as a second department, distinct from the first. Faithful to the wise policy which it had pursued with so much success for centuries, Rome interfered as little as possible with the usages and institutions of the conquered province. The Sanhedrim was, therefore, allowed to continue side by side with the procurator, but its power was necessarily very limited. Its jurisdiction was confined to matters of religion and small civil causes: the procurator alone had the right of decreeing capital punishment. The high-priestly office had lost much of its importance. The Asmoneans and Herods had reduced it to a subordinate magistracy, of which they made a tool for their own purposes. Herod the Great had constituted himself guardian of the sacerdotal vestments, under pretext that he had had them restored to their first magnificence, on the Levitical model; he bestowed them only on the men of his choice. The Romans hastened to follow his example, and thus to keep in their hands an office which might become perilous to them. The procurator of Judæa resided at Cæsarea. He only came to Jerusalem for the solemn feasts, or in exceptional cases, to administer justice. His prætorium stood near the citadel of Antonia. The Roman garrison in the whole of Palestine did not exceed one legion. The levying of imposts on movable property, and on individuals, led to perpetual difficulties; no such objection was raised to the tribute of two drachms for the temple, which was levied by the Sanhedrim. The tax-gatherers in the service of the Romans were regarded as the representatives of a detested rule; thus the publicans—for the most part Jews by birth—were the objects of universal contempt. The first rebellion of any importance took place on the occasion of the census under Cyrenius. At the period at which we have arrived, Judæa was governed by Pilate, the third procurator since the annexation to the empire; he had found in the high-priestly office John, surnamed Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, the son of Seth, who had for a long time filled the same office under Valerius Gratus. Pilate had an ally rather than a rival in the Sadducee Caiaphas, who acted on no higher principle than the interest of his order, and the maintenance of his power. Pontius Pilate was wanting in the political tact which knows how to soften in form the severities of a foreign rule; he was a man of vulgar ambition, or rather, one of those men without patriotism, who think only of using their authority for their own advantage. He took no heed of the peculiar dispositions and aversions of the people whom he was to govern. Thus he sent to Jerusalem a Roman garrison with standards; the Jews regarded this as a horrible profanation, for the eagles were worshipped as gods. {1921} Assailed in his prætorium at Cæsarea by a suppliant crowd, which no violence could disperse, the procurator was compelled to yield to prayers, which might soon be changed into desperate resistance. From that moment his influence was gone in Judæa; he compromised it still further when he caused shields of gold, bearing his name engraved beside that of the emperor Tiberias, to be suspended from the outer walls of the citadel of Antonia. This flattery to the sovereign, which might have been unaccompanied with peril elsewhere, was received at Jerusalem as a gratuitous provocation, and he was obliged to recall a measure, persistence in which would have led to a terrible tumult. Having thus made himself an object of general aversion, he could not even do good without danger: his plan to build an aqueduct, a thing peculiarly needed on the burning soil of Judæa, created opposition so violent, that it could only be put down by force. Under such a governor, the national passions were in a perpetual state of agitation. This increase of patriotic fanaticism created great obstacles to a purely spiritual work like that of Jesus. Gaulonitis, Peræa, and Galilee still belonged, at this time, to the family of Herod. The tetrarch Philip governed the north-west of the country for thirty-seven years, and was distinguished for his moderation. … Galilee and Peræa were the portion of Herod Antipas, the murderer of John the Baptist. His divorce from the daughter of Aretas, after his marriage with Herodias, his brother's wife, had brought war upon the wide provinces which he governed. He was about soon to undergo a humiliating defeat. Like his brother, he was childless. Under the influence of such a prince, surrounded by a licentious court, evil propensities had free play, and the corruption of manners was a bad preparation for a religion of purity and self-denial. In the lowness of the times, the Herods, though of the family of the vile despots who had sold the independence of the Jews, were regarded as in some measure a national dynasty. They had a party which bore their name, and which, in religious matters, combined, after the example of Herod the Great, Pharisaism and Sadduceeism. Such were the political circumstances in the midst of which Jesus was placed."

E. de Pressensé, Jesus Christ: His Times, Life, and Work, book 3, chapter 1.

JEWS: A. D. 33-100. The rise and diffusion of Christianity.

See CHRISTIANITY.

JEWS: A. D.66-70. The Great Revolt.

The oppression of the Jewish nation under the Roman governors who ruled Judæa directly, after the death of the first Herod Agrippa (A. D. 44), may not have been heavier in reality than it had been while the dependent and Romanized tyranny of the Herodian kings prevailed, but it proved to be more irritating and exasperating. "The burden, harshly shifted, was felt to be more galling. The priests and nobles murmured, intrigued, conspired; the rabble, bolder or more impatient, broke out into sedition, and followed every chief who offered to lead them to victory and independence. … It was only indeed under extraordinary provocation that the populace of the Jewish capital, who were generally controlled by the superior prudence of their chiefs, broke into violence in the streets. … But the ruder independence of the Galileans was not so easily kept in check. Their tract of heath and mountain was always then, as it has since always been, in a state of partial insurrection. … For their coercion [at Jerusalem] the Romans had invented a peculiar machinery. To Agrippa, the tetrarch [the second Herod Agrippa], … they had given the title of King of the Sacrifices, in virtue of which he was suffered to reside in the palace at Jerusalem, and retain certain functions, fitted to impose on the imagination of the more ardent votaries of Jewish nationality. The palace of the Herods overlooked the Temple, and from its upper rooms the king could observe all that passed in that mart of business and intrigue. Placed, however, as a spy in this watch-tower, he was regarded by the Zealots, the faction of independence, as a foe to be baffled rather than a chief to be respected and honoured. They raised the walls of their sanctuary to shut out his view, and this, among other causes of discontent between the factions in the city, ripened to an enmity. … And now was introduced into the divisions of this unhappy people a new feature of atrocity. The Zealots sought to terrify the more prudent or time-serving by an organized system of private assassination. Their 'Sicarii,' or men of the dagger, are recognised in the records of the times as a secret agency, by which the most impatient of the patriots calculated on exterminating the chief supporters of the foreign government. … Hitherto the Romans, from policy rather than respect, had omitted to occupy Jerusalem with a military force. They were now invited and implored by the chiefs of the priesthood and nobility, and Florus [the Roman governor] sent a detachment to seize the city and protect the lives of his adherents. This was the point to which the Zealots themselves had wished to lead him."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 59.

A furious battle in the streets of Jerusalem occurred on the entrance of the Roman troops. The latter gained possession of the citadel, with the upper city, but, after seven days of fighting, were forced to capitulate, and were ruthlessly put to the sword, in violation of sworn pledges. "On that very day and hour, while the Jews were plunging their daggers in the hearts of the Romans, a great and terrible slaughter of their own people was going on in Cæsarea, where the Syrians and Greeks had risen upon the Jews, and massacred 20,000 of them in a single day. And in every Syrian city the same madness and hatred seized the people, and the Jews were ruthlessly slaughtered in all. No more provocation was needed; no more was possible. … The heads of the people began the war with gloomy forebodings; the common masses with the wildest enthusiasm, which became the mere intoxication of success when they drove back Cestius from the walls of the city, on the very eve of his anticipated victory—for Cestius [præfect of Syria] hastened southwards with an army of 20,000 men, and besieged the city. The people, divided amongst themselves, were on the point of opening the gates to the Romans, when, to the surprise of everybody, Cestius suddenly broke up his camp and began to retreat. Why he did so, no one ever knew. … The retreat became a flight, and Cestius brought back his army with a quarter of its numbers killed. … Vespasian was sent hastily with a force of three legions, besides the cohorts of auxiliaries. … Of the first campaign, that in Galilee, our limits will not allow us to write. … {1922} The months passed on, and yet the Romans did not appear before the walls of the city. This meantime was a prey to internal evils, which when read appear almost incredible. … The events at Rome which elevated Vespasian to the throne were the principal reasons that the siege of Jerusalem was not actually commenced till the early summer of the year 70, when, in April, Titus began his march from Cæsarea. … The city, meanwhile, had been continuing those civil dissensions which hastened its ruin. John [of Gischala], Simon Bar Gioras, and Eleazar, each at the head of his own faction, made the streets run with blood. John, whose followers numbered 6,000, held the Lower, New, and Middle City; Simon, at the head of 10,000 Jews and 5,000 Idumeans, had the strong post of the Upper City, with a portion of the third wall; Eleazar, with 2,000 zealots, more fanatic than the rest, had barricaded himself within the Temple itself. … In the sallies which John and Simon made upon each other all the buildings in this part of the town were destroyed or set on fire, and all their corn burned; so that famine had actually begun before the commencement of the siege."

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer, Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin, chapters 1-2.

The awful but fascinating story of the siege, as told by Josephus and repeated by many writers since, is familiar to most readers and will not be given here. It was prolonged from April until the 7th of September, A. D. 70, when the Romans forced their way into the upper city. "They spread through the streets, slaying and burning as they went. In many houses where they expected rich plunder, they found nothing but heaps of putrid bodies, whole families who had died of hunger; they retreated from the loathsome sight and insufferable stench. But they were not moved to mercy towards the living; in some places the flames were actually retarded or quenched with streams of blood; night alone put an end to the carnage. … The city was ordered to be razed, excepting the three towers, which were left as standing monuments of the victory. … During the whole siege the number killed [according to Josephus] was 1,100,000, that of prisoners 97,000. In fact, the population not of Jerusalem alone, but that of the adjacent districts—many who had taken refuge in the city, more who had assembled for the feast of unleavened bread—had been shut up by the sudden formation of the siege." Of those who survived to the end and were spared, when the Roman soldiers had tired of slaughter, "all above seventeen years old were sent to Egypt to work in the mines, or distributed among the provinces to be exhibited as gladiators in the public theatres, and in combats against wild beasts. Twelve thousand died of hunger. … Thus fell, and forever, the metropolis of the Jewish state. … Of all the stately city—the populous streets, the palaces of the Jewish kings, the fortresses of her warriors, the Temple of her God—not a ruin remained, except the tall towers of Phasaelis, Mariamne, and Hippicus, and part of the western wall, which was left as a defence for the Roman camp."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 16.

ALSO IN: H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 7.

_Josephus, The Jewish War._

_A. J. Church, Story of the Last Days of Jerusalem._

_I. M. Wise, History of the Hebrew Second Commonwealth, 7th period._

JEWS: A. D. 70-133. After the war with Rome. The state of the surviving people.

"It might have been expected that, from the character of the great war with Rome, the people, as well as the state of the Jews, would have fallen into utter dissolution, or, at least, verged rapidly towards total extermination. Besides the loss of nearly a million and a half of lives during the war, the markets of the Roman empire were glutted with Jewish slaves. … Yet still this inexhaustible race revived before long to offer new candidates for its inalienable inheritance of detestation and misery. Of the state of Palestine, indeed, immediately after the war, we have little accurate information. It is uncertain how far the enormous loss of life, and the numbers carried into captivity drained the country of the Jewish population; or how far the rescript of Vespasian, which offered the whole landed property of the province for sale, introduced a foreign race into the possession of the soil. The immense numbers engaged in the rebellion during the reign of Hadrian imply, either that the country was not nearly exhausted, or that the reproduction in this still fertile region was extremely rapid. In fact, it must be remembered that … the ravage of war was, after all, by no means universal in the province. Galilee, Judæa, and great part of Idumæa were wasted, and probably much depopulated; but, excepting a few towns which made resistance, the populous regions and wealthy cities beyond the Jordan escaped the devastation. The dominions of King Agrippa were, for the most part, respected. Samaria submitted without resistance, as did most of the cities on the sea-coast. … The Jews, though looked upon with contempt as well as detestation, were yet regarded, during the reign of Vespasian and his immediate successors, with jealous watchfulness. A garrison of 800 men occupied the ruins of Jerusalem, to prevent the reconstruction of the city by the fond and religious zeal of its former inhabitants. … Still, … it is impossible, unless communities were suffered to be formed, and the whole race enjoyed comparative security, that the nation could have appeared in the formidable attitude of resistance which it assumed in the time of Hadrian."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 18 (volume 2).

JEWS: A. D. 116. The rising in Trajan's reign.

"Not quite fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the year 116, the Jews of the eastern Mediterranean rose against the imperial government. The rising, although undertaken by the Diaspora, was of a purely national character in its chief seats, Cyrene, Cyprus, Egypt, directed to the expulsion of the Romans as of the Hellenes, and, apparently, to the establishment of a separate Jewish state. It ramified even into Asiatic territory, and seized Mesopotamia and Palestine itself. When the insurgents were victorious they conducted the war with the same exasperation as the Sicarii in Jerusalem; they killed those whom they seized. … In Cyrene 220,000, in Cyprus even 240,000 men are said to have been thus put to death by them. On the other hand, in Alexandria, which does not appear itself to have fallen into the hands of the Jews, the besieged Hellenes slew whatever Jews were then in the city. The immediate cause of the rising is not clear. … To all appearance it was an outbreak of religious exasperation of the Jews, which had been growing in secret like a volcano since the destruction of the temple. … {1923} The insurgents were nowhere able to offer resistance to the compact troops, … and similar punishments were inflicted on this Diaspora as previously on the Jews of Palestine. That Trajan annihilated the Jews in Alexandria, as Appian says, is hardly all incorrect, although perhaps a too blunt expression for what took place."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2).

See, also, CYPRUS, A. D. 117.

JEWS: A. D. 130-134. The rising in Hadrian's reign.

The Emperor Hadrian, when his tour through the Empire brought him to Palestine, A. D. 130, resolved to erect the destroyed holy city of the Jews as a Roman colony with a Roman name, and to divest it altogether of the character which made it sacred in the eyes of the Jews. He forbade their sojourn in the new city, and exasperated them still more by showing favor, it is said, to the Christian sect. By this and by other measures a fresh revolt was provoked, A. D. 132, incited by the priest Eleazar and led by the bandit-chief Barcochebas, or Bar-Kok-heba ('Son of the Star'). The cruel struggle, redeemed by no humanity on either side, continued for three years, and was ended only when hundreds of thousands of Jews had been slain. "The dispersion of the unhappy race, particularly in the West, was now complete and final. The sacred soil of Jerusalem was occupied by a Roman colony, which received the name of Ælia Capitolina, with reference to the emperor who founded it [Publius Ælius Hadrianus] and to the supreme God of the pagan mythology, installed on the desecrated summits of Zion and Moriah."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 65.

"The whole body of the Jews at home and abroad was agitated by the movement and supported more or less openly the insurgents on the Jordan; even Jerusalem fell into their hands, and the governor of Syria and indeed the emperor Hadrian appeared on the scene of conflict. … As in the war under Vespasian no pitched battle took place, but one place after another cost time and blood, till at length after a three years' warfare the last castle of the insurgents, the strong Bether, not far from Jerusalem, was stormed by the Romans. The numbers handed down to us in good accounts of 50 fortresses taken, 985 villages occupied, 580,000 that fell, are not incredible, since the war was waged with inexorable cruelty, and the male population was probably everywhere put to death. In consequence of this rising the very name of the vanquished people was set aside; the province was thenceforth termed, not as formerly Judaea, but by the old name of Herodotus, Syria of the Philistines, or Syria Palaestina. The land remained desolate; the new city of Hadrian continued to exist, but did not prosper. The Jews were prohibited under penalty of death from ever setting foot in Jerusalem."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 11 (The Provinces, volume 2).

JEWS: A. D. 200-400. The Nation without a country. Its two governments.

"In less than sixty years after the war under Hadrian, before the close of the second century after Christ, the Jews present the extraordinary spectacle of two regular and organized communities: one under a sort of spiritual head, the Patriarch of Tiberias, comprehending all of Israelitish descent who inhabited the Roman empire; the other under the Prince of the Captivity, to whom all the eastern [Babylonian] Jews paid their allegiance. … Unfortunately it is among the most difficult parts of Jewish history to trace the growth of the patriarchal authority established in Tiberias, and its recognition by the whole scattered body of the nation, who, with disinterested zeal, and I do not scruple to add, a noble attachment to the race of Israel, became voluntary subjects and tributaries to their spiritual sovereign, and united with one mind and one heart to establish their community on a settled basis. It is a singular spectacle to behold a nation dispersed in every region of the world, without a murmur or repugnance, submitting to the regulations, and taxing themselves to support the greatness, of a supremacy which rested solely on public opinion, and had no temporal power whatever to enforce its decrees. It was not long before the Rabbins, who had been hunted down with unrelenting cruelty, began to creep forth from their places of concealment. The death of Hadrian, in a few years after the termination of the war, and the accession of the mild Antoninus, gave them courage, not merely to make their public appearance, but openly to reëstablish their schools and synagogues. … The Rabbinical dominion gradually rose to greater power; the schools flourished; perhaps in this interval the great Synagogue or Sanhedrin had its other migrations, … and finally to Tiberias, where it fixed its pontifical throne and maintained its supremacy for several centuries. Tiberias, it may be remembered, was a town built by Herod Antipas, over an ancient cemetery, and therefore abominated by the more scrupulous Jews, as a dwelling of uncleanness. But the Rabbins soon obviated this objection. Simon Ben Jochai, by his cabalistic art, discovered the exact spot where the burial-place had been; this was marked off, and the rest of the city declared, on the same unerring authority, to be clean. Here, then, in this noble city, on the shore of the sea of Galilee, the Jewish pontiff fixed his throne; the Sanhedrin, if it had not, as the Jews pretend, existed during all the reverses of the nation, was formally reëstablished. Simon, the son and heir of Gamaliel, was acknowledged as the Patriarch of the Jews, and Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin. … In every region of the West, in every province of the Roman empire, the Jews of all ranks and classes submitted, with the utmost readiness, to the sway of their Spiritual Potentate. His mandates were obeyed, his legates received with honour, his supplies levied without difficulty, in Rome, in Spain, in Africa. … In the mean time the rival throne in Babylonia, that of the Prince of the Captivity, was rapidly rising to the state and dignity which perhaps did not attain its perfect height till under the Persian monarchs. There seems to have been some acknowledged hereditary claim in R. Hona, who now appears as the Prince of the Captivity, as if his descent from the House of David had been recognized by the willing credulity of his brethren. … The Court of the Resch-Glutha [Prince of the Captivity] is described as … splendid; in imitation of his Persian master, he had his officers, counsellors, and cupbearers. Rabbins were appointed as satraps over the different communities. This state, it is probable, was maintained by a tribute raised from the body of the people, and substituted for that which, in ancient times, was paid for the Temple in Jerusalem. … Whether the authority of the Prince of the Captivity extended beyond Babylonia and the adjacent districts is uncertain."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 19 (volume 2).

{1924}

JEWS: A. D. 415. Driven from Alexandria by Cyril.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.

JEWS: 5-6th Centuries. Early Jewish settlements in Europe. Arian toleration and Catholic persecution.

"The survey of the settlement of the Jews in Europe begins, as we leave Asia, with the Byzantine Empire. They already lived in its cities before Christianity acquired the empire of the world. In Constantinople the Jewish community inhabited a separate quarter, called the brass-market, where there was also a large synagogue. They were, however, expelled thence by an emperor, either Theodosius II., or Justinus II., and the synagogue was converted into the 'Church of the Mother of God.' … In Greece, Macedonia, and Illyria the Jews had already been settled a long time. … In Italy the Jews are known to have been domiciled as early as the time of the Republic, and to have been in enjoyment of full political rights until these were curtailed by the Christian emperors. They probably looked with excusable pleasure on the fall of Rome. … When Italy became Ostrogothic under Theodoric, the position of the Jews in that country was peculiar. Outbreaks of a spirit of hostility to them were not infrequent during this reign, but at the bottom they were not directed against the Jews, but were meant to be a demonstration against this hated Arian monarch. … Those nations … which were baptised in the Arian creed betrayed less intolerance of the Jews. Thus the more Arianism was driven out of Europe and gave way before the Catholic religion, the more were the Jews harassed by proselytising zeal. … In spite of the antipathy entertained against them by the leaders of opinion, the Jews of Italy were happy in comparison with their brethren of the Byzantine empire. … Even when the Lombards embraced the Catholic faith the position of the Jews in Italy remained supportable. The heads of the Catholic Church, the Popes, were free from savage intolerance. Gregory I. (590-604), surnamed the great and holy, who laid the foundation of the power of Catholicism, gave utterance to the principle, that the Jews should only be converted by means of persuasion and gentleness, not by violence. … In the territory which was subject to the Papal sway, in Rome, Lower Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, he steadfastly persisted in this course in the face of the fanatical bishops, who regarded the oppression of the Jews as a pious work. … In the west of Europe, in France and Spain, where the Church was first obliged to make its way laboriously, the situation of the Jews assumed a different and much more favourable aspect. … It was a long while before Catholicism gained a firm footing in the west of Europe, and the Jews who had settled there enjoyed undisturbed peace until the victorious Church gained the upper hand. The immigration of the Jews into these important and wealthy provinces took place most probably as early as the time of the Republic or of Cæsar. … The presence of the Jews in the west of Europe is, however, not certain until the 2d century. The Gaulish Jews, whose first settlement was in the district of Arles, enjoyed the full rights of Roman citizenship, whether they arrived in Gaul as merchants or fugitives, with the pedlar's pack or in the garb of slaves; they were likewise treated as Romans by the Frankish and Burgundian conquerors." The Burgundian King Sigismund, who embraced the Catholic faith in 516, "first raised the barrier between Jews and Christians. … A spirit of hostility to the Jews gradually spread from Burgundy over the Frankish countries. … The later of the Merovingian kings became more and more bigoted, and their hatred of the Jews consequently increased. … The Jews of Germany are certainly only to be regarded as colonies of the Frankish Jews, and such of them as lived in Austrasia, a province subject to the Merovingian kings, shared the same fate as their brethren in France. … While the history of the Jews in Byzance, Italy, and France, possesses but special interest, that of their brethren in the Pyrenean peninsula rises to the height of universal importance. … Jewish Spain contributed almost as greatly to the development of Judaism as Judæa and Babylonia. … Cordova, Grenada, and Toledo, are as familiar to the Jews as Jerusalem and Tiberias, and almost more so than Naherdea and Sora. When Judaism had come to a standstill in the East, and had grown weak with age, it acquired new vigour in Spain. … The first settlement of the Jews in beautiful Hesperia is buried in dim obscurity. It is certain that they came there as free men as early as the time of the Roman Republic, in order to take advantage of the productive resources of this country. The tortured victims of the unhappy insurrections under Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian were also dispersed to the extreme west, and an exaggerated account relates that 80,000 of them were dragged off to Spain as prisoners. … The Jews … were unmolested under the Arian kings; … but as soon as the Catholic Church obtained the supremacy in Spain, and Arianism began to be persecuted, an unfavourable crisis set in."

H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 3, chapter 2.

JEWS: A. D. 615. Siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Persians. Sack and massacre.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

JEWS: A. D. 637. Surrender of Jerusalem to the Moslems.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 637.

JEWS: 7th Century. General persecution. First expulsion from Spain.

In the seventh century, during the reign of the Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius (A. D. 610-641) the Jews were subjected to a more general and bitter persecution than they had experienced before at the hands of the Christians. "It is said that about this time a prophecy was current, which declared that the Roman empire would be overthrown by a circumcised people. This report may have been spread by the Jews, in order to excite their own ardour, and assist their projects of rebellion; but the prophecy was saved from oblivion by the subsequent conquests of the Saracens. … The conduct of the Jews excited the bigotry, as it may have awakened the fears, of the imperial government, and both Phocas and Heraclius attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an end to the national existence. Heraclius not only practised every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in his diplomacy." Thus Heraclius induced Sisebut, the Gothic king in Spain, and Dagobert, the Frank king, to join him in forcing baptism on the Jews, with the alternative of flight.

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 5.

{1925}

"Urged by the request and incited by the example of Heraclius, Sisebuto [or Sisebut] issued an edict in the year 616, that, within a year, the Jews in Spain should either embrace Christianity, or should be shorn, scourged, and expelled from the kingdom, and their property confiscated. … It was a premium on hypocrisy; for hypocrisy was an instrument of self-preservation. Ninety thousand Jews made a nominal submission."

H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

See, also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-711.

JEWS: 7th Century. The Epoch of the Geonim. The Exilarchate and the Gaonate.

After the death of the Caliph Othman (A. D. 655), when the followers of Mohammed were divided into two camps—the partisans of Ali and the partisans of Moawiyah, "the Babylonian Jews and Nestorian Christians sided with Ali, and rendered him their assistance." Prominent among the Jewish supporters of Ali was Mar-Isaac, the head of a school. "The unhappy Ali valued this homage, and, doubtless, accorded privileges to the Jewish head of the school. It is quite probable that from this time the head of the school of Sora occupied a certain dignity, and took the title of Gaon. There were certain privileges connected with the Gaonate, upon which even the Exilarch—also politically appointed—did not venture to encroach. Through this there arose a peculiar relationship between the two entirely opposing offices—the Exilarchate and the Gaonate. This led to subsequent quarrels. With Bostanaï [then Exilarch] and Mar-Isaac, the Jewish officials recognised by the Caliph, there begins a new period in Jewish history—the Epoch of the Geonim. … For the space of 40 years (680 to 720), only the names of the Geonim and Exilarchs are known to us, historical details, however, are entirely wanting. During this time, through quarrels and concessions, there arose peculiar relations between the officials of the Jewish-Persian kingdom, which developed into a kind of constitution. The Jewish community in Babylonia (Persia), which had the appearance of a state, had a peculiar constitution. The Exilarch was at their head, and next to him stood the Gaon. Both together they formed the unity of the community. The Exilarch filled political functions. He represented the Babylonian-Persian Judaism under the Caliphs. He collected the taxes from the various communities, and paid them into the treasury. The Exilarchs, both in their outer appearance and mode of life, were like princes. They drove about in a state carriage; they had outriders and a kind of body guard, and received princely homage. The religious unity of Judaism, on the other hand, was represented in the two chief schools of Sora and Pumbaditha. They expounded the Talmud, giving it a practical application; they made new laws and institutions, and saw that they were carried out, by allotting punishments for those who transgressed them. The Exilarch shared the judicial power in common with the Gaon of Sora and the head of the school of Pumbaditha. … The head of the school of Sora, however, was alone privileged to be styled 'Gaon'; the head of the school of Pumbaditha did not bear the title officially. The Gaon of Sora enjoyed general preference over his colleague of Pumbaditha."

H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 3, chapter 4.

JEWS: 8th Century. Conversion of the Khazars to Judaism.

See KHAZARS.

JEWS: 8th Century. Origin of the Karaites.

See KARAISM.

JEWS: 8-15th Centuries. Toleration by Moors and Christians in Spain, followed by merciless persecution and expulsion. Treatment in Portugal.

"Under the Moorish government in Spain the lot of this persecuted, tormented people was more tolerable than in any Christian country. … Under the Christian kings of the 12th and 13th centuries, they rose to still greater influence as financial advisers and treasurers, astronomers and physicians; in Toledo alone they numbered 12,000. … Their condition in Spain from the time of the Moorish supremacy to the end of the 13th century was upon the whole more favourable than in any other country of Europe. … The 14th century brought disaster to the Jews of the Peninsula and elsewhere. … They were detested by the people; first in one town and then in another they were attacked and murdered, and their synagogues were burned down; and at length, in 1391, the storm broke upon them in all its fury, and raged through the length and breadth of Spain. … Many thousands were slain; whilst 200,000 saved themselves by receiving baptism, but it was discovered in a few years that 17,000 had lapsed into Judaism. A century later, in 1492, a royal edict commanded all Jews to quit the country, leaving their goods behind them. As the Inquisition at the same time forbade the sale of victuals to the Jews, the majority … were compelled to submit to baptism. Of those who withdrew into exile—the numbers are variously reckoned from 170,000 to 400,000—the greater part perished from pestilence, starvation, or shipwreck. The descendants of those who survived, the Sephardim, found refuge in Italy, and under Turkish rule in the East, and, for a short space, even in Portugal. … In Portugal the Jews fared even worse than their brethren in Spain. … The Inquisition was … introduced as the approved means for handing over to the exchequer the wealth of the new Christians."

_J. I. von Döllinger, The Jews in Europe (Studies in European History, chapter 9)._

ALSO IN: H. C. Lea, Chapters from the Religious History of Spain, pages 437-468.

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, part 1, chapter 17 (volume 2).

See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: 11th Century. First appearance of Jews in England. Their treatment as usurers.

"Their first appearance in England is said to have been due to the Conqueror, who brought over a Jewish colony from Rouen to London. They were special favourites of William Rufus; under Henry they play a less conspicuous part; but in the next reign we find them at Lincoln, Oxford, and elsewhere, and there can be no doubt that they were already established in most of the chief English towns. They formed, however, no part of the townsfolk. The Jew was not a member of the state; he was the king's chattel, not to be meddled with, for good or for evil, save at the king's own bidding. {1926} Exempt from toll and tax and from the fines of justice, he had the means of accumulating a hoard of wealth which might indeed be seized at any moment by an arbitrary act of the king, but which the king's protection guarded with jealous care against all other interference. The capacity in which the Jew usually appears is that of a money-lender—an occupation in which the scruples of the Church forbade Christians to engage, lest they should be contaminated with the sin of usury. Fettered by no such scruples, the Hebrew money-lenders drove a thriving trade."

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

"The Church declared against capitalism of any kind, branding it as usury. It became impossible in Angevin England to obtain the capital for any large scheme of building or organisation unless the projectors had the capital themselves. Here was the function which the Jew could perform in England of the twelfth century, which was just passing economically out of the stage of barter. Capital was wanted in particular for the change of architecture from wood to stone with the better classes, and especially for the erection of castles and monasteries. The Jews were, indeed, the first in England to possess dwelling-houses built with stone, probably for purposes of protection as well as of comfort. And as a specimen of their influence on monastic architecture, we have it on record that no less than nine Cistercian monasteries of the North Country were built by moneys lent by the great Aaron of Lincoln, who also boasted that he had built the shrine of St. Alban. … The result of the Church's attitude towards Jews and towards usury was to put the king into a peculiar relation towards his Jewish subjects. The Church kept them out of all other pursuits but that of usury, which it branded as infamous; the State followed suit, and confiscated the estates of all usurers dying as such. Hence, as a Jew could only be a usurer, his estate was always potentially the king's, and could be dealt with by the king as if it were his own. Yet, strange to say, it was not to the king's interest to keep the Jews' wealth in his own hands, for he, the king, as a good Christian, could not get usury for it, while the Jew could very soon double and treble it, since the absence of competition enabled him to fix the rate of interest very high, rarely less than forty per cent., often as much as eighty. … The only useful function the Jew could perform towards both king and people was to be as rich as possible, just as the larger the capital of a bank, the more valuable the part it plays in the world of commerce. … The king reaped the benefit of these riches in several ways. One of his main functions and main source of income was selling justice, and Jews were among his best customers. Then he claimed from them, as from his other subjects, fines and amerciaments for all the events of life. The Pipe Rolls contain entries of fines paid by Jews to marry, not to marry, to become divorced, to go a journey across the sea, to become partners with another Jew, in short, for all the decisive events of life. And above all, the king got frequent windfalls from the heirs of deceased Jews who paid heavy reliefs to have their fathers' charters and debts, of which, as we have seen, they could make more profitable use than the king, to whom the Jew's property escheated not qua Jew, but qua usurer. In the case of Aaron of Lincoln the king did not disgorge at all at his death, but kept in his own hands the large treasures, lands, houses and debts of the great financier. He appears to have first organised the Jewry, and made the whole of the English Jews his agents throughout the country. … In addition to these quasi-regular and normal sources of income from his Jews, the king claimed from them—again as from his other subjects—various contributions from time to time under the names of gifts and tallages. And here he certainly seems, on occasion at least, to have exercised an unfavourable discrimination in his demands from the Jews. In 1187, the year of Aaron of Lincoln's death, he took a tenth from the rest of England, which yielded £70,000, and a quarter from the Jews, which gave as much as £60,000. In other words, the Jews were reckoned to have, at that date, one quarter of the movable wealth of the kingdom (£240,000 against £700,000 held by the rest). … They acted the part of a sponge for the Royal Treasury, they gathered up all the floating money of the country, to be squeezed from time to time into the king's treasure-chest. … The king was thus … the sleeping-partner in all the Jewish usury, and may be regarded as the Arch-usurer of the kingdom. By this means he was enabled to bring pressure on any of his barons who were indebted to the Jews. He could offer to release them of their debt of the usury accruing to it, and in the case of debts falling into his hand by the death of a Jew, he could commute the debt for a much smaller sum. Thus the Cistercian abbeys referred to above paid Richard I. 1,000 marks instead of the 6,400 which they had owed to Aaron of Lincoln."

Joseph Jacobs, The Jews of Angevin England, introduction.

JEWS: A. D. 1076. Capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuk Turks.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, &C.

JEWS: A. D. 1096-1146. Massacre of Jews in Europe by Crusaders.

The lawless and savage mobs of Crusaders which followed in the wake of the disorderly hosts of Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless, A. D. 1096, expended their zeal, at the outset of their march, in hunting and killing Jews. "Acting on the notion that the infidels dwelling in Europe should be exterminated before those in Asia should be attacked, [they] murdered 12,000 Jews. In Treves, many of these unfortunate men, driven to despair, laid violent hands on their children and on themselves, and multitudes embraced Christianity, from which they lapsed the moment the peril had passed. Two hundred Jews fled from Cologne and took refuge in boats; they were overtaken and slain. In Mayence, the archbishop, Rudhart, took them under his protection, and gave them the great hall of his castle for an asylum; the pilgrims, nevertheless, forced their way in, and murdered 700 of them in the archbishop's presence. At Spires the Jews valiantly defended themselves. At Worms they all committed suicide. At Magdeburg the archbishop, Ruprecht, amused himself by attacking them during the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, and by seizing their property."

W. Menzel, History of Germany, chapter 145 (volume 1).

The fervors of the Second Crusade [A. D. 1146] inclined, in Germany, to the same direction, of Jew-hunting; but St. Bernard, the apostle of the Crusade, was enlightened and humane enough to suppress the outrage by his great influence. {1927} A monk named Radulf, self-appointed preacher of the Crusade in Germany, stirred up the people of the cities of the Rhine against the Jews, and numbers were massacred, notwithstanding attempts of the emperor, Conrad, to protect them. But Bernard went in person to the scene, and, by his personal authority, drove the brutal monk into his convent.

T. Keightley, The Crusaders chapter 3.

ALSO IN: H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 3, chapters 9 and 11.

H. C. Adams, History of the Jews, chapter 15.

JEWS: A. D. 1099. Conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.

JEWS: 11-17th Centuries. Alternating toleration and oppression in Poland.

"It cannot be denied that this frugal, careful race formed the only class of traders in the land [16th-17th centuries]. That branch of industry which the nobleman despised, owing to pride or carelessness, and from which the peasant was excluded by stupidity and ignorance, fell to the share of the Jews. Though their presence may have been a misfortune for the nation in after years, they were certainly at the same time a national necessity. … Perpetually oppressed by capricious laws, the race raised itself by perseverance and cunning. Ill-treated, persecuted by fire and sword, still they returned, or others took their place; robbed and plundered repeatedly, the wealth of the land was yet theirs. … The first Jewish immigrants were exiles from Germany and Bohemia. In 1096 they fled to Poland, where at that time there was more religious tolerance than in the rest of Europe. The cruelty and greed of the first crusaders caused this exodus of the Jews. … Casimir the Great [1333-1370], instigated by his love for Esther, the beautiful Jewess of Opocno, gave the Jews such civil rights and privileges as a Polish king could grant, which conduced to the advantage of the land; but already in the time of Lewis of Hungary, 1371, they were sentenced to exile. Notwithstanding this, we find them scattered over the whole of Poland in 1386. Christians were forbidden on pain of excommunication to have any intercourse with Jews or to purchase from them. When they settled in towns they were forced to live in particular suburbs. … The incredible increase of the Jewish population, supposed to be three times as rapid as that of the Polish inhabitants, was very alarming, as the Jews managed to avoid all public burdens and taxes. Sigismund Augustus [1548-1572] resolved, in spite of their objections, to impose a poll tax of one florin per head, and at the same time to discover by this means their actual number. It was estimated at 200,000, but only 16,000 florins were paid as tax. Their power was increased by John Sobiesky, to whom they had prophesied that he would ascend the throne. He favoured the Jews so much, that the senate in 1682 implored him to regard the welfare of the state, and not let the favours of the crown pass through their hands. The laws forbidding the Jews on pain of death to trade with the peasants, to keep inns, to sell brandy—laws which were passed anew in every reign—show that they never ceased to carry on these trades, so profitable for them, so ruinous for the peasant."

Count Von Moltke, Poland: chapter 6.

ALSO IN: H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 4, chapter 18.

JEWS: A. D. 1189. Massacres in England.

At the time of the accession of Richard Cœur de Lion, king of England, the crusading spirit had inflamed a specially bitter hatred of the Jews. Some of the obnoxious people were imprudent enough to press in among the spectators of King Richard's coronation. They were driven back with blows; "a riot ensued, and the Jews' quarter was plundered. A day elapsed before the king's troops could restore order, and then only three rioters were punished, for damage done to Christians. Thus encouraged, or allowed, the frenzy of persecution spread over the land. Generally it was the country people who were setting out as pilgrims for Palestine, who began the crusade at home, while the cities interposed to preserve the king's peace. But the rumour that the unbelievers were accustomed to crucify a Christian boy at Easter had hardened men's hearts against them. The cause of murder and rapine prevailed in Dunstable, Stamford, and Lincoln. At York, the viscount allowed 500 Jews to take refuge in the castle. Fearing, in spite of this, to be given up, they closed the gates against the king's officers. They were now besieged by the townsmen, under orders of the viscount, and the defence of men untrained to arms and without artillery lay only in the strength of the walls. They offered to ransom their lives, but the crowd thirsted for blood. Then a rabbi rose up and addressed his countrymen. 'Men of Israel, hear my words: it is better for us to die for our law than to fall into the hands of those who hate it; and our law prescribes this.' Then every man slew his wife and children, and hurled the corpses over the battlements. The survivors shut themselves up with their treasures in the royal chamber, and set fire to it. The crowd indemnified themselves by sacking the Jews' quarter, and burning the schedules of their debts, which were kept for safety in the cathedral."

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 1, chapter 32.

ALSO IN: H. C. Adams, History of the Jews, chapter 16.

JEWS: 12-15th Centuries. Treatment in France.

In France, during the Middle Ages, the extorting of money from the Jews was one of the devices depended upon for replenishing the royal treasury. "It is almost incredible to what a length this was carried. Usury, forbidden by law and superstition to Christians, was confined to this industrious and covetous people. … The children of Israel grew rich in despite of insult and oppression, and retaliated upon their Christian debtors. If an historian of Philip Augustus may be believed, they possessed almost one-half of Paris. Unquestionably they must have had support both at court and in the halls of justice. The policy of the kings of France was to employ them as a sponge to suck their subjects' money, which they might afterwards express with less odium than direct taxation would incur. Philip Augustus released all Christians in his dominions from their debts to the Jews, reserving a fifth part to himself. He afterwards expelled the whole nation from France. But they appear to have returned again—whether by stealth, or, as is more probable, by purchasing permission. St. Louis twice banished and twice recalled the Jews. A series of alternate persecution and tolerance was borne by this extraordinary people with an invincible perseverance, and a talent of accumulating riches which kept pace with their plunderers; till new schemes of finance supplying the turn, they were finally expelled under Charles VI. and never afterwards obtained any legal establishment in France."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: _J. I. von Döllinger, The Jews in Europe (Studies in European History, chapter 9)._

{1928}

JEWS: 13-14th Centuries. Hostility of the Papacy and the Church. Doctrine of the Divine condemnation of the Jews to Slavery. Claim of the Emperors to ownership of them.

"The declaration by Innocent III. [Pope, 1198-1216] that the entire nation was destined by God on account of its sins to perpetual slavery, was the Magna Charta continually appealed to by those who coveted the possessions of the Jews and the earnings of their industry; both princes and people acted upon it. … The succeeding popes took their stand upon the maxims and behests of Innocent III. If the Jews built themselves a synagogue, it was to be pulled down; they might only repair the old ones. No Jew might appear as a witness against a Christian. The bishops were charged to enforce the wearing of the distinctive badge, the hat or the yellow garment, by all the means in their power. The wearing of the badge was particularly cruel and oppressive, for in the frequent tumults and risings in the towns the Jews, being thus recognisable at a glance, fell all the more easily into the hands of the excited mob; and if a Jew undertook a journey he inevitably became a prey to the numerous bandits and adventurers, who naturally considered him as an outlaw. … Where popes failed to interfere, the councils of the various countries made amends for the omission; they forbade, for instance, a Christian letting or selling a house to a Jew, or buying wine from him. Besides all this, the order was often renewed that all copies of the Talmud and commentaries upon it—consequently the greater part of the Jewish literature—should be burnt. … The new theory as to the Jews being in a state of slavery was now adopted and enlarged upon by theologians and canonists. Thomas Aquinas, whose teaching was received by the whole Roman Church as unassailable, pronounced that since the race was condemned to perpetual bondage princes could dispose of the possessions of the Jews just as they would of their own. A long list of canonical writers maintained, upon the same ground, the right of princes and governors to seize upon the sons and daughters of Jews and have them baptized by force. It was commonly taught, and the ecclesiastical claim still exists, that a Jewish child once baptized was not to be left to the father. Meanwhile princes had eagerly seized upon the papal doctrine that the perpetual slavery of the Jews was ordained by God, and on it the Emperor Frederick II. founded the claim that all Jews belonged to him as Emperor, following the contention prevalent at the time that the right of lordship over them devolved upon him as the successor of the old Roman Emperors. … King Albert went so far as to claim from King Philip of France that the French Jews should be handed over to him. … From the 14th century this 'servitude to the state' was understood to mean complete slavery. 'You yourselves, your bodies and your possessions, belong,' says the Emperor Charles IV. in a document addressed to the Jews, 'to us and to the empire; we may act, make and do with you what we will and please.' The Jews were, in fact, constantly handed about like merchandise from one to another; the emperor, now in this place, now in that, declared their claims for debts to be cancelled; and for this a heavy sum was paid into his treasury, usually 30 per cent."

_J. I. Von Döllinger, The Jews in Europe (Studies in European History, chapter 9)._

JEWS: A. D. 1290. Banished from England.

"At the same time [A. D. 1290], the King [Edward I.] banished all the Jews from the kingdom. Upward of 16,000 are said to have left England, nor did they reappear till Cromwell connived at their return in 1654. It is not quite clear why the King determined on this act of severity, especially as the Jews were royal property and a very convenient source of income. It is probable, however, that their way of doing business was very repugnant to his ideas of justice, while they were certainly great falsifiers of the coinage, which he was very anxious to keep pure and true. Earlier in the reign he had hanged between 200 and 300 of them for that crime, and they are said to have demanded 60 per cent. for their loans, taking advantage of the monopoly as money-lenders which the ecclesiastical prohibition of usury had given them."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 1, page 179.

The expulsion was in compliance with a demand made by Parliament. "We have no record of any special action or crime on the part of the Jews which suggested the particular parliamentary demand in 1290." It had been made four years before, when, "in one night, all the Jews in England were flung into prison, and would most likely have been expelled there and then, had they not outbribed the King with £12,000."

G. H. Leonard, Expulsion of the Jews by Edward I. (Royal History Society Transactions, new series, volume 5, 1891).

JEWS: A. D. 1321. Persecution of Lepers and Jews.

"In the year 1321, a general rumour prevailed through Europe that the unhappy beings afflicted with leprosy (a disease with which the Crusaders had become infected in the East …) had conspired to inoculate all their healthy fellow-creatures with their own loathsome malady. … The King of Grenada and the Jews were denounced as the prime movers of this nefarious plot directed to the extermination of Christianity; and it was said that the latter, unable to overcome the many impediments which opposed their own agency, had bribed the lepers to become their instruments. This 'enormous Creed,' in spite of its manifold absurdities, found easy admission; and, if other evidence were wanting for its support, torture was always at hand to provide confessions. Philip V. [of France] was among the firmest believers, and therefore among the most active avengers of the imaginary crime; and he encouraged persecution by numerous penal edicts. At Toulouse, 160 Jews were burned alive at once on a single pile, without distinction of sex, and, as it seems, without any forms of previous examination. In Paris, greater gentleness was manifested; those only were led to the stake from whom an avowal of guilt could be extorted."

E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 8.

{1929}

"The lord of Parthenay writes word to the king that 'a great leper,' arrested on his territory, has confessed that a rich Jew had given him money, and supplied him with drugs. These drugs were compounded of human blood, of urine, and of the blood of Christ (the consecrated wafer), and the whole, after having been dried and pounded, was put into a bag with a weight and thrown into the springs or wells. Several lepers had already been provisionally burnt in Gascony, and the king, alarmed at the new movement which was originating, hastily returned from Poitou to France, and issued an ordinance for the general arrest of the lepers. Not a doubt was entertained by anyone of this horrible compact between the lepers and the Jews. 'We ourselves,' says a chronicler of the day, 'have seen with our own eyes one of these bags, in Poitou, in a burgh of our own vassalage.' … The king ordered all found guilty to be burnt, with the exception of those female lepers who happened to be pregnant. The other lepers were to be confined to their lazarettos. As to the Jews, they were burnt indiscriminately, especially in the South."

J. Michelet, History of France, book 5, chapter 5 (volume 1).

JEWS: A. D. 1348-1349. Accused of causing the Black Plague.

On the appearance in Europe, A. D. 1348, of the pestilence known as the Black Death, "there was a suspicion that the disease was due to human agencies, and, as usual, the Jews were asserted to have contrived the machinations by which the calamity was created. They were charged with poisoning the wells, and through France, Switzerland, and Germany, thousands of these unhappy people were destroyed on evidence derived from confessions obtained under torture. As far as he could, the Emperor Charles IV. protected them. They escaped persecution too in the dominions of Albrecht of Austria. It is said that the great number of the Jewish population in Poland is due to the fact that Casimir the Great was induced by the entreaties of one Esther, a favourite Jewish mistress of that monarch, to harbour and shelter them in his kingdom. It should be mentioned that Clement VI. forbad the persecution of the Jews at Avignon."

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

ALSO IN: H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 4, chapter 4.

JEWS: A. D. 1391. Massacre and expulsion from Spain.

See above: 8TH-15TH CENTURIES; also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: A. D. 1492. Expulsion of Jews from Spain.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

JEWS: 17th Century. Toleration in Holland. Attractiveness of that country to wealthy Israelites.

See NETHERLANDS A. D. 1621-1633.

JEWS: A. D. 1655. Toleration in England by Cromwell.

"Wednesday, Dec. 12, 1655. This day, 'in a withdrawing room at Whitehall,' presided over by his Highness [the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell], who is much interested in the matter, was held 'a Conference concerning the Jews';—of which the modern reader too may have heard something. Conference, one of Four Conferences, publicly held, which filled all England with rumour in those old December days; but must now contract themselves into a point for us. Highest official Persons, with Lord Chief Barons, Lord Chief Justices, and chosen Clergy have met here to advise, by reason, Law-learning, Scripture-prophecy, and every source of light for the human mind, concerning the proposal of admitting Jews, with certain privileges as of alien-citizens, to reside in England. They were banished near Four-hundred years ago: shall they now be allowed to reside and trade again? The Proposer is Manasseh Ben Israel,' a learned Portuguese Jew of Amsterdam; who, being stirred up of late years by the great things doing in England, has petitioned one and the other, Long Parliament and Little Parliament, for this object; but could never, till his Highness came into power, get the matter brought to a hearing. And so they debate and solemnly consider; and his Highness spake;—and says one witness, 'I never heard a man speak so well.' His Highness was eager for the scheme, if so might be. But the Scripture-prophecies, Law-learnings, and lights of the human mind seemed to point another way: zealous Manasseh went home again; the Jews could not settle here except by private sufferance of his Highness."

T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 9, letter 207.

"Cromwell … was able to overcome neither the arguments of the theologians, nor the jealousies of the merchants, nor the prejudices of the indifferent; and seeing that the conference was not likely to end as he desired, he put an end to its deliberations. Then, without granting the Jews the public establishment which they had solicited, he authorized a certain number of them to take up their residence in London, where they built a synagogue, purchased the land for a burial-ground, and quietly commenced the formation of a sort of corporation, devoted to the Protector, on whose tolerance their safety entirely depended."

F. P. Guizot, History of Oliver Cromwell, book 6 (volume 2).

JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753. Condition in England. Defeated attempt to legalize their naturalization.

"The Jews … were not formally authorised to establish themselves in England till after the Restoration. The first synagogue in London was erected in 1662. … There does not appear … to have been any legal obstacle to the sovereign and Parliament naturalising a Jew till a law, enacted under James I., and directed against the Catholics, made the sacramental test an essential preliminary to naturalisation. Two subsequent enactments exempted from this necessity all foreigners who were engaged in the hemp and flax manufacture, and all Jews and Protestant foreigners who had lived for seven continuous years in the American plantations. In the reign of James II. the Jews were relieved from the payment of the alien duty, but it is a significant fact that it was reimposed after the Revolution at the petition of the London merchants. In the reign of Anne some of them are said to have privately negotiated with Godolphin for permission to purchase the town of Brentford, and to settle there with full privileges of trade; but the minister, fearing to arouse the spirit of religious intolerance and of commercial jealousy, refused the application. The great development of industrial enterprise which followed the long and prosperous administration of Walpole naturally attracted Jews, who were then as now preeminent in commercial matters, and many of them appear at this time to have settled in England,"—among others, the family of Disraeli. In 1753, the Pelhams attempted to legalise the naturalisation of Jews; "not to naturalise all resident Jews, but simply to enable Parliament to pass special Bills to naturalise those who applied to it, although they had not lived in the colonies or been engaged in the hemp or flax manufacture. … {1930} The opponents of the ministry raised the cry that the Bill was an unchristian one, and England was thrown into paroxysms of excitement scarcely less intense than those which followed the impeachment of Sacheverell. There is no page in the history of the 18th century that shows more decisively how low was the intellectual and political condition of English public opinion. According to its opponents, the Jewish Naturalisation Bill sold the birthright of Englishmen for nothing, it was a distinct abandonment of Christianity, it would draw upon England all the curses which Providence had attached to the Jews. The commercial classes complained that it would fill England with usurers. … The clergy all over England denounced it." After fierce opposition, the bill was finally passed; "but as the tide of popular indignation rose higher and higher, the ministers in the next year brought forward and carried its repeal."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century, chapter 2 (volume 1).

JEWS: A. D. 1727-1880. Persecutions and restrictions in Russia. The Pale.

"The refugees from the Ukraine who had settled in Little Russia were expelled in 1727. No Jews from without were allowed to enter Russia upon any pretext. The few physicians and other professional men of the excluded race who did manage to remain in Russia were in continual jeopardy of insult and expulsion. Over and over again Russian statesmen who were anxious to develop the resources and trade possibilities of their backward and barbarous land, hinted at the advisability of bringing in some Jews. The Imperial will was resolutely opposed. … When the broad-minded Catherine II ascended the throne these efforts were renewed, but she too resisted them, and says in her Memoirs, 'their admission into Russia might have occasioned much injury to our small tradesmen.' She was too deeply bitten with the Voltairean philosophy of her time to have, or even assume, any religious fervour in the matter, but though in 1786 she issued a high-sounding edict 'respecting the protection of the rights of Jews of Russia,' the persecution on economic and social grounds continued unabated. By this time it will be seen the laws did, however, recognise the existence of Jews in Russia. The explanation is that the first partition of Poland and the annexation of the great Turkish territory lying between the Dnieper and the Dniester had brought into the empire such a vast Hebraic population that any thought of expulsion was hopeless. … The rape of Poland and the looting of Turkey had brought two millions of Jews under the sceptre of the Czar. The fact could not be blinked. They were there—inside the Holy Empire, whose boast for centuries had been that no circumcised dog could find rest for his foot on its sanctified territory. To an autocracy based so wholly on an orthodox religion as is that of the Czars, this seemed a most trying and perplexing problem. The solution they hit upon was to set aside one part of the empire as a sort of lazar house, which should serve to keep the rest of it from pollution. Hence we get the Pale. Almost every decade since 1786, the date of Catherine's ukase, has witnessed some alteration made in the dimensions and boundaries of this Pale. Now it has been expanded, now sharply contracted. … To trace these changes would be to unnecessarily burden ourselves with details. It is enough to keep in mind that the creation of the Pale was Russia's solution of the Jewish problem in 1786, and is still the only one it can think of. Side by side with this naïve notion that Holy Russia could be kept an inviolate Christian land in the eyes of Heaven by juggling the map, there grew up the more worldly conception of turning the Jew to account as a kind of milch cow. … In 1819 Jewish brandy distillers were allowed to go into the interior and settle 'until,' as the ukase said, 'Russian master distillers shall have perfected themselves in the art of distilling.' They availed themselves of this permission in great numbers, and at the end of seven years were all summarily driven out again, a new ukase explaining that 'the number of Christian distillers was now sufficient.' … The past century's history of the Jews in Russia is made up of conflicts between these two impulses in the childlike Slavonic brain—the one to drive the heretic Jew into the Pale as into a kennel with kicks and stripes, the other guardedly to entice him out and manage to extract some service or profit from him. … In 1825 Nicholas ascended the throne. Within a year he had earned from the Jews that sinister title of 'The Second Haman,' by which Israel still recalls him. … With the death of Nicholas [1855] and the advent of Alexander II a new era dawned. Dr. Mackenzie Wallace has drawn a spirited and comprehensive picture of the literal stampede all Russia made to reform everything. … Almost the first thing the young Czar did was to revive a commission to inquire into the condition of the Jews, which Nicholas had decreed in 1840 and then allowed to lapse. This commission sent out a list of inquiries to all the Provincial Governors. These gentlemen returned voluminous reports, all, without exception, favourable to the Jews. … Upon the strength of these reports were issued the ukases of 1859, 1861, and 1865, … by which Jews of the first mercantile guild and Jewish artisans were allowed to reside all over the Empire. It is just as well to remember that even these beneficent concessions, which seem by contrast with what had gone before to mark such a vast forward step in Russo-Jewish history, were confessedly dictated by utilitarian considerations. The shackles were stricken only from the two categories of Jews whose freedom would bring profit to Russia. … Still, the quarter century following Alexander II's accession in 1855 fairly deserves its appellation of the 'golden age' when what preceded it is recalled."

H. Frederic, The New Exodus, chapters 4-5.

See, also, JEWS: 19TH CENTURY.

JEWS: A. D. 1740. Rise of the modern Chasidim.

See CHASIDIM.

JEWS: A. D. 1791. The French Revolutionary emancipation.

"It is to the French Revolution that the Jews owe their improved position in the modern world. That prolific parent of good and evil has at least deserved well of them. It was the first to do justice, full and unequivocal, to those whom every other great political movement passed over as too insignificant or too contemptible to be taken into account. Mirabeau and the Abbé Grégoire, the one in his desire to secularise the State, the other in his policy of Christianising the Revolution, as our historian Graetz puts it, both urged on a movement which, in an incredibly short space of time, succeeded in effecting the complete emancipation of all the Jews under the rule of the Republic. On the 17th September, 1791, the National Assembly decreed the abolition of every exceptional enactment previously in force against them, and thus made them by law what they had previously been in heart, citizens of their country. {1931} He who started as the child, afterwards to become the master, of the Revolution, proclaimed the same great principles of religious equality wherever his victorious eagles penetrated. Since that dawn of a better time, the light has spread more and more, though even now [1890] it is only here and there that it has shone forth unto the perfect day."

_S. Singer, Jews in their Relation to Other Races (National Life and Thought, chapter 20)._

JEWS: A. D. 1846-1858. Removal of disabilities in England.

"In 1846 the Act of Parliament was formally repealed which compelled Jews living in England to wear a distinctive dress. The law had, however, been in abeyance for nearly two centuries. About this time also the Jews were admitted to the privileges of the naturalization laws; and in 1858 the House of Commons by resolution altered the form of oath tendered to all its members. As it had stood up to this time, Jews were prevented from voting in the divisions, although a Jew could take his seat in the House when sent there by a constituency."

E. Porritt, The Englishman at Home, chapter 9.

JEWS: 19th Century. The Anti-Semite movement. Later persecution of the Jews in Russia.

"Among the strange and unforeseen developments that have characterized the fourth quarter of the nineteenth century, few are likely to be regarded by the future historian with a deeper or more melancholy interest than the anti-Semite movement, which has swept with such a portentous rapidity over a great part of Europe. It has produced in Russia by far the most serious religious persecution of the century. It has raged fiercely in Roumania, the other great centre of the Oriental Jews. In enlightened Germany it has become a considerable parliamentary force. In Austria it counts among its adherents men of the highest social station. Even France, which from the days of the Revolution has been specially distinguished for its liberality to the Jews, has not escaped the contagion. … It is this movement which has been the occasion of the very valuable work of M. Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu on 'Israel among the Nations.' The author, who is universally recognized as one of the greatest of living political writers, has special qualifications for his task. With an exceedingly wide knowledge of the literature relating to his subject he combines much personal knowledge of the Jews in Palestine and in many other countries, and especially in those countries where the persecution has most furiously raged. That persecution, he justly says, unites in different degrees three of the most powerful elements that can move mankind—the spirit of religious intolerance; the spirit of exclusive nationality; and the jealousy which springs from trade or mercantile competition. Of these elements M. Leroy-Beaulieu considers the first to be on the whole the weakest. In that hideous Russian persecution which 'the New Exodus' of Frederic has made familiar to the English reader, the religious element certainly occupies a very leading place. Pobedonosteff, who shares with his master the chief guilt and infamy of this atrocious crime, belongs to the same type as the Torquemadas of the past, and the spirit that animates him has entered largely into the anti-Semite movement in other lands. … Another element to which M. Leroy-Beaulieu attaches considerable importance is the Kultur Kampf in Germany. When the German Government was engaged in its fierce struggle with the Catholics, these endeavored to effect a diversion and to avenge themselves on papers, which were largely in the hands of Jews, by raising a new cry. They declared that a Kultur Kampf was indeed needed, but that it should be directed against the alien people who were undermining the moral foundations of Christian societies; who were the implacable enemies of the Christian creed and of Christian ideals. The cry was soon taken up by a large body of Evangelical Protestants. … Still more powerful, in the opinion of our author, has been the spirit of intense and exclusive nationality which has in the present generation arisen in so many countries and which seeks to expel all alien or heterogeneous elements, and to mould the whole national being into a single definite type. The movement has been still further strengthened by the greater keenness of trade competition. In the midst of many idle, drunken and ignorant populations the shrewd, thrifty and sober Jew stands conspicuous as the most successful trader. His rare power of judging, influencing and managing men, his fertility of resource, his indomitable perseverance and industry continually force him into the foremost rank and he is prominent in occupations which excite much animosity. The tax-gatherer, the agent, the middleman, and the money-lender are very commonly of Jewish race and great Jewish capitalists largely control the money markets of Europe at a time when capital is the special object of socialistic attacks."

_W. E. H. Lecky, Israel among the Nations (The Forum, December, 1893)._

"Until 1881 the lives and property of Jews had been respected. Their liberties were restricted, not obsolete. In that year all was changed. The Pale of Settlement, especially in the South, became a centre of riot. Crimes were charged against, and violence was offered to, those who had no means of retaliation; and whose only defence was passive endurance. The restlessness of the country, the low moral tone of the most ignorant and unreasonable peasantry in the world, commercial jealousy, and official intrigues were responsible for the outbreak. The Jews had thriven; that was a crime. As the Government had refused them the privileges of citizenship, they had no right to rise above their neighbours. A rescript, for which General Ignatieff was responsible, took cognisance, not of the sufferings of the Jews, but of the condition of the Christians. Commissioners … were appointed, in all towns inhabited by Jews, to inquire (1) into the manner of mal-practices by which the presence of Jews became injurious to the Christian population; (2) into the best methods of preventing Jews from evading old restrictions; (3) what new laws were required to stop the pernicious conduct of Jews in business. The inquiry resulted in the May Laws of 1882. These laws, which were so severe that hesitation was felt in applying them throughout the Pale, were supposed to be of only temporary application. They were known as laws for the time, and only came into full operation in 1890. … The May Laws define the Jews' duties to the State. These consist of military service, and pecuniary contributions. {1932} In common with all Russians, Jews are subject to the Law of Conscription. Unlike Christians, they may not provide a substitute. They may not follow any trade, or profession, until they have produced evidence of registration in the recruiting district. While subject to military service, Jews cannot rise higher than the rank of non-commissioned officer. … The journal of statistics gives the proportion of Jews to the population as 3.95 per cent., whereas the percentage on the conscription rolls is 5.80. Thus the Hebrew is ground between the upper and nether millstone. … In December 1890 Russians were forbidden to sell, lease, or mortgage real estate to Jews throughout the Empire, a measure hitherto applied only to Poland. Where Jews have acquired such property they will be compelled to dispose thereof. The Jewish artisans, apothecaries' assistants, dentists, and midwives, with all apprentices, are to be expelled from all places outside the Pale. Exceptions to this are obtainable only by special permission from the Minister of the Interior. Even then the children of such must be removed to the Pale as soon as they come of age, or marry an unprivileged Jew. This Pale of Settlement, which stretches along the frontier, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is a hell of seething wretchedness. Here five millions of Jews are compelled to live, and die, in a Ghetto of filth and misery, mocked with a feast of Tantalus. Beyond are lands where corn rots for lack of ingatherers; yet they are cabined and confined. Inability to bribe a corrupt mass of administrators has led to the expulsion of poor Jews from villages within the Pale, into crowded towns, such as Tchernizo, where the population has consequently risen from 5,000 to 20,000. … In September [1890] the Jews were expelled from Trans-caspian territory; in October, Jews, not having the right to live in St. Petersburg, were ordered to be transferred, with their families, to their proper places of abode; in January the Jews were ordered to be expelled from the Terke region of the Caucasus; in February the Jews in Novgorod were expelled. It has been declared expedient to expel them from the Cossack Stanitzas of the Caucasus. Three years ago the Jews were forbidden to live on Crown lands. Eighty-seven families were recently ordered to leave Saraka districts; because they had settled there after the passing of the Ignatieff laws. Artisans are henceforth to be confined to limits of residence within the Pale. It is the same with millers; therefore mills are idle, and the price of corn has declined. In Courland and Livonia, descendants of Jewish families, which were established when those provinces were incorporated into Russia, may remain; but no others may settle. … Jews who have lived eight years in a village may be interned therein, and may not move, even walking distance, without leave. Jews leaving one village for another lose their rights, and must go to the Ghetto of the nearest town. This is practically a sentence of death. Executions are going on, not upon scaffolds, but in dusky Ghettos, where the victims of oppression pine without hope in the world."

_C. N. Barham, Persecution of the Jews in Russia (Westminster Review, volume 136, 1891), pages 139-144._

ALSO IN: Persecution of the Jews in Russia: issued by the Russo-Jewish Committee;

_D. F. Schloss, Persecution of the Jews in Roumania._

----------JEWS: End----------

JEYPORE, OR JEYPOOR.

See RAJPOOTS.

JEZIREH, Al.

See MESOPOTAMIA.

JEZREEL, Battle of.

See MEGIDDO.

JINGIZ-KHAN, The conquests of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227; and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

JINGOES.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878 EXCITEMENT IN ENGLAND.

JIVARA, OR JIVARO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

JOACHIM I., Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1499-1535.

Joachim II., Elector of Brandenburg, 1535-1571.

Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg, 1598-1608.

JOAN OF ARC, The mission of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1429-1431.

JOANNA, Queen of Castile, A. D. 1504-1555.

Joanna I., Queen of Naples, 1343-1381.

Joanna II., Queen of Naples, 1414-1435.

JOGLARS.

See TROUBADOURS.

JOHN (of Brienne), Latin Emperor at Constantinople (Romania), A. D. 1228-1237.

John (of Luxemburg), King of Bohemia, A. D. 1310-1346.

John, King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 1481-1513.

John, King of England, 1199-1216.

John (Don) of Austria: His victories over the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571, and 1572-1573.

In the Netherlands. See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577, and 1577-1581.

John, Elector of Brandenburg, 1486-1499.

John (called The Fearless), Duke of Burgundy, 1404-1418.

John I., King of Aragon, 1387-1395.

John I., King of Castile and Leon, 1379-1390.

John I., nominal King of France (an infant who lived seven days), 1316.

John I., King of Navarre, 1441-1479;

John II., of Aragon, 1458-1479;

John I., of Sicily, 1458-1479.

John I., King of Portugal, 1383-1433.

John I., King of Sicily, 1458-1479.

John II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), 1118-1143.

John II., King of Castile and Leon, 1407-1454.

John II. (called The Good), King of France, 1350-1364.

John II., King of Portugal, 1481-1495.

John III. (Vataces), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1222-1255.

John III., King of Portugal, 1521-1557.

John III., King of Sweden, 1568-1592.

John IV., Pope, 640-642.

John IV. (Lascaris), Greek Emperor of Nicæa, 1259-1260.

John IV., King of Portugal, 1640-1656.

John V., Pope, 685-686.

John V. (Cantacuzene), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1342-1355.

John V., King of Portugal, 1706-1750.

John VI., Pope, 701-705.

John VI. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1355-1391.

John VI., King of Portugal, 1816-1826.

John VII., Pope, 705-707.

John VII. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, 1425-1448.

John VIII., Pope, 872-882.

John IX., Pope, 898-900.

John X., Pope, 914-928.

John XI., Pope, 931-936.

John XII., Pope, 956-964.

John XIII., Pope, 965-972.

John XIV., Pope, 983-984.

John XV., Pope, 985-996.

John XVI., Antipope, 997-998.

John XVII., Pope, 1003, June to December.

John XVIII., Pope, 1003-1009.

John XIX., Pope, 1024-1033.

John XXI. (so styled, though 20th of the name), Pope, 1276-1277.

John XXII., Pope, 1316-1334.

John XXIII., Pope, 1410-1410.

John Albert, King of Poland, 1493-1501.

John d'Albret and Catherine, King and Queen of Navarre, 1503-1512.

John Balliol, King of Scotland, 1292-1296.

John Casimir, King of Poland, 1648-1668.

John Chrysostom and the Empress Eudoxia.

See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

John George, Elector of Brandenburg, 1571-1598.

John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg, 1608-1619.

John Sobieski, King of Poland, 1674-1697.

John Swerkerson, King of Sweden, 1216-1222.

John Zimisces, Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), 969-976.

{1933}

JOHN COMPANY, The.

A name applied to the English East India Company.

See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

JOHNNIES.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.

JOHNSON, Andrew: Military Governor of Tennessee.

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

Election to the Vice Presidency.

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

Succession to the Presidency.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 15TH).

Reconstruction Policy.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).

Impeachment of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1868 (MARCH-MAY).

JOHNSON, Sir William, and the Six Nations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

JOHNSON-CLARENDON CONVENTION.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

JOHNSTON, General Albert Sidney. Command of Confederate forces in the west. Battle of Shiloh. Death.

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

JOHNSTON, General Joseph E. At the first Battle of Bull Run.

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

Command in northern Virginia.

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

Command on the Peninsula.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MARCH-MAY: VIRGINIA), to (MAY: VIRGINIA).

Command in the west.

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

Command in Georgia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL: TENNESSEE-MISSISSIPPI).

The Atlanta campaign. Relieved of command.

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

Command in the Carolinas.

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

Surrender.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 26TH).

JOHNSTOWN FLOOD, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1889-1890.

JOINT HIGH COMMISSION.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871.

JOLIET'S EXPLORATIONS.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

JOMSBORG.

Jomsborg, a stronghold at the mouth of the Oder, became, in the later part of the 10th and early part of the 11th centuries, a noted fastness of the piratical heathen Danes, who found there "a secure refuge from the new religion and the civilization it brought with it," which their country was then submitting to. They founded at Jomsborg "a state to which no man might belong save on proof of courage, where no woman might enter within the walls, and where all booty was in common."

J. R. Green, The Conquest of England, pages 366-367.

"The impregnable castle of a certain body corporate, or 'Sea-Robbery Association (limited),' which, for some generations, held the Baltic in terror, and plundered far beyond the Belt—in the ocean itself, in Flanders and the opulent trading havens there,—above all, in opulent anarchic England, which, for forty years from about this time, was the pirates' Goshen; and yielded, regularly every summer, slaves, danegelt, and miscellaneous plunder, like no other country Jomsburg or the viking-world had ever known."

T. Carlyle, Early Kings of Norway, chapter 5.

The pirate-nest at Jomsborg was broken up, about the middle of the tenth century, by Magnus the Good, of Norway.

JONES, John Paul, Naval exploits of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776; and 1779 (SEPTEMBER).

JONESBORO', Battle of.

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

JONGLEURS.

See TROUBADOURS.

JOPPA.

See JAFFA.

JOSEPH, King of Portugal, A. D. 1750-1777.

Joseph I., King of Hungary, 1687-1711; King of Bohemia and Germanic Emperor, 1705-1711.

Joseph II., King of Hungary and Bohemia, and Germanic Emperor, 1765-1790.

Joseph Bonaparte, King of Naples, 1806-1808; King of Spain, 1808-1812.

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

JOSEPHINE, Empress, Napoleon's divorce from.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

JOTAPATA, Siege of.

The Jewish city of Jotapata, defended by the historian Josephus, was besieged by Vespasian for forty-seven days, A. D. 67, and taken.

Josephus, Jewish War, book 3, chapter 7-8.

JOUBERT, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D.1796-1797(OCTOBER-APRIL); 1798-1799; 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

JOURDAN, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793(JULY-DECEMBER); 1794 (MARCH-JULY); 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER); 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER); 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

JOUST.

See TOURNEY.

JOVIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 363-364.

JOVIANS AND HERCULIANS.

See PRÆTORIAN GUARDS: A. D. 312.

JOYOUS ENTRY OF BRABANT, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D.1559-1562.

JUAN.

See JOHN.

JUAREZ, The Mexican government of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861, to 1867-1888.

JUBILEE, Papal institution of the.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

JUDAH, Kingdom of.

See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL, AND JUDAH, and after.

JUDAS MACCABÆUS.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

JUDGES OF ISRAEL.

See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

JUDGMENT OF GOD.

See ORDEAL; also, WAGER OF BATTLE.

{1934}

JUDICIAL COMBAT.

See WAGER OF BATTLE.

JUGANTES, The.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

JUGERUM.

"A Roman jugerum [of land] was somewhat less than two-thirds of a statute acre."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 7, footnote (volume 1).

JUGURTHINE WAR, The.

See NUMIDIA: B. C. 118-104.

JULIAN (called The Apostate), Roman Emperor, A. D. 361-363. Restorer of Paganism.

See ROME: A. D. 361-363.

JULIAN CALENDAR. JULIAN ERA.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

JULIAN FAMILY, The.

"The Julian Family is that of the dictator Cæsar; his name was transmitted, by adoption, out of the direct line, but always within the circle of his kindred, to the five first heads of the Roman empire; Augustus reigned from the year 30 B. C. to the year 14 of our era; Tiberius, from 14 to 37 A. D.; Caligula, from 37 to 41; Claudius, from 41 to 54; Nero, from 54 to 68."

J. C. L. Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 2.

JULIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

JULIAN LAWS, The.

"Cæsar [during his year of consulship, B. C. 59, before he went to Gaul] carried, with the help of the people, the body of admirable laws which are known to jurists as the 'Leges Juliæ,' and mark an epoch in Roman history. … There was a law declaring the inviolability of the persons of magistrates during their term of authority, reflecting back on the murder of Saturninus, and touching by implication the killing of Lentulus and his companions. There was a law for the punishment of adultery, most disinterestedly singular if the popular accounts of Cæsar's habits had any grain of truth in them. There were laws for the protection of the subject from violence, public or private; and laws disabling persons who had laid hands illegally on Roman citizens from holding office in the Commonwealth. There was a law, intended at last to be effective, to deal with judges who allowed themselves to be bribed. There were laws against defrauders of the revenue; laws against debasing the coin; laws against sacrilege; laws against corrupt State contracts; laws against bribery at elections. Finally, there was a law, carefully framed, 'De repetundis.' to exact retribution from pro-consuls or pro-prætors of the type of Verres, who had plundered the provinces."

J. A. Froude, Cæsar, chapter 13.

JULIAN LINE, The.

See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

JULIANUS.

See JULIAN.

Julianus, Didius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 193.

JÜLICH-CLEVE CONTEST, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618; and FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

JULIOMAGUS. Modern Angers.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

JULIUS II., Pope, A. D. 1503-1513.

Julius III., Pope, 1550-1555.

Julius Nepos, Roman Emperor (Western), 474-475.

JULY FIRST. Dominion Day.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

JULY FOURTH, Independence Day.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JULY).

JULY MONARCHY, The.

The reign of Louis Philippe, which was brought about by the revolution of July, 1830 (see FRANCE: A.D. 1815-1830, and 1830-1840), is commonly known in France as the July Monarchy.

JUNIN, Battle of (1824).

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

JUNIUS LETTERS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.

JUNONIA.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 44.

JUNTA.

A Spanish word signifying council, assembly, association.

JUNTA, The Apostolic.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

JURISFIRMA, The process of.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

JUROIPACH, Fortress of.

A fortress in the pass of Derbend, between the last spurs of the Caucasus and the Caspian, which the Persians and the Romans undertook at one time to maintain jointly. "This fortress, known as Juroipach or Biraparach, commanded the usual passage by which the hordes of the north were accustomed to issue from their vast arid steppes upon the rich and populous regions of the south for the purpose of plundering raids, if not of actual conquests. Their incursions threatened almost equally Roman and Persian territory, and it was felt that the two nations were alike interested in preventing them."

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 19.

JURY, Trial by.

"The fabric of our judicial legislation commences with the Assize of Clarendon.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

… In the provisions of this assize for the repression of crime we find the origin of trial by jury, so often attributed to earlier times. Twelve lawful men of each hundred, with four from each township, were sworn to present those who were known or reputed as criminals within their district for trial by ordeal. The jurors were thus not merely witnesses, but sworn to act as judges also in determining the value of the charge; and it is this double character of Henry's [Henry II.] jurors that has descended to our 'grand jury.' … Two later steps brought the jury to its modern condition. Under Edward I. witnesses acquainted with the particular fact in question were added in each case to the general jury, and by the separation of these two classes of jurors at a later time the last became simply 'witnesses,' without any judicial power, while the first ceased to be witnesses at all, and became our modern jurors, who are only judges of the testimony given."

J. R. Green, Short History of English People, chapter 2, section 8.

See LAW.

ALSO IN: W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 13, section 164.

_W. Forsyth, History of Trial by Jury._

JUSTICIAR.

The chief minister of the Norman kings of England. At first the Justiciar was the lieutenant or viceroy of the king during the absence of the latter from the kingdom; afterward a permanent minister of justice and finance.

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, volume 1, page 346.

JUSTIN I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 518-527.

Justin II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), 565-578.

JUSTINIAN I., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 527-565.

Justinian II. (called Rhinotmetus), Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 685-695, and 704-711.

JUSTINIAN, The Institutes, Pandects and Novels of.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

{1935}

JUSTIZA, OR JUSTICIARY, of Aragon.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

JÜTERBOGK, OR DENNEWITZ, Battle of.

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

JUTES, The.

See ANGLES AND JUTES; also, ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

JUTHUNGI, The.

See ALEMANNI, FIRST APPEARANCE OF THE.

JUVAVIUM.

See SALZBURG.

JUVENAL IA, The.

This was a festival instituted by Nero, to commemorate his attainment of the age of manhood. "His beard was clipped, and the first tender down of his cheek and chin enclosed in a golden casket and dedicated to Jupiter in the Capitol. This ceremony was followed by music and acting," in which the emperor, himself, performed.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 53.

JUVERNA.

See IRELAND: THE NAME.

KAABA, OR CAABA, at Mecca, The.

See CAABA.

KABALA, OR CABALA, The.

See CABALA.

KABALA, Battle of.

See SICILY: B. C. 383.

KABELJAUWS.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354; also, 1482-1493.

KABYLES, The.

See LIBYANS; also, AMORITES.

KADESH.

A strong fortress of the ancient Hittites on the Orontes. The name signifies "the holy city."

KADESH-BARNEA.

An important locality in Biblical history. "It looms up as the objective point of the Israelites in their movement from Sinai to the Promised Land. It is the place of their testing, of their failure, of their judging, and of their dispersion. It is their rallying centre for the forty-years of their wandering, and the place of their re-assembling for their final move into the land of their longings."

H. C. Trumbull, Kadesh-Barnea, part 1.

Mr. Trumbull identifies the site with the oasis of Ayn Qadees, in the Wilderness of Zin.

KADIASKERS.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

KADISIYEH, Battle of.

See CADESIA.

KADMEIA, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

KADMEIANS, OR CADMEIANS.

See BŒOTIA.

KADMONITES, The.

See SARACENS.

KAFIRS. KAFIR WARS.

See SOUTH AFRICA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS, and A. D. 1811-1868; also, AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

KAGHUL, Battle of (1770).

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KAH-KWAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

KAINARDJI, OR KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Treaty of (1774).

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KAIRWAN, The founding of.

Acbah, the first of the Moslem conquerors of Northern Africa who penetrated as far westward as the domain of ancient Carthage, but who did not take that city, secured his footing in the region [A. D. 670-675] by founding a new city, thirty-three leagues southeast of Carthage and twelve leagues from the sea. The site chosen was a wild, thickly wooded valley, in the midst of which the Arab leader is said to have cleared a space, erected walls around it, and then, planting his lance in the center, cried to his followers: "This is your Caravan." Hence the name, Kairwan or Caerwan, or Cairoan. Fixing his seat of government at Kairwan, building mosques and opening markets, Acbah and his successors soon made the new city a populous and important capital.

W. Irving, Mahomet and his Successors, volume 2, chapter 44.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 51.

_A. A. Boddy, Kairwan the Holy._

KAISAR-I-HIND.

See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

KAISER, Origin of the title.

See CÆSAR, THE TITLE.

KAISERSLAUTERN, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

KALAPOOIAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KALAPOOIAN FAMILY.

KALB, Baron De, and the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

KALEVALA, KALEWALA, The.

"To a certain class of modern philologists, no poem in the world is more familiar than the Kalewala, the long epic, which is to the mythology and traditional lore of the Finns what the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer are to the heroic story of ancient Greece. It is the source from which nearly all the information connected with the religious creed, the moral notions, the customs, and the domestic details of a most remarkable race is to be obtained. If we would know how the Greeks of the heroic age prayed, fought, eat, drank, sported, and clothed themselves, we turn to the pages of Homer. If we would obtain similar knowledge on the subject of the Finns, we consult the Kalewala. Though the traditions of the Finnish heroes are possibly as old as those of Achilles and Ajax, the arrangement of them into a continuous poem is a work of very recent date. No Wolfian controversy will arise respecting the construction of the Kalewala, for it is not more than twenty-five years since the Peisistratid who first put together the isolated songs, or Runes, published the result of his labours. Fragments of Finnish poetry, collected from the oral traditions of the people, had already made their appearance, though even the first important collection of these, which was made by Dr. Zacharias Topelius, dates no further back than 1822. … But it is with Dr. Lönnrot that the existence of the epic as an epic, with the title 'Kalewala,' begins. He published it in thirty-two Runes,—that is to say, books or cantos, for the word, which previously denoted an independent poem, now sinks into little more than a sign of division, though here and there, it must be confessed, an abrupt transition occurs, to which a parallel would not be found in the Iliad or the Odyssey. In 1849 a second edition of the Kalewala was published, likewise under the superintendence of Dr. Lönnrot, containing fifty cantos and nearly 23,000 lines."

_J. Oxenford, Kalewala (Temple Bar, December, 1860)._

{1936}

"Besides its fresh and simple beauty of style, its worth as a storehouse of every kind of primitive folk-lore, being as it is the production of an Urvolk, a nation that has undergone no violent revolution in language or institutions—the Kalevala has the peculiar interest of occupying a position between the two kinds of primitive poetry, the ballad and the epic. … Sixty years ago, it may be said, no one was aware that Finland possessed a national poem at all. Her people—who claim affinity with the Magyars of Hungary, but are possibly a back-wave of an earlier tide of population—had remained untouched by foreign influences since their conquest by Sweden, and their somewhat lax and wholesale conversion to Christianity: events which took place gradually between the middle of the twelfth and the end of the thirteenth centuries. … The annexation of Finland by Russia, in 1809, awakened national feeling, and stimulated research into the songs and customs which were the heirlooms of the people. … From the north of Norway to the slopes of the Altai, ardent explorers sought out the fragments of unwritten early poetry. These runes, or runots, were sung chiefly by old men called Runoias, to beguile the weariness of the long dark winters. The custom was for two champions to engage in a contest of memory, clasping each other's hands, and reciting in turn till he whose memory first gave in slackened his hold. The Kalevala contains an instance of this practice, where it is said that no one was so hardy as to clasp hands with Wäinämöinen, who is at once the Orpheus and the Prometheus of Finnish mythology. These Runoias, or rhapsodists, complain, of course, of the degeneracy of human memory; they notice how any foreign influence, in religion or politics, is destructive to the native songs of a race. 'As for the lays of old time, a thousand have been scattered to the wind, a thousand buried in the snow. … As for those which the Munks (the Teutonic knights) swept away, and the prayer of the priest over-whelmed, a thousand tongues were not able to recount them.' In spite of the losses thus caused, and in spite of the suspicious character of the Finns, which often made the task of collection a dangerous one, enough materials remained to furnish Dr. Lönnrot, the most noted explorer, with thirty-five Runots, or cantos. These were published in 1835, but later research produced the fifteen cantos which make up the symmetrical fifty of the Kalevala. In the task of arranging and uniting these, Dr. Lönnrot played the part generally ascribed to Pisistratus in relation to the Iliad and Odyssey. He is said to have handled with singular fidelity the materials which now come before us as one poem, not without a certain unity and continuous thread of narrative. It is this unity which gives the Kalevala a claim to the title of epic, although the element of permanence which is most obvious in the Greek epics, and in the earliest Hebrew records, is here conspicuously absent. … Among the Finns we find no trace of an aristocracy; there is scarcely a mention of kings, or priests; the heroes of the poem are really popular heroes, fishers, smiths, husbandmen, 'medicine-men' or wizards; exaggerated shadows of the people, pursuing on a heroic scale, not war, but the common daily business of primitive and peaceful men. In recording their adventures, the Kalevala, like the shield of Achilles, reflects all the life of a race, the feasts, the funerals, the rites of seed-time and harvest, of marriage and death, the hymn, and the magical incantation. Were this all, the epic would only have the value of an exhaustive collection of the popular ballads which, as we have seen, are a poetical record of all the intenser moments in the existence of unsophisticated tribes. But it is distinguished from such a collection, by presenting the ballads as they are produced by the events of a continuous narrative, and thus it takes a distinct place between the aristocratic epics of Greece, or of the Franks, and the scattered songs which have been collected in Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, and Italy. Besides the interest of its unique position as a popular epic, the Kalevala is very precious, both for its literary beauties and for the confused mass of folk-lore which it contains. … What is to be understood by the word 'Kalevala'? The affix 'la' signifies 'abode.' Thus, 'Tuonela' is 'the abode of Tuoni,' the god of the lower world; and as 'kaleva' means 'heroic,' 'magnificent,' 'Kalevala' is 'The Home of Heroes,' like the Indian 'Beerbhoom,' or 'Virbhûmi.' The poem is the record of the adventures of the people of Kalevala—of their strife with the men of Pohjola, the place of the world's end."

_A. Lang, Kalevala (Fraser's May, June, 1872)._

A complete translation of the Kalevala into English verse, by John Martin Crawford, was published in New York, in 1888.

Project Gutenberg Kalevala: the Epic Poem of Finland— Complete by Lönnrot and Crawford https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186

KALISCH, Battle of (1706).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

KALISCH, OR CALISCH, Treaty of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

KALMUKS, The.

See TARTARS.

KAMBALU, OR CAMBALU,

See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

KAMBULA, Battle of (1879),

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1879.

KAMI, OR KHEMI, OR KEM.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KANAKAS.

See HAWAIIAN ISLANDS.

KANAWHA, Battle of the Great.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

KANAWHA, The proposed State of.

See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

KANAWHAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

KANDHS, The.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

----------KANSAS: Start--------

KANSAS: The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KANSAS: A. D. 1803. Mostly embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

KANSAS: A. D. 1854. Territorial organization. The Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859. The battle-ground of the struggle against Slavery-extension. Border-ruffians and Free State settlers.

"The attention of the whole country had now been turned to the struggle provoked by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The fertile soil of Kansas had been offered as a prize to be contended for by Free and Slave States, and both had accepted the contest. The Slave State settlers were first in the field. The slave-holders of Western Missouri, which shut off Kansas from the Free States, had crossed the border, preempted lands, and warned Free State immigrants not to pass through Missouri. {1937} The first election of a delegate to Congress took place November 29th, 1854, and was carried by organized bands of Missourians, who moved over the border on election day, voted, and returned at once to Missouri. The spring election of 1855, for a Territorial Legislature, was carried in the same fashion. In July, 1855, the Legislature, all Pro-Slavery, met at Pawnee, and adopted a State Constitution. To save trouble it adopted the laws of the State of Missouri entire, with a series of original statutes denouncing the penalty of death for nearly fifty offenses against Slavery. All through the spring and summer of 1855 Kansas was the scene of almost continuous conflict, the Border Ruffians of Missouri endeavoring to drive out the Free State settlers by murder and arson, and the Free State settlers retaliating. The cry of 'bleeding Kansas' went through the North. Emigration societies were formed in the Free States to aid, arm, equip, and protect intending settlers. These, prevented from passing through Missouri, took a more Northern route through Iowa and Nebraska, and moved into Kansas like an invading army. The Southern states also sent parties of intending settlers. But these were not generally slave-holders, but young men anxious for excitement. They did not go to Kansas, as their opponents did, to plow, sow, gather crops, and build up homes. Therefore, though their first rapid and violent movements were successful, their subsequent increase of resources and numbers was not equal to that of the Free State settlers. The Territory soon became practically divided into a Pro-Slavery district, and a Free State district. Leavenworth in the former, and Topeka and Lawrence in the latter, were the chief towns. September 5th, 1855, a Free State Convention at Topeka repudiated the Territorial Legislature and all its works, as the acts and deeds of Missourians alone. It also resolved to order a separate election for delegate to Congress, so as to force that body to decide the question, and to form a State government. January 15th, 1856, the Free State settlers [having applied to Congress for admission as a State] elected State officers under the Topeka Free State Constitution. The Federal Executive now entered the field. January 24th, 1856, the President [Franklin Pierce], in a Special Message to Congress, endorsed the Pro-Slavery Legislature, and pronounced the attempt to form a Free State government, without the approval of the Federal authorities in the Territory, to be an act of rebellion. He then issued a proclamation, warning all persons engaged in disturbing the peace of Kansas to retire to their homes, and placed United States troops at the orders of Governor Shannon to enforce the (Pro-Slavery) laws of the Territory. The population of Kansas was now so large that very considerable armies were mustered on both sides, and a desultory civil war was kept up until nearly the end of the year. During its progress two Free State towns, Lawrence and Ossawattomie, were sacked. July 4th, 1856, the Free State Legislature attempted to assemble at Topeka, but was at once dispersed by a body of United States troops, under orders from Washington. September 9th, a new Governor, Geary, of Pennsylvania, arrived and succeeded in keeping the peace to some extent by a mixture of temporizing and decided measures. By the end, of the year he even claimed to have established order in the Territory. … January 6th, 1857, the Free State Legislature again attempted to meet at Topeka, and was again dispersed by Federal interference. Its presiding officer and many of its members were arrested by a United States deputy marshal. The Territorial, or Pro-Slavery, Legislature quarreled with Governor Geary, who resigned, and Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, was appointed in his stead. A resolution was passed by the House [in Congress] declaring the Acts of the Territorial Legislature cruel, oppressive, illegal, and void. It was tabled by the Senate." A new Congress met December 7th, 1857, "with a Democratic majority in both branches. In the House, James L. Orr, of South Carolina, a Democrat, was chosen Speaker. The debates of this Session were mainly upon the last scene in the Kansas struggle. Governor Walker had succeeded in persuading the Free State settlers to recognize the Territorial Legislature so far as to take part in the election which it had ordered. The result gave them control of the Legislature. But a previously elected Pro-Slavery Convention, sitting at Lecompton, went on to form a State Constitution. This was to be submitted to the people, but only votes 'For the Constitution with Slavery,' or 'For the Constitution without Slavery,' were to be received. Not being allowed in either event to vote against the Constitution, the Free State settlers refused to vote at all, and the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery received 6,000 majority. The new Territorial Legislature, however, ordered an election at which the people could vote for or against the Lecompton Constitution, and a majority of 10,000 was cast against it. … The President's Message argued in favor of receiving Kansas as a State under the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery, on the ground that the delegates had been chosen to form a State Constitution, and were not obligated to submit it to the people at all. This view was supported by the Southern members of Congress, and opposed by the Republicans and by a part of the Democrats, headed by Senator Douglas, of Illinois. The Senate passed a bill admitting Kansas as a State, under the Lecompton Constitution. The House passed the bill, with the proviso that the Constitution should again be submitted to a popular vote. The Senate rejected the proviso. A conference committee recommended that the bill of the House should be adopted, with an additional proviso making large grants of public lands to the new State, if the people of Kansas should vote to adopt the Lecompton Constitution. In this form the bill was passed by both Houses, and became a law. … The proffered inducement of public lands was a failure, and in August the Lecompton Constitution was rejected by 10,000 majority. Kansas, therefore, still remained a Territory. In 1859, at an election called by the Territorial Legislature, the people decided in favor of another Convention to form a State Constitution. This body met at Wyandot, in July, 1859, and adopted a State Constitution prohibiting Slavery. The Wyandot Constitution was submitted to the people and received a majority of 4,000 in its favor;" but Congress refused the admission to Kansas under this Constitution, the Senate rejecting, though the House approved.

A. Johnston, History of American Politics, chapters 18-19.

ALSO IN: _D. W. Wilder, Annals of Kansas (containing the text of the several Constitutions, etc.)._

E. E. Hale, Kansas and Nebraska, chapters 8-9.

_S. T. L. Robinson, Kansas_

_J. H. Gihon, Governor Geary's Administration in Kansas._

F. B. Sanborn, Life and Letters of John Brown, chapters 7-11.

_Reports of Select Committee, (34th Congress, 1st Session, H. R. Report 200)._

J. F. Rhodes, History of the United States from 1850, chapters 7-9 (volume 2).

_C. Robinson, The Kansas Conflict._

See, also, JAYHAWKERS.

{1938}

KANSAS: A. D. 1861. Admission to the Union under the Wyandot Constitution.

"As soon as a sufficient number of Southern members of Congress [from the seceding States] had withdrawn to give the Republicans a majority in both Houses, Kansas was admitted as a State [January 29, 1861] under the Wyandot Free State Constitution."

_A. Johnston, History of American Politics, 2d edition, page 185._

KANSAS: A. D. 1863. Quantrell's guerrilla raid. The sacking of Lawrence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST: MISSOURI-KANSAS).

----------KANSAS: End----------

KANSAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KAPOHN, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

KAPOLNA, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KAPPEL, Battle of (1531). The Kappeler Milchsuppe.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1528-1531.

KARA GEORG, The career of.

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

KARAISM. KARAITES.

The Jewish sect of the Karaites originated in the teaching of one Anan ben David, in the 8th century, whose radical doctrine was the rejection of the Talmud and a return to the Bible "for the ordering of religious life." Hence "the system of religion which Anan founded received the name of the Religion of the Text, or Karaism,"

H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 3, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 23.

KARAKORUM.

The early capital of the Mongol empire of Jingis Khan and his successors was at Karakorum, believed to have been situated near the river Orkhon, or Orgon. Ogotai built a great palace there, in 1235, called Ordu Balik, or the city of the Ordu.

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1. pages 155 and 182.

See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

KARANKAWAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KARANKAWAN FAMILY.

KARIGAUM, Defense of (1817).

See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

KARKAR, Battle of.

Fought B. C. 854, by Shalmaneser of Assyria, with the confederate, kings of Damascus, Israel and their Syrian neighbors; the latter defeated.

KARL.

See ETHEL.—ETHELING.

KARLINGS, OR CARLINGS.

See FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

KARLOWITZ, OR CARLOWITZ, Peace of.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

KARLSBAD, OR CARLSBAD, Congress of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

KARMATHIANS, The.

See CARMATHIANS.

KARNATTAH.

The Moorish name of Granada, signifying "the cream of the West."

See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

KAROKS, OR CAHROCS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

KAROLINGIA AND KAROLINGIANS.

See CAROLINGIA; and FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

----------KARS: Start--------

KARS: A. D. 1854-1856. Siege and capture by the Russians. Restoration to Turkey.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1855 and 1854-1856.

KARS: A. D. 1877. Siege and capture by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

KARS: A. D. 1878. Cession to Russia.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878 THE TREATIES.

----------KARS: End--------

KASDIM, OR CASDIM.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

----------KASHMERE: Start--------

KASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820. Conquest by Runjet Singh.

See SIKHS.

KASHMERE: A. D. 1846.

Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to Gholab Singh.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

----------KASHMERE: Start--------

----------KASKASKIA: Start--------

KASKASKIA, French settlement of.

See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1751.

KASKASKIA: A. D. 1778. Taken by the Virginian General Clark.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

----------KASKASKIA: End----------

KASKASKIAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

KASSOPIANS.

See EPIRUS.

KATABA, OR CATAWBAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY, and, SIOUAN FAMILY.

KATANA, Naval Battle of.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

KATZBACH, Battle of.

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

KAUS, OR KWOKWOOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.

KAWS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KAZAN, The Khanate of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

KEARNEYITES.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

KEARNEY'S EXPEDITION AND CONQUEST OF NEW MEXICO.

See NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

KEDAR, Tribe of.

"The Arabs of the tribe of Kedar are often mentioned in the Bible, especially with reference to the trade with Phœnicia. They furnished the caravans across the desert of Dahna, to convey the merchandise of Hadramaut, Marah, and Oman to Syria. They inhabited the southern portion of Yemama, on the borders of the desert."

F. Lenormant, Manual of the Ancient History of the East, book 7, chapter 1, section 7 (volume 2).

KEECHIES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KEEHEETSAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

KEEWATIN, District of.

"In 1876 an act was passed by the Dominion Parliament [Canada] erecting into a separate government under the name of the District of Keewatin the portion of the North-West Territory lying to the north of Manitoba. The district contains about 395,000 acres, and is principally occupied by Icelandic colonists. The Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba is ex-officio Lieutenant-Governor of Keewatin."

J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, page 35.

{1939}

KEFT.

The ancient Egyptian name of Phœnicia.

----------KEHL: Start--------

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

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

KEHL: A. D. 1733. Taken by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

----------KEHL: End--------

KEITH, George, The schism and the controversies of.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

KELLY'S FORD, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

KELTS, The.

See CELTS, THE.

KEM, OR KAMI, OR KHEMI.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KENAI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET, and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

KENDALL, Amos, in the "Kitchen Cabinet" of President Jackson.

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

KENESAW MOUNTAIN, Battle of.

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

KENITES, The.

See AMALEKITES, THE.

KENT, Kingdom of.

Formed by the Jutes in the southeast corner of Britain. The only other settlement of the Jutes in England was in the Isle of Wight and on the neighboring coast of Hampshire.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

KENT, Weald of.

See ANDERIDA.

KENT'S HOLE.

One of the most noted of the caves which have been carefully explored for relics of early man, coeval with extinct animals. It is in Devonshire, England, near Torquay.

_W. B. Dawkins, Cave Hunting._

----------KENTUCKY: Start----------

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1748. First English exploration from Virginia.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778. Absence of Indian inhabitants. Early exploration and settlement by the whites. The colony of Transylvania.

In the wars that were waged between the Indian tribes of the South, before the advent of white settlers, Kentucky became "a sort of border-land such as separated the Scots and English in their days of combat. … The Chickasaws alone held their ground, being the most northern of the sedentary Southern Indians. Their strongholds on the bluffs of the Mississippi and the inaccessibility of this country on account of its deep, sluggish, mud-bordered streams, seem to have given them a sufficient measure of protection against their enemies, but elsewhere in the State the Indians were rooted out by their wars. The last tenants of the State, east of the Tennessee River, were the Shawnees,—that combative folk who ravaged this country with their ceaseless wars from the head-waters of the Tennessee to the Mississippi, and from the Lakes to Alabama. It was no small advantage to the early settlers of Kentucky that they found this region without a resident Indian population, for, bitter as was the struggle with the claimants of the soil, it never had the danger that would have come from a contest with the natives in closer proximity to their homes. … As Kentucky was unoccupied by the Indians, it was neglected by the French. … Thus the first settlers found themselves, in the main, free from these dangers due to the savages and their Gallic allies. The land lay more open to their occupancy than any other part of this country ever did to its first European comers. … In 1765 Colonel George Croghan, who had previously visited the Ohio with Gist, made a surveying journey down that stream from Pittsburg to the Mississippi. … In 1766 a party of five persons, including a mulatto slave, under the command of Captain James Smith, explored a large part of what is now Tennessee, and probably extended their journey through Southern Kentucky. Journeys to Kentucky now became frequent. Every year sent one or more parties of pioneers to one part or another of the country. In 1769 Daniel Boone and five companions, all from the Yadkin settlements in North Carolina, came to Eastern Kentucky. One of the party was killed, but Boone remained, while his companions returned to their homes. Thus it will be seen that Boone's first visit was relatively late in the history of Kentucky explorations. Almost every part of its surface had been traversed by other explorers before this man, who passes in history as the typical pioneer, set foot upon its ground. In the time between 1770 and 1772 George Washington, then a land-surveyor, made two surveys in the region which is now the northeast corner of Kentucky. … The first distinct effort to found a colony was made by James Harrod and about forty companions, who found their way down the Ohio near to where Louisville now stands, and thence by land to what is now Mercer County, in Central Kentucky, where they established, on June 16, 1774, a village which they called, in honor of their leader, Harrodsburg. Earlier attempts at settlement were made at Louisville, but the fear of Indians caused the speedy abandonment of this post. … In 1775 other and stronger footholds were gained. Boone built a fort in what is now Madison County, and Logan another at St. Asaphs, in Lincoln County. The settlement of Kentucky was greatly favored by the decisive victory gained by Lord Dunmore's troops over the Indians from the north of the Ohio, at the mouth of the Kanawha.

See OHIO VALLEY: A. D. 1774.

… That the process of possessing the land was going on with speed may be seen from the fact that Henderson and Company, land-agents at Boonesborough, issued from their office in the new-built fort entry certificates of surveys for 560,000 acres of land. The process of survey was of the rudest kind, but it served the purpose of momentary definition of the areas, made it possible to deal with the land as a commodity, and left the tribulations concerning boundaries to the next generation. These land deeds were given as of the 'colony of Transylvania,' which was in fact the first appellation of Kentucky, a name by which it was known for several years before it received its present appellation. At this time, the last year that the work of settling Kentucky was done under the authority of his majesty King George III., there were probably about 150 men who had placed themselves in settlements that were intended to be permanent within the bounds of what is now the Commonwealth of Kentucky. There may have been as many more doing the endless exploring work which preceded the choice of a site for their future homes. The men at Boone's Station claimed, and seem to have been awarded, a sort of hegemony among the settlements. {1940} On the 23d of May, at the call of Colonel Henderson, the land-agent of the proprietors, delegates from these settlements met at Boonesborough, and drew up a brief code of nine laws for the government of the young Commonwealth. … The Boonesborough parliament adjourned to meet in September, but it never reassembled. The venture which led to its institution fell altogether to ruin, and the name of Transylvania has been almost entirely forgotten. … The colony of Transylvania rested on a purchase of about 17,000,000 acres, or about one half the present area of Kentucky, which was made by some people of North Carolina from the Overhill Cherokee Indians, a part of the great tribe that dwelt on the Holston River. For this land the unfortunate adventurers paid the sum of £10,000 of English money. … Immediately after the Boonesborough parliament the position of the Transylvania company became very insecure; its own people began to doubt the validity of the titles they had obtained from the company, because, after a time, they learned from various sources that the lands of this region of Kentucky had been previously ceded to the English government by the Six Nations, and were included in the Virginia charter. In the latter part of 1775, eighty men of the Transylvania settlement signed a memorial asking to be taken under the protection of Virginia; or, if that colony thought it best, that their petition might be referred to the General Congress. … The proprietors of the colony made their answer to this rebellion by sending a delegate to the Federal Congress at Philadelphia, who was to request that the colony of Transylvania be added to the number of the American colonies. … Nothing came of this protest. Congress refused to seat their delegate, Patrick Henry and Jefferson, then representing Virginia, opposing the efforts of the proprietors. The Governor of North Carolina issued a proclamation declaring their purchase illegal. The colony gradually fell to pieces, though the State of Virginia took no decided action with reference to it until, in 1778, that Commonwealth declared the acts of the company void, but, in a generous spirit, offered compensation to Colonel Henderson and the other adventurers. The Transylvania company received 200,000 acres of valuable lands, and their sales to actual settlers were confirmed by an act of the Virginia Assembly. Thus the strongest, though not the first, colony of Kentucky, was a misadventure and quickly fell to pieces."

N. S. Shaler, Kentucky, chapters 5-7.

ALSO IN; T. Roosevelt, The Winning of the West, volume 1, chapters 6 and 8-12.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1768. The Treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix. Pretended cession of the country south of the Ohio.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1774. The western Territorial claims of Virginia. Lord Dunmore's war with the Indians.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784. A county of Virginia. Indian warfare of the Revolution. Aspirations towards State independence.

"In the winter of 1775 Kentucky was formed into a county of Virginia. … About this time Harrodsburg, Boonesborough and Logan's Fort were successively assailed by the Indians. They withstood the furious attacks made upon them; not, however, without great loss. During the succeeding summer they were considerably reinforced by a number of men from North Carolina, and about 100 under Colonel Bowman from Virginia. In 1778 Kentucky was invaded by an army of Indians and Canadians under the command of Captain Duquesne; and the expedition of Colonel George Rodgers Clark against the English post of Vincennes and Kaskaskia took place this year. In February of this year Boone, with about 30 men, was engaged in making salt at the Lower Blue Licks, when he was surprised by about 200 Indians. The whole party surrendered upon terms of capitulation. The Indians carried them to Detroit, and delivered them all up to the commandant, except Boone, whom they carried to Chilicothe. Boone soon effected his escape. … After … some weeks … Captain Duquesne, with about 500 Indians and Canadians, made his appearance before Boonesborough, and besieged the fort for the space of nine days, but finally decamped with the loss of 30 men killed, and a much greater number wounded. … About the first of April, 1779, Robert Patterson erected a block house, with some adjacent defenses, where the city of Lexington now stands. This year, the celebrated land law of Kentucky was passed by the Legislature of Virginia, usually called the Occupying Claimant Law. The great defect of this law was, that Virginia, by this act, did not provide for the survey of the country at the expense of the State. … Each one holding a warrant could locate it where he pleased, and survey it at his own cost. … The consequence of this law was … a flood of emigration during the years 1780 and 1781. During this period the emigrants were greatly annoyed by the frequent incursions of the Indians, and their entire destruction sometimes seemed almost inevitable. This law was a great feast for the lawyers of that day. … In November, 1780, Kentucky was divided into three counties, bearing the names of Fayette, Lincoln, and Jefferson. … In 1782, Indian hostility was earlier, more active and shocking than it had ever been in the country before; a great battle was fought upon Hinkston's Fork of the Licking, near where Mount Sterling now stands, in which the Indians were victorious. In this battle, Estill, who commanded the whites, and nearly all of his officers, were killed. Near the Blue Licks another battle was soon afterwards fought with Captain Holder, in which the whites were again defeated; in both these last mentioned battles the contending foe were Wyandottes. … Peace was made with Great Britain in 1783, and hostilities ceased; hostilities with the Indians also for a time seemed suspended, but were soon renewed with greater violence than ever. During the cessation of hostilities with the Indians, settlements in Kentucky advanced rapidly. … As early as 1784 the people of Kentucky became strongly impressed with the necessity of the organization of a regular government, and gaining admission into the Union as a separate and independent State; but their efforts were continually perplexed and baffled for the space of eight years before their desire was fully accomplished. And though they were often tempted by Spain with the richest gifts of fortune if she would declare herself an independent State, and although the Congress of the Confederated States continually turned a deaf ear to her reiterated complaints and grievances, and repulsed her in every effort to obtain constitutional independence, she maintained to the last the highest respect for law and order, and the most unswerving affection for the Government. … With the view to admission into the Union as an independent State, there were elected and held nine Conventions in Kentucky within the space of eight years."

W. B. Allen, History of Kentucky, chapters 2-3.

ALSO IN: _J. M. Brown, Political Beginnings of Kentucky._

{1941}

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1778-1779. Conquest of the Northwest by the Virginian General Clark, and its annexation to the Kentucky District.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779 CLARK'S CONQUEST.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1781-1784. Conflicting territorial claims of Virginia and New York and their cession to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1785-1800. The question of the free navigation of the Mississippi. Discontent of the settlers. Intrigues of Wilkinson.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1785-1800.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792. Separation from Virginia and admission to the Union as a State.

"In the last days of the Continental Congress, Virginia, after some struggles, having reluctantly consented to her organization on that condition as an independent state, Kentucky had applied to that body for admission into the confederacy. That application had been referred to the new federal government about to be organized, a delay which had made it necessary to recommence proceedings anew; for the Virginia Assembly had fixed a limitation of time, which, being over-past, drove back the separatists to the original starting-point. On a new application to the Virginia Legislature, a new act had authorized a new Convention, being the third held on that subject: to take the question of separating into consideration. But this act had imposed some new terms not at all agreeable to the Kentuckians, of which the principal was the assumption by the new state of a portion of the Virginia debt, on the ground of expenses incurred by recent expeditions against the Indians. The Convention which met under this act proceeded no further than to vote a memorial to the Virginia Legislature requesting the same terms formerly offered. That request was granted, and a fourth Convention was authorized again to consider the question of separation, and, should that measure be still persisted in, to fix the day when it should take place. Having met during the last summer [1790], this Convention had voted unanimously in favor of separation; had fixed the first day of June, 1792, as the time; and had authorized the meeting of a fifth Convention to frame a state Constitution. In anticipation of these results, an act of Congress was, now passed [February 4, 1791] admitting Kentucky into the Union from and after the day above mentioned, not only without any inspection of the state Constitution, but before any such Constitution had been actually formed." In the Constitution subsequently framed for the new state of Kentucky, by the Convention appointed as above, an article on the subject of slavery "provided that the Legislature should have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, nor without paying therefor, previous to such emancipation, a full equivalent in money; nor laws to prevent immigrants from bringing with them persons deemed slaves by the laws of anyone of the United States, so long as any persons of like age and description should be continued in slavery by the laws of Kentucky. But laws might be passed prohibiting the introduction of slaves for the purpose of sale, and also laws to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity."

R. Hildreth, History of the United States, volume 4, chapters 3-4.

ALSO IN: _J. M. Brown, The Political Beginnings of Kentucky._

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1790-1795. War with the Indian tribes of the Northwest. Disastrous expeditions of Harmar and St. Clair, and Wayne's decisive victory.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1790-1795.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1798. The Nullifying resolutions.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (January-September). The struggle with Secession and its defeat. "Neutrality" ended.

"In the days when personal leadership was more than it can ever be again, while South Carolina was listening to the teachings of John C. Calhoun, which led her to try the experiment of secession, Kentucky was following Henry Clay, who, though a slave-holder, was a strong Unionist. The practical effect was seen when the crisis came, after he had been in his grave nine years. Governor Beriah Magoffin convened the Legislature in January, 1861, and asked it to organize the militia, buy muskets, and put the State in a condition of armed neutrality; all of which it refused to do. After the fall of Fort Sumter he called the Legislature together again, evidently hoping that the popular excitement would bring them over to his scheme. But the utmost that could be accomplished was the passage of a resolution by the lower house (May 16) declaring that Kentucky should occupy 'a position of strict neutrality,' and approving his refusal to furnish troops for the National army. Thereupon he issued a proclamation (May 20) in which he 'notified and warned all other States, separate or united, especially the United and Confederate States, that I solemnly forbid any movement upon Kentucky soil.' But two days later the Legislature repudiated this interpretation of neutrality, and passed a series of acts intended to prevent any scheme of secession that might be formed. It appropriated $1,000,000 for arms and ammunition, but placed the disbursement of the money and control of the arms in the hands of Commissioners that were all Union men. It amended the militia law so as to require the State Guards to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and finally the Senate passed a resolution declaring that 'Kentucky will not sever connection with the National Government, nor take up arms with either belligerent party.' Lovell H. Rousseau (afterward a gallant General in the National service), speaking in his place in the Senate, said: 'The politicians are having their day; the people will yet have theirs. I have an abiding confidence in the right, and I know that this secession movement is all wrong. There is not a single substantial reason for it; our Government had never oppressed us with a feather's weight.' The Rev. Robert J. Breckinridge and other prominent citizens took a similar stand, and a new Legislature, chosen in August, presented a Union majority of three to one. {1942} As a last resort, Governor Magoffin addressed a letter to President Lincoln, requesting that Kentucky's neutrality be respected and the National forces removed from the State. Mr. Lincoln, in refusing his request, courteously reminded him that the force consisted exclusively of Kentuckians, and told him that he had not met any Kentuckian except himself and the messengers that brought his letter who wanted it removed. To strengthen the first argument, Robert Anderson, of Fort Sumter fame, who was a citizen of Kentucky, was made a General and given the command in the State in September. Two months later, a secession convention met at Russellville, in the southern part of the State, organized a provisional government, and sent a full delegation to the Confederate Congress at Richmond, who found no difficulty in being admitted to seats in that body. Being now firmly supported by the new Legislature, the National Government began to arrest prominent Kentuckians who still advocated secession, whereupon others, including ex-Vice-President John C. Breckinridge, fled southward and entered the service of the Confederacy. Kentucky as a State was saved to the Union, but the line of separation was drawn between her citizens, and she contributed to the ranks of both the great contending armies."

R. Johnson, Short History of the War of Secession, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: N. S. Shaler, Kentucky, chapter 15.

E. P. Thompson, History of First Kentucky Brigade, chapter 2.

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1861 (April). Governor Magoffin's reply to President Lincoln's call for troops.

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

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (January-February). Expulsion of Confederate armies along the whole line.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE).

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1862 (August-October). Bragg's invasion. Buell's pursuit. Battle of Perryville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

KENTUCKY: A. D. 1863 (July). John Morgan's Raid.

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

----------KENTUCKY: End----------

KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1798.

KENYER-MESÖ, Battle of (1479).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

KERAÏT, The.

See PRESTER JOHN, THE KINGDOM OF.

KERAMEIKOS, The.

See CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

KERBELA, The Moslem tragedy at.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 680.

KERESAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KERESAN FAMILY.

KERESTES, OR CERESTES, Battle of (1596).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

KERMENT, Battle of (1664).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

KERNE.

See RAPPAREES.

KERNSTOWN, Battles of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-APRIL: VIRGINIA); and 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

KERTCH, Attack on (1855).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

KERYKES, The.

See PHYLÆ.

KESSELSDORF, Battle of (1745).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

KEYNTON, OR EDGEHILL, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

KEYSERWERTH, Siege and storming of (1702).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

KHAJAR DYNASTY, The.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

KHALIF.

See CALIPH.

KHALSA, The.

See SIKHS; also, INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845, and 1845-1849.

KHAN. KHAGAN.

"'Khan' is the modern contracted form of the word which is found in the middle ages as 'Khagan,' or 'Chagan,' and in the Persian and Arabic writers as 'Khakan' or 'Khacan.' Its original root is probably the 'Khak,' which meant King' in ancient Susianian, in Ethiopic ('Tirhakah'), and in Egyptian ('Hyk-sos')."

G. Rawlinson, The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 14, foot-note.

KHAR, OR KHARU, The.

"The term Khar in Egyptian texts appears to apply to the inhabitants of that part of Syria generally known as Phœnicia, and seems to be derived from the Semitic Akharu, 'the back' or 'west.'"

C. R. Conder, Syrian Stone Lore, chapter 1.

KHAREJITES, The.

A democratical party among the Mahometans, which first took form during the Caliphate of Ali, A. D. 657. The name given to the party, Kharejites, signified those who "go forth"—that is in secession and rebellion. It was their political creed that, "believers being absolutely equal, there should be no Caliph, nor oath of allegiance sworn to any man; but that the government should be in the hands of a Council of State elected by the people." Ali attacked and dispersed the Kharejites, in a battle at Nehrwan, A. D. 658; but they continued for a long period to give trouble to succeeding Caliphs.

Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapters 40 and 42, with foot-note.

KHARTANI, Tragedy of the Cave of.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

KHARTOUM, The Mahdi's siege of.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

KHAZARS, OR CHAZARS, OR KHOZARS, The.

"This important people, now heard of for the first time in Persian history [late in the fifth century of the Christian era], appears to have occupied, in the reign of Kobad, the steppe country between the Wolga and the Don, whence they made raids through the passes of the Caucasus into the fertile provinces of Iberia, Albania, and Armenia. Whether they were Turks, as is generally believed, or Circassians, as has been ingeniously argued by a living writer [H. H. Howorth], is doubtful; but we cannot be mistaken in regarding them as at this time a race of fierce and terrible barbarians."

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 18.

"After the fall of the Persian empire [see MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651], they [the Khazars, or Chazars] crossed the Caucasus, invaded Armenia, and conquered the Crimean peninsula, which bore the name of Chazaria for some time. The Byzantine emperors trembled at the name of the Chazars, and flattered them, and paid them a tribute, in order to restrain their lust after the booty of Constantinople. The Bulgarians, and other tribes, were the vassals of the Chazars, and the people of Kiev (Russians) on the Dnieper were obliged to furnish them every year with a sword, and fine skins from every fur hunt. {1943} With the Arabs, whose near neighbours they gradually became, they carried on terrible wars. Like their neighbours, the Bulgarians and the Russians, the Chazars professed a coarse religion, which was combined with sensuality and lewdness. The Chazars became acquainted with Islamism and Christianity through the Arabs and Greeks. … There were also Jews in the land of the Chazars; they were some of the fugitives who had escaped (723) the mania for conversion which possessed the Byzantine Emperor Leo. … As interpreters or merchants, physicians or counsellors, the Jews were known and beloved by the Chazarian court, and they inspired the warlike Bulan with a love of Judaism. … It is possible that the circumstances under which the Chazars embraced Judaism have been embellished by legend, but the fact itself is too definitely proved on all sides to allow of there being any doubt as to its reality. Besides Bulan, the nobles of his kingdom, numbering nearly 4,000, adopted the Jewish religion. Little by little it made its way among the people, so that most of the inhabitants of the towns of the Chazarian kingdom were Jews. … A successor of Bulan, who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah, was the first to occupy himself earnestly with the Jewish religion. He … founded synagogues and schools. … After Obadiah came a long series of Jewish Chagans, for according to a fundamental law of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the throne."

H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 3, chapter 5.

KHEDIVE.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

KHEMI, OR KEM.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

KHITA, The.

See HITTITES, THE.

KHITAI. KHITANS, The.

See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

KHIVA.

See KHUAREZM.

KHODYA.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

KHOKAND, Russian conquest of the Khanate of (1876).

See. RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KHONDS, The.

See TURANIAN RACES.

----------KHORASSAN: Start--------

KHORASSAN: A. D. 1220-1221. Conquest and destruction by the Mongols.

In the autumn of A. D. 1220, one division of the armies of Jingis Khan, commanded by his son Tului, poured into Khorassan. "Khorassan was then one of the richest and most prosperous regions on the earth's surface; its towns were very thickly inhabited, and it was the first and most powerful province of Persia. The Mongol invasion altered all this, and the fearful ravage and destruction then committed is almost incredible." On the capture of the city of Nessa the inhabitants were tied together with cords and then massacred in a body—70,000 men, women and children together—by shooting them with arrows. At Meru (modern Merv) the wholesale massacre was repeated on a vastly larger scale, the corpses numbering 700,000, according to one account, 1,300,000 according to another. Even this was exceeded at Nishapoor ("city of Sapor"), the ancient capital of Khorassan. "To prevent the living hiding beneath the dead, Tului ordered every head to be cut off, and separate heaps to be made of men's, women's, and children's heads. The destruction of the city occupied fifteen days; it was razed to the ground, and its site was sown with barley; only 400 artisans escaped, and they were transported into the north. According to Mirkhond 1,747,000 men lost their lives in this massacre." The destroying army of demons and savages moved on to Herat, then a beautiful city surrounded by villages and gardens. It surrendered, and only 12,000 of its soldiers were slain at that time; but a few months later, upon news of a defeat suffered by the Mongols, Herat rebelled, and brought down upon itself a most terrible doom. Captured once more, after a siege of six months, the city experienced no mercy. "For a whole week the Mongols ceased not to kill, burn, and destroy, and it is said that 1,600,000 people were killed; the place was entirely depopulated and made desert." At Bamian, in the Hindu Kush, "every living creature, including animals and plants as well as human beings, was destroyed; a heap of slain was piled up like a mountain."

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, part 1, pages 86-91.

KHORASSAN: A. D. 1380. Conquest by Timour.

See TIMOUR.

----------KHORASSAN: End--------

KHOTZIM.

See CHOCZIM.

KHOULIKOF, Battle of (1383).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.

----------KHUAREZM: Start--------

KHUAREZM, OR CHORASMIA (modern Khiva).

"The extensive and fertile oasis in the midst of the sandy deserts of Central Asia, known in these days as the Khanat of Khiva, was called by the Greeks Chorasmia and by the Arabs Khwarezm [or Khuarezm]. The Chorasmians were of the Aryan race, and their contingent to the army of Xerxes was equipped precisely in the Bactrian fashion. It is probable that Chorasmia formed a portion of the short-lived Greco-Bactrian monarchy, and it certainly passed under the domination of the White Huns, from whom it was subsequently wrested by the Toorks."

J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 10.

KHUAREZM: 12th Century. The Khuarezmian, or Khahrezmian, or Korasmian, or Carizmian Empire.

"The sovereigns of Persia were in the habit of purchasing young Turks, who were captured by the various frontier tribes in their mutual struggles, and employing them in their service. They generally had a body guard formed of them, and many of them were enfranchised and rose to posts of high influence, and in many cases supplanted their masters. The founder of the Khuarezmian power was such a slave, named Nushtekin, in the service of the Seljuk Sultan Malik Shah. He rose to the position of a Teshtedar or chamberlain, which carried with it the government of the province of Khuarezm, that is of the fertile valley of the Oxus and the wide steppes on either side of it, bounded on the west by the Caspian and on the east by Bukharia." The grandson of Nushtekin became virtually independent of the Seljuk sultan, and the two next succeeding princes began and completed the overthrow of the Seljuk throne. The last Seljuk sultan, Togrul III., was slain in battle, A. D. 1193, by Takish or Tokush, the Khuarezmian ruler, who sent his head to the Caliph at Bagdad and was formally invested by the Caliph with the sovereignty of Khorassan, Irak Adjem and other parts of the Persian domain not occupied by the Atabegs and the Assassins. Takish's son extended his conquests in Transoxiana and Turkestan (A. D. 1209), and acquired Samarkand, which he made his capital. "He controlled an army of 400,000 men, and his dominions, at the invasion of the Mongols, stretched from the Jaxartes to the Persian Gulf, and from the Indus to the Irak Arab and Azerbaidjan."

H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, part 1, pages 7-8.

{1944}

KHUAREZM: A. D. 1220. Destruction by the Mongols.

In May, 1220, the Mongol army of Jingis Khan marched upon Urgendj, or Khuarezm—the original capital of the empire of Khuarezm, to which it gave its name. That city, which is represented by the modern Khiva, was "the capital of the rich cluster of cities that then bordered the Oxus, a river very like the Nile in forming a strip of green across two sandy deserts which bound it on either hand." The Mongols were commanded, at first, by the three elder sons of Jingis Khan: but two of them quarreled, and the siege was protracted through six months without much progress being made. Jingis then placed the youngest son, Ogotai, in charge of operations, and they were carried forward more vigorously. "The Mongols at length assaulted the town, fired its buildings with naptha, and after seven days of desperate street-fighting captured it. This was probably in December, 1220. They sent the artisans and skilled workmen into Tartary, set aside the young women and children as slaves, and then made a general massacre of the rest of the inhabitants. They destroyed the city, and then submerged it by opening the dykes of the Oxus. The ruins are probably those now known as Old Urgendj. Rasehid says that over 100,000 artisans and craftsmen were sent into Mongolia."

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, part 1, page 85.

ALSO IN: J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 4.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

KHUAREZM: A. D. 1873. Conquest by the Russians.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

----------KHUAREZM: End--------

KHUAREZMIANS IN JERUSALEM, The.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.

KICHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES, QUICHES, and MAYAS.

KICKAPOO INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

KIEFT, Governor William, Administration of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

KIEL, Peace of.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814.

----------KIEV: Start--------

KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 882. Capital of the Russian state.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 862.

KIEV, OR KIEF: A. D. 1240. Destroyed by the Mongols.

In December, 1240, the Mongols, pursuing their devastating march through Russia, reached Kiev. It was then a famous city, known among the Russians as "the mother of cities, magnificently placed on the high banks of the Dnieper, with its white walls, its beautiful gardens, and its thirty churches, with their gilded cupolas, which gave it its pretty Tartar name, Altundash Khan (i. e., the court of the Golden Heads): it was the metropolitan city of the old Russian princes, the seat of the chief patriarch of all Russia. It had latterly, namely, in 1204, suffered from the internal broils of the Russian princes, and had been much plundered and burnt. It was now to be for a while erased altogether." Kiev was taken by storm and the inhabitants "slaughtered without mercy: the very bones were torn from the tombs and trampled under the horses' hoofs. … The magnificent city, with the ancient Byzantine treasures which it contained, was destroyed." During the 14th and 15th centuries Kiev seems to have remained in ruins, and the modern city is said to be "but a shadow of its former self."

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, pages 141-142. (1876)

----------KIEV: End--------

KILIDSCH.

See TIMAR.

KILIKIA.

See CILICIA.

KILKENNY, The Statute of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1327-1367.

KILKENNY ARTICLES, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1652.

KILLIECRANKIE, Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (JULY).

KILPATRICK'S RAID TO RICHMOND.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

KILSYTH, Battle of (1645).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

KIMON, Peace of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

KINBURN, Battle of (1787).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

KINDERGARTEN, The.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: REFORMS, &c.: A. D. 1816-1892.

KING, Origin of the word.

"Cyning, by contraction King, is closely connected with the word 'Cyn' or 'Kin.' … I do not feel myself called upon to decide whether Cyning is strictly the patronymic of 'cyn,' or whether it comes immediately from a cognate adjective (see Allen, Royal Prerogative, 176: Kemble, i. 153). It is enough if the two words are of the same origin, as is shown by a whole crowd of cognates, 'cynebarn,' 'cynecyn,' 'cynedom,' 'cynehelm,' 'cynehlaford.' … (I copy from Mr. Earle's Glossarial Index.) In all these words 'cyn' has the meaning of 'royal.' The modern High-Dutch König is an odd corruption: but the elder form is 'Chuninc.' The word has never had an English feminine: Queen is simply 'Cwen,' woman, wife. … The notion of the King being the 'canning' or 'cunning' man [is] an idea which could have occurred only to a mind on which all Teutonic philology was thrown away."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 3, section 1, and note L (volume 1).

KING GEORGE'S WAR.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: 1745: and 1745-1748.

KING MOVEMENT, The.

See NEW ZEALAND: A. D. 1853-1883.

KING OF THE ROMANS.

See ROMANS, KING OF THE.

KING OF THE WOOD.

See ARICIAN GROVE.

KING PHILIP'S WAR.

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

KING WILLIAM'S WAR.

The war in Europe, of "the Grand Alliance" against Louis XIV. of France, frequently called "the War of the League of Augsburg," extended to the American colonies of England and France, and received in the former the name of King William's War.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697; also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690; and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

KING'S BENCH.

See CURIA REGIS.

{1945}

KING'S COLLEGE.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

KING'S HEAD CLUB.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

KING'S MOUNTAIN, Battle of (1780).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

KING'S PEACE, The.

"The peace, as it was called, the primitive alliance for mutual good behaviour, for the performance and enforcement of rights and duties, the voluntary restraint of free society in its earliest form, was from the beginning of monarchy [in early England] under the protection of the king. … But this position is far from that of the fountain of justice and source of jurisdiction. The king's guarantee was not the sole safeguard of the peace; the hundred had its peace as well as the king; the king too had a distinct peace which like that of the church was not that of the country at large, a special guarantee for those who were under special protection. … When the king becomes the lord, patron and 'mundborh' of his whole people, they pass from the ancient national peace of which he is the guardian into the closer personal or territorial relation of which he is the source. The peace is now the king's peace. … The process by which the national peace became the king's peace is almost imperceptible; and it is very gradually that we arrive at the time at which all peace and law are supposed to die with the old king, and rise again at the proclamation of the new."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 7, section 72 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: _G. E. Howard, On the Development of the King's Peace (Nebraska University Studies, volume 1, number 3)._

_Sir F. Pollock, Oxford Lectures, 3._

See, also, ROMAN ROADS IN BRITAIN.

----------KINGSTON, Canada: Start--------

KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1673. The building of Fort Frontenac. La Salle's seigniory.

In 1673, Count Frontenac, governor of Canada, personally superintended the construction of a fort on the north shore of Lake Ontario, at the mouth of the Cataraqui, where the city of Kingston now stands, the site having been recommended by the explorer La Salle. The following year this fort, with surrounding lands to the extent of four leagues in front and half a league in depth, was granted in seigniory to La Salle, he agreeing to pay the cost of its construction and to maintain it at his own charge. He named the post Frontenac.

F. Parkman, La Salle, chapter. 6.

KINGSTON, Canada: A. D. 1758. Fort Frontenac taken by the English.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758.

----------KINGSTON, Canada: End--------

KINSALE, Battle of (1601).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603.

KINSTON, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: NORTH CAROLINA).

KIOWAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KIOWAN FAMILY.

KIPCHAKS, The.

"The Kipchaks were called Comans by European writers. … The name Coman is derived no doubt from the river Kuma, the country about which was known to the Persians as Kumestan. … A part of their old country on the Kuma is still called Desht Kipchak, and the Kumuks, who have been pushed somewhat south by the Nogays, are, I believe, their lineal descendants. Others of their descendants no doubt remain also among the Krim Tartars. To the early Arab writers the Kipchaks were known as Gusses, a name by which we also meet with them in the Byzantine annals. This shows that they belonged to the great section of the Turks' known as the Gusses or Oghuz Turks. … They first invaded the country west of the Volga at the end of the ninth century, from which time till their final dispersal by the Mongols in the thirteenth century they were very persistent enemies of Russia. After the Mongol conquest it is very probable that they became an important element in the various tribes that made up the Golden Horde or Khanate of Kipchak."

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, part 1, page 17.

See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294; and RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KIRCH-DENKERN, OR WELLINGHAUSEN, Battle of (1761).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

KIRGHIZ, Russian subjugation of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

KIRIRI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

KIRK OF SCOTLAND.

See CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

KIRKE'S LAMBS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (MAY-JULY).

KIRKI, Battle of (1817).

See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

KIRKSVILLE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

KIRRHA.

See DELPHI.

KISSIA.

See ELAM.

KIT KAT CLUB, The.

See CLUBS.

KITCHEN CABINET, President Jackson's.

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

KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

"Amongst the accumulations of Neolithic age which are thought by many archæologists to be oldest are the well-known 'Kjökkenmödingr' or kitchen-middens of Denmark. These are heaps and mounds composed principally of shells of edible molluscs, of which the most abundant are oyster, cockle, mussel, and periwinkle. Commingled with the shells occur bones of mammals, birds, and fish in less or greater abundance, and likewise many implements of stone, bone, and horn, together with potsherds. The middens are met with generally near the coast, and principally on the shores of the Lymfjord and the Kattegat; they would appear, indeed, never to be found on the borders of the North Sea. They form mounds or banks that vary in height from 3 or 5 feet up to 10 feet, with a width of 150 to 200 feet, and a length of sometimes nearly 350 yards. … The Danish savants (Forchhammer, Steenstrupp, and Worsaae), who first examined these curious shell-mounds, came to the conclusion that they were the refuse-heaps which had accumulated round the dwellings of some ancient coast-tribe. … Shell-mounds of similar character occur in other countries."

J. Geikie, Prehistoric Europe, chapter 15.

KIT'S COTY HOUSE.

The popular name of a conspicuous Cromlech or stone burial monument in Kent, England, near Addington.

KITTIM.

The Hebrew name of the island of Cyprus.

See, also, JAVAN.

KITUNAHAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KITUNAHAN FAMILY.

KJÖKKENMÖDINGR.

See KITCHEN-MIDDENS.

{1946}

KLAMATHS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MODOCS, &c.

KLEINE RATH, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

KLEISTHENES, Constitution of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

KLEOMENIC WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

KLERUCHS.

"Another consequence of some moment arose out of this victory [of the Athenians over the citizens of Chalkis, or Chalcis, in the island of Eubœa, B. C. 506—see ATHENS: B. C. 509-506]. The Athenians planted a body of 4,000 of their citizens as Kleruchs (lot-holders) or settlers upon the lands of the wealthy Chalkidian oligarchy called the Hippobotæ—proprietors probably in the fertile plain of Lelantum between Chalkis and Eretria. This is a system which we shall find hereafter extensively followed out by the Athenians in the days of their power; partly with the view of providing for their poorer citizens—partly to serve as garrison among a population either hostile or of doubtful fidelity. These Attic Kleruchs (I can find no other name by which to speak of them) did not lose their birthright as Athenian citizens. They were not colonists in the Grecian sense, and they are known by a totally different name—but they corresponded very nearly to the colonies formerly planted out on the conquered lands by Rome."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, book 3, chapter 18.

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

KLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER); and 1758.

KNECHTE, The.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

KNIGHT-SERVICE.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

KNIGHTHOOD: Orders of, and their modern imitations. Alcantara.

See ALCANTARA.

KNIGHTHOOD: American Knights.

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

KNIGHTHOOD: Avis.

See AVIS.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Bath.

See BATH.

KNIGHTHOOD: Black Eagle: A Prussian Order instituted by Frederick III., Elector of Brandenburg, in 1701.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Blue Ribbon.

See SERAPHIM.

KNIGHTHOOD: Brethren of Dobrin.

See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

KNIGHTHOOD: Calatrava.

See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD: Christ: a Papal Order, instituted by Pope John XXII., in 1319; also a Portuguese Order.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Crescent: instituted by René of Anjou, titular King of Naples, in 1448, but suppressed by Pope Paul II., in 1464; also a Turkish Order

See CRESCENT.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Ecu.

See BOURBON: THE HOUSE OF.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Elephant: a Danish Order, instituted in 1693, by King Christian V.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Garter.

See GARTER.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Golden Circle.

See GOLDEN CIRCLE.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Golden Fleece.

See GOLDEN FLEECE.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Golden Horseshoe.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Golden Spur: instituted by Pope Paul III., in 1550.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Guelphs of Hanover.

See GUELPHS OF HANOVER.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Holy Ghost.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

KNIGHTHOOD: Hospitallers.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Indian Empire: instituted by Queen Victoria, in 1878.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Iron Cross: a Prussian Order, instituted in 1815 by Frederick William III.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Iron Crown.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Legion of Honor.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Lion and the Sun: a Persian Order, instituted in 1808.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Lone Star.

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

KNIGHTHOOD: Malta.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD: Maria Theresa.

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

KNIGHTHOOD: La Merced.

See MERCED.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Mighty Host.

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

KNIGHTHOOD: Our Lady of Montesa.

See OUR LADY, &c.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Polar Star: a Swedish Order, of uncertain origin.

KNIGHTHOOD: Rhodes.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Round Table.

See ARTHUR, KING.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Andrew: a Scotch Order

See ST. ANDREW; also a Russian Order, instituted in 1698 by Peter the Great.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. George: a Russian Order, founded by Catharine II.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Gregory: an Order instituted in 1831 by Pope Gregory XVI.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Jago or Santiago.

See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. James of Compostella.

See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Januarius: instituted by Charles, King of the Two Sicilies, in 1738.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. John of the Lateran: instituted in 1560, by Pope Pius IV.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Lazarus.

See ST. LAZARUS.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Louis.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Michael.

See ST. MICHAEL.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Michael and St. George.

See ST. MICHAEL, &c.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Patrick: instituted by George III. of England, in 1783.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Stephen.

See ST. STEPHEN.

KNIGHTHOOD: St. Thomas of Acre.

See ST. THOMAS.

KNIGHTHOOD: Santiago.

See CALATRAVA.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Seraphim.

See SERAPHIM.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Sons of Liberty.

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

KNIGHTHOOD: The Southern Cross.

See SOUTHERN CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Star.

See STAR.

KNIGHTHOOD: Star of India.

See STAR OF INDIA.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Starry Cross.

See STARRY CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Swan.

See SWAN.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Sword: a Swedish Order.

See SWORD;

KNIGHTHOOD: The Sword: a German Order.

See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

KNIGHTHOOD: Templars.

See TEMPLARS.

KNIGHTHOOD: Teutonic.

See TEUTONIC KNIGHTS.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Thistle: instituted by James V. of Scotland, in 1530.

KNIGHTHOOD: The Tower and Sword.

See TOWER AND SWORD.

KNIGHTHOOD: Victoria Cross.

See VICTORIA CROSS.

KNIGHTHOOD: The White Camellia.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

KNIGHTHOOD: The White Cross: an Order founded by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, in 1814.

KNIGHTHOOD: White Eagle: a Polish Order, instituted in 1325 by Ladislaus IV., and revived by Augustus in 1705.

KNIGHTS.

See CHIVALRY; also, COMITATUS.

KNIGHTS BACHELORS.

"The word 'bachelor,' from whence has come 'bachelier,' does not signify 'bas chevalier,' but a knight who has not the number of 'bachelles' of land requisite to display a banner: that is to say, four 'bachelles.' The 'bachelle' was composed of ten 'maz,' or 'meix' (farms or domains), each of which contained a sufficiency of land for the work of two oxen during a whole year."

J. Froissart, Chronicles (translated by Johnes), book 1, chapter 61, foot-note (volume 1).

ALSO IN: _Sir W. Scott, Essay on Chivalry_

R. T. Hampson, Origines Patriciœ, page 338.

{1947}

KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

"The name [banneret] imports the bearer of a small banner, and, in this respect, he differed from the baron, who bore a gonfanon or banner of war, and the simple knight, who bore a penon. The banner, properly so called, was a square flag; the penon, according to the illuminations of ancient manuscripts, was a small square, having two long triangles attached to the side opposite that which was fixed to the lance or spear. These pendant portions resembling tails were so denominated. Rastal defines a banneret to be a knight made upon the field of battle, with the ceremony of cutting off the point of his standard, and so making this like a banner. And such, he says, are allowed to display their arms on a banner in the king's army, like the barons. That was, no doubt, the mode of creation; but it appears … that a knight, or an esquire of four bacelles, or cow lands, and therefore, a bachelor, to whom the king had presented a banner on his first battle, became a banneret on the second; so that, in such cases, there would be no such ceremony necessary."

R. T. Hampson. Origines Patriciœ, chapter 11.

KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

During the thirteenth century there grew up in England the practice of sending to the Great Council of the king a certain number of knights from each shire to represent the "lesser baronage." which had formerly possessed the privilege of attending the council in person, but which had become more neglectful of attendance as their numbers increased. In theory, these knights of the shire, as they came to be called, were representatives of that "lesser baronage" only. "But the necessity of holding their election in the County Court rendered any restriction of the electoral body physically impossible. The court was composed of the whole body of freeholders, and no sheriff could distinguish the 'aye, aye' of the yeoman from the 'aye, aye' of the lesser baron. From the first moment therefore of their attendance we find the knights regarded not as mere representatives of the baronage, but as knights of the shire, and by this silent revolution the whole body of the rural freeholders were admitted to a share in the government of the realm."

J. R. Green, Short History of the English People, chapter 4.

The history of the knights of the shire is the history of the origin of county representation in the English Parliament. The representation of boroughs, or towns, has a history quite distinct. Of the leading part played by the knights of the shire in the development and establishment of the English Constitution Mr. Stubbs remarks ("Constitutional History of England," chapter 17, section 272): "Both historical evidence and the nature of the case lead to the conviction that the victory of the constitution was won by the knights of the shires; they were the leaders of parliamentary debate; they were the link between the good peers and the good towns; they were the indestructible element of the house of commons; they were the representatives of those local divisions of the realm which were coeval with the historical existence of the people of England, and the interests of which were most directly attacked by the abuses of royal prerogative."

See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH: EARLY STAGES IN ITS EVOLUTION.

KNOW NOTHING PARTY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

KNOX, General Henry, in the Cabinet of President Washington.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

KNOX, John, and the Reformation in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557, to 1558-1560.

----------KNOXVILLE: Start--------

KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (September). Evacuated by the Confederates and occupied by the Union forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

KNOXVILLE: A. D. 1863 (November-December). Longstreet's siege.

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

----------KNOXVILLE: End--------

KNUT, OR CANUTE, ERICSSON, King of Sweden, A. D. 1167-1199.

KNYDUS, OR CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

KOASSATI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

KOLARIANS, The.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

KOLDING, Battle of (1849).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

KOLIN, Battle of.

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

KOLOMAN, King of Hungary, A. D. 1095-1114.

KOLUSCHAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KOLUSCHAN FAMILY.

KOMANS COMANS CUMANS, The.

See PATCHINAKS; KIPCHAKS; COSSACKS; also, HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

KOMORN, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KONDUR, OR CONDORE, Battle of (1758).

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

KONIEH, Battle of (1832).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

KÖNIGGRÄTZ, OR SADOWA, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

KONSAARBRUCK, Battle of (1675).

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

KOORDS KURDS, The.

See CARDUCHI.

KORAN, The.

"The Koran, as Mr. Kingsley quaintly, but truly, says, 'after all is not a book, but an irregular collection of Mohammed's meditations and notes for sermons.' It is not a code, it is not a journal, it is a mere gathering together of irregular scraps, written on palm-leaves and bones of mutton, which Abu-Bekr [the bosom friend of Mahomet and the first of the Caliphs or successors of the Prophet] put together without the slightest regard to chronological order, only putting the long fragments at the beginning, and the short fragments at the end. But so far from having the Koran of Mahomet, we have not even the Koran of Abu-Bekr. Caliph Othman [the third Caliph], we know, gave enormous scandal by burning all the existing copies, which were extremely discordant, and putting forth his own version as the 'textus ab omnibus receptus.' How much then of the existing Koran is really Mahomet's; how much has been lost, added, transposed, or perverted; when, where, and why each fragment was delivered, it is often impossible even to conjecture. And yet these baskets of fragments are positively worshipped."

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens, lecture 2.

ALSO IN: S. Lane-Poole, Studies in a Mosque, chapter 4.

_Sir W. Muir, The Coran._

T. Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern History, chapter 2.

The Koran; translated by G. Sale.

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

KORASMIANS, The.

See KHUAREZM.

{1948}

KOREISH, The.

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

----------KORKYRA: Start--------

KORKYRA, OR CORCYRA.

The Greek island now known as Corfu, separated from the coast of Epirus by a strait only two to seven miles in breadth, bore in ancient times the name of Korkyra, or, rather, took that name from its ruling city. "Korkyra [the city] was founded by the Corinthians, at the same time (we are told) as Syracuse. … The island was generally conceived in antiquity as the residence of the Homeric Phæakians, and it is to this fact that Thucydides ascribes in part the eminence of the Korkyræan marine. According to another story, some Eretrians from Eubœa had settled there, and were compelled to retire. A third statement represents the Liburnians as the prior inhabitants,—and this perhaps is the most probable, since the Liburnians were an enterprising, maritime, piratical race, who long continued to occupy the more northerly islands in the Adriatic along the Illyrian and Dalmatian coast. … At the time when the Corinthians were about to colonize Sicily, it was natural that they should also wish to plant a settlement at Korkyra, which was a post of great importance for facilitating the voyage from Peloponnesus to Italy, and was further convenient for traffic with Epirus, at that period altogether non-Hellenic. Their choice of a site was fully justified by the prosperity and power of the colony, which, however, though sometimes in combination with the mother-city, was more frequently alienated from her and hostile, and continued so from an early period throughout most part of the three centuries from 700-400 B. C. … Notwithstanding the long-continued dissensions between Korkyra and Corinth, it appears that four considerable settlements on this same line of coast were formed by the joint enterprise of both,—Leukas and Anaktorium to the south of the mouth of the Ambrakiotic Gulf—and Apollonia and Epidamnus [afterwards called Dyrrhachium], both in the territory of the Illyrians at some distance to the north of the Akrokeraunian promontory [modern Cape Glossa, on the Albanian coast]. … Leukas, Anaktorium and Ambrakia are all referred to the agency of Kypselus the Corinthian. … The six colonies just named—Korkyra, Ambrakia, Anaktorium, Leukas [near the modern St. Maura], Apollonia, and Epidamnus—form an aggregate lying apart from the rest of the Hellenic name, and connected with each other, though not always maintained in harmony, by analogy of race and position, as well as by their common origin from Corinth."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 23.

See, also, IONIAN ISLANDS.

KORKYRA: B. C. 435-432. Quarrel with Corinth. Help from Athens. Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

KORKYRA: B. C. 432. Great sea-fight with the Corinthians. Athenian aid.

See GREECE: B. C. 432.

KORKYRA: Modern history.

See IONIAN ISLANDS; and CORFU.

----------KORKYRA: End----------

KORONEA, OR CORONEA, Battle of (B. C. 394).

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

KOS.

See Cos.

KOSCIUSKO, and the Polish revolt.

See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

KOSSÆANS, OR COSSÆANS, The.

A brave but predatory people in ancient times, occupying the mountains between Media and Persia, who were hunted down by Alexander the Great and the males among them exterminated.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 94.

KOSSOVA, Battle of (1389).

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

KOSSUTH, Louis, and the Hungarian struggle for independence.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844, 1847-1849; and AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

KOSSUTH: In America.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-'1851.

KOTZEBUE, Assassination of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

KOTZIM.

See CHOZIM.

KOULEVSCHA, Battle of (1829).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

KOYUNJIK.

See NINEVEH.

KRALE.

See CRAL.

KRANNON, OR CRANNON, Battle of (B. C. 322).

See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

KRASNOE, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER); and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

KRETE.

See CRETE.

KRIM, The Khanate of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

KRIM TARTARY.

See CRIMEA.

KRIMESUS, The Battle of the.

See SYRACUSE, THE FALL OF THE DIONYSIAN TYRANNY AT.

KRISSA. KRISSÆAN WAR.

See DELPHI.

KRONIUM, Battle of.

See SICILY: B. C. 383.

KROTON.

See SYBARIS.

KRYPTEIA, The.

A secret police and system of espionage maintained at Sparta by the ephors.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 6.

KSHATRIYAS.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

KU KLUX KLAN, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

KUBLAI KHAN, The Empire of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294; and CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

KUFA, The founding of.

See BUSSORAH AND KUFA.

KULANAPAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KULANAPAN FAMILY.

KULM, OR CULM, Battle of.

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

KULTURKAMPF, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

KUNAXA, Battle of (B. C. 401).

See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

KUNBIS.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

KUNERSDORF, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

KURDISTAN: A. D. 1514. Annexed to the Ottoman Empire.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

KURDS, OR KOORDS.

See CARDUCHI, THE.

KUREEM KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1759-1779.

KURFÜRST.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

KURUCS, Insurrection of the.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

KUSAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: KUSAN FAMILY.

{1949}

KUSH. KUSHITES.

See CUSH.—CUSHITES.

KUTAYAH, Peace of (1833).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

KUTCHINS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

KUTSCHUK KAINARDJI, Battle and Treaty of (1774).

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

KYLON, Conspiracy of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

KYMRY, OR CYMRY, The.

The name which the Britons of Wales and Cumberland gave to themselves during their struggle with the Angles and Saxons, meaning "Cym-bro (Combrox) or the compatriot, the native of the country, the rightful owner of the soil. … From the occupation by the English of the plain of the Dee and the Mersey, the Kymry dwelt in two lands, known in quasi-Latin as Cambria, in Welsh Cymru, which denotes the Principality of Wales, and Cumbria, or the kingdom of Cumberland. … Kambria was regularly used for Wales by such writers as Giraldus in the twelfth century, … but the fashion was not yet established of distinguishing between Cambria and Cumbria as we do."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 4.

The term Cymry or Kymry is sometimes used in a larger sense to denote the whole Brythonic branch of the Celtic race, as distinguished from the Goidelic, or Gaelic; but that use of it does not seem to be justified. On the question whether the name Kymry, or Cymry, bears any relation to that of the ancient Cimbri.

See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES.

KYNOSSEMA, Battle of.

See CYNOSSEMA.

KYNURIANS, OR CYNURIANS, The.

One of the three races of people who inhabited the Peloponnesian peninsula of Greece before the Dorian conquest,—the other two races being the Arcadians and the Achæans. "They were never (so far as history knows them) an independent population. They occupied the larger portion of the territory of Argolis, from Orneæ, near the northern or Phliasian border, to Thyrea and the Thyreatis, on the Laconian border: and though belonging originally (as Herodotus imagines rather than asserts) to the Ionic race—they had been so long subjects of Argos in his time that almost all evidence of their ante-Dorian condition had vanished."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 4.

KYRENE.

See CYRENAICA.

KYZICUS.

See CYZICUS.

LABARUM, The.

"The chief banner of the Christian emperors [Roman] was the so-called 'labarum.' Eusebius describes it as a long lance with a cross-piece; to the latter a square silk flag was attached, into which the images of the reigning emperor and his children were woven. To the point of the lance was fastened a golden crown enclosing the monogram of Christ and the sign of the cross."

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, section 107.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 20.

See CHRISTIANITY: A.D. 312-337.

LA BICOQUE, Battle of (1522).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

LABOR ORGANIZATION.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

LABRADOR, The Name.

"Labrador—Laboratoris Terra—is so called from the circumstance that Cortereal in the year 1500 stole thence a cargo of Indians for slaves."

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain, chapter 1, foot-note.

LABYRINTHS. MAZES.

"The Labyrinths of the classical age and the quaint devices of later times, the Mazes, of which they were the prototypes, present to the archaeologist a subject of investigation which hitherto has not received that degree of attention of which it appears so well deserving. … Labyrinths may be divided into several distinct classes, comprising complicated ranges of caverns, architectural labyrinths or sepulchral buildings, tortuous devices indicated by coloured marbles or cut in turf, and topiary labyrinths or mazes formed by clipped hedges. … Of the first class we may instance the labyrinth near Nauplia in Argolis, termed that of the Cyclops, and described by Strabo; also the celebrated Cretan example, which from the observations of modern travellers is supposed to have consisted of a series of caves, resembling in some degree the catacombs of Rome or Paris. It has been questioned, however, whether such a labyrinth actually existed. … Of architectural labyrinths, the most extraordinary specimen was without doubt that at the southern end of the lake Mœris in Egypt, and about thirty miles from Arsinoe. Herodotus, who describes it very distinctly, says that … it consisted of twelve covered courts, 1,500 subterranean chambers, in which the bodies of the Egyptian princes and the sacred crocodiles were interred, and of as many chambers above ground, which last only he was permitted to enter."

_E. Trollope, Notices of Ancient and Mediaeval Labyrinths (Archaeological Journal, volume 15)._

ALSO IN: Herodotus, History, book 2, chapter 148.

LA CADIE, ACADIA.

See NOVA SCOTIA.

LACEDÆMON.

See SPARTA: THE CITY.

LACEDÆMONIAN EMPIRE, The.

See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

LACONIA.

See SPARTA: THE CITY.

LACONIA, the American Province.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

LACUSTRINE HABITATIONS.

See LAKE DWELLINGS.

LADE, Naval Battle of (B. C. 495).

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

LADIES' PEACE, The.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

LADISLAS, King of Naples, A. D. 1386-1414.

LADISLAUS I. (called Saint), King of Hungary, A. D. 1077-1095.

Ladislaus II., King of Hungary, 1162.

Ladislaus III., King of Hungary, 1204-1205.

Ladislaus IV. (called The Cuman), King of Hungary, 1272-1290.

Ladislaus V. (called The Posthumous), King, of Hungary and Bohemia, 1439-1457.

Ladislaus VI. (Jagellon), King of Hungary, 1440-1444; King of Poland, 1434-1444.

{1950}

LADOCEA, OR LADOKEIA, Battle of.

Fought in what was called the Cleomenic War, between Cleomenes, king of Sparta, and the Achæan League, B. C. 226. The battle was fought near the city of Megalopolis, in Arcadia, which belonged to the League and which was threatened by Cleomenes. The latter won a complete victory, and Lydiades, of Megalopolis, one of the noblest of the later Greeks, was slain.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 62.

LADY, Original use of the title.

"Hlæfdige," the Saxon word from which our modern English word "lady" comes, was the highest female title among the West-Saxons, being reserved for the king's wife.

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, volume 1, note F.

LADY OF THE ENGLISH.

By the custom of the West Saxons, the king's wife was called Lady, not Queen, and when the Wessex kingdom widened to cover England, its queen was known as the Lady of the English.

LÆNLAND.

"Either book land or folkland could be leased out by its holders [in early England]; and, under the name of 'lænland,' held by free cultivators."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 5, section 36 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: J. M. Kemble, The Saxons in England, book 1, chapter 11.

LÆTI. LÆT. LAZZI.

"Families of the conquered tribes of Germany, who were forcibly settled within the 'limes' of the Roman provinces, in order that they might repeople desolated districts, or replace the otherwise dwindling provincial population—in order that they might bear the public burdens and minister to the public needs, i. e., till the public land, pay the public tribute, and also provide for the defence of the empire. They formed a semi-servile class, partly agricultural and partly military; they furnished corn for the granaries and soldiers for the cohorts of the empire, and were generally known in later times by the name of Læti or Liti."

F. Seebohm, English Village Community, chapter 8.

"There seems to be no reason for questioning that the eorl, ceorl and læt of the earliest English laws, those of Ethelbert, answer exactly to the edhiling, the friling and the lazzus of the old Saxons. Whether the Kentish læts were of German origin has been questioned. Lappenberg thinks they were 'unfree of kindred race.' K. Maurer thinks them a relic of ancient British population who came between the free wealh and the slave. … The name (lazzus= slow or lazy) signifies condition, not nationality. … The wer-gild of the Kentish læt was 40, 60, or 80 shillings, according to rank, that of the ceorl being 200."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 4, section 31, foot-note (volume 1).

LA FAVORITA, Battle of (1797).

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

LAFAYETTE IN THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE), (JULY-NOVEMBER); 1780 (JULY); 1781 (JANUARY-MAY), and (MAY-OCTOBER).

LAFAYETTE: And the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY), to 1792 (AUGUST).

LA FÈRE, Siege and capture by Henry IV. of France (1596).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

LA FÈRE-CHAMPENOISE, Battle of.

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

LAGIDE PRINCES.

The Egyptian dynasty founded by Ptolemy Soter, the Macedonian general, is sometimes called the Lagide dynasty and its princes the Lagide princes, with reference to the reputed father of Ptolemy, who bore the name of Lagus.

LAGOS, Naval Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

LAGTHING.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

LA HOGUE, Naval Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.

LAKE DWELLINGS.

"Among the most interesting relics of antiquity which have yet been discovered are the famous lake-dwellings of Switzerland, described by Dr. Keller and others. … Dr. Keller … has arranged them in three groups, according to the character of their substructure.

[1] Those of the first group, the Pile Dwellings, are, he tells us, by far the most numerous in the lakes of Switzerland and Upper Italy. In these the substructure consists of piles of various kinds of wood, sharpened sometimes by fire, sometimes by stone hatchets or celts, and in later times by tools of bronze, and probably of iron, the piles being driven into the bottom of the lake at various distances from the shore. …

[2] The Frame Pile-Dwellings are very rare. 'The distinction between this form and the regular pile-settlement consists in the fact that the piles, instead of having been driven into the mud of the lake, had been fixed by a mortise-and-tenon arrangement into split trunks, lying horizontally on the bed of the lake.' …

[3] In the Fascine Dwellings, as Dr. Keller terms his third group of lake-habitations, the substructure consisted of successive layers of sticks or small stems of trees built up from the bottom of the lake till they reached above the lake-level. …

Lake-dwellings have been met with in many other regions of Europe besides Switzerland and Italy, as in Bavaria, Austria, Hungary, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, France, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. The 'Crannoges' of Ireland and Scotland were rather artificial islands than dwellings like those described above."

J. Geikie, Prehistoric Europe, pages 369-372.

ALSO IN: _F. Keller, Lake Dwellings._

_R. Munro, Ancient Scottish Lake Dwellings._

_E. P. S., Crannoges (in Archaeological Journal, volume 3)._

LAKE GEORGE, Battle of.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

LAMARTINE, and the French Government of 1848.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY), and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

LAMAS. LAMAISM.

"The development of the Buddhist doctrine which has taken place in the Panjab, Nepal, and Tibet … has resulted at last in the complete establishment of Lamaism, a religion not only in many points different from, but actually antagonistic to, the primitive system of Buddhism; and this not only in its doctrine, but also in its church organization." Tibet is "the only country where the Order has become a hierarchy, and acquired temporal power. Here, as in so many other countries, civilization entered and history began with Buddhism. When the first missionaries went there is not, however, accurately known; but Nepal was becoming Buddhist in the 6th century, and the first Buddhist king of Tibet sent to India for the holy scriptures in 632 A. D. A century afterwards an adherent of the native devil-worship drove the monks away, destroyed the monasteries, and burnt the holy books; but the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church—it returned triumphant after his death, and rapidly gained in wealth and influence. … {1951} As the Order became wealthy, rival abbots had contended for supremacy, and the chiefs had first tried to use the church as a means of binding the people to themselves, and then, startled at its progress, had to fight against it for their own privilege and power. When, in the long run, the crozier proved stronger than the sword, the Dalai Lama became in 1419 sole temporal sovereign of Tibet."

T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhism, chapters 8-9.

"Up to the moment of its conversion to Buddhism, a profound darkness had rested on [Tibet]. The inhabitants were ignorant and uncultivated, and their indigenous religion, sometimes called Bon, consisted chiefly of magic based on a kind of Shamanism. … The word is said to be of Tungusic origin, and to be used as a name for the earliest religion of Mongolia, Siberia and other Northern countries. … It is easy to understand that the chief function of the Shamans, or wizard-priests, was to exorcise evil demons, or to propitiate them by sacrifices and various magical practices. … The various gradations of the Tibetan hierarchy are not easily described, and only a general idea of them can be given. … First and lowest in rank comes the novice or junior monk, called Gethsul (Getzul). … Secondly and higher in rank we have the rull monk, called Gelong (or Gelon). … Thirdly we have the superior Gelong or Khanpo (strictly mKhan po), who has a real right to the further title Lama. … As the chief monk in a monastery he may be compared to the European Abbot. … Some of the higher Khanpo Lamas are supposed to be living re-incarnations or re-embodiments of certain canonized saints and Bodhi-sattvas who differ in rank. These are called Avatara Lamas, and of such there are three degrees. … There is also a whole class of mendicant Lamas. … Examples of the highest Avataras are the two quasi-Popes, or spiritual Kings, who are supreme Lamas of the Yellow sect—the one residing at Lhassa, and the other at Tashi Lunpo (Krashi Lunpo), about 100 miles distant. … The Grand Lama at Lhassa is the Dalai Lama, that is, 'the Ocean-Lama, or one whose power and learning are as great as the ocean. … The other Grand Lama, who resides in the monastery of Tashi Lunpo, is known in Europe under the names of the Tashi Lama."

Sir M. Monier-Williams, Buddhism, lecture 11.

"Kublai-Khan, after subduing China [see CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294], adopted the Buddhist doctrines, which had made considerable progress among the Tartars. In the year 1261 he raised a Buddhist priest named Mati to the dignity of head of the Faith in the empire. This priest is better known under the name of Pakbo Lama, or supreme Lama: he was a native of Thibet, and had gained the good graces and confidence of Kublai, who, at the same time that he conferred on him the supreme sacerdotal office, invested him with the temporal power in Thibet, with the titles of 'King of the Great and Precious Law,' and 'Institutor of the Empire.' Such was the origin of the Grand Lamas of Thibet, and it is not impossible that the Tartar Emperor, who had had frequent communications with the Christian missionaries, may have wished to create a religious organisation after the model of the Romish hierarchy."

Abbé Huc, Christianity in China, Tartary and Thibet, volume 2, page 10.

ALSO IN: Abbé Huc, Journey through Tartary, Thibet and China, volume 2.

_W. W. Rockhill, The Land of the Lamas._

LAMBALLE, Madame de, The death of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

LAMBETH, Treaty of.

A treaty of September 11, A. D. 1217, which was, in a certain sense, the sequel of Magna Carta. The barons who extorted the Great Charter from King John in 1215 were driven subsequently to a renewal of war with him. They renounced their allegiance and offered the crown to a French prince, Louis, husband of Blanche of Castile, who was John's niece. The pretensions of Louis were maintained after John's death, against his young son, Henry III. The cause of the latter triumphed in a decisive battle fought at Lincoln, May 20, 1217, and the contest was ended by the treaty named above. "The treaty of Lambeth is, in practical importance, scarcely inferior to the Charter itself.

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 14, section 170 (volume 2).

LAMEGO, The Cortes of.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

LAMIAN WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

LAMONE, Battle of (1425).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

LAMPADARCHY, The.

See LITURGIES.

LANCASTER, Chancellorship of the Duchy of.

"The Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster is an office more remarkable for its antiquity than for its present usefulness. It dates from the time of Henry the Fourth, when the County of Lancashire was under a government distinct from the rest of the Kingdom. About the only duty now associated with the office is the appointment of magistrates for the county of Lancashire. In the other English and Welsh counties, these appointments are made by the Lord High Chancellor, who is the head of the Judicial system. The duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are thus exceedingly light. The holder of the office is often spoken of as 'the maid of all work to the Cabinet,' from the fact that he is accorded a place in the Cabinet without being assigned any special duties likely to occupy the whole of his time. Usually the office is bestowed upon some statesman whom it is desirable for special reasons to have in the Cabinet, but for whom no other office of equal rank or importance is available."

E. Porritt, The Englishman at Home, chapter 8.

LANCASTER, House of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1399-1471.

LANCASTRIANS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

LANCES, Free.

With Sir John Hawkwood and his "free company" of English mercenaries, "came first into Italy [about 1360] the use of the term 'lances,' as applied to hired troops; each 'lance' being understood to consist of three men; of whom one carried a lance, and the others were bowmen. … They mostly fought on foot, having between each two archers a lance, which was held as men hold their hunting-spears in a boar-hunt."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, volume 2, page 144.

LAND GRANTS FOR SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1800; 1862; and 1862-1886.

{1952}

LAND LEAGUE, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879; and 1881-1882.

LAND QUESTION AND LAND LAWS, The Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1870-1894.

LANDAMMANN.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

----------LANDAU: Start--------

LANDAU: A. D. 1648. Cession to France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

LANDAU: A. D. 1702-1703. Taken by the Imperialists and retaken by the French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1702; and 1703.

LANDAU: A. D. 1704. Taken by the Allies.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

LANDAU: A. D. 1713. Taken and retained by France.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

----------LANDAU: End--------

LANDEN, OR NEERWINDEN, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

LANDFRIEDE. FEHDERECHT. THE SWABIAN LEAGUE. "Landfriede—Peace of the Land.

The expression, Public Peace, which, in deference to numerous and high authorities I have generally used in the text, is liable to important objections. 'A breach of the public peace' means, in England, any open disorder or outrage. But [in mediæval Germany] the Landfriede (Pax publica) was a special act or provision directed against the abuse of an ancient and established institution,—the Fehderecht (jus diffidationis, or right of private warfare). The attempts to restrain this abuse were, for a long time, local and temporary. … The first energetic measure of the general government to put down private wars was that of the diet of Nürnberg (1466). … The Fehde is a middle term between duel and war. Every affront or injury led, after certain formalities, to the declaration, addressed to the offending party, that the aggrieved party would be his foe, and that of his helpers and helpers'-helpers. … I shall not go into an elaborate description of the evils attendant on the right of diffidation or private warfare (Fehderecht); they were probably not so great as is commonly imagined."

L. Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany, volume 1, pages 77 (foot-note), 71, and 81.

"The right of diffidation, or of private warfare, had been the immemorial privilege of the Germanic nobles—a privilege as clear as it was ancient, which no diet attempted to abolish, but which, from the mischiefs attending its exercise, almost everyone had endeavoured to restrain. … Not only state, could declare war against state, prince against prince, noble against noble, but any noble could legally defy the emperor himself." In the reign of Frederick III. (1440-1493) efforts were made to institute a tribunal—an imperial chamber—which should have powers that would operate to restrain these private wars; but the emperor and the college of princes could not agree as to the constitution of the court proposed. To attain somewhat the same end, the emperor then "established a league both of the princes and of the imperial cities, which was destined to be better observed than most preceding confederations. Its object was to punish all who, during ten years, should, by the right of diffidation, violate the public tranquillity. He commenced with Swabia, which had ever been regarded as the imperial domain; and which, having no elector, no governing duke, no actual head other than the emperor himself, and, consequently, no other acknowledged protector, was sufficiently disposed to his views. In its origin the Swabian league consisted only of six cities, four prelates, three counts, sixteen knights; but by promises, or reasoning, or threats, Frederic soon augmented it. The number of towns was raised to 22, of prelates to 13, of counts to 12, of knights or inferior nobles to 350. It derived additional strength from the adhesion of princes and cities beyond the confines of Swabia; and additional splendour from the names of two electors, three margraves, and other reigning princes. It maintained constantly on foot 10,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry,—a force generally sufficient for the preservation of tranquillity. Of its salutary effects some notion may be formed from the fact that, in a very short period, one-and-forty bandit dens were stormed, and that two powerful offenders, George duke of Bavaria, and duke Albert of Munich, were compelled by an armed force to make satisfaction for their infraction of the public peace."

S. A. Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire, volume 2, pages 281-283.

The final suppression of the Fehderecht was brought about in the succeeding reign, of Maximilian, by the institution of the Imperial Chamber and the organization of the Circles to enforce its decrees.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

LANDO, Pope, A. D. 913-914.

----------LANDRECIES: Start--------

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1647. Spanish siege and capture.

See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1655. Siege and capture by Turenne.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1659. Ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

LANDRECIES: A. D. 1794. Siege and capture by the Allies. Recovery by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

----------LANDRECIES: End--------

LANDRIANO, Battle of (1529).

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

LANDSHUT, Battle of (1760).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

LANDSHUT, Battle of (1809.)

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809, (JANUARY-JUNE).

LANDSQUENETS.

"After the accession of Maximilian I. [Emperor, A. D. 1493-1519], the troops so celebrated in history under the name of 'Landsquenets' began to be known in Europe. They were native Germans, and soon rose to a high degree of military estimation. That Emperor, who had studied the art of war, and who conducted it on principles of Tactics, armed them with long lances; divided them into regiments, composed of ensigns and squads; compelled them to submit to a rigorous discipline, and retained them under their standards after the conclusion of the wars in which he was engaged. … Pikes were substituted in the place of their long lances, under Charles V."

Sir N. W. Wraxall, History of France, 1574-1610, volume 2, page 183.

LANDSTING.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874; and CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

LANDWEHR, The.

See FYRD.

LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1075).

See SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075.

LANGENSALZA, Battle at (1866.)

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

LANGOBARDI, The.

See LOMBARDS.

LANGPORT, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{1953}

LANG'S NEK, Battle of (1881).

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

LANGSIDE, Battle of (1568).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

LANGUE D'OC.

"It is well known that French is in the main a descendant from the Latin, not the Latin of Rome, but the corrupter Latin which was spoken in Gaul. Now these Latin-speaking Gauls did not, for some reason, say 'est,' 'it is,' for 'yes,' as the Romans did; but they used a pronoun, either 'ille,' 'he,' or 'hoc,' 'this.' When, therefore, a Gaul desired to say 'yes,' he nodded, and said 'he' or else 'this,' meaning 'He is so,' or 'This is so.' As it happens the Gauls of the north said 'ille,' and those of the south said 'hoc,' and these words gradually got corrupted into two meaningless words, 'oui' and 'oc.' It is well known that the people in the south of France were especially distinguished by using the word 'oc' instead of 'oui' for 'yes,' so that their 'dialect' got to be called the 'langue d'oc,' and this word Langue-doc gave the name to a province of France."

C. F. Keary, Dawn of History, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: F. Hueffer, The Troubadours, chapter 1.

Sir G. C. Lewis, The Romance Languages, page 52, and after.

LANGUEDOC.

When, as a consequence of the Albigensian wars, the dominions of the Counts of Toulouse were broken up and absorbed for the most part in the domain of the French crown, the country which had been chiefly ravaged in those wars, including Septimania and much of the old county of Toulouse, acquired the name by which its language was known—Languedoc. The 'langue d'oc' was spoken likewise in Provence and in Aquitaine; but it gave a definite geographical name only to the region between the Rhone and the Garonne.

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229; also, PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

LANNES, Marshal, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY); GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH), 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY); and GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

LANSDOWNE, Lord, The Indian administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1893.

----------LAON: Start--------

LAON: The last capital of the Carolingian kings.

The rock-lifted castle and stronghold of Laon, situated in the modern department of Aisne, about 74 miles northeast from Paris, was the last refuge and capital—sometimes the sole dominion—of the Carolingian kings, in their final struggle with the new dynasty sprung from the Dukes of France. The "King of Laon" and the "King of St. Denis," as the contestants are sometimes called, disputed with one another for a monarchy which was small when the sovereignty of the two had been united in one. In 991 the "King of Laon" was betrayed to his rival, Hugh Capet, and died in prison. "Laon ceased to be a capital, and became a quiet country town; the castle, relic of those days, stood till 1832, when it was rased to the ground."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France, volume 1, book 3, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, part 2, chapter 4, parts 1-2 (volume 2).

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 877-987.

LAON: A. D. 1594. Siege and capture by Henry IV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

LAON, Battle of.

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

----------LAON: End--------

LAPITHÆ, The.

A race which occupied in early times the valley of the Peneus, in Thessaly; "a race which derived its origin from Almopia in Macedonia, and was at least very nearly connected with the Minyans and Æolians of Ephyra."

C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race, book 1, chapter 1.

LA PLATA, Provinces of.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

LA PUERTA, Battle of (1814).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1821.

LARGS, Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263.

LARISSA.

There were several ancient cities in Greece and Asia Minor called Larissa.

See ARGOS, and PERRHÆBIANS.

LAROCHEJACQUELIN, Henri de, and the insurrection in La Vendée.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE); and (JULY-DECEMBER).

LA ROCHELLE.

See ROCHELLE.

LA ROTHIERÈ, Battle of.

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

LA SALLE'S EXPLORATIONS.

See CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

LAS CASAS, The humane labors of.

See SLAVERY: MODERN: OF THE INDIANS.

LAS CRUCES, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

LASSI, LAZZI, The.

See LÆTI.

LASWARI, Battle of (1803).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

LATERAN, The.

"The Lateran derives its name from a rich patrician family, whose estates were confiscated by Nero. … It afterwards became an imperial residence, and a portion of it … was given by Constantine to Pope Melchiades in 312,—a donation which was confirmed to St. Sylvester, in whose reign the first basilica was built here. … The ancient Palace of the Lateran was the residence of the popes for nearly 1,000 years. … The modern Palace of the Lateran was built from designs of Fontana by Sixtus V. In 1693 Innocent XII. turned it into a hospital,—in 1438 Gregory XVI. appropriated it as a museum."

A. J. C. Hare, Walks in Rome, chapter 13.

LATHES OF KENT.

"The county of Kent [England] is divided into six 'lathes,' of nearly equal size, having the jurisdiction of the hundreds in other shires. The lathe may be derived from the Jutish 'lething' (in modern Danish 'leding')—a military levy."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 1, foot-note.

LATHOM HOUSE, Siege of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY).

LATIFUNDIA.

The great slave-tilled estates of the Romans, which swallowed up the properties of the small land-holders of earlier times, were called Latifundia.

LATIN CHURCH, The.

The Roman Catholic Church (see PAPACY) is often referred to as the Latin Church, in distinction from the Greek or Orthodox Church of the East.

LATIN EMPIRE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.

See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF.

LATIN LANGUAGE IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

{1954}

"LATIN NAME," The.

"We must … explain what was meant in the sixth century of Rome [third century B. C.] by the 'Latin name.' … The Latin name was now extended far beyond its old geographical limits, and was represented by a multitude of flourishing cities scattered over the whole of Italy, from the frontier of Cisalpine Gaul to the southern extremity of Apulia. … Not that they were Latins in their origin, or connected with the cities of the old Latium: on the contrary they were by extraction Romans; they were colonies founded by the Roman people, and consisting of Roman Citizens: but the Roman government had resolved that, in their political relations, they should be considered, not as Romans, but as Latins; and the Roman settlers, in consideration of the advantages which they enjoyed as colonists, were content to descend politically to a lower condition than that which they had received as their birthright. The states of the Latin name, whether cities of old Latium or Roman colonies, all enjoyed their own laws and municipal government, like the other allies; and all were, like the other allies, subject to the sovereign dominion of the Romans. They were also so much regarded as foreigners that they could not buy or inherit land from Roman citizens; nor had they generally the right of intermarriage with Romans. But they had two peculiar privileges: one, that any Latin who left behind him a son in his own city, to perpetuate his family there, might remove to Rome, and acquire the Roman franchise; the other, that every person who had held any magistracy or distinguished office in a Latin state, might become at once a Roman citizen."

T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 41.

LATINS, Subjugation of, by the Romans.

See ROME: B. C. 339-338.

LATIUM. THE OLD LATINS.

"The plain of Latium must have been in primeval times the scene of the grandest conflicts of nature, while the slowly formative agency of water deposited, and the eruptions of mighty volcanoes upheaved, the successive strata of that soil on which was to be decided the question to what people the sovereignty of the world should belong. Latium is bounded on the east by the mountains of the Sabines and Aequi, which form part of the Apennines; and on the south by the Volscian range rising to the height of 4,000 feet, which is separated from the main chain of the Apennines by the ancient territory of the Hernici, the table-land of the Sacco (Trerus, a tributary of the Liris), and stretching in a westerly direction terminates in the promontory of Terracina. On the west its boundary is the sea, which on this part of the coast forms but few and indifferent harbours. On the north it imperceptibly merges into the broad highlands of Etruria. The region thus enclosed forms a magnificent plain traversed by the Tiber, the 'mountain-stream' which issues from the Umbrian, and by the Anio, which rises in the Sabine mountains. Hills here and there emerge, like islands, from the plain; some of them steep limestone cliffs, such as that of Soracte in the north-east, and that of the Circeian promontory on the south-west, as well as the similar though lower height of the Janiculum near Rome; others volcanic elevations, whose extinct craters had become converted into lakes which in some cases still exist; the most important of these is the Alban range, which, free on every side, stands forth from the plain between the Volscian chain and the river Tiber. Here settled the stock which is known to history under the name of the Latins, or, as they were subsequently called by way of distinction from the Latin communities beyond the bounds of Latium, the 'Old Latins' ('prisci Latini'). But the territory occupied by them, the district of Latium, was only a small portion of the central plain of Italy. All the country north of the Tiber was to the Latins a foreign and even hostile domain, with whose inhabitants no lasting alliance, no public peace, was possible, and such armistices as were concluded appear always to have been for a limited period. The Tiber formed the northern boundary from early times. … We find, at the time when our history begins, the flat and marshy tracts to the south of the Alban range in the hands of Umbro-Sabellian stocks, the Rutuli and Volsci; Ardea and Velitrae are no longer in the number of originally Latin towns. Only the central portion of that region between the Tiber, the spurs of the Apennines, the Alban Mount, and the sea—a district of about 700 square miles, not much larger than the present canton of Zurich—was Latium proper, the 'plain,' as it appears to the eye of the observer from the heights of Monte Cavo. Though the country is a plain, it is not monotonously flat. With the exception of the sea-beach which is sandy and formed in part by the accumulations of the Tiber, the level is everywhere broken by hills of tufa moderate in height, though often somewhat steep, and by deep fissures of the ground. These alternating elevations and depressions of the surface lead to the formation of lakes in winter; and the exhalations proceeding in the heat of summer from the putrescent organic substances which they contain engender that noxious fever-laden atmosphere, which in ancient times tainted the district as it taints it at the present day."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 3.

See, also, ITALY, ANCIENT.

LATT, OR LIDUS, The.

See SLAVERY: MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

LATTER DAY SAINTS, Church of.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.

LAUD, Archbishop, Church tyranny of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.

LAUDER BRIDGE.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488.

LAUDERDALE, Duke of. His oppression in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679.

LAUFFENBURG, Captured by Duke Bernhard (1637).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

LAURAS.

"The institution of Lauras was the connecting link between the hermitage and the monastery, in the later and more ordinary use of that word. … A Laura was an aggregation of separate cells, under the not very strongly defined control of a superior, the inmates meeting together only on the first and last days, the old and new Sabbaths, of each week, for their common meal in the refectory and for common worship. … The origin of the word 'Laura' is uncertain. … Probably it is another form of 'labra,' the popular term in Alexandria for an alley or narrow court."

I. G. Smith, Christian Monasticism, pages 38-39.

{1955}

LAUREATE, English Poets.

"From the appointment of Chaucer about five hundred years have elapsed, and during that period a long line of poets have held the title of Laureate. For the first two hundred years they were somewhat irregularly appointed, but from the creation of Richard Edwards in 1561, they come down to the present time without interruption. The selection of the Laureate has not always been a wise one, but the list contains the names of a few of our greatest authors, and the honour was certainly worthily bestowed upon Edmund Spenser, Ben Jonson, John Dryden, Robert Southey, William Wordsworth, and Alfred Tennyson. As the custom of crowning successful poets appears to have been in use since the origin of poetry itself, the office of Poet Laureate can certainly boast of considerable antiquity, and the laurel wreath of the Greeks and Romans was an envied trophy long before our Druidical forefathers held aloft the mistletoe bough in their mystic rites. From what foreign nation we first borrowed the idea of a King of the Poets is doubtful."

_W. Hamilton, Origin of the Office of Poet Laureate (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 8)._

The following is a list of the Poets Laureate of England, with the dates of their appointment:

Geoffrey Chaucer, 1368; Sir John Gower, 1400; Henry Scogan; John Kay; Andrew Bernard, 1486; John Skelton, 1489; Robert Whittington, 1512; Richard Edwards, 1561; Edmund Spenser, 1590; Samuel Daniel, 1598; Ben Jonson, 1616; Sir William Davenant, 1638; John Dryden, 1670; Thomas Shadwell, 1688; Nahum Tate, 1692; Nicholas Rowe, 1715; Rev. Laurence Eusden, 1718; Colley Cibber, 1730; William Whitehead, 1757; Thomas Warton, 1785; Henry James Pye, 1790; Robert Southey, 1813; William Wordsworth, 1843; Alfred Tennyson, 1850.

_W. Hamilton, The Poets Laureate of England._

LAURIUM, Silver Mines of.

These mines, in Attica, were owned and worked at an early time by the Athenian state, and seem to have yielded a large revenue, more or less of which was divided among the citizens. It was by persuading the Athenians to forego that division that Themistocles secured money to build the fleet which made Athens a great naval power. The mines were situated in the southern part of Attica, in a district of low hills, not far from the promontory of Sunium.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 39.

LAUSITZ.

See BRANDENBURG.

LAUTULÆ, Battle of.

See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

LAW, John, and his Mississippi Scheme.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1717-1720; and LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

----------LAW: Start----------

LAW. [Prepared for this work by Austin Abbott, Dean of the New York University Law School.]

The subject is here treated with reference to the history of the rights of persons and property, and that of procedure, rather than in its political and economic aspects, which are discussed under other heads. And those parts of the history of law thus considered which enter into our present systems are given the preference in space,—purely historical matters, such as the Roman Law, being treated elsewhere, as indicated in the references placed at the end of this article:

----------ADMIRALTY LAW: Start----------

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1183. Law as to Shipwrecks.

"The Emperor Constantine, or Antonine (for there is some doubt as to which it was), had the honour of being the first to renounce the claim to shipwrecked property in favor of the rightful owner. But the inhuman customs on this subject were too deeply rooted to be eradicated by the wisdom and vigilance of the Roman law givers. The legislation in favor of the unfortunate was disregarded by succeeding emperors, and when the empire itself was overturned by the northern barbarians, the laws of humanity were swept away in the tempest, and the continual depredations of the Saxons and Normans induced the inhabitants of the western coasts of Europe to treat all navigators who were thrown by the perils of the sea upon their shores as pirates, and to punish them as such, without inquiry or discrimination. The Emperor Andronicus Comnenus, who reigned at Constantinople in 1183, made great efforts to repress this inhuman practice. His edict was worthy of the highest praise, but it ceased to be put in execution after his death. … Valin says, it was reserved to the ordinances of Lewis XIV. to put the finishing stroke towards the extinction of this species of piracy, by declaring that shipwrecked persons and property were placed under the special protection and safe guard of the crown, and the punishment of death without hope of pardon, was pronounced against the guilty."

James Kent, International Law, edited by J. T. Abdy, page 31.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1537. Jurisdiction.

The Act of 28 Henry VIII., c. 15, granted jurisdiction to the Lord High Admiral of England.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1575. Jurisdiction.

"The Request of the Judge of the Admiralty, to the Lord Chief Justice of her Majesty's Bench, and his Colleagues, and the Judges' Agreement 7th May 1575,"—by which the long controversy between these Courts as to their relative jurisdiction was terminated, will be found in full in

_Benedict's American Admiralty, 3d edition, page 41._

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1664. Tide-mark.

The space between high and low water mark is to be taken as part of the sea, when the tide is in.

Erastus C. Benedict, American Admiralty, 3d edition, by Robert D. Benedict, page 35, citing Sir John Constable's Case, Anderson's Rep. 89.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1789. United States Judiciary Act.

The Act of 1789 declared admiralty jurisdiction to extend to all cases "where the seizures are made on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen."

Judiciary Act, United States Stat. at Large, volume 1, page 76.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1798. Lord Stowell and Admiralty Law.

"Lord Mansfield, at a very early period of his judicial life, introduced to the notice of the English bar the Rhodian laws, the Consolato del mare, the laws of Oleron, the treatises of Roccus, the laws of Wisbuy, and, above all, the marine ordinances of Louis XIV., and the commentary of Valin. These authorities were cited by him in Luke v. Lyde [2 Burr. 882], and from that time a new direction was given to English studies, and new vigor, and more liberal and enlarged views, communicated to forensic investigations. {1956} Since the year 1798, the decisions of Sir William Scott (now Lord Stowell) on the admiralty side of Westminster Hall, have been read and admired in every region of the republic of letters, as models of the most cultivated and the most enlightened human reason. … The doctrines are there reasoned out at large, and practically applied. The arguments at the bar, and the opinions from the bench, are intermingled with the greatest reflections, … the soundest policy, and a thorough acquaintance with all the various topics which concern the great social interests of mankind."

James Kent, Commentaries, part 5, lecture 42.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1841-1842. Jurisdiction.

The act 3 and 4 Vic., c. 65, restored to the English Admiralty some jurisdiction of which it had been deprived by the Common Law Courts.

Benedict's Am. Admiralty, page 56.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1845. Extension of Admiralty Jurisdiction.

"It took the Supreme Court of the United States more than fifty years to reject the antiquated doctrine of the English courts, that admiralty jurisdiction was confined to salt water, or water where the tide ebbed and flowed. Congress in 1845 passed an act extending the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal courts to certain cases upon the great lakes, and the navigable waters connecting the same. The constitutionality of this act was seriously questioned, and it was not till 1851 that the Supreme Court, by a divided court, in the case of the Genesee Chief, which collided with another vessel on Lake Ontario, sustained the constitutionality of the act, and repudiated the absurd doctrine that tides had anything to do with the admiralty jurisdiction conferred by the constitution upon Federal courts."

Lyman Trumbull, Precedent versus Justice, American Law Review, volume 27, page 324.

See, also Act of 1845, 5 U. S. Stat. at L. 726.

ADMIRALTY LAW: A. D. 1873. Division of Loss in case of Collision settled by Judicature Act.

"The rule that where both ships are at fault for a collision each shall recover half his loss from the other, contradicts the old rule of the common law that a plaintiff who is guilty of contributory negligence can recover nothing. This conflict between the common law and the law of the Admiralty was put an end to in 1873 by the Judicature Act of that year, which (s. 25, subs. 9) provides that 'if both ships shall be found to have been in fault' the Admiralty rule shall prevail. … There can be no doubt that in some instances it works positive injustice; as where it prevents the innocent cargo-owner from recovering more than half his loss from one of the two wrong-doing shipowners. And recent cases show that it works in an arbitrary and uncertain manner when combined with the enactments limiting the shipowner's liability for damage done by his ship. The fact, however, remains, that it has been in operation with the approval of the shipping community for at least two centuries, and probably for a much longer period; and an attempt to abolish it at the time of the passing of the Judicature Acts met with no success. The true reason of its very general acceptance is probably this—that it gives effect to the principle of distributing losses at sea, which is widely prevalent in maritime affairs. Insurance, limitation of shipowner's liability, and general average contribution are all connected, more or less directly, with this principle."

R. G. Marsden, Two Points of Admiralty Law, Law Quarterly Review, volume 2, pages 357-362.

For an enumeration of the various Maritime codes with their dates,

See Benedict's Am. Admiralty, pages 91-97, and Davis' Outlines of International Law, pages 5, 6, &c.

----------ADMIRALTY LAW: End----------

----------COMMON LAW: Start----------

Common Law. [Including legislation in modification of It.]

COMMON LAW: A. D. 449-1066. Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Saxons.

"It may be confidently asserted that trial by jury was unknown to our Anglo-Saxon ancestors; and the idea of its existence in their legal system has arisen from a want of attention to the radical distinction between the members or judges composing a court, and a body of men apart from that court, but summoned to attend it in order to determine conclusively the facts of the case in dispute. This is the principle on which is founded the intervention of a jury; and no trace whatever can be found of such an institution in Anglo-Saxon times."

W. Forsyth, Trial by Jury, page 45.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 630. The first Written Body of English Law.

"The first written body of English Law is said to have been promulgated in the Heptarchy by Ethelbert, about the year 630, and enacted with the consent of the states of his kingdom."

Joseph Parke, History of Chancery, page 14.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 871-1066. The King's Peace.

1. The technical use of "the king's peace" is, I suspect, connected with the very ancient rule that a breach of the peace in a house must be atoned for in proportion to the householder's rank. If it was in the king's dwelling, the offender's life was in the king's hand. This peculiar sanctity of the king's house was gradually extended to all persons who were about his business, or specially under his protection; but when the Crown undertook to keep the peace everywhere, the king's peace became coincident with the general peace of the kingdom, and his especial protection was deemed to be extended to all peaceable subjects. In substance, the term marks the establishment of the conception of public justice, exercised on behalf of the whole commonwealth, as something apart from and above the right of private vengeance,—a right which the party offended might pursue or not, or accept composition for, as he thought fit. The private blood feud, it is true, formally and finally disappeared from English jurisprudence only in the present century; but in its legalized historical shape of the wager of battle it was not a native English institution.

Sir Frederick Pollock, Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics, page 205.

See, also, KING'S PEACE.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066. Inquisition, parent of Modern Jury.

"When the Normans came into England they brought with them, not only a far more vigorous and searching kingly power than had been known there, but also a certain product of the exercise of this power by the Frankish kings and the Norman dukes; namely, the use of the inquisition in public administration, i. e., the practice of ascertaining facts by summoning together by public authority a number of people most likely, as being neighbors, to know and tell the truth, and calling for their answer under oath. This was the parent of the modern jury. … {1957} With the Normans came also another novelty, the judicial duel—one of the chief methods for determining controversies in the royal courts; and it was largely the cost, danger, and unpopularity of the last of these institutions which fed the wonderful growth of the other."

_J. B. Thayer, The Older Modes of Trial (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 45)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154. Trial by Jury unknown to Anglo-Normans.

"The same remark which has already been made, with reference to the absence of all mention of the form of jury trial in the Anglo-Saxon Laws, applies equally to the first hundred years after the Conquest. It is incredible that so important a feature of our jurisprudence, if it had been known, would not have been alluded to in the various compilations of law which were made in the reigns of the early Norman kings. … Although the form of the jury did not then exist, the rudiments of that mode of trial may be distinctly traced, in the selection from the neighborhood where the dispute arose, of a certain number of persons, who after being duly sworn testified to the truth of the facts within their own knowledge. This is what distinguishes the proceeding from what took place among the Anglo-Saxons—namely, the choosing a limited number of probi homines to represent the community, and give testimony for them."

W. Forsyth, Trial by Jury, pages 82-90.

See, also, JURY: TRIAL BY.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1154. The Curia Regis.

"As a legal tribunal the jurisdiction of the Curia was both civil and criminal, original and appellate. As a primary court it heard all causes in which the king's interests were concerned, as well as all causes between the tenants-in-chief of the crown, who were too great to submit to the local tribunals of the shire and the hundred. As an appellate court it was resorted to in those cases in which the powers of the local courts had been exhausted or had failed to do justice. By virtue of special writs, and as a special favor, the king could at his pleasure call up causes from the local courts to be heard in his own court according to such new methods as his advisers might invent. Through the issuance of these special writs the king became practically the fountain of justice, and through their agency the new system of royal law, which finds its source in the person of the king, was brought in to remedy the defects of the old, unelastic system of customary law which prevailed in the provincial courts of the people. The curia followed the person of the king, or the justiciar in the king's absence."

Hannis Taylor, Origin and Growth of the English Constitution, part 1, pages 245-246.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1066-1215. Purchasing Writs.

"The course of application to the curia regis was of this nature. The party suing paid, or undertook to pay, to the king a fine to have justitiam et rectam in his court: and thereupon he obtained a writ or precept, by means of which he commenced his suit; and the justices were authorized to hear and determine his claim."

Reeves' (Finlason's) History English Law, volume 1, page 267.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1077. Trial by Battle.

"The earliest reference to the battle, I believe, in any account of a trial in England, is at the end of the case of Bishop Wulfstan v. Abbot Walter, in 1077. The controversy was settled, and we read: 'Thereof there are lawful witnesses … who said and heard this, ready to prove it by oath and battle.' This is an allusion to a common practice in the Middle Ages, that of challenging an adversary's witness, or perhaps to one method of disposing of cases where witnesses were allowed on opposite sides and contradicted each other. … Thus, as among nations still, so then in the popular courts and between contending private parties, the battle was often the ultima ratio, in cases where their rude and unrational methods of trial yielded no results. It was mainly in order to displace this dangerous … mode of proof that the recognitions—that is to say, the first organized form of the jury—were introduced. These were regarded as a special boon to the poor man, who was oppressed in many ways by the duel. It was by enactment of Henry II. that this reform was brought about, first in his Norman dominions (in 1150-52), before reaching the English throne, and afterwards in England, sometime after he became king, in 1154."

_J. B. Thayer, The Older Modes of Trial (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 66-67)._

See, also: WAGER OF BATTLE.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1100 (circa). Origin of Statutes of Limitation.

"Our ancestors, instead of fixing a given number of years as the period within which legal proceedings to recover real property must be resorted to, had recourse to the singular expedient of making the period of limitation run from particular events or dates. From the time of Henry I. to that of Henry III., on a writ of right, the time within which a descent must be shown was the time of King Henry I. (Co. Litt. 114b). In the twentieth year of Henry III., by the Statute of Merton (c. 8) the date was altered to the time of Henry II. Writs of 'mort d'ancestor' were limited to the time of the last return of King John into England; writs of novel disseisin to the time of the king's first crossing the sea into Gascony. In the previous reign, according to Glanville (lib. 13, c. 33), the disseisin must have been since the last voyage of King Henry II. into Normandy. So that the time necessary to bar a claim varied materially at different epochs. Thus matters remained until the 3 Edw. I. (Stat. West. 1, c. 39), when, as all lawyers are aware, the time within which a writ of right might be brought was limited to cases in which the seisin of the ancestor was since the time of King Richard I., which was construed to mean the beginning of that king's reign (2 Inst. 238), a period of not less than eighty-six years. The legislature having thus adopted the reign of Richard I. as the date from which the limitation in a real action was to run, the courts of law adopted it as the period to which, in all matters of prescription or custom, legal memory, which till then had been confined to the time to which living memory could go back, should thenceforth be required to extend. Thus the law remained for two centuries and a half, by which time the limitation imposed in respect of actions to recover real property having long become inoperative to bar claims which had their origin posterior to the time of Richard I., and having therefore ceased practically to afford any protection against antiquated claims, the legislature, in 32d of Henry VIII. (c. 2), again interfered, and on this occasion, instead of dating the period of limitation from some particular event or date, took the wiser course of prescribing a fixed number of years as the limit within which a suit should be entertained. … {1958} It was of course impossible that as time went on the adoption of a fixed epoch, as the time from which legal memory was to run, should not be attended by grievous inconvenience and hardship. Possession, however long, enjoyment, however interrupted, afforded no protection against stale and obsolete claims, or the assertion of long abandoned rights. And as parliament failed to intervene to amend the law, the judges set their ingenuity to work, by fictions and presumptions, to atone for the supineness of the legislature. … They first laid down the somewhat startling rule that from the usage of a lifetime the presumption arose that a similar usage had existed from a remote antiquity. Next, as it could not but happen that, in the case of many private rights, especially in that of easements, which had a more recent origin, such a presumption was impossible, judicial astuteness to support possession and enjoyment, which the law ought to have invested with the character of rights, had recourse to the questionable theory of lost grants. Juries were first told that from user, during living memory, or even during twenty years, they might presume a lost grant or deed; next they were recommended to make such presumption; and lastly, as the final consummation of judicial legislation, it was held that a jury should be told, not only that they might, but also that they were bound to presume the existence of such a lost grant, although neither judge nor jury, nor anyone else, had the shadow of a belief that any such instrument had ever really existed. … When the doctrine of presumptions had proceeded far towards its development, the legislature at length interfered, and in respect of real property and of certain specified easements, fixed certain periods of possession or enjoyment as establishing presumptive rights."

C. J. Cockburn, in Bryant v. Foot, L. R. 2 Q. B., 161; s. c. (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, 94).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1110 (circa). The King's Peace superior to the Peace of the Subject.

"We find in the so-called laws of Henry I, that wherever men meet for drinking, selling, or like occasions, the peace of God and of the lord of the house is to be declared between them. The amount payable to the host is only one shilling, the king taking twelve, and the injured party, in case of insult, six. Thus the king is already concerned, and more concerned than anyone else; but the private right of the householder is distinctly though not largely acknowledged. We have the same feeling well marked in our modern law by the adage that every man's house is his castle, and the rule that forcible entry may not be made for the execution of ordinary civil process against the occupier: though for contempt of Court arising in a civil cause, it may, as not long ago the Sheriff of Kent had to learn in a sufficiently curious form. The theoretical stringency of our law of trespass goes back, probably, to the same origin. And in a quite recent American textbook we read, on the authority of several modern cases in various States of the Union, that 'a man assaulted in his dwelling is not obliged to retreat, but may defend his possession to the last extremity.'"

_F. Pollock, The King's Peace (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 40-41)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1135. Abeyance of the King's Peace.

"The King's Peace is proclaimed in general terms at his accession. But, though generalized in its application, it still was subject to a strange and inconvenient limit in time. The fiction that the king is everywhere present, though not formulated, was tacitly adopted; the protection once confined to his household was extended to the whole kingdom. The fiction that the king never dies was yet to come. It was not the peace of the Crown, an authority having continuous and perpetual succession, that was proclaimed, but the peace of William or Henry. When William or Henry died, all authorities derived from him were determined or suspended; and among other consequences, his peace died with him. What this abeyance of the King's Peace practically meant is best told in the words of the Chronicle, which says upon the death of Henry I. (anno 1135): 'Then there was tribulation soon in the land, for every man that could forthwith robbed another.' Order was taken in this matter (as our English fashion is) only when the inconvenience became flagrant in a particular case. At the time of Henry III.'s death his son Edward was in Palestine. It was intolerable that there should be no way of enforcing the King's Peace till the king had come back to be crowned; and the great men of the realm, by a wise audacity, took upon them to issue a proclamation of the peace in the new king's name forthwith. This good precedent being once made, the doctrine of the King's Peace being in suspense was never afterwards heard of."

_F. Pollock, The King's Peace (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, pages 48-49)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1154-1189. Origin of Unanimity of Jury.

"The origin of the rule as to unanimity may, I think, be explained as follows: In the assise as instituted in the reign of Henry II. it was necessary that twelve jurors should agree in order to determine the question of disseisin; but this unanimity was not then secured by any process which tended to make the agreement compulsory. The mode adopted was called, indeed, an afforcement of the jury; but this term did not imply that any violence was done to the conscientious opinions of the minority. It merely meant that a sufficient number were to be added to the panel until twelve were at last found to agree in the same conclusion; and this became the verdict of the assise. … The civil law required two witnesses at least, and in some cases a greater number, to establish a fact in dispute; as, for instance, where a debt was secured by a written instrument, five witnesses were necessary to prove payment. These would have been called by our ancestors a jurata of five. At the present day, with us no will is valid which is not attested by at least two witnesses. In all countries the policy of the law determines what it will accept as the minimum of proof. Bearing then in mind that the jury system was in its inception nothing but the testimony of witnesses informing the court of facts supposed to lie within their own knowledge, we see at once that to require that twelve men should be unanimous was simply to fix the amount of evidence which the law deemed to be conclusive of a matter in dispute."

W. Forsyth, History of Trial by Jury, chapter 11, section 1.

{1959}

A. D. 1154-1189. Reign of Law initiated.

"The reign of Henry II. initiates the rule of law. The administrative machinery, which had been regulated by routine under Henry I., is now made a part of the constitution, enunciated in laws, and perfected by a steady series of reforms: The mind of Henry II. was that of a lawyer and man of business. He set to work from the very beginning of the reign to place order on a permanent basis, and, recurring to the men and measures of his grandfather, to complete an organization which should make a return to feudalism impossible."

W. Stubbs, Select Charters of English Constitutional History, page 21.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1164-1176. Trial by Assize.

"The first mention of the trial by assise in our existing statutes occurs in the Constitutions of Clarendon, A. D. 1164 [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170], where it was provided that if any dispute arose between a layman and a clerk as to whether a particular tenement was the property of the Church or belonged to a lay fief, this was to be determined before the chief justiciary of the kingdom, by the verdict of twelve lawful men. … This was followed by the Statute of Northampton, A. D. 1176, which directs the justices, in case a lord should refuse to give to the heir the seisin of his deceased ancestor, 'to cause a recognition to be made by means of twelve lawful men as to what seisin the deceased had on the day of his death;' and also orders them to inquire in the same manner in cases of novel disseisin."

W. Forsyth, Trial by Jury, chapter 6, section 3.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1165 (circa). Justice bought and sold.

"The king's justice was one great source of his revenue, and he sold it very dear. Observe that this buying and selling was not in itself corruption, though it is hard to believe that corruption did not get mixed up with it. Suitors paid heavily not to have causes decided in their favour in the king's court, but to have them heard there at all. The king's justice was not a matter of right, but of exceptional favour; and this was especially the case when he undertook, as he sometimes did, to review and overrule the actual decisions of local courts, or even reverse, on better information, his own previous commands. And not only was the king's writ sold, but it was sold at arbitrary and varying prices, the only explanation of which appears to be that in every case the king's officers took as much as they could get. Now we are in a position to understand that famous clause of the Great Charter: 'To no man will we sell, nor to none deny or delay, right or justice.' The Great Charter comes about half a century after the time of which we have been speaking; so in that time, you see, the great advance had been made of regarding the king's justice as a matter not of favour but of right. And besides this clause there is another which provides for the regular sending of the king's judges into the counties. Thus we may date from Magna Carta the regular administration of a uniform system of law throughout England. What is more, we may almost say that Magna Carta gave England a capital. For the king's court had till then no fixed seat; it would be now at Oxford, now at Westminster, now at Winchester, sometimes at places which by this time are quite obscure. But the Charter provided that causes between subject and subject which had to be tried by the king's judges should be tried not where the king's court happened to be, but in some certain place; and so the principal seat of the courts of justice, and ultimately the political capital of the realm, became established at Westminster."

Sir F. Pollock, Essays in Jurisprudence and Ethics, page 209.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1166. Assize of Clarendon.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1176. Justices in Eyre.

"It has been generally supposed that justices in Eyre (justitiarii itinerantes) were first established in 1176, by Henry II., for we find it recorded that in that year, in a great counsel held at Northampton, the king divided the realm into six parts, and appointed three traveling justices to go each circuit, so that the number was eighteen in all. … But although the formal division of the kingdom into separate circuits may have been first made by Henry II., yet there is no doubt that single justiciars were appointed by William I., a few years after the Conquest, who visited the different shires to administer justice in the king's name, and thus represented the curia regis as distinct from the hundred and county courts."

W. Forsyth, Trial by Jury, pages 81-82.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1189. Legal Memory. Its effect.

"No doubt usage for the last fifty or sixty years would be some evidence of usage 700 years ago, but if the question is to be considered as an ordinary question of fact, I certainly for one would very seldom find a verdict in support of the right as in fact so ancient. I can hardly believe, for instance, that the same fees in courts of justice which were till recently received by the officers as ancient fees attached to their ancient offices were in fact received 700 years ago; or that the city of London took before the time of Richard I. the same payments for measuring corn and coals and oysters that they do now. I have no doubt the city of Bristol did levy dues in the Avon before the time of legal memory, and that the mayor, as head of that corporation, got some fees at that time; but I can hardly bring myself to believe that the mayor of Bristol at that time received 5s. a year from every ship above sixty tons burthen which entered the Avon; yet the claim of the city of Bristol to their ancient mayor's dues, of which this is one, was established before Lord Tenterden, in 1828. I think the only way in which verdicts in support of such claims, and there are many such, could have properly been found, is by supposing that the jury were advised that, in favor of the long continued user, a presumption arose that it was legal, on which they ought to find that the user was immemorial, if that was necessary to legalize it, unless the contrary was proved; that presumption not being one purely of fact, and to be acted on only when the jury really entertained the opinion that in fact the legal origin existed. This was stated by Parke B., on the first trial of Jenkins v. Harvey, 1 C. M. & R. 894, as being his practice, and what he considered the correct mode of leaving the question to the jury; and that was the view of the majority of the judges in the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Shephard v. Payne, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 132; 33 L. J. (C. P.) 158. This is by no means a modern doctrine; it is as ancient as the time of Littleton, who, in his Tenures, § 170, says that all are agreed that usage since the time of Richard I. is a title; some, he says, have thought it the only title of prescription, but that others have said 'that there is also another title of prescription that was at the common law before any statute of limitation of writs, &c., and that it was where a custom or usage or other thing hath been used for time whereof mind of man runneth not to the contrary. {1960} And they have said that this is proved by the pleading where a man will plead a title of prescription of custom. He shall say that such a custom hath been used from time whereof the memory of men runneth not to the contrary, that is as much as to say, when such a matter is pleaded, that no man then alive hath heard any proof of the contrary, nor hath no knowledge to the contrary; and insomuch that such title of prescription was at the common law, and not put out by any statute, ergo, it abideth as it was at the common law; and the rather that the said limitation of a writ of right is of so long time past. 'Ideo quaere de hoc.' It is practically the same thing whether we say that usage as far back as proof extends is a title, though it does not go so far back as the year 1189; or that such usage is to be taken in the absence of proof to the contrary to establish that the usage began before that year; and certainly the lapse of 400 years since Littleton wrote has added force to the remark, 'the rather that the limitation of a writ of right is of so long time past.' But either way, proof that the origin of the usage was since that date, puts an end to the title by prescription; and the question comes round to be whether the amount of the fee, viz. 13s., is by itself sufficient proof that it must have originated since."

J. Blackburn, in Bryant v. Foot, L. R. 2 Q. B., 161,. s. c. (Thayer's Cases on Evidence, page 88).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1194. English Law Repositories.

"The extant English judicial records do not begin until 1194 (Mich. 6 Rich. I.). We have a series of such records from 1384 (6 Rich. II.). The first law treatise by Glanvill was not written before 1187. The law reports begin in 1292. The knowledge of the laws of England prior to the twelfth century is in many points obscure and uncertain. From that time, however, the growth and development of these laws can be traced in the parliamentary and official records, treatises, and law reports."

John F. Dillon, The Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America, pages 28-29.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1199. Earliest instance of Action for Trespass.

"A case of the year 1199 (2 Rot. Cur. Reg. 34) seems to be the earliest reported instance of an action of trespass in the royal courts. Only a few cases are recorded during the next fifty years. But about 1250 the action came suddenly into great popularity. In the 'Abbreviatio Placitorum,' twenty-five cases are given of the single year 1252-1253. We may infer that the writ, which had before been granted as a special favor, became at that time a writ of course. In Britton (f. 49), pleaders are advised to sue in trespass rather than by appeal, in order to avoid 'la perilouse aventure de batayles.' Trespass in the popular courts of the hundred and county was doubtless of far greater antiquity than the same action in the Curia Regis. Several cases of the reign of Henry I, are collected in Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 89, 98, 102, 127."

_J. B. Ames, The Disseisin of Chattels (Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 29, note)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1208. Evidence: Attesting Witnesses.

"From the beginning of our records, we find cases, in a dispute over the genuineness of a deed, where the jury are combined with the witnesses to the deed. This goes back to the Franks; and their custom of requiring the witness to a document to defend it by battle also crossed the channel, and is found in Glanville (lib. X., c. 12). … In these cases the jury and the witnesses named in the deed were summoned together, and all went out and conferred privately as if composing one body; the witnesses did not regularly testify in open court. Cases of this kind are found very early, e. g. in 1208-1209 (Pl. Ab. 63, col. 1, Berk.). … In the earlier cases these witnesses appear, sometimes, to have been conceived of as a constituent part of the jury; it was a combination of business-witnesses and community-witnesses who tried the case,—the former supplying to the others their more exact information, just as the hundreders, or those from another county, did in the cases before noticed. But in time the jury and the witnesses came to be sharply discriminated. Two or three cases in the reign of Edward III. show this. In 1337, 1338 and 1349, we are told that they are charged differently; the charge to the jury is to tell the truth (a lour ascient) to the best of their knowledge, while that to the witnesses is to tell the truth and loyally inform the inquest, without saying anything about their knowledge (sans lour scient); 'for the witnesses,' says Thorpe, C. J., in 1349, 'should say nothing but what they know as certain, i. e., what they see and hear.' … By the Statute of York (12 Edw. II. c. 2), in 1318, it was provided that while process should still issue to the witnesses as before, yet the taking of the inquest should not be delayed by their absence. In this shape the matter ran on for a century or two. By 1472 (Y. B. 12 Edw. IV. 4, 9), we find a change. It is said, with the assent of all the judges, that process for the witnesses will not issue unless asked for. As late, certainly, as 1489 (Y. B. 5 H. VII. 8), we find witnesses to deeds still summoned with the jury. I know of no later case. In 1549-1550 Brooke, afterwards Chief Justice of the Common Bench, argues as if this practice was still known: 'When the witnesses … are joined to the inquest,' etc.; and I do not observe anything in his Abridgment, published in 1568, ten years after his death, to indicate that it was not a recognized part of the law during all his time. It may, however, well have been long obsolescent. Coke (Inst. 6 b.) says of it, early in the seventeenth century, 'and such process against witnesses is vanished;' but when or how he does not say. We may reasonably surmise, if it did not become infrequent as the practice grew, in the fifteenth century, of calling witnesses to testify to the jury in open court, that, at any rate, it must have soon disappeared when that practice came to be attended with the right, recognized, if not first granted, in the statute of 1562-1563 (5 Eliz. c. 9, s. 6), to have legal process against all sorts of witnesses."

James B. Thayer, in Harvard Law Review, volume 5, pages 302-5, also in Sel. Cas. Ev. pages 771-773.

"After the period reached in the passage above quoted, the old strictness as to the summoning of attesting witnesses still continued under the new system. As the history of the matter was forgotten, new reasons were invented, and the rule was extended to all sorts of writings."

J. B. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence, page 773.

{1961}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215 (ante). Courts following the King.

"Another point which ought not to be forgotten in relation to the King's Court is its migratory character. The early kings of England were the greatest landowners in the country, and besides their landed estates they had rights over nearly every important town in England, which could be exercised only on the spot. They were continually travelling about from place to place, either to consume in kind part of their revenues, or to hunt or to fight. Wherever they went the great officers of their court, and in particular the chancellor with his clerks, and the various justices had to follow them. The pleas, so the phrase went, 'followed the person of the king,' and the machinery of justice went with them."

Sir J. F. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, volume 1, page 87.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1215. Magna Charta.

"With regard to the administration of justice, besides prohibiting all denials or delays of it, it fixed the court of Common Pleas at Westminster, that the suitors might no longer be harassed with following the King's person in all his progresses; and at the same time brought the trial of issues borne to the very doors of the freeholders by directing assizes to be taken in the proper counties, and establishing annual circuits. It also corrected some abuses then incident to the trials by wager of law and of battle; directing the regular awarding of inquest for life or member; prohibited the King's inferior ministers from holding pleas of the crown, or trying any criminal charge, whereby many forfeitures might otherwise have unjustly accrued to the exchequer: and regulated the time and place of holding the inferior tribunals of justice, the county court, sheriff's tourn, and court leet. … And, lastly (which alone would have merited the title that it bears, of the great charter,) it protected every individual of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty and his property, unless declared to be forfeited by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land."

Owen Flintoff, Laws of England, page 184.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1215.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216. Distinction between Common and Statute Law now begins.

"The Chancellors, during this reign [John 1199-1216], did nothing to be entitled to the gratitude of posterity, and were not unworthy of the master whom they served. The guardians of law were the feudal barons, assisted by some enlightened churchmen, and by their efforts the doctrine of resistance to lawless tyranny was fully established in England, and the rights of all classes of the people were defined and consolidated. We here reach a remarkable era in our constitutional history: National councils had met from the most remote times; but to the end of this reign their acts not being preserved are supposed to form a part of the lex non scripta, or common law. Now begins the distinction between common and statute law, and henceforth we can distinctly trace the changes which our juridical system has undergone. These changes were generally introduced by the Chancellor for the time being."

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, volume 1, page 115.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1216-1272. Henry de Bracton.

"It is curious that, in the most disturbed period of this turbulent reign, when ignorance seemed to be thickening and the human intellect to decline, there was written and given to the world the best treatise upon law of which England could boast, till the publication of Blackstone's Commentaries, in the middle of the eighteenth century. It would have been very gratifying to me if this work could have been ascribed with certainty to any of the Chancellors whose lives have been noticed. The author, usually styled Henry de Bracton, has gone by the name of Brycton, Britton, Briton, Breton, and Brets; and some have doubted whether all these names are not imaginary. From the elegance of his style, and the familiar knowledge he displays of the Roman law, I cannot doubt that he was an ecclesiastic who had addicted himself to the study of jurisprudence; and as he was likely to gain advancement from his extraordinary proficiency, he may have been one of those whom I have commemorated, although I must confess that he rather speaks the language likely to come from a disappointed practitioner rather than of a Chancellor who had been himself in the habit of making Judges. For comprehensiveness, for lucid arrangement, for logical precision, this author was unrivalled during many ages. Littleton's work on Tenures, which illustrated the reign of Edward IV., approaches Bracton; but how barbarous are, in comparison, the commentaries of Lord Coke, and the law treatises of Hale and of Hawkins!"

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, volume 1, page 139.

For opposite view

See 9 American Bar Association Report, p. 193.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1217. Dower.

"The additional provision made in the edition of 1217 to the provisions of the earlier issues of the Charter in respect of widow's rights fixed the law of dower on the basis on which it still rests. The general rule of law still is that the widow is entitled for her life to a third part of the lands of which her husband was seized for an estate of inheritance at any time during the marriage. At the present day there are means provided which are almost universally adopted, of barring or defeating the widow's claim. The general rule of law, however, remains the same. The history of the law of dower deserves a short notice, which may conveniently find a place here. It seems to be in outline as follows. Tacitus noticed the contrast of Teutonic custom and Roman law, in that it was not the wife who conferred a dowry on the husband, but the husband on the wife. By early Teutonic custom, besides the bride-price, or price paid by the intending husband to the family of the bride, it seems to have been usual for the husband to make gifts of lands or chattels to the bride herself. These appear to have taken two forms. In some cases the husband or his father executed before marriage an instrument called 'libellum dotis,' specifying the nature and extent of the property to be given to the wife. … Another and apparently among the Anglo-Saxons a commoner form of dower is the 'morning gift.' This was the gift which on the morning following the wedding the husband gave to the wife, and might consist either of land or chattels. … By the law as stated by Glanvil the man was bound to endow the woman 'tempore desponsationis ad ostium ecclesiae.' The dower might be specified or not. If not specified it was the third part of the freehold which the husband possessed at the time of betrothal. If more than a third part was named, the dower was after the husband's death cut down to a third. A gift of less would however be a satisfaction of dower. It was sometimes permitted to increase the dower when the freehold available at the time of betrothal was small, by giving the wife a third part or less of subsequent acquisitions. This however must have been expressly granted at the time of betrothal. {1962} A woman could never claim more than had been granted 'ad ostium ecclesiae.' Dower too might be granted to a woman out of chattels personal, and in this case she would be entitled to a third part. In process of time however, this species of dower ceased to be regarded as legal, and was expressly denied to be law in the time of Henry IV. A trace of it still remains in the expression in the marriage service, 'with all my worldly goods I thee endow.'"

Kenelm E. Digby, History of the Law of Real Property, pages 126-128 (4th edition).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258. Provisions of Oxford; no Writs except de Cursu.

"The writ had originally no connection whatever with the relief sought, it had been a general direction to do right to the plaintiff, or as the case might be, but, long before the time now referred to, this had been changed. … It appears that even after the writ obtained by the plaintiff had come to be connected with the remedy sought for, … a writ to suit each case was framed and issued, but the Provisions of Oxford (1258) expressly forbade the Chancellor to frame new writs without the consent of the King and his Council. It followed that there were certain writs, each applicable to a particular state of circumstances and leading to a particular judgment, which could be purchased by an intending plaintiff. These writs were described as writs 'de cursu,' and additions to their number were made from time to time by direction of the King, of his Council or of Parliament."

D. M. Kerly, History of Equity, page 9.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1258. Sale of Judicial Offices.

"The Norman Kings, who were ingenious adepts in realizing profit in every opportunity, commenced the sale of Judicial Offices. The Plantagenets followed their example. In Madox, chap. II., and in the 'Cottoni Posthuma, may be found innumerable instances of the purchase of the Chancellorship, and accurate details of the amount of the consideration monies. … What was bought must, of course, be sold, and justice became henceforth a marketable commodity. … The Courts of Law became a huckster's shop; every sort of produce, in the absence of money, was bartered for 'justice.'"

J. Parke, History of English Chancery, page 23.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1265. Disappearance of the Office of Chief Justiciary.

"Towards the end of this reign [Henry III.] the office of Chief Justiciary, which had often been found so dangerous to the Crown, fell into disuse. Hugh le Despenser, in the 49th of Henry III., was the last who bore the title. The hearing of common actions being fixed at Westminster by Magna Charta, the Aula Regia was gradually subdivided and certain Judges were assigned to hear criminal cases before the King himself, wheresoever he might be, in England. These formed the Court of King's Bench. They were called 'Justitiarii ad placita coram Rege,' and the one who was to preside 'Capitalis Justiciarius.' He was inferior in rank to the Chancellor, and had a salary of only one hundred marks a year, while the Chancellor had generally 500. Henceforth the Chancellor, in rank, power, and emolument, was the first magistrate under the Crown, and looked up to as the great head of the profession of the law."

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, volume 1, pages 139-140.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1275. Statute of Westminster the First; Improvement of the Law.

"He [Robert Burnel] presided at the Parliament which met in May, 1275, and passed the 'Statute of Westminster the First,' deserving the name of a Code rather than an Act of Parliament. From this chiefly, Edward I. has obtained the name of 'the English Justinian'—absurdly enough, as the Roman Emperor merely caused a compilation to be made of existing laws,—whereas the object now was to correct abuses, to supply defects, and to remodel the administration of justice. Edward deserves infinite praise for the sanction he gave to the undertaking; and from the observations he had made in France, Sicily, and the East, he may, like Napoleon, have been personally useful in the consultations for the formation of the new Code,—but the execution of the plan must have been left to others professionally skilled in jurisprudence, and the chief merit of it may safely be ascribed to Lord Chancellor Burnel, who brought it forward in Parliament. The statute is methodically divided into fifty-one chapters. … It provides for freedom of popular elections, then a mutter of much moment, as sheriffs, coroners, and conservators of the peace were still chosen by the free holders in the county court, and attempts had been made unduly to influence the elections of knights of the shire, almost from the time when the order was instituted. … It amends the criminal law, putting the crime of rape on the footing to which it has been lately restored, as a most grievous but not a capital offence. It embraces the subject of 'Procedure' both in civil and criminal matters, introducing many regulations with a view to render it cheaper, more simple, and more expeditious. … As long as Burnel continued in office the improvement of the law rapidly advanced,—there having been passed in the sixth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Gloucester;' in the seventh year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Mortmain;' in the thirteenth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Westminster the Second,' the 'Statute of Winchester,' and the 'Statute of Circumspecte agatis;' and in the eighteenth year of the King's reign the 'Statute of Quo Warranto,' and the 'Statute of Quia Emptores.' With the exception of the establishment of estates tail, which proved such an obstacle to the alienation of land till defeated by the fiction of Fines and Common Recoveries,—these laws were in a spirit of enlightened legislation, and admirably accommodated the law to the changed circumstances of the social system,—which ought to be the object of every wise legislation."

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, volume 1, pages 143-146.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1275-1295, and 1279.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1278. Foundation of Costs at Common Law.

"The Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. I c. i, is the foundation of the common law jurisdiction as to costs, and by that statute it was enacted that in any action where the plaintiff recovered damages, he should also recover costs. … By the Judicature Act, 1875, O. L. V., the Legislature gave a direct authority to all the judges of the Courts constituted under the Judicature Act, and vested in them a discretion which was to guide and determine them, according to the circumstances of each case, in the disposition of costs."

Sydney Hastings, Treatise on Torts, page 379.

{1963}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285. Statute of Westminster II.; Writs in Consimili Casu.

"The inadequacy of the common form writs to meet every case was, to some extent, remedied by the 24th Chapter of the Statute of Westminster II., which, after providing for one or two particular cases to meet which no writ existed, provides further that 'whensoever from henceforth it shall fortune in Chancery that in one case a writ is found, and, in like case falling under like law is found none, the clerks of the Chancery shall agree in making a writ or shall adjourn the Plaintiffs until the next Parliament, and the cases shall be written in which they cannot agree, and be referred until the next Parliament; and, by consent of the men learned in the Law a writ shall be made, that it may not happen, that the King's Court should fail in ministering justice unto Complainants.' … The words of the statute give no power to make a completely new departure; writs are to be framed to fit cases similar to, but not identical with, cases falling within existing writs, and the examples given in the statute itself are cases of extension of remedies against a successor in title of the raiser of a nuisance, and for the successor in title of a person who had been disseised of his common. Moreover the form of the writ was debated upon before, and its sufficiency determined by the judges, not by its framers, and they were, as English judges have always been, devoted adherents to precedent. In the course of centuries, by taking certain writs as starting points, and accumulating successive variations upon them, the judges added great areas to our common law, and many of its most famous branches, assumpsit, and trover and conversion for instance, were developed in this way, but the expansion of the Common Law was the work of the 15th and subsequent centuries, when, under the stress of eager rivalry with the growing equitable jurisdiction of the Chancery, the judges strove, not only by admitting and developing actions upon the case, but also by the use of fictitious actions, following the example of the Roman Praetor, to supply the deficiencies of their system."

D. M. Kerly, History of Equity, pages 10-11.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1285. Writ of Elegit.

The Writ of Elegit "is a judicial writ given by the statute Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I., c. 18, either upon a judgment for a debt, or damages; or upon the forfeiture of a recognizance taken in the king's court. By the common law a man could only have satisfaction of goods, chattels, and the present profits of lands, by the … writs of 'fieri facias,' or 'levari facias;' but not the possession of the lands themselves; which was a natural consequence of the feudal principles, which prohibited the alienation, and of course the encumbering of the fief with the debts of the owner. … The statute therefore granted this writ (called an 'elegit,' because it is in the choice or the election of the plaintiff whether he will sue out this writ or one of the former), by which the defendant's goods and chattels are not sold, but only appraised; and all of them (except oxen and beasts of the plough) are delivered to the plaintiff, at such reasonable appraisement and price, in part of satisfaction of his debt. If the goods are not sufficient, then the moiety or one-half of his freehold lands, which he had at the time of the judgment given, whether held in his own name, or by any other in trust for him, are also to be delivered to the plaintiff; to hold, till out of the rents and profits thereof the debt be levied, or till the defendant's interest be expired; as till the death of the defendant, if he be tenant for life or in tail."

Wm. Blackstone, Commentaries, book 3, chapter 27.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1290. Progress of the Common Law Right of Alienation.

"The statute of Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I., finally and permanently established the free right of alienation by the sub-vassal, without the lord's consent; … and it declared, that the grantee should not hold the land of his immediate feoffor, but of the chief lord of the fee, of whom the grantor himself held it. … The power of involuntary alienation, by rendering the land answerable by attachment for debt, was created by the statute of Westm. 2, 13 Edw. I, c. 18, which granted the elegit; and by the statutes merchant or staple, of 13 Edw. I., and 27 Edw. III., which gave the extent. These provisions were called for by the growing commercial spirit of the nation. To these we may add the statute of 1 Edw. III., taking away the forfeiture or alienation by the king's tenants in capite, and substituting a reasonable fine in its place; … and this gives us a condensed view of the progress of the common law right of alienation from a state of servitude to freedom."

J. Kent, Commentaries, part 6, lecture 67.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1292. Fleta.

"Fleta, so called from its composition in the Fleet prison by one of the justices imprisoned by Edward I., is believed to have been written about the year 1292, and is nothing but an abbreviation of Bracton, and the work called 'Britton,' which was composed between the years 1290 and 1300, is of the same character, except that it is written in the vernacular language, French, while Granvil, Bracton and Fleta are written in Latin."

Thomas J. Semmes, 9 American Bar Association Report, page 193.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1300 (circa). The King's Peace a Common Right.

"By the end of the thirteenth century, a time when so much else of our institutions was newly and strongly fashioned for larger uses, the King's Peace had fully grown from an occasional privilege into a common right. Much, however, remained to be done before the king's subjects had the full benefit of this. … A beginning of this was made as early as 1195 by the assignment of knights to take an oath of all men in the kingdom that they would keep the King's Peace to the best of their power. Like functions were assigned first to the old conservators of the peace, then to the justices who superseded them, and to whose office a huge array of powers and duties of the most miscellaneous kind have been added by later statutes. … Then the writ 'de securitate pacis' made it clear beyond cavil that the king's peace was now, by the common law, the right of every lawful man."

F. Pollock, The King's Peace, (Law Quarterly Review, volume 1, page 49).

A. D. 1307-1509. The Year Books.

"The oldest reports extant on the English law, are the Year Books … , written in law French, and extend from the beginning of the reign of Edward II, to the latter end of the reign of Henry VIII, a period of about two hundred years. … The Year Books were very much occupied with discussions touching the forms of writs, and the pleadings and practice in real actions, which have gone entirely out of use."

J. Kent, Commentaries, part 3, lecture 21.

{1964}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1316. Election of Sheriffs abolished.

"Until the time of Edward II. the sheriff was elected by the inhabitants of the several counties; but a statute of the 9th year of that reign abolished election, and ever since, with few exceptions, the sheriff has been appointed, upon nomination by the king's councillors and the judges of certain ranks, by the approval of the crown. … The office of sheriff is still in England one of eminent honor, and is conferred on the wealthiest and most notable commoners in the counties."

New American Cyclopædia, volume 14, page 585.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1326-1377. Jurors cease to be Witnesses.

"The verdict of … the assize was founded on the personal knowledge of the jurors themselves respecting the matter in dispute, without hearing the evidence of witnesses in court. But there was an exception in the case of deeds which came into controversy, and in which persons had been named as witnessing the grant or other matter testified by the deed. … This seems to have paved the way for the important change whereby the jury ceasing to be witnesses themselves, gave their verdict upon the evidence brought before them at the trials. … Since the jurors themselves were originally mere witnesses, there was no distinction in principle between them and the attesting witnesses; so that it is by no means improbable that the latter were at first associated with them in the discharge of the same function, namely, the delivery of a verdict, and that gradually, in the course of years, a separation took place. This separation, at all events, existed in the reign of Edward III.; for although we find in the Year Books of that period the expression, 'the witnesses were joined to the assize,' a clear distinction is, notwithstanding, drawn between them."

W. Forsyth, Trial by Jury, pages 124 and 128.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1362. Pleading in the English tongue. Enrollment in Latin.

"The Statute 36 Edward III., c. 15, A. D. 1362, enacted that in future all pleas should be 'pleaded, shewed, defended, answered, debated, and judged in the English tongue:' the lawyers, on the alert, appended a proviso that they should be 'entered and enrolled' in Latin, and the old customary terms and forms retained."

J. Parke, History of Chancery, page 43.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1368. Jury System in Civil Trials.

"As it was an essential principle of the jury trial from the earliest times, that the jurors should be summoned from the hundred where the cause of action arose, the court, in order to procure their attendance, issued in the first instance a writ called a venire facias, commanding the sheriff or other officer to whom it was directed, to have twelve good and lawful men for the neighborhood in court upon a day therein specified, to try the issue joined between the parties. And this was accordingly done, and the sheriff had his jury ready at the place which the court had appointed for its sitting. But when the Court of Common Pleas was severed from the Curia Regis, and became stationary at Westminster (a change which took place in the reign of King John, and was the subject of one of the provisions of Magna Charta), it was found to be very inconvenient to be obliged to take juries there from all parts of the country. And as justices were already in the habit of making periodical circuits for the purpose of holding the assize in pleas of land, it was thought advisable to substitute them for the full court in banc at Westminster, in other cases also. The statute 13 Edw. I. c. 30, was therefore passed, which enacted that these justices should try other issues: 'wherein small examination was required,' or where both parties desired it, and return the inquests into the court above. This led to an alteration in the form of the venire: and instead of the sheriff being simply ordered to bring the jurors to the courts at Westminster on a day named, he was now required to bring them there on a certain day, 'nisi prius,' that is, unless before that day the justices of assize came into his county, in which case the statute directed him to return the jury, not to the court, but before the justices of assize."

W. Forsyth, History of Trial by Jury, pages 139-140.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1382. Peaceable Entry.

"This remedy by entry must be pursued according to statute 5 Rich. II., st. I., c. 8, in a peaceable and easy manner; and not with force or strong hand. For, if one turns or keeps another out of possession forcibly, this is an injury of both a civil and a criminal nature. The civil is remedied by an immediate restitution; which puts the ancient possessor in statu quo: the criminal injury, or public wrong, by breach of the king's peace, is punished by fine to the King."

W. Blackstone, Commentaries, book 3, page 179.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1383-1403. Venue to be laid in proper Counties.

"The statutes 6 Rich. II., c. 2, and 4 Hen. IV., c. 18, having ordered all writs to be laid in their proper counties, this, as the judges conceived, empowered them to change the venue, if required, and not to insist rigidly on abating the writ: which practice began in the reign of James the First. And this power is discretionally exercised, so as to prevent, and not to cause, a defect of justice. … And it will sometimes remove the venue from the proper jurisdiction, … upon a suggestion, duly supported, that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had therein."

W. Blackstone, Commentaries, book 3, page 294.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1388. Prohibition against Citation of Roman Law in Common-law Tribunals.

"In the reign of Edward III. the exactions of the court of Rome had become odious to the king and the people. Edward, supported by his Parliament, resisted the payment of the tribute which his predecessors from the Conquest downwards, but more particularly from the time of John, had been accustomed to pay to the court of Rome; … the name of the Roman Law, which in the reigns of Henry II. and III., and of Edward I., had been in considerable favor at court, and even … with the judges, became the object of aversion. In the reign of Richard II. the barons protested that they would never suffer the kingdom to be governed by the Roman law, and the judges prohibited it from being any longer cited in the common law tribunals."

G. Spence, Equity Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, volume 1, page 346.

{1965}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1436. Act to prevent interference with Common Law Process.

"In 1436, an act was passed with the concurrence of the Chancellor, to check the wanton filing of bills in Chancery in disturbance of common law process. The Commons, after reciting the prevailing grievance, prayed 'that every person from this time forward vexed in Chancery for matter determinable by the common law, have action against him that so vexed him, and recover his damages.' The King answered, 'that no writ of subpoena be granted hereafter till security be found to satisfy the party so vexed and grieved for his damages and expenses, if it so be that the matter may not be made good which is contained in the bill.'"

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, volume I, page 272.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1450 (circa). Evidence. Number of Witnesses.

"It is then abundantly plain that by this time [the middle of the 15th century] witnesses could testify in open court to the jury. That this was by no means freely done seems also plain. Furthermore, it is pretty certain that this feature of a jury trial, in our day so conspicuous and indispensable, was then but little considered and of small importance."

J. B. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence, page 1071.

ALSO IN: _J. B. Thayer, The Jury and its Development (Harvard Law Review, volume 5, page 360)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1456. Demurrers to Evidence.

"Very soon, as it seems, after the general practice began of allowing witnesses to testify to the jury, an interesting contrivance for eliminating the jury came into existence, the demurrer upon evidence. Such demurrers, like others, were demurrers in law; but they had the effect to withdraw from the jury all consideration of the facts, and, in their pure form, to submit to the court two questions, of which only the second was, in strictness, a question of law: (1) Whether a verdict for the party who gave the evidence could be given, as a matter of legitimate inference and interpretation from the evidence; (2) As a matter of law. Of this expedient, I do not observe any mention earlier than the year 1456, and it is interesting to notice that we do not trace the full use of witnesses to the jury much earlier than this."

J. B. Thayer, Law and Fact in Jury Trials (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 162).

ALSO IN: J. B. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence, page 149.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1470. Evidence. Competency of Witnesses.

"Fortescue (De Laud. c. 26), who has the earliest account (about 1470) of witnesses testifying regularly to the jury, gives no information as to any ground for challenging them. But Coke, a century and a third later, makes certain qualifications of the assertion of the older judges, that 'they had not seen witnesses challenged.' He mentions as grounds of exclusion, legal infamy, being an 'infidel,' of non-sane memory, 'not of discretion,' a party interested, 'or the like.' And he says that 'it hath been resolved by the justices [in 1612] that a wife cannot be produced either against or for her husband, quia sunt duae animae in carne una.' He also points out that 'he that challengeth a right in the thing in demand cannot be a witness.' Here are the outlines of the subsequent tests for the competency of witnesses. They were much refined upon, particularly the excluding ground of interest; and great inconveniences resulted. At last in the fourth and fifth decades of the present century, in England, nearly all objections to competency were abolished, or turned into matters of privilege."

J. B. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence, p. 1070.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1473. Barring Entails. Taltarum's Case.

"The common-law judges at this time were very bold men, having of their own authority repealed the statute De Donis, passed in the reign of Edward I., which authorized the perpetual entail of land,—by deciding in Taltarum's Case, that the entail might be barred through a fictitious proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas, called a 'Common Recovery;'—the estate being adjudged to a sham claimant,—a sham equivalent being given to those who ought to succeed to it,—and the tenant in tail being enabled to dispose of it as he pleases, in spite of the will of the donor."

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, volume 1, pages 309-310.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1481-1505. Development of Actions of Assumpsit.

"It is probable that the willingness of equity to give pecuniary relief upon parol promises hastened the development of the action of assumpsit. Fairfax, J., in 1481, advised pleaders to pay more attention to actions on the case, and thereby diminish the resort to chancery; and Fineux, C. J., remarked, in 1505, after that advice had been followed and sanctioned by the courts, that it was no longer necessary to sue a subpoena in such cases. Brooke, in his 'Abridgment,' adds to this remark of Fineux, C. J.: 'But note that he shall have only damages by this [action on the case], but by subpoena the chancellor may compel him to execute the estate or imprison him ut dicitur.'"

J. B. Ames, Specific Performance of Contracts (The Green Bag, volume 1, page 26).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1484. Statutes to be in English.

"In opening the volumes of our laws, as printed by authority 'from original records and authentic manuscripts,' we are struck with a change upon the face of these Statutes of Richard III., which indicates as true a regard for the liberty of the subjects as the laws themselves. For the first time the laws to be obeyed by the English people are enacted in the English tongue."

Charles Knight, History of England, volume 2, page 200.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499 (circa). Copyright.

"From about the period of the introduction of printing into this country, that is to say, towards the end of the fifteenth century, English authors had, in accordance with the opinion of the best legal authorities, a right to the Copyright in their works, according to the Common Law of the Realm, or a right to their 'copy' as it was anciently called, but there is no direct evidence of the right until 1558. The Charter of the Stationers' Company, which to this day is charged with the Registration of Copyright, was granted by Philip and Mary in 1556. The avowed object of this corporation was to prevent the spread of the Reformation. Then there followed the despotic jurisdiction of the Star Chamber over the publication of books, and the Ordinances and the Licensing Act of Charles II. At the commencement of the 18th century there was no statutory protection of Copyright. Unrestricted piracy was rife. The existing remedies of a bill in equity and an action at law were too cumbrous and expensive to protect the authors' Common Law rights, and authors petitioned Parliament for speedier and more effectual remedies. In consequence, the 8 Anne, c. 19, the first English Statute providing for the protection of Copyright, was passed in 1710. This Act gave to the author the sole liberty of publication for 14 years, with a further term of fourteen years, provided the author was living at the expiration of the first term, and enacted provisions for the forfeiture of piratical copies and for the imposition of penalties in cases of piracy. {1966} But in obtaining this Act, the authors placed themselves very much in the position of the dog in the fable, who dropped the substance in snatching at the shadow, for, while on the one hand they obtained the remedial measures they desired, on the other, the Perpetual Copyright to which they were entitled at the Common Law was reduced to the fixed maximum term already mentioned, through the combined operation of the statute and the judicial decisions to be presently referred to. But notwithstanding the statute, the Courts continued for some time to recognise the rights of authors at Common Law, and numerous injunctions were granted to protect the Copyright in books, in which the term of protection granted by the statute of Anne had expired, and which injunctions therefore could only have been granted on the basis of the Common Law right. In 1769 judgment was pronounced in the great Copyright case of Millar v. Taylor. The book in controversy was Thomson's 'Seasons,' in which work the period of Copyright granted by the statute of Anne had expired, and the question was directly raised, whether a Perpetual Copyright according to Common Law, and independent of that statute, remained in the author after publication. Lord Mansfield, one of the greatest lawyers of all times, maintained in his judgment that Copyright was founded on the Common Law, and that it had not been taken away by the statute of Anne, which was intended merely to give for a term of years a more complete protection. But, in 1774 this decision was overruled by the House of Lords in the equally celebrated pendent case of Donaldson v. Beckett, in which the Judges consulted were equally divided on the same point, Lord Mansfield and Sir William Blackstone being amongst those who were of opinion that the Common Law right had not been taken away by the statute of Anne. But owing to a point of etiquette, namely that of being peer as well as one of the Judges, Lord Mansfield did not express his opinion, and in consequence, the House of Lords, influenced by a specious oration from Lord Camden, held (contrary to the opinion of the above-mentioned illustrious Jurists), that the statute had taken away all Common Law rights after publication, and hence that in a published book there was no Copyright except that given by the statute. This judgment caused great alarm amongst those who supposed that their Copyright was perpetual. Acts of Parliament were applied for, and in 1775 the Universities obtained one protecting their literary property."

_T. A. Romer, Copyright Law Reform (Law Magazine & Review, 4th ser., volume 12, page 231)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1499. Action of Ejectment.

"The writ of 'ejectione firmæ' … , out of which the modern action of ejectment has gradually grown into its present form, is not of any great antiquity. … The Court of Common Pleas had exclusive jurisdiction of real actions while ejectment could be brought in all three of the great common law courts. … The practitioners in the King's Bench also encouraged ejectment, for it enabled them to share in the lucrative practice of the Common Pleas. … In the action of 'ejectione firmæ,' the plaintiff first only recovered damages, as in any other action of trespass. … The courts, consequently following, it is said, in the footsteps of the courts of equity, … introduced into this action a species of relief not warranted by the original writ, … viz., a judgment to recover the term, and a writ of possession thereupon. Possibly the change was inspired by jealousy of the chancery courts. It cannot be stated precisely when this change took place. In 1383 it was conceded by the full court that in 'ejectione firmæ' the plaintiff could no more recover his term than in trespass he could recover damages for a trespass to be done. … But in 1468 it was agreed by opposing counsel that the term could be recovered, as well as damages. The earliest reported decision to this effect was in 1499, and is referred to by Mr. Reeves as the most important adjudication rendered during the reign of Henry VII., for it changed the whole system of remedies for the trial of controverted titles to land, and the recovery of real property."

Sedgwick and Wait, Trial of Title to Land (2nd edition), sections 12-25.

"Ejectment is the form of action now retained in use in England under the Statute of 3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 7, § 36, which abolished all other forms of real actions except dower. It is in general use in some form in this country, and by it the plaintiff recovers, if at all, upon the strength of his own title, and not upon the weakness of that of the tenant, since possession is deemed conclusive evidence of title as to all persons except such as can show a better one."

Washburn, Real Property (5th edition), volume 1, page 465.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1504-1542. Consideration in Contracts.

"To the present writer it seems impossible to refer consideration to a single source. At the present day it is doubtless just and expedient to resolve every consideration into a detriment to the promisee incurred at the request of the promisor. But this definition of consideration would not have covered the cases of the 16th century. There were then two distinct forms of consideration: (1) detriment; (2) a precedent debt. Of these detriment was the more ancient, having become established in substance, as early as 1504. On the other hand no case has been found recognizing the validity of a promise to pay a precedent debt before 1542. These two species of consideration, so different in their nature, are, as would be surmised, of distinct origin. The history of detriment is bound up with the history of special assumpsit, whereas the consideration based upon a precedent debt must be studied in the development of 'indebitatus assumpsit.'"

J. B. Ames, History of Assumpsit (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, pages 1-2).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1520. The Law of Parol Guaranty.

"It was decided in 1520, that one who sold goods to a third person on the faith of the defendant's promise that the price should be paid, might have an action on the case upon the promise. This decision introduced the whole law of parol guaranty. Cases in which the plaintiff gave his time or labor were as much within the principle of the new action as those in which he parted with property. And this fact was speedily recognized. In Saint-Germain's book, published in 1531, the student of law thus defines the liability of a promisor: 'If he to whom the promise is made have a charge by reason of the promise, … he shall have an action for that thing that was promised, though he that made the promise have no worldly profit by it.' From that day to this a detriment has always been deemed a valid consideration for a promise if incurred at the promisor's request."

J. B. Ames, History of Assumpsit (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, page 14).

{1967}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1535. Statute of Uses.

"Before the passing of the Statute of Uses in the twenty-seventh year of Henry VIII, attempts had been made to protect by legislation the interests of creditors, of the king, and of the lords, which were affected injuriously by feoffments to uses. … The object of that Statute was by joining the possession or seisen to the use and interest (or, in other words, by providing that all the estate which would by the common law have passed to the grantee to uses should instantly be taken out of him and vested in 'cestui que use'), to annihilate altogether the distinction between the legal and beneficial ownership, to make the ostensible tenant, in every case also the legal tenant, liable to his lord for feudal dues and services,—wardship, marriage, and the rest. … By converting the use into the legal interest the Statute did away with the power of disposing of interests in lands by will, which had been one of the most important results of the introduction of uses. Probably these were the chief results aimed at by the Statute of Uses. A strange combination of circumstances—the force of usage by which practices had arisen too strong even for legislation to do away with, coupled with an almost superstitious adherence on the part of the courts to the letter of the statute—produced the curious result, that the effect of the Statute of Uses was directly the reverse of its purpose, that by means of it secret conveyances of the legal estate were introduced, while by a strained interpretation of its terms the old distinction between beneficial or equitable and legal ownership was revived. What may be called the modern law of Real Property and the highly technical and intricate system of conveyancing which still prevails, dates from the legislation of Henry VIII."

Kenelm E. Digby, History of the Law of Real Property (4th edition), pages 343-345.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1540-1542. Testamentary Power.

"The power of disposing by will of land and goods has been of slow growth in England. The peculiar theories of the English land system prevented the existence of a testamentary power over land until it was created by the Statute of Wills (32 & 34 Hen. VIII.) extended by later statutes, and although a testamentary power over personal property is very ancient in this country, it was limited at common law by the claims of the testator's widow and children to their 'reasonable parts' of his goods. The widow was entitled to one third, or if there were no children to one half of her husband's personal estate; and the children to one third, or if there was no widow to one half of their father's personal estate, and the testator could only dispose by his will of what remained. Whether the superior claims of the widow and children existed all over England or only in some counties by custom is doubted; but … by Statutes of William and Mary, Will. III. and Geo. I., followed by the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), the customs have been abolished, and a testator's testamentary power now extends to all his real and personal property."

Stuart C. Macaskie, The Law of Executors and Administrators, page 1.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1542. Liability in Indebitatus Assumpsit on an Express Promise.

"The origin of indebitatus assumpsit may be explained in a few words: Slade's case [4 Rep., 92a], decided in 1603, is commonly thought to be the source of this action. But this is a misapprehension. 'Indebitatus assumpsit' upon an express promise is at least sixty years older than Slade's case. The evidence of its existence throughout the last half of the sixteenth century is conclusive. There is a note by Brooke, who died in 1558, as follows: 'where one is indebted to me, and he promises to pay before Michaelmas, I may have an action of debt on the contract, or an action on the case on the promise.'"

J. B. Ames, History of Assumpsit (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, page 16).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1557. Statute of Uses Rendered Nugatory.

"Twenty-two years after the passing of this statute (Mich. Term 4 & 5 Ph. & M.) the judges by a decision practically rendered the Statute nugatory by holding that the Statute will not execute more than one use, and that if there be a second use declared the Statute will not operate upon it. The effect of this was to bring again into full operation the equitable doctrine as to uses in lands."

A. H. Marsh, History of the Court of Chancery, pages 122-123.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1580. Equal Distribution of Property.

"In Holland, all property, both real and personal, of persons dying intestate, except land held by feudal tenure, was equally divided among the children, under the provisions of an act passed by the States in 1580. This act also contained a further enlightened provision, copied from Rome, and since adopted in other Continental Countries, which prohibited parents from disinheriting their children except for certain specified offences. Under this legal system, it became customary for parents to divide their property by will equally among their children, just as the custom of leaving all the property to the eldest son grew up under the laws of England. The Puritans who settled New England adopted the idea of the equal distribution of property, in case there was no will—giving to the eldest son, however, in some of the colonies a double portion, according to the Old Testament injunction,—and thence it has spread over the whole United States."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, volume 2, page 452.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1589. Earliest notice of Contract of Insurance.

"The first notice of the contract of insurance that appears in the English reports, is a case cited in Coke's Reports [6 Coke's Rep., 47b], and decided in the 31st of Elizabeth; and the commercial spirit of that age gave birth to the statute of 43rd Elizabeth, passed to give facility to the contract, and which created the court of policies of assurance, and shows by its preamble that the business of marine insurance had been in immemorial use, and actively followed. But the law of insurance received very little study and cultivation for ages afterwards; and Mr. Park informs us that there were not forty cases upon matters of insurance prior to the year 1756, and even those cases were generally loose nisi prius notes, containing very little information or claim to authority."

J. Kent, Commentaries, part 5, lecture 48.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1592. A Highwayman as a Chief-Justice.

"In 1592, Elizabeth appointed to the office of Chief-Justice of England a lawyer, John Popham, who is said to have occasionally been a highwayman until the age of thirty. At first blush this seems incredible, but only because such false notions generally prevail regarding the character of the time. The fact is that neither piracy nor robbery was considered particularly discreditable at the court of Elizabeth. {1968} The queen knighted Francis Drake for his exploits as a pirate, and a law on the statute-books, passed in the middle of the century, gave benefit of clergy to peers of the realm when convicted of highway robbery. Men may doubt, if they choose, the stories about Popham, but the testimony of this statute cannot be disputed."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, volume 1. page 366.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650-1700. Evidence. "Best Evidence Rule."

"This phrase is an old one. During the latter part of the seventeenth century and the whole of the eighteenth, while rules of evidence were forming, the judges and text writers were in the habit of laying down two principles; namely, (1) that one must bring the best evidence that he can, and (2) that if he does this, it is enough. These principles were the beginning, in the endeavor to give consistency to the system of evidence before juries. They were never literally enforced,—they were principles and not exact rules; but for a long time they afforded a valuable test. As rules of evidence and exceptions to the rules became more definite, the field for the application of the general principle of the 'Best Evidence' was narrower. But it was often resorted to as a definite rule and test in a manner which was very misleading. This is still occasionally done, as when we are told in McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y, p. 218, that 'it is a universal rule founded on necessity, that the best evidence of which the nature of the case admits is always receivable.' Greenleaf's treatment of this topic (followed by Taylor) is perplexing and antiquated. A juster conception of it is found in Best, Evid. s. 88. Always the chief example of the 'Best Evidence' principle was the rule about proving the contents of a writing. But the origin of this rule about writings was older than the 'Best Evidence' principle; and that principle may well have been a generalization from this rule, which appears to be traceable to the doctrine of profert. That doctrine required the actual production of the instrument which was set up in pleading. In like manner, it was said, in dealing with the jury, that a jury could not specifically find the contents of a deed unless it had been exhibited to them in evidence. And afterwards when the jury came to hear testimony from witnesses, it was said that witnesses could not undertake to speak to the contents of a deed without the production of the deed itself. … Our earliest records show the practice of exhibiting charters and other writings to the jury."

J. B. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence, page 726.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1600. Mortgagee's Right to Possession.

"When this country was colonized, about A. D. 1600, the law of mortgage was perfectly well settled in England. It was established there that a mortgage, whether by deed upon condition, by trust deed, or by deed and defeasance, vested the fee, at law, in the mortgagee, and that the mortgagee, unless the deed reserved possession to the mortgagor, was entitled to immediate possession. Theoretically our ancestors brought this law to America with them. Things ran on until the Revolution. Mortgages were given in the English form, by deed on condition, by deed and defeasance, or by trust deed. It was not customary in Plymouth or Massachusetts Bay, and it is probable that it was not customary elsewhere, to insert a provision that the mortgagor, until default in payment, should retain possession. Theoretically, during the one hundred and fifty years from the first settlement to the Revolution, the English rules of law governed all these transactions, and, as matter of book law, every mortgagee of a house or a farm was the owner of it, and had the absolute right to take possession upon the delivery of the deed. But the curious thing about this is, that the people generally never dreamed that such was the law."

H. W. Chaplin, The Story of Mortgage Law (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 12).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1601-1602. Malicious Prosecution.

"The modern action for malicious prosecution, represented formerly by the action for conspiracy, has brought down to our own time a doctrine which is probably traceable to the practice of spreading the case fully upon the record, namely, that what is a reasonable and probable cause for a prosecution is a question for the court. That it is a question of fact is confessed, and also that other like questions in similar cases are given to the jury. Reasons of policy led the old judges to permit the defendant to state his case fully upon the record, so as to secure to the court a greater control over the jury in handling the facts, and to keep what were accounted questions of law, i. e., questions which it was thought should be decided by the judges out of the jury's hands. Gawdy, J., in such a case, in 1601-2, 'doubted whether it were a plea, because it amounts to a non culpabilis. … But the other justices held that it was a good plea, per doubt del lay gents.' Now that the mode of pleading has changed, the old rule still holds; being maintained, perhaps, chiefly by the old reasons of policy."

J. B. Thayer, Law and Fact in Jury Trials (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 147).

ALSO IN: J. B. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence, page 150.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1603. Earliest reported case of Bills of Exchange.

"The origin and history of Bills of Exchange and other negotiable instruments are traced by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in his judgment in Goodwin v. Robarts [L. R. 10 Ex., pages 346-358]. It seems that bills were first brought into use by the Florentines in the twelfth century. From Italy the use of them spread to France, and eventually they were introduced into England. The first English reported case in which they are mentioned is Martin v. Boure (Cro. Jac. 3), decided in 1603. At first the use of Bills of Exchange seems to have been confined to foreign bills between English and foreign merchants. It was afterwards extended to domestic bills between traders, and finally to bills of all persons whether traders or not. The law throughout has been based on the custom of merchants respecting them; the old form of declaration on bill used always to state that it was drawn 'secundum usum et consuetudinem mercatorum.'"

M. D. Chalmers, Bills of Exchange, page xliv., introduction.

See, also, MONEY AND BANKING, MEDIÆVAL.

{1969}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1604. Death Inferred from Long Absence.

"It is not at all modern to infer death from a long absence; the recent thing is the fixing of a time of seven years, and putting this into a rule. The faint beginning of it, as a common-law rule, and one of general application in all questions of life and death, is found, so far as our recorded cases show, in Doe d. George v. Jesson (January, 1805). Long before this time, in 1604, the 'Bigamy Act' of James I. had exempted from the scope of its provisions, and so from the situation and punishment of a felon (1) those persons who had married a second time when the first spouse had been beyond the seas for seven years, and (2) those whose spouse had been absent for seven years, although not beyond the seas,—'the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time.' This statute did not treat matters altogether as if the absent party were dead; it did not validate the second marriage in either case. It simply exempted a party from the statutory penalty."

J. B. Thayer, Presumptions and the Law of Evidence (Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 151).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1609. First Recognition of Right to Sue for Quantum Meruit.

"There seems to have been no recognition of the right to sue upon an implied 'quantum meruit' before 1609. The innkeeper was the first to profit by the innovation. Reciprocity demanded that, if the law imposed a duty upon the innkeeper to receive and keep safely, it should also imply a promise on the part of the guest to pay what was reasonable. The tailor was in the same case with the innkeeper, and his right to recover upon a quantum meruit was recognized in 1610.". [Six Carpenters' Case, 8 Rep., 147a.]

J. B. Ames, History of Assumpsit (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, page 58).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1623. Liability of Gratuitous Bailee to be Charged in Assumpsit, established.

"The earliest attempt to charge bailees in assumpsit were made when the bailment was gratuitous. These attempts, just before and after 1600, were unsuccessful, because the plaintiffs could not make out any consideration. The gratuitous bailment was, of course, not a benefit, but a burden to the defendant; and, on the other hand, it was not regarded as a detriment, but an advantage to the plaintiff. But in 1623 it was finally decided, not without a great straining, it must be conceded, of the doctrine of consideration, that a bailee might be charged in assumpsit on a gratuitous bailment."

J. B. Ames, History of Assumpsit (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, page 6, citing Wheatley v. Low, Palm., 281; Cro. Jac. 668).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1625 (circa). Experiment in Legislation. Limitation in time.

"The distinction between temporary and permanent Legislation is a very old one." It was a distinction expressed at Athens; but "we have no such variety of name. All are alike Acts of Parliament. Acts in the nature of new departures in the Law of an important kind are frequently limited in time, very often with a view of gaining experience as to the practical working of a new system before the Legislature commits itself to final legislation on the subject, sometimes, no doubt, by way of compromise with the Opposition, objecting to the passing of such a measure at all. Limitation in time often occurs in old Acts. Instances are the first Act of the first Parliament of Charles I. (1 Car. 1., c. 1), forbidding certain sports and pastimes on Sunday, and permitting others. The Book of Sports of James I. had prepared the mind of the people for that more liberal observance of Sunday which had been so offensive to the Puritans of Elizabeth's reign, but it had not been down to that time acknowledged by the Legislature. This was now done in 1625, the Act was passed for the then Parliament, continued from time to time, and finally (the experiment having apparently succeeded) made perpetual in 1641. Another instance is the Music Hall Act of 1752 passed it is said on the advice of Henry Fielding, in consequence of the disorderly state of the music halls of the period, and perhaps still more on account of the Jacobite songs sometimes sung at such places. It was passed for three years, and, having apparently put an end to local disaffection, was made perpetual in 1755. Modern instances are the Ballot Act, 1872, passed originally for eight years, and now annually continued, the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, creating a new tribunal, the Railway Commission, passed originally for five years, and annually continued until made perpetual by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888; the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, a new departure in Social Legislation, expiring on the 31st December, 1887, and since annually continued; and the Shop Hours Regulation Act, 1886, a similar departure, expiring in 1888, and continued for the present Session. … (2) Place. —It is in this respect that the Experimental method of Parliament is most conspicuous. A law is enacted binding only locally, and is sometimes extended to the whole or a part of the realm, sometimes not. The old Statute of Circumspecte Agatis (13 Edw. I., stat. 4) passed in 1285 is one of the earliest examples. The point of importance in it is that it was addressed only to the Bishop of Norwich, but afterwards seems to have been tacitly admitted as law in the case of all dioceses, having probably been found to have worked well at Norwich. It was not unlike the Rescripts of the Roman emperors, which, primarily addressed to an individual, afterwards became precedents of general law."

_James William (Law Magazine & Review, London 1888-9), 4th ser., volume 14, page 306._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1630-1641. Public Registry.

"When now we look to the United States, we find no difficulty in tracing the history of the institution on this side of the Atlantic. The first settlers of New York coming from Holland, brought it with them. In 1636, the Pilgrims of Plymouth, coming also from Holland, passed a law requiring that for the prevention of frauds, all conveyances, including mortgages and leases, should be recorded. Connecticut followed in 1639, the Puritans of Massachusetts in 1641; Penn, of course, introduced it into Pennsylvania. Subsequently every State of the Union established substantially the same system."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, volume 2, page 463.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1650 (circa). Law regarded as a Luxury.

"Of all the reforms needed in England, that of the law was perhaps the most urgent. In the general features of its administration the system had been little changed since the days of the first Edward. As to its details, a mass of abuses had grown up which made the name of justice nothing but a mockery. Twenty thousand cases, it was said, stood for judgment in the Court of Chancery, some of them ten, twenty, thirty years old. In all the courts the judges held their positions at the pleasure of the crown. They and their clerks, the marshals, and the sheriffs exacted exorbitant fees for every service, and on their cause-list gave the preference to the suitor with the longest purse. Legal documents were written in a barbarous jargon which none but the initiated could understand. {1970} The lawyers, for centuries, had exercised their ingenuity in perfecting a system of pleading, the main object of which seems to have been to augment their charges, while burying the merits of a cause under a tangle of technicalities which would secure them from disentombment. The result was that law had become a luxury for the rich alone."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, volume 2, pages 383-384.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1657. Perhaps the first Indebitatus Assumpsit for Money paid to Defendant by Mistake.

"One who received money from another to be applied in a particular way was bound to give an account of his stewardship. If he fulfilled his commission, a plea to that effect would be a valid discharge. If he failed for any reason to apply the money in the mode directed, the auditors would find that the amount received was due to the plaintiff, who would have a judgment for its recovery. If, for example, the money was to be applied in payment of a debt erroneously supposed to be due from the plaintiff to the defendant, … the intended application of the money being impossible, the plaintiff would recover the money in Account. Debt would also lie in such cases. … By means of a fiction of a promise implied in law 'Indebitatus Assumpsit' because concurrent with Debt, and thus was established the familiar action of Assumpsit for money had and received to recover money paid to the defendant by mistake. Bonnel v. Fowke (1657) is, perhaps, the first action of the kind."

J. B. Ames, History of Assumpsit (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, page 66).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1670. Personal Knowledge of Jurors.

"The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened; and this explains the origin of the venue (vicintum), which appears in all indictments and declarations at the present day. It points out the place from which the jury must be summoned. … And it was said by the Court of Common Pleas in Bushell's case (A. D. 1670), that the jury being returned from the vicinage whence the cause of action arises, the law supposes them to have sufficient knowledge to try the matters in issue, 'and so they must, though no evidence were given on either side in court';—and the case is put of an action upon a bond to which the defendant pleads solvit ad diem, but offers no proof:—where, the court said 'the jury is directed to find for the plaintiff, unless they know payment was made of their own knowledge, according to the plea.' This is the meaning of the old legal doctrine, which is at first sight somewhat startling, that the evidence in court is not binding evidence to a jury. Therefore acting upon their own knowledge, they were at liberty to give a verdict in direct opposition to the evidence, if they so thought fit."

W. Forsyth, Trial by Jury, pages 134-136.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1678. The Statute of Frauds.

"During Lord Nottingham's period of office, and partly in consequence of his advice, the Statute of Frauds was passed. Its main provisions are directed against the enforcement of verbal contracts, the validity of verbal conveyances of interests in land, the creation of trusts of lands without writing, and the allowance of nuncupative wills. It also made equitable interests in lands subject to the owner's debts to the same extent as legal interests were. The statute carried into legislative effect principles which had, so far back as the time of Bacon's orders, been approved by the Court of Chancery, and by its operation in the common law courts it must often have obviated the necessity for equitable interference. In modern times it has not infrequently been decried, especially so far as it restricts the verbal proof of contracts, but in estimating its value and operation at the time it became a law it must be remembered that the evidence of the parties to an action at law could not then be received, and the Defendant might have been charged upon the uncorroborated statement of a single witness which he was not allowed to contradict, as Lord Eldon argued many years afterwards, when the action upon the case for fraud was introduced at law. It was therefore a most reasonable precaution, while this unreasonable rule continued, to lay down that the Defendant should be charged only upon writing signed by him."

D. M. Kerly, History of Equity, page 170.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1680. Habeas Corpus and Personal Liberty.

"The language of the great charter is, that no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned but by the lawful judgment of his equals, or by the law of the land. And many subsequent old statutes expressly direct, that no man shall be taken or imprisoned by suggestion or petition to the king or his council, unless it be by legal indictment, or the process of the common-law. By the petition of right, 3 Car. I., it is enacted, that no freeman shall be imprisoned or detained without cause shown. … By 16 Car. I., c. 10, if any person be restrained of his liberty … , he shall, upon demand of his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, to bring his body before the court of king's bench or common pleas, who shall determine whether the cause of his commitment be just. … And by 31 Car. II., c. 2, commonly called the habeas corpus act, the methods of obtaining this writ are so plainly pointed out and enforced, that, … no subject of England can be long detained in prison, except in those cases in which the law requires and justifies such detainer. And, … it is declared by 1 W. and M. St. 2, c. 2, that excessive bail ought not be required."

_W. Blackstone, Commentaries, I., 135._

J. Kent, Commentaries, part 4, lecture 24.

For the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY).

A. D. 1683-1771. Subsequent Birth of a Child revokes a Will.

"The first case that recognized the rule that the subsequent birth of a child was a revocation of a will of personal property, was decided by the court of delegates, upon appeal, in the reign of Charles II.; and it was grounded upon the law of the civilians [Overbury v. Overbury, 2 Show Rep., 253]. … The rule was applied in chancery to a devise of real estate, in Brown v. Thompson [I Ld. Raym. 441]; but it was received with doubt by Lord Hardwicke and Lord Northington. The distinction between a will of real and personal estate could not well be supported; and Lord Mansfield declared, that he saw no ground for a distinction. The great point was finally and solemnly settled, in 1771, by the court of exchequer, in Christopher v. Christopher [Dicken's Rep. 445], that marriage and a child, were a revocation of a will of land."

J. Kent, Commentaries, part 6, lecture 68.

{1971}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1688. Dividing Line between Old and New Law.

The dividing line between the ancient and the modern English reports may, for the sake of convenient arrangement, be placed at the revolution in the year 1688. "The distinction between the old and new law seems then to be more distinctly marked. The cumbersome and oppressive appendages of the feudal tenures were abolished in the reign of Charles II., and the spirit of modern improvement, … began then to be more sensibly felt, and more actively diffused. The appointment of that great and honest lawyer, Lord Holt, to the station of chief justice of the King's Bench, gave a new tone and impulse to the vigour of the common law."

J. Kent, Commentaries, part 3, lecture 21.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689. First instance of an Action sustained for Damages for a Breach of Promise to Account.

"It is worthy of observation that while the obligation to account is created by law, yet the privity without which such an obligation cannot exist is, as a rule, created by the parties to the obligation. … Such then being the facts from which the law will raise an obligation to account, the next question is, How can such an obligation be enforced, or, what is the remedy upon such an obligation? It is obvious that the only adequate remedy is specific performance, or at least specific reparation. An action on the case to recover damages for a breach of the obligation, even if such an action would lie, would be clearly inadequate, as it would involve the necessity of investigating all the items of the account for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of the damages, and that a jury is not competent to do. In truth, however, such an action will not lie. If, indeed, there be an actual promise to account, either an express or implied in fact, an action will lie for the breach of that promise; but as such a promise is entirely collateral to the obligation to account, and as therefore a recovery on the promise would be no bar to an action on the obligation, it would seem that nominal damages only could be recovered in an action on the promise, or at the most only such special damages as the plaintiff had suffered by the breach of the promise. Besides the first instance in which an action on such a promise was sustained was as late as the time of Lord Holt [Wilkyns v. Wilkyns, Carth. 89], while the obligation to account has existed and been recognized from early times."

C. C. Langdell, A Brief Survey of Equity Jurisdiction (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, pages 250-251).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1689-1710. Lord Holt and the Law of Bailments.

"The most celebrated case which he decided in this department was that of Coggs v. Bernard, in which the question arose, 'whether, if a person promises without reward to take care of goods, he is answerable if they are lost or damaged by his negligence?' In a short compass he expounded with admirable clearness and accuracy the whole law of bailment, or the liability of the person to whom goods are delivered for different purposes on behalf of the owner; availing himself of his knowledge of the Roman civil Jaw, of which most English lawyers were as ignorant as of the Institutes of Menu. … He then elaborately goes over the six sorts of bailment, showing the exact degree of care required on the part of the bailee in each, with the corresponding degree of negligence, which will give a right of action to the bailor. In the last he shows that, in consideration of the trust, there is an implied promise to take ordinary care; so that, although there be no reward, for a loss arising from gross negligence the bailee is liable to the bailor for the value of the goods. Sir William Jones is contented that his own masterly 'Essay on the Law of Bailment' shall be considered merely as a commentary upon this judgment; and Professor Story, in his 'Commentaries on the Law of Bailments,' represents it as 'a prodigious effort to arrange the principles by which the subject is regulated in a scientific order.'"

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chief Justices, volume 2, pages 113-114.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1703. Implied Promises recognized.

"The value of the discovery of the implied promise in fact was exemplified … in the case of a parol submission to an award. If the arbitrators awarded the payment of a sum of money, the money was recoverable in debt, since an award, after the analogy of a judgment, created a debt. But if the award was for the performance of a collateral act, … there was, originally, no mode of compelling compliance with the award, unless the parties expressly promised to abide by the decision of the arbitrators. Tilford v. French (1663) is a case in point. So, also, seven years later, 'it was said by Twisden, J., [Anon., 1 Vent. 69], that if two submit to an award, this contains not a reciprocal promise to perform; but there must be an express promise to ground an action upon it.' This doctrine was abandoned by the time of Lord Holt, who, … said: 'But the contrary has been held since; for if two men submit to the award of a third person, they do also thereby promise expressly to abide by his determination, for agreeing to refer is a promise in itself.'"

J. B. Ames, History of Assumpsit (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, page 62).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1706. Dilatory Pleas.

"Pleas to the jurisdiction, to the disability, or in abatement, were formerly very often used as mere dilatory pleas, without any foundation of truth, and calculated only for delay; but now by statute 4 and 5 Ann., c. 16, no dilatory plea is to be admitted, without affidavit made of the truth thereof, or some probable matter shown to the court to induce them to believe it true."

W. Blackstone, Commentaries, book 3, page 302.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1710. Joint Stock Companies: Bubble Act.

"The most complicated, as well as the most modern, branch of the law of artificial persons relates to those which are formed for purposes of trade. They are a natural accompaniment of the extension of commerce. An ordinary partnership lacks the coherence which is required for great undertakings. Its partners may withdraw from it, taking their capital with them, and the 'firm' having as such no legal recognition, a contract made with it could be sued upon, according to the common law of England, only in an action in which the whole list of partners were made plaintiffs or defendants. In order to remedy the first of these inconveniences, partnerships were formed upon the principle of a joint-stock, the capital invested in which must remain at a fixed amount, although the shares into which it is divided may pass from hand to hand. This device did not however obviate the difficulty in suing, nor did it relieve the partners, past and present, from liability for debts in excess of their, past or present, shares in the concern. {1972} In the interest not only of the share-partners, but also of the public with which they had dealings, it was desirable to discourage the formation of such associations; and the formation of joint-stock partnerships, except such as were incorporated by royal charter, was accordingly, for a time, prohibited in England by the 'Bubble Act,' 6 Geo. I, c. 18. An incorporated trading company, in accordance with the ordinary principles regulating artificial persons, consists of a definite amount of capital to which alone creditors of the company can look for the satisfaction of their demands, divided into shares held by a number of individuals who, though they participate in the profits of the concern, in proportion to the number of shares held by each, incur no personal liability in respect of its losses. An artificial person of this sort is now recognized under most systems of law. It can be formed, as a rule, only with the consent of the sovereign power, and is described as a 'societe,' or 'compagnie,' 'anonyme,' an 'Actiengesellschaft,' or 'joint-stock company limited.' A less pure form of such a corporation is a company the shareholders in which incur an unlimited personal liability. There is also a form resembling a partnership 'en commandite,' in which the liability of some of the shareholders is limited by their shares, while that of others is unlimited. Subject to some exceptions, any seven partners in a trading concern may, and partners whose number exceeds twenty must, according to English law, become incorporated by registration under the Companies Acts, with either limited or unlimited liability as they may determine at the time of incorporation."

Thomas Erskine Holland, Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition, page 298.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1711. Voluntary Restraint of Trade.

"The judicial construction of Magna Charta is illustrated in the great case of Mitchell v. Reynolds (1 P. W., 181), still the leading authority upon the doctrine of voluntary restraint of trade, though decided in 1711, when modern mercantile law was in its infancy. The Court (Chief Justice Parker), distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary restraints of trade, says as to involuntary restraints: 'The first reason why such of these, as are created by grant and charter from the crown and by-laws generally are void, is drawn from the encouragement which the law gives to trade and honest industry, and that they are contrary to the liberty of the subject. Second, another reason is drawn from Magna Charta, which is infringed by these acts of power. That statute says: Nullus liber homo, etc., disseizetur de libero tenemento, vel libertatibus vel liberis consuetudinibus suis, etc.; and these words have been always taken to extend to freedom of trade.'"

Frederick N. Judson, 14 American Bar Association Report, page 236.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730. Special Juries.

"The first statutory recognition of their existence occurs so late as in the Act 3 Geo. II., ch. 25. But the principle seems to have been admitted in early times. We find in the year 1450 (29 Hen. VI.) a petition for a special jury. … The statute of George II. speaks of special juries as already well known, and it declares and enacts that the courts at Westminster shall, upon motion made by any plaintiff, prosecutor, or defendant, order and appoint a jury to be struck before the proper officer of the court where the cause is depending, 'in such manner as special juries have been and are usually struck in such courts respectively upon trials at bar had in the said courts.'"

W. Forsyth, Trial by Jury, pages 143-144.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1730. Written Pleadings to be in English.

"There was one great improvement in law proceedings which, while he [Lord King] held the Great Seal, he at last accomplished. From very ancient times the written pleadings, both in criminal and civil suits, were, or rather professed to be, in the Latin tongue, and while the jargon employed would have been very perplexing to a Roman of the Augustan Age, it was wholly unintelligible to the persons whose life, property, and fame were at stake. This absurdity had been corrected in the time of the Commonwealth, but along with many others so corrected, had been reintroduced at the Restoration, and had prevailed during five succeeding reigns. The attention of the public was now attracted to it by a petition from the magistracy of the North Riding of the county of York, representing the evils of the old law language being retained in legal process and proceedings, and praying for the substitution of the native tongue. The bill, by the Chancellor's direction, was introduced in the House of Commons, and it passed there without much difficulty. In the Lords it was fully explained and ably supported by the Lord Chancellor, but it experienced considerable opposition. … Amidst heavy forebodings of future mischief the bill passed, and mankind are now astonished that so obvious a reform should have been so long deferred."

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, volume 4, page 504.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1739-1744. Oath according to one's Religion.

"Lord Hardwick established the rule that persons, though not Christians, if they believe in a divinity, may be sworn according to the ceremonies of their religion, and that the evidence given by them so sworn is admissible in courts of justice, as if, being Christians, they had been sworn upon the Evangelists. This subject first came before him in Ramkissenseat v. Barker, where, in a suit for an account against the representatives of an East India Governor, the plea being overruled that the plaintiff was an alien infidel, a cross bill was filed, and an objection being made that he could only be sworn in the usual form, a motion was made that the words in the commission, 'on the holy Evangelists,' should be omitted, and that the commissioners should be directed to administer an oath to him in the manner most binding on his conscience. … The point was afterwards finally settled in the great case of Omychund v. Barker, where a similar commission to examine witnesses having issued, the Commissioners certified 'That they had sworn the witnesses examined under it in the presence of Brahmin or priest of the Gentoo religion, and that each witness touched the hand of the Brahmin,—this being the most solemn form in which oaths are administered to witnesses professing the Gentoo religion.' Objection was made that the deposition so taken could not be read in evidence; and on account of the magnitude of the question, the Lord Chancellor called in the assistance of the three chiefs of the common law Courts.—After a very long, learned, and ingenious argument, which may be perused with pleasure, they concurred in the opinion that the depositions were admissible."

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, volume 5, pages 69-70.

{1973}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750. Dale v. Hall, I Wits., 281, understood to be the first reported case of an action of special assumpsit sustained against a common carrier, on his implied contract.

"Assumpsit, … was allowed, in the time of Charles I., in competition with Detinue and Case against a bailee for custody. At a later period Lord Holt suggested that one might 'turn an action against a common carrier into a special assumpsit (which the law implies) in respect of his hire.' Dale v. Hall (1750) is understood to have been the first reported case in which that suggestion was followed."

J. B. Ames, History of Assumpsit (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, page 63).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1750-1800. Demurrer to Evidence.

"Near the end of the last century demurrers upon evidence were rendered useless in England, by the decision in the case of Gibson v. Hunter (carrying down with it another great case, that of Lickbarrow v. Mason, which, like the former, had come up to the Lords upon this sort of demurrer), that the party demurring must specify upon the record the facts which he admits. That the rule was a new one is fairly plain from the case of Cocksedge v. Fanshawe, ten years earlier. It was not always followed in this country, but the fact that it was really a novelty was sometimes not understood."

J. B. Thayer, Law and Fact in Jury Trials (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 147).

ALSO IN: J. B. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence, page 149.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1756-1788. Lord Mansfield and Commercial Law.

"In the reign of Geo. II., England had grown into the greatest manufacturing and commercial country in the world, while her jurisprudence had by no means been expanded or developed in the same proportion. … Hence, when questions necessarily arose respecting the buying and selling of goods,—respecting the affreightment of ships,—respecting marine insurances,—and respecting bills of exchange and promissory notes, no one knew how they were to be determined. … Mercantile questions were so ignorantly treated when they came into Westminster Hall, that they were usually settled by private arbitration among the merchants themselves. If an action turning upon a mercantile question was brought in a court of law, the judge submitted it to the jury, who determined it according to their own notions of what was fair, and no general rule was laid down which could afterwards be referred to for the purpose of settling similar disputes. … When he [Lord Mansfield] had ceased to preside in the Court of King's Bench, and had retired to enjoy the retrospect of his labors, he read the following just eulogy bestowed upon them by Mr. Justice Buller, in giving judgment in the important case of Lickbarrow v. Mason, respecting the effect of the indorsement of a bill of lading:—'Within these thirty years the commercial law of this country has taken a very different turn from what it did before. Lord Hardwicke himself was proceeding with great caution; not establishing any general principle, but decreeing on all the circumstances put together. Before that period we find that, in courts of law, all the evidence in mercantile cases was thrown together; they were left generally to a jury; and they produced no general principle. From that time, we all know, the great study has been to find some certain general principle, which shall be known to all mankind, not only to rule the particular case then under consideration, but to serve as a guide for the future. Most of us have heard these principles stated, reasoned upon, enlarged, and explained, till we have been lost in admiration at the strength and stretch of the understanding. And I should be very sorry to find myself under a necessity of differing from any case upon this subject which has been decided by Lord Mansfield, who may be truly said to be the founder of the commercial law of this country.' … With regard to bills of exchange and promissory notes, Lord Mansfield first promulgated many rules that now appear to us to be as certain as those which guide the planets in their orbits. For example, it was till then uncertain whether the second indorser of a bill of exchange could sue his immediate indorser without having previously demanded payment from the drawer. … He goes on to explain [in Heylyn v. Adamson, 2 Burr., 669], … that the maker of a promissory note is in the same situation as the acceptor of a bill of exchange, and that in suing the indorser of the note it is necessary to allege and to prove a demand on the maker. … Lord Mansfield had likewise to determine that the indorser of a bill of exchange is discharged if he receives no notice of there having been a refusal to accept by the drawee (Blesard v. Herst, 6 Burr., 2670); and that reasonable time for giving notice of the dishonor of a bill or note is to be determined by the Court as matter of law, and is not to be left to the jury as matter of fact, they being governed by the circumstances of each particular case. (Tindal v. Brown, 1 Term. Rep., 167.) It seems strange to us how the world could go on when such questions of hourly occurrence, were unsettled. … There is another contract of infinite importance to a maritime people. … I mean that between ship-owners and merchants for the hiring of ships and carriage of goods. … Till his time, the rights and liabilities of these parties had remained undecided upon the contingency, not unlikely to arise, of the ship being wrecked during the voyage, and the goods being saved and delivered to the consignee at an intermediate port. Lord Mansfield settled that freight is due pro rata itineris—in proportion to the part of the voyage performed. … Lord Mansfield's familiarity with the general principles of ethics, … availed him on all occasions when he had to determine on the proper construction and just fulfilment of contracts. The question having arisen, for the first time, whether the seller of goods by auction, with the declared condition that they shall be sold to 'the highest bidder,' may employ a 'puffer,'—an agent to raise the price by bidding,—he thus expressed himself: [Bexwell v. Christie, Cowp., 395] '… The basis of all dealings ought to be good faith; so more especially in these transactions, where the public are brought together upon a confidence that the articles set up to sale will be disposed of to the highest real bidder. That can never be the case if the owner may secretly enhance the price by a person employed for that purpose. … I cannot listen to the argument that it is a common practice, … the owner violates his contract with the public if, by himself or his agent, he bids upon his goods, and no subsequent bidder is bound to take the goods at the price at which they are knocked down to him.'"

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chief Justices, volume 2, pages 308-314.

{1974}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760. Judicial Independence.

"A glance into the pages of the Judges of England, by Foss, will show with what ruthless vigour the Stuarts exercised their prerogative of dismissing Judges whose decisions were displeasing to the court. Even after the Revolution, the prerogative of dismissal, which was supposed to keep the Judges dependent on the Crown, was jealously defended. When in 1692 a Bill passed both Houses of Parliament, establishing the independence of Judges by law, and confirming their salaries, William III. withheld his Royal assent. Bishop Burnet says, with reference to this exercise of the Veto, that it was represented to the King by some of the Judges themselves, that it was not fit that they should be out of all dependence on the Court. When the Act of Settlement secured that no Judge should be dismissed from office, except in consequence of a conviction for some offence, or the address of both Houses of Parliament, the Royal jealousy of the measure is seen by the promise under which that arrangement was not to take effect till the deaths of William III. and of Anne, and the failure of their issue respectively, in other words, till the accession of the House of Hanover. It was not till the reign of George III. that the Commissions of the Judges ceased to be void on the demise of the Crown."

J. G. S. MacNeill, Law Magazine and Review, 4th series, volume 16 (1890-91), page 202.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1760. Stolen Bank Notes the Property of a Bona Fide Purchaser.

"The law of bills of exchange owes much of its scientific and liberal character to the wisdom of the great jurist, Lord Mansfield. Sixteen years before the American Revolution, he held that bank notes, though stolen, become the property of the person to whom they are bona fide delivered for value without knowledge of the larceny. This principle is later affirmed again and again as necessary to the preservation of the circulation of all the paper in the country, and with it all its commerce. Later there was a departure from this principle in the noted English case of Gill v. Cubitt, in which it was held that if the holder for value took it under circumstances which ought to have excited the suspicion of a prudent and careful man, he could not recover. This case annoyed courts and innocent holders for years, until it was sat upon, kicked, cuffed, and overruled, and the old doctrine of 1760 re-established, which is now the undisputed and settled law of England and this country."

_Wm. A. McClean, Negotiable Paper (The Green Bag, volume 5, page 86)._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1768. Only one Business Corporation Chartered in this Country before the Declaration of Independence.

"Pennsylvania is entitled to the honor of having chartered the first business corporation in this country, 'The Philadelphia Contributionship for Insuring Houses from Loss by Fire.' It was a mutual insurance company, first organized in 1752, but not chartered until 1768. It was the only business corporation whose charter antedated the Declaration of Independence. The next in order of time were: 'The Bank of North America,' chartered by Congress in 1781 and, the original charter having been repealed in 1785, by Pennsylvania in 1787; 'The Massachusetts Bank,' chartered in 1784; 'The Proprietors of Charles River Bridge,' in 1785; 'The Mutual Assurance Company' (Philadelphia), in 1786; 'The Associated Manufacturing Iron Co.' (N. Y.), in 1786. These were the only joint-stock business corporations chartered in America before 1787. After that time the number rapidly increased, especially in Massachusetts. Before the close of the century there were created in that State about fifty such bodies, at least half of them turn-pike and bridge companies. In the remaining States combined, there were perhaps as many more. There was no great variety in the purposes for which these early companies were formed. Insurance, banking, turn-pike roads, toll-bridges, canals, and, to a limited extent, manufacturing were the enterprises which they carried on."

S. Williston, History of the Law of Business Corporations before 1800 (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, pp. 165-166).

A. D. 1776. Ultimate property in land.

"When, by the Revolution, the Colony of New York became separated from the Crown of Great Britain, and a republican government was formed, The People succeeded the King in the ownership of all lands within the State which had not already been granted away, and they became from thenceforth the source of all private titles."

_Judge Comstock, People v. Rector, etc., of Trinity Church, 22 N. Y., 44-46._

"It is held that only such parts of the common law as, with the acts of the colony in force on April 19, 1775, formed part of the law of the Colony on that day, were adopted by the State; and only such parts of the common and statute law of England were brought by the colonists with them as suited their condition, or were applicable to their situation. Such general laws thereupon became the laws of the Colony until altered by common consent, or by legislative enactment. The principles and rules of the common law as applicable to this country are held subject to modification and change, according to the circumstances and condition of the people and government here. … By the English common law, the King was the paramount proprietor and source of all title to all land within his dominion, and it was considered to be held mediately or immediately of him. After the independence of the United States, the title to land formerly possessed by the English Crown in this country passed to the People of the different States where the land lay, by virtue of the change of nationality and of the treaties made. The allegiance formerly due, also, from the people of this country to Great Britain was transferred, by the Revolution, to the governments of the States."

James Gerard, Titles to Real Estate (3rd edition), pages 26 and 5.

"Hence the rule naturally follows, that no person can, by any possible arrangement, become invested with the absolute ownership of land. But as that ownership must be vested somewhere, or great confusion, if not disturbance, might result, it has, therefore, become an accepted rule of public law that the absolute and ultimate right of property shall be regarded as vested in the sovereign or corporate power of the State where the land lies. This corporate power has been naturally and appropriately selected for that purpose, because it is the only one which is certain to survive the generations of men as they pass away. Wherever that sovereign power is represented by an individual, as in England, there the absolute right of property to all land in the kingdom is vested in that individual whoever succeeds to the sovereignty, succeeds to that right of property and holds it in trust for the nation. {1975} In this country, where the only sovereignty recognized in regard to real property, is represented by the State in its corporate capacity, that absolute right of property is vested in the State."

Anson Bingham, Law of Real Property, page 3.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1778. First Instance of Assumpsit upon a Vendor's Warranty.

"A vendor who gives a false warranty may be charged to-day, of course, in contract; but the conception of such a warranty, as a contract is quite modern. Stuart v. Wilkens [3 Doug., 18], decided in 1778, is said to have been the first instance of an action of assumpsit upon a vendor's warranty."

J. B. Ames, History of Assumpsit (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, page 8).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1783. Lord Mansfield laid foundation of Law of Trade-Marks.

"The symbolism of commerce, conventionally called 'trade-marks,' is, according to Mr. Browne, in his excellent work on trade-marks, as old as commerce itself. The Egyptians, the Chinese, the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, all used various marks or signs to distinguish their goods and handiwork. The right to protection in such marks has come to be recognized throughout the civilized world. It is, however, during the last seventy or eighty years that the present system of jurisprudence has been built up. In 1742 Lord Hardwick refused an injunction to restrain the use of the Great Mogul stamp on cards. In 1783 Lord Mansfield laid the foundation of the law of trade-marks as at present developed, and in 1816, in the case of Day v. Day, the defendant was enjoined from infringing the plaintiff's blacking label. From that time to the present day there have arisen a multitude of cases, and the theory of the law of trade-marks proper may be considered as pretty clearly expounded. In 1875 the Trade-marks Registration Act provided for the registration of trade-marks, and defined what could in future properly be a trade-mark. In this country the Act of 1870, corrected by the Act of 1881, provided for the registration of trade-marks. The underlying principle of the law of trade-marks is that of preventing one man from acquiring the reputation of another by fraudulent means, and of preventing fraud upon the public; in other words, the application of the broad principles of equity."

Grafton D. Cushing, Cases Analogous to Trade-marks (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 321).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1790. Stoppage in Transitu, and Rights of Third Person under a Bill of Lading.

"Lord Loughborough's most elaborate common law judgment was in the case of Lichbarrow v. Mason, when he presided in the court of Exchequer Chamber, on a writ of error from the Court of King's Bench. The question was one of infinite importance to commerce—'Whether the right of the unpaid seller of goods to stop them while they are on their way to a purchaser who has become insolvent, is divested by an intermediate sale to a third person, through the indorsement of the bill of lading, for a valuable consideration?' He concluded by saying:—'From a review of all the cases it does not appear that there has ever been a decision against the legal right of the consignor to stop the goods in transitu before the case which we have here to consider. The rule which we are now to lay down will not disturb but settle the notions of the commercial port of this country on a point of very great importance, as it regards the security and good faith of their transactions. For these reasons we think the judgment of the Court of King's Bench ought to be reversed.' But a writ of error being brought in the House of Lords, this reversal was reversed, and the right of the intermediate purchaser as against the original seller, has ever since been established."

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Chancellors, volume 6, pages 138-139.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1792. Best-Evidence rule.

"In Grant v. Gould, 2 H. Bl. p. 104 (1792), Lord Loughborough said: 'That all common law courts ought to proceed upon the general rule, namely, the best evidence that the nature of the case will admit, I perfectly agree.' But by this time it was becoming obvious that this 'general rule' was misapplied and over-emphasized. Blackstone, indeed, repeating Gilbert, had said in 1770, in the first editions of his Commentaries (III. 368) as it was said in all the later ones: 'The one general rule that runs through all the doctrine of trials is this, that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit of shall always be required, if possible to be had; but, if not possible, then the best evidence that can be had shall be allowed. For if it be found that there is any better evidence existing than is produced, the very not producing it is a presumption that it would have detected some falsehood that at present is concealed.' But in 1794, the acute and learned Christian, in editing the twelfth edition, pointed out the difficulties of the situation: 'No rule of law,' he said, 'is more frequently cited, and more generally misconceived, than this. It is certainly true when rightly understood; but it is very limited in its extent and application. It signifies nothing more than that, if the best legal evidence cannot possibly be produced, the next best legal evidence shall be admitted.'"

J. B. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence, page 732.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1794. First Trial by Jury in United States Supreme Court.

"In the first trial by jury at the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1794, Chief-Justice Jay, after remarking to the jury that fact was, for the jury and law for the court, went on to say: 'You have, nevertheless, a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.' But I am disposed to think that the common-law power of the jury in criminal cases does not indicate any right on their part; it is rather one of those manifold illogical and yet rational results, which the good sense of the English people brought about, in all parts of their public affairs, by way of easing up the rigor of a strict application of rules."

J. B. Thayer, Law and Fact in Jury Trials (Harvard Law Review, volume 4, page 171).

ALSO IN: J. B. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence, page 153.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1813-1843. Insolvents placed under Jurisdiction of a Court, and able to claim Protection by a Surrender of Goods.

"It was not until 1813 that insolvents were placed under the jurisdiction of a court, and entitled to seek their discharge on rendering a true account of all their debts and property. A distinction was at length recognized between poverty and crime. This great remedial law restored liberty to crowds of wretched debtors. In the next thirteen years upwards of 50,000 were set free. Thirty years later, its beneficent principles were further extended, when debtors were not only released from confinement, but able to claim protection to their liberty, on giving up all their goods."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition) volume 2, page 271.

See, also, DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING.

{1976}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1819. The Dartmouth College Case.

"The framers of the Constitution of the United States, moved chiefly by the mischiefs created by the preceding legislation of the States, which had made serious encroachments on the rights of property, inserted a clause in that instrument which declared that 'no State shall pass any ex post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.' The first branch of this clause had always been understood to relate to criminal legislation, the second to legislation affecting civil rights. But, before the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to contracts. … The State court of New Hampshire, in deciding this case, had assumed that the college was a public corporation, and on that basis had rested their judgment; which was, that between the State and its public corporations there is no contract which the State cannot regulate, alter, or annul at pleasure. Mr. Webster had to overthrow this fundamental position. If he could show that this college was a private eleemosynary corporation, and that the grant of the right to be a corporation of this nature is a contract between the sovereign power and those who devote their funds to the charity, and take the incorporation for its better management, he could bring the legislative interference within the prohibition of the Federal Constitution. … Its important positions, … were these: 1. That Dr. Wheelock was the founder of this college, and as such entitled by law to be visitor, and that he had assigned all the visitatorial powers to the trustees. 2. That the charter created a private and not a pubic corporation, to administer a charity, in the administration of which the trustees had a property, which the law recognizes as such. 3. That the grant of such a charter is a contract between the sovereign power and its successors and those to whom it is granted and their successors. 4. That the legislation which took away from the trustees the right to exercise the powers of superintendence, visitation, and government, and transferred them to another set of trustees, impaired the obligation of that contract. … On the conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated that a decision was not to be expected until the next term. It was made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on which Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision, the principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which regards a charter of a private corporation as a contract, and places it under the protection of the Constitution of the United States, takes its date. To Mr. Webster belongs the honor of having produced its judicial establishment."

G. T. Curtis, Life of Daniel Webster, volume 1, pages 165-169 (5th edition).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1823. Indian Right of Occupancy.

"The first case of importance that came before the court of last resort with regard to the Indian question had to do with their title to land. This was the case of Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheaton, 543. In this case, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court and held that discovery gave title to the country by whose subjects or by whose authority it was made, as against all persons but the Indians as occupants; that this title gave a power to grant the soil and to convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy; and that the Indians could grant no title to the lands occupied by them, their right being simply that of occupancy and not of ownership. The Chief Justice says: 'It has never been doubted that either the United States or the several States had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty (of peace between England and United States) subject only to the Indians' right of occupancy, and that the exclusive power to extinguish that right was vested in that government which might constitutionally exercise it. … The United States, then, have unequivocally acceded to that great and broad rule by which its civilized inhabitants now hold this country. They hold and assert in themselves the title by which it was acquired. They maintain, as all others have maintained, that discovery gave an exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title of occupancy, either by purchase or by conquest; and gave also a right to such a degree of sovereignty as the circumstances of the people would allow them to exercise. The power now possessed by the government of the United States to grant lands resided, while we were colonies, in the crown or its grantees. The validity of the title given by either has never been questioned in our courts. It has been exercised uniformly over territory in possession of the Indians. The existence of this power must negative the existence of any right which may conflict with and control it. An absolute title to lands cannot exist, at the same time, in different persons, or in different governments. An absolute must be an exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes all others not compatible with it. All our institutions recognize the absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy, and recognize the absolute title of the crown to extinguish that right. This is incompatible with an absolute and complete title in the Indians.'"

_William B. Hornblower, 14 American Bar Association Report 264-265._

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1826 Jurors from the Body of the County.

"In the time of Fortescue, who was lord chancellor in the reign of Henry VI. [1422-61], with the exception of the requirement of personal knowledge in the jurors derived from near neighborhood of residence, the jury system had become in all its essential functions similar to what now exists. … The jury were still required to come from the neighborhood where the fact they had to try was supposed to have happened; and this explains the origin of the venire (vicinetum), which appears in all indictments and declarations at the present day. It points out the place from which the jury must be summoned. … Now, by 6 George IV., ch. 50, the jurors need only be good and lawful men of the body of the county."

W. Forsyth, Trial by Jury, chapter 7, section 3.

{1977}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1828. Lord Tenterden's Act.

"Be it therefore enacted … , That in Actions of Debt or upon the Case grounded upon any Simple Contract or Acknowledgement or Promise by Words only shall be deemed sufficient Evidence of a new or continuing Contract, … unless such Acknowledgement or Promise shall be made or contained by or in some Writing to be signed by the Party chargeable thereby."

Statutes at Large, volume 68, 9 George IV., c. 14.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1833. Wager of Law abolished, and Effect upon Detinue.

"This form of action (detinue) was also formerly subject (as were some other of our legal remedies), to the incident of 'wager of law' ('vadiatio legis'),—a proceeding which consisted in the defendant's discharging himself from the claim on his own oath, bringing with him at the same time into court eleven of his neighbors, to swear that they believed his denial to be true. This relic of a very ancient and general institution, which we find established not only among the Saxons and Normans, but among almost all the northern nations that broke in upon the Roman empire, continued to subsist among us even till the last reign, when it was at length abolished by 3 and 4 Will, IV. c. 42, s. 13: and as the wager of law used to expose plaintiffs in detinue to great disadvantage, it had the effect of throwing that action almost entirely out of use, and introducing in its stead the action of trover and conversion."

Stephens, Commentaries, volume 3, pages 442-443 (8th edition).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1834. Real Actions abolished.

"The statutes of 32 H. VIII., c. 2, and 21 Jac. I., c. 16 (so far as the latter applied to actions for the recovery of land) were superseded by 3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 27. The latter statute abolished the ancient real actions, made ejectment (with few exceptions) the sole remedy for the recovery of land, and, for the first time, limited directly the period within which an ejectment might be brought. It also changed the meaning of 'right of entry,' making it signify simply the right of an owner to the possession of land of which another person has the actual possession, whether the owner's estate is devested or not. In a word, it made a right of entry and a right to maintain ejectment synonymous terms, and provided that whenever the one ceased the other should cease also; i. e., it provided that whenever the statute began to run against the one right, it should begin to run against the other also, and that, when it had run twenty years without interruption, both rights should cease; and it also provided that the statute should begin to run against each right the moment that the right began to exist, i. e., the moment that the actual possession and the right of possession became separated. The statute, therefore, not only ignored the fact that ejectment (notwithstanding its origin) is in substance purely in rem (the damages recovered being only nominal), and assumed that it was, on the contrary, in substance purely in personam, i. e., founded upon tort, but it also assumed that every actual possession of land, without a right of possession, is a tort."

C. C. Langdell, Summary of Equity Pleading, pages 144-145.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1836. Exemption Laws.

"Our State legislatures commenced years ago to pass laws exempting from execution necessary household goods and personal apparel, the horses and implements of the farmer, the tools and instruments of the artisan, etc. Gradually the beneficent policy of such laws has been extended. In 1828, Mr. Benton warmly advocated in the Senate of the United States the policy of a national homestead law. The Republic of Texas passed the first Homestead Act, in 1836. It was the great gift of the infant Republic of Texas to the world. In 1849, Vermont followed; and this policy has since been adopted in all but eight States of the Union. By these laws a homestead (under various restrictions as to value) for the shelter and protection of the family is now exempt from execution or judicial sale for debt, unless both the husband and the wife shall expressly join in mortgaging it or otherwise expressly subjecting it to the claims of creditors."

J. F. Dillon, Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America, page 360.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1837. Employer's liability.

"No legal principle, with a growth of less than half a century, has become more firmly fixed in the common law of to-day, than the rule that an employer, if himself without fault, is not liable to an employee injured through the negligence of a fellow-employee engaged in the same general employment. This exception to the well known doctrine of 'respondeat superior,' although sometimes considered an old one, was before the courts for the first time in 1837, in the celebrated case of Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1, which it is said, has changed the current of decisions more radically than any other reported case. … The American law, though in harmony with the English, seems to have had an origin of its own. In 1841 Murray v. The South Carolina Railroad Company, 1 Mc. & M. 385, decided that a railroad company was not liable to one servant injured through the negligence of another servant in the same employ. Although this decision came a few years after Priestly v. Fowler, the latter case was cited by neither counsel nor court. It is probable, therefore, that the American Court arrived at its conclusion entirely independent of the earlier English case,—a fact often lost sight of by those who in criticising the rule, assert that it all sprang from an ill-considered opinion by Lord Abinger in Priestly v. Fowler. The leading American case, however, is Farwell v. Boston and Worcester Railroad Company, 4 Met. 49, which, following the South Carolina case, settled the rule in the United States. It has been followed in nearly every jurisdiction, both State and Federal."

Marland C. Hobbs, Statutory Changes in Employers Liability (Harvard Law Review, volume 2, pages 212-213).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1838. Arrests on Mesne Process for Debt abolished, and Debtor's Lands, for first time, taken in Satisfaction of Debt.

"The law of debtor and creditor, until a comparatively recent period, was a scandal to a civilized country. For the smallest claim, any man was liable to be arrested on mesne process, before legal proof of the debt. … Many of these arrests were wanton and vexatious; and writs were issued with a facility and looseness which paced the liberty of every man—suddenly and without notice—at the mercy of any one who claimed payment of a debt. A debtor, however honest and solvent, was liable to arrest. The demand might even be false and fraudulent: but the pretended creditor, on making oath of the debt, was armed with this terrible process of the law. The wretched defendant might lie in prison for several months before his cause was heard; when, even if the action was discontinued or the debt disproved, he could not obtain his discharge without further proceedings, often too costly for a poor debtor, already deprived of his livelihood by imprisonment. {1978} No longer even a debtor,—he could not shake off his bonds. … The total abolition of arrests on mesne process was frequently advocated, but it was not until 1888 that it was at length accomplished. Provision was made for securing absconding debtors; but the old process for the recovery of a debt in ordinary cases, which had wrought so many acts of oppression, was abolished. While this vindictive remedy was denied, the debtor's lands were, for the first time, allowed to be taken in satisfaction of a debt; and extended facilities were afterwards afforded for the recovery of small claims, by the establishment of county courts."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England (Widdleton's edition), volume 2, pages 267-268.

See, also, DEBT: LAWS CONCERNING.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1839-1848. Emancipation of Women.

"According to the old English theory, a woman was a chattel, all of whose property belonged to her husband. He could beat her as he might a beast of burden, and, provided he was not guilty of what would be cruelty to animals, the law gave no redress. In the emancipation of women Mississippi led off, in 1839, New York following with its Married Women's Act of 1848, which has been since so enlarged and extended, and so generally adopted by the other states, that, for all purposes of business, ownership of property, and claim to her individual earnings, a married woman is to-day, in America, as independent as a man."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, volume 1, page 71.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1842. One who takes Commercial Paper as Collateral is a Holder for Value.

"Take the subject of the transfer of such paper as collateral security for, or even in the payment of, a pre-existing indebtedness. We find some of the courts holding that one who takes such paper as collateral security for such a debt is a holder for value; others, that he is not, unless he extends the time for the payment of the secured debt or surrenders something of value, gives some new consideration; while still others hold that one so receiving such paper cannot be a holder for value; and some few hold that even receiving the note in payment and extinguishment of a pre-existing debt does not constitute one a holder for value. The question, as is known to all lawyers, was first presented to the Supreme Court of the United States in Swift vs. Tyson (16 Peters, 1). There, however, the note had been taken in payment of the debt. It was argued in that case that the highest court in New York had decided that one so taking a note was not a holder for value, and it was insisted in argument that the contract, being made in New York, was to be governed by its law; but the court, through Justice Story—Justice Catron alone dissenting—distinctly and emphatically repudiated the doctrine that the Federal court was to be governed on such questions 'by the decisions of the courts of the State where the contract was made, and held the holder a holder for value."

Henry C. Tompkins, 13 American Bar Association Report, page 255.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1845. Interest of Disseisee transferable.

"It was not until 1845 that by statute the interest of the disseisee of land became transferable. Similar statutes have been enacted in many of our States. In a few jurisdictions the same results have been obtained by judicial legislation. But in Alabama, Connecticut, Dakota, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Tennessee, and presumably in Maryland and New Jersey, it is still the law that the grantee of a disseisee cannot maintain an action in his own name for the recovery of the land."

J. B. Ames, The Disseisin of Chattels (Harvard Law Review, volume 3, page 25).

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1846. Ultra vires.

"When railway companies were first created with Parliamentary powers of a kind never before entrusted to similar bodies, it soon became necessary to determine whether, when once called into existence, they were to be held capable of exercising, as nearly as possible, all the powers of a natural person, unless expressly prohibited from doing so, or whether their acts must be strictly limited to the furtherance of the purpose for which they had been incorporated. The question was first raised in 1846, with reference to the right of a railway company to subsidise a harbour company, and Lord Langdale, in deciding against such a right, laid down the law in the following terms:—'Companies of this kind, possessing most extensive powers, have so recently been introduced into this country that neither the legislature nor the courts of law have yet been able to understand all the different lights in which their transactions ought properly to be viewed. … To look upon a railway company in the light of a common partnership, and as subject to no greater vigilance than common partnerships are, would, I think, be greatly to mistake the functions which they perform and the powers which they exercise of interference not only with the public but with the private rights of all individuals in this realm. … I am clearly of opinion that the powers which are given by an Act of Parliament, like that now in question, extend no further than is expressly stated in the Act, or is necessarily and properly required for carrying into effect the undertaking and works which the Act has expressly sanctioned.' [Citing Coleman v. Eastern Counties Rw. Co., 10 Beav., 18.] This view, though it has sometimes been criticised, seems now to be settled law. In a recent case in the House of Lords, the permission which the Legislature gives to the promoters of a company was paraphrased as follows:—'You may meet together and form yourselves into a company, but in doing that you must tell all who may be disposed to deal with you the objects for which you have been associated. Those who are dealing with you will trust to that memorandum of association, and they will see that you have the power of carrying on business in such a manner as it specifies. You must state the objects for which you are associated, so that the persons dealing with you will know that they are dealing with persons who can only devote their means to a given class of objects.' [Citing Riche v. Ashbury Carriage Co., L R., 7 E. & I., App. 684.] An act of a corporation in excess of its powers with reference to third persons is technically said to be ultra vires [perhaps first in South Yorkshire Rw. Co. v. Great Northern R. Co., 9 exch. 84 (1853)]; and is void even if unanimously agreed to by all the corporators. The same term is also, but less properly, applied to a resolution of a majority of the members of a corporation which being beyond the powers of the corporation will not bind a dissentient minority of its members."

_Thomas Erskine Holland, Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition, page 301. (Compare Article by Seymour D. Thompson in American Law Review, May-June, 1894)._

{1979}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848-1883. The New York Codes and their Adoption in other Communities.

"The 'New York Mail' gives the following information as to the extent to which our New York Codes have been adopted in other communities. In most instances the codes have been adopted substantially in detail, and in others in principle: 'The first New York Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, went into effect on the 1st of July, 1848. It was adopted in Missouri in 1849; in California in 1851; in Kentucky in 1851; in Ohio in 1853; in the four provinces of India between 1853 and 1856; in Iowa in 1855; in Wisconsin in 1856; in Kansas in 1859; in Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1862; in Idaho in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Minnesota in 1866; in Nebraska in 1866; in Arizona in 1866; in Arkansas in 1868; in North Carolina in 1868; in Wyoming in 1869; in Washington Territory in 1869; in South Carolina in 1870; in Utah in 1870; in Connecticut in 1879; in Indiana in 1881. In England and Ireland by the Judicature Act of 1873; this Judicature Act has been followed in many of the British Colonies; in the Consular Courts of Japan, in Shanghai, in Hong Kong and Singapore, between 1870 and 1874. The Code of Criminal Procedure, though not enacted in New York till 1881, was adopted in California in 1850; in India at the same time with the Code of Civil Procedure; in Kentucky in 1854; in Iowa in 1858; in Kansas in 1859; in Nevada in 1861; in Dakota in 1862; in Oregon in 1864; in Idaho in 1864; in Montana in 1864; in Washington Territory in 1869; in Wyoming in 1869; in Arkansas in 1874; in Utah in 1876; in Arizona in 1877; in Wisconsin in 1878; in Nebraska in 1881; in Indiana in 1881; in Minnesota in 1883. The Penal Code, though not enacted in New York until 1882, was adopted in Dakota in 1865 and in California in 1872. The Civil Code, not yet enacted in New York, though twice passed by the Legislature, was adopted in Dakota in 1866 and in California in 1872, and has been much used in the framing of substantive laws for India. The Political Code, reported for New York but not yet considered, was adopted in California in 1872. Thus it will be seen that the State of New York has given laws to the world to an extent and degree unknown since the Roman Codes followed Roman conquests.'"

The Albany Law Journal, volume 39, page 261.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848. Simplification of Procedure.

"In civil matters, the greatest reform of modern times has been the simplification of procedure in the courts, and the virtual amalgamation of law and equity. Here again America took the lead, through the adoption by New York, in 1848, of a Code of Practice, which has been followed by most of the other states of the Union, and in its main features has lately been taken up by England."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, volume 1, page 70.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1848. Reform in the Law of Evidence.

"The earliest act of this kind in this country was passed by the Legislature of Connecticut in 1848. It is very broad and sweeping in its provisions. It is in these words: 'No person shall be disqualified as a witness in any suit or proceeding at law, or in equity, by reason of his interest in the event of the same, as a party or otherwise, or by reason of his conviction of a crime; but such interest or conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credit.'

(Revised Statutes of Connecticut, 1849, page 86, section 141. In the margin of the page the time of the passage of the law is given as 1848.)

This act was drafted and its enactment secured by the Honorable Charles J. McCurdy, a distinguished lawyer and the Lieutenant-Governor of that State. A member of Judge McCurdy's family, having been present at the delivery of this lecture at New Haven in 1892, called my attention to the above fact, claiming, and justly, for this act the credit of leading in this country the way to such legislation. But he was mistaken in his claim that it preceded similar legislation in England, although its provisions are an improvement on the contemporary enactments of the like kind in that country."

John F. Dillon, Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America, page 374, notes.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1851. Bentham's Reforms in the Law of Evidence.

"In some respects his [Bentham's] 'Judicial Evidence,' … is the most important of all his censorial writings on English Law. In this work he exposed the absurdity and perniciousness of many of the established technical rules of evidence. … Among the rules combatted were those relating to the competency of witnesses and the exclusion of evidence on various grounds, including that of pecuniary interest. He insisted that these rules frequently caused the miscarriage of justice, and that in the interest of justice they ought to be swept away. His reasoning fairly embraces the doctrine that parties ought to be allowed and even required to testify. … But Bentham had set a few men thinking. He had scattered the seeds of truth. Though they fell on stony ground they did not all perish. But verily reform is a plant of slow growth in the sterile gardens of the practising and practical lawyer. Bentham lived till 1832, and these exclusionary rules still held sway. But in 1843, by Lord Denman's Act, interest in actions at common law ceased, as a rule, to disqualify; and in 1846 and 1851, by Lord Brougham's Acts, parties in civil actions were as a rule made competent and compellable to testify. I believe I speak the universal judgment of the profession when I say changes more beneficial in the administration of justice have rarely taken place in our law, and that it is a matter of profound amazement, as we look back upon it, that these exclusionary rules ever had a place therein, and especially that they were able to retain it until within the last fifty years."

J. F. Dillon, Laws and Jurisprudence of England and America, pages 339-341.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1852-1854. Reform in Procedure.

"A great procedure reform was effected by the Common Law Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854 as the result of their labours." The main object of the Acts was to secure that the actual merits of every case should be brought before the judges unobscured by accidental and artificial questions arising upon the pleadings, but they also did something to secure that complete adaptability of the common law courts for finally determining every action brought within them, which the Chancery Commissioners of 1850 had indicated as one of the aims of the reformers. Power was given to the common law courts to allow parties to be interrogated by their opponents, to order discovery of documents, to direct specific delivery of goods, to grant injunctions, and to hear interpleader actions, and equitable pleas were allowed to be urged in defence to common law actions."

D. M. Kerly, History of Equity, page 288.

{1980}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854. "Another mode" (besides common law lien).

"Another mode of creating a security is possible, by which not merely the ownership of the thing but its possession also remains with the debtor. This is called by the Roman lawyers and their modern followers 'hypotheca.' Hypothecs may arise by the direct application of a rule of law, by judicial decision, or by agreement. Those implied by law, generally described as 'tacit hypothecs,' are probably the earliest. They are first heard of in Roman law in connection with that right of a landlord over the goods of his tenant, which is still well known on the Continent and in Scotland under its old name, and which in England takes the form of a right of Distress. Similar rights were subsequently granted to wives, pupils, minors, and legatees, over the property of husbands, tutors, curators, and heirs, respectively. The action by which the praetor Servius first enabled a landlord to claim the goods of his defaulting tenant in order to realize his rent, even if they had passed into the hands of third parties, was soon extended so as to give similar rights to any creditor over property which its owner had agreed should be held liable for a debt. A real right was thus created by the mere consent of the parties, without any transfer of possession, which although opposed to the theory of Roman law, became firmly established as applicable both to immoveable and moveable property. Of the modern States which have adopted the law of hypothec, Spain perhaps stands alone in adopting it to the fullest extent. The rest have, as a rule, recognized it only in relation to immoveables. Thus the Dutch law holds to the maxim 'mobilia non habent sequelam,' and the French Code, following the 'coutumes' of Paris and Normandy, lays down that 'les meubles n'ont pas de suite par hypotheque.' But by the 'Code de Commerce,' ships, though moveables, are capable of hypothecation; and in England what is called a mortgage, but is essentially a hypothec, of ships is recognized and regulated by the 'Merchant Shipping Acts,' under which the mortgage must be recorded by the registrar of the port at which the ship itself is registered [17 and 18 Vic. c. 104]. So also in the old contract of 'bottomry,' the ship is made security for money lent to enable it to proceed upon its voyage."

T. E. Holland, Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition, p. 203.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1854-1882. Simplification of Titles and Transfers of Land in England.

"For the past fifty years the project of simplifying the titles and transfer of land has received great attention in England. In the year 1854 a royal commission was created to consider the subject. The report of this commission, made in 1857, was able and full so far as it discussed the principles of land transfer which had been developed to that date. It recommended a limited plan of registration of title. This report, and the report of the special commission of the House of Commons of 1879, have been the foundation of most of the subsequent British legislation upon the subject. Among the more prominent acts passed may be named Lord Westbury's Act of 1862, which attempted to establish indefeasible titles; Lord Cairns' Land Transfer Act of 1875, which provided for guaranteed titles upon preliminary examinations; the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act of 1881, which established the use of short forms of conveyances; and Lord Cairns' Settled Land Act of 1882."

Dwight H. Olmstead, 13 American Bar Association Report, page 267.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1855. Suits against a State or Nation.

"In England the old common law methods of getting redress from the Crown were by 'petition de droit' and 'monstrans le droit,' in the Court of Chancery or the Court of Exchequer, and in some cases by proceedings in Chancery against the Attorney-General. It has recently been provided by statute [23 & 24 Vic., c. 24] that a petition of right may be entitled in anyone of the superior Courts in which the subject-matter of the petition would have been cognisable, if the same had been a matter in dispute between subject and subject, and that it shall be left with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for her Majesty's consideration, who, if she shall think fit, may grant her fiat that right be done, whereupon an answer, plea, or demurrer shall be made on behalf of the Crown, and the subsequent proceedings be assimulated as far as practicable to the course of an ordinary action. It is also provided that costs shall be payable both to and by the Crown, subject to the same rules, so far as practicable, as obtain in proceedings between subject and subject."

T. E. Holland, Elements of Jurisprudence, 5th edition, page 337.

The United States Court of Claims was established in 1855. For State courts of claims see Note in 16 Abbott's New Cases 436 and authorities there referred to.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1858. The Contractual Theory of Marriage as affecting Divorce.

"The doctrine may be resolved into two propositions-(a) that a marriage celebrated abroad cannot be dissolved but by a Court of the foreign country; (b) that a marriage in England is indissoluble by a foreign Court. The first proposition has never been recognized in any decision in England. Even before the Act of 1858 it is extremely doubtful if the English Courts would have scrupled to decree a divorce â mensâ where the marriage was had in a foreign country, and certainly after the Statutes they did not hesitate to grant a divorce, though the marriage took place abroad (Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 1859, 1 Sw. & Tr. 217). It is true that in cases where the foreign Courts have dissolved a marriage celebrated in their own country between persons domiciled in that country, these sentences were regarded as valid here, and some credit was given to the fact of the marriage having been celebrated there (Ryan v. Ryan, 1816, 2 Phill. 332; Argent v. Argent, 1865, 4 Sw. & Tr. 52); but bow far it influenced the learned Judges does not appear; the main consideration being the circumstance of domicile. The second proposition has been generally supposed by writers both in England and America (Story, Wharton) to have been introduced by Lolley's Case, 1812, Ruse. & Ry. 237, and followed in Tovey v. Lindsay, 1813, 1 Dow. 117, and McCarthy v. De Caix, 1831, 2 Cl. & F. 568, and only to have been abandoned in 1858 (Dicey), or in 1868 in Shaw v. Gould. But the case of Harvey v. Farnie, 1880-1882, 5 P. D. 153; 6 P. D. 35, 8 App. C. 48, has now shown that the Contractual theory had no permanent hold whatever in this country, that it did not originate with Lolley's Case and was not adopted by Lord Eldon but that it arose from a mistaken conception of Lord Brougham as to the point decided in the famous Resolution, and was never seriously entertained by any other Judge in England, and we submit this is correct."

_E. H. Monnier, Law Magazine & Review, 12 ser., volume 17 (London, 1891-2), page 82._

{1981}

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1873. The Judicature Acts.

"The first Judicature Act was passed in 1873 under the auspices of Lord Selborne and Lord Cairns. It provided for the consolidation of all the existing superior Courts into one Supreme Court, consisting of two primary divisions, a High Court of Justice and a Court of Appeal. … Law and Equity, it was provided, were to be administered concurrently by every division of the Court, in all civil matters, the same relief being granted upon equitable claims or defences, … as would have previously been granted in the Court of Chancery; no proceeding in the Court was to be stayed by injunction analogous to the old common injunction but the power for any branch of the Court to stay proceedings before itself was of course to be retained; and the Court was to determine the entire controversy in every matter that came before it. By the 25th section of the Act rules upon certain of the points where differences between Law and Equity had existed, deciding in favour of the latter, were laid down, and it was enacted generally that in the case of conflict, the rules of Equity should prevail."

D. M. Kerly, History of Equity, page 293.

COMMON LAW: A. D. 1882. Experiments in Codification in England.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us