IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (part 5 of 8)

IV. Concerning the infallible teaching of the Roman Pontiff: (part 5 of 8)

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1).

SAULT STE. MARIE, The Jesuit mission at.

See CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

SAULTEUR, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: OJIBWAYS.

SAUMUR: Stormed by the Vendeans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE).

SAUROMATÆ, The.

See SCYTHIANS.

SAVAGE STATION, Battle of.

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

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1732. The founding of the city.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1775-1776. Activity of the Liberty Party.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1775-1777.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1778. Taken and occupied by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779 WAR CARRIED INTO THE SOUTH.

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1779. Unsuccessful attack by the French and Americans.

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

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1861. Threatened by the Union forces, in occupation of the islands at the mouth of the river.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA-GEORGIA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1862. Reduction of Fort Pulaski by the national forces, and sealing up of the port.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: GEORGIA-FLORIDA).

SAVANNAH: A. D. 1864. Confederate evacuation. Sherman in possession.

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

SAVANNAHS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SAVENAY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER) THE CIVIL WAR.

SAVERNE: Taken by Duke Bernhard (1636).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SAVERY, Thomas, and the Steam Engine.

See STEAM ENGINE.

SAVONA, The Pope at.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

SAVONAROLA, in Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: The founding of the Burgundian kingdom in Savoy.

See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11th Century. The founders of the House of Savoy.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11-15th Centuries. Rise and growth of the dominions of the Savoyard princes, in Italy and the Burgundian territory. Creation of the duchy. Assumption of the title of Princes of Piedmont.

"The cradle of the Savoyard power lay in the Burgundian lands immediately bordering upon Italy and stretching on both sides of the Alps. It was to their geographical position, as holding several great mountain passes, that the Savoyard princes owed their first importance, succeeding therein in some measure to the Burgundian kings themselves. The early stages of the growth of the house are very obscure; and its power does not seem to have formed itself till after the union of Burgundy with the Empire. But it seems plain that, at the end of the 11th century, the Counts of Maurienne, which was their earliest title, held rights of sovereignty in the Burgundian districts of Maurienne, Savoy strictly so called, Tarantaise, and Aosta. … The early Savoyard possessions reached to the Lake of Geneva, and spread on both sides of the inland mouth of the Rhone. The power of the Savoyard princes in this region was largely due to their ecclesiastical position as advocates of the abbey of Saint Maurice. Thus their possessions had a most irregular outline, nearly surrounding the lands of Genevois and Faucigny. A state of this shape, like Prussia in a later age and on a greater scale, was, as it were, predestined to make further advances. But for some centuries those advances were made much more largely in Burgundy than in Italy. The original Italian possessions of the House bordered on their Burgundian counties of Maurienne and Aosta, taking in Susa and Turin. This small marchland gave its princes the sounding title of Marquesses in Italy. … In the 12th and 13th centuries, the princes of Savoy were still hemmed in, in their own corner of Italy, by princes of equal or greater power, at Montferrat, at Saluzzo, at Iverea, and at Biandrate. And it must be remembered that their position as princes at once Burgundian and Italian was not peculiar to them. … The Italian dominions of the family remained for a long while quite secondary to its Burgundian possessions. … The main object of Savoyard policy in this region was necessarily the acquisition of the lands of Faucigny and the Genevois. But the final incorporation of those lands did not take place till they were still more completely hemmed in by the Savoyard dominions through the extension of the Savoyard power to the north of the Lake. This began early in the 13th century [1207] by a royal grant of Moudon to Count Thomas of Savoy. Romont was next won, and became the centre of the Savoyard power north of the Lake. Soon after, through the conquests of Peter of Savoy [1263-1268], who was known as the Little Charlemagne and who plays a part in English as well as in Burgundian history, these possessions grew into a large dominion, stretching along a great part of the shores of the Lake of Neufchâtel and reaching as far north as Murten or Morat. … This new dominion north of the Lake was, after Peter's reign, held for a short time by a separate branch of the Savoyard princes as Barons of Vaud; but in the middle of the 14th century, their barony came into the direct possession of the elder branch of the house. The lands of Faucigny and the Genevois were thus altogether surrounded by the Savoyard territory. Faucigny had passed to the Dauphins of the Viennois, who were the constant rivals of the Savoyard counts, down to the time of the practical transfer of their dauphiny to France. Soon after that annexation, Savoy obtained Faucigny, with Gex and some other districts beyond the Rhone, in exchange for some small Savoyard possessions within the dauphiny. {2807} The long struggle for the Genevois, the county of Geneva, was ended by its purchase in the beginning of the 15th century [1401]. This left the city of Geneva altogether surrounded by Savoyard territory, a position which before long altogether changed the relations between the Savoyard counts and the city. Hitherto, in the endless struggles between the Genevese counts, bishops, and citizens, the Savoyard counts … had often been looked on by the citizens as friends and protectors. Now that they had become immediate neighbours of the city, they began before long to be its most dangerous enemies. The acquisition of the Genevois took place in the reign of the famous Amadeus, the Eighth, the first Duke of Savoy, who received that rank by grant of King Siegmund [1417], and who was afterwards the Anti-pope Felix.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.

In his reign the dominions of Savoy, as a power ruling on both sides of the Alps, reached their greatest extent. But the Savoyard power was still pre-eminently Burgundian, and Chambery was its capital. The continuous Burgundian dominion of the house now reached from the Alps to the Saône, surrounding the lake of Geneva and spreading on both sides of the lake of Neufchâtel. Besides this continuous Burgundian dominion, the House of Savoy had already become possessed [1388] of Nizza, by which their dominions reached to the sea. … After the 15th century, the Burgundian history of that house consists of the steps spread over more than 300 years by which this great dominion was lost. The real importance of the house of Savoy in Italy dates from much the same time as the great extension of its power in Burgundy. … During the 14th century, among many struggles with the Marquesses of Montferrat and Saluzzo, the Angevin counts of Provence, and the lords of Milan, the Savoyard power in Italy generally increased. … Before the end of the reign of Amadeus [the Eighth—1391-1451], the dominions of Savoy stretched as far as the Sesia, taking in Biella, Santhia and VerceIli. Counting Nizza and Aosta as Italian, which they now practically were, the Italian dominions of the House reached from the Alps of Wallis to the sea. But they were nearly cut in two by the dominions of the Marquesses of Montferrat, from whom however the Dukes of Savoy now claimed homage. … Amadeus, the first Duke of Savoy, took the title of Count of Piedmont, and afterwards that of Prince. His possessions were now fairly established as a middle state, Italian and Burgundian, in nearly equal proportions."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 8, section 7.

ALSO IN: A. Gallenga, History of Piedmont, volume 1, chapters 6-9, volume 2, chapters 1-6.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1452-1454. Alliance with Venice and Naples. War with Milan and Florence.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1504-1535. Struggles with the independent burghers of Geneva. Loss of the Vidommate.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1504-1535.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1536-1544. Conquest by the French and restoration to the Duke by the Treaty of Crespy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1559-1580. End of the French occupation. Recovery of his dominions by Emanuel Philibert. His reconstruction of the state. Treaties with the Swiss. War with the Waldenses. Tolerant Treaty of Cavour. Settlement of government at Turin.

"The history of Piedmont begins where the history of Italy terminates. At the Peace of Chateau-Cambresis], in 1559, Piedmont was born again.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

Under Amadeus VIII. Savoy bade fair to become a State of the very first order. In the course of a century it had sunk to a third-rate power. … Piedmont, utterly prostrated by five-and-twenty years of foreign occupation, laid waste by the trampling of all the armies of Europe, required now the work of a constructive genius, and Emanuel Philibert was providentially fitted for the task. No man could better afford to be pacific than the conqueror of St. Quintin. …

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

After the battle of St. Quintin, Emanuel Philibert had France at his discretion. Had his counsels been instantly followed, the Spanish army would have dictated its own terms before or within the walls of Paris. … The reconciliation of France with the hero who had alarmed and humbled her seemed, nevertheless, to be sincere." Under the terms of the treaty, the Duke of Savoy's dominions, occupied by the French, were to be restored to him, except that Turin, Chieri, Chivasso, Pinerolo, and Villanova d' Asti, with part of their territories, "were to be occupied for three years, or until the settlement of the differences between the two Courts, chiefly with regard to the dowry of Louisa of Savoy, mother of Francis I., the original cause of dispute. … So long as France insisted on keeping the five above-mentioned places, Spain was also empowered to retain Asti and Vercelli." Philip II., however, gave up VerceIli and "contented himself with the occupation of Asti and Santia." The differences with France proved hard of settlement, and it was not until 1574 that "Emanuel Philibert found himself in possession of all his Subalpine dominions. No words can describe the meanness and arrogance by which the French aggravated this prolonged usurpation of their neighbour's territories. … Had Emanuel Philibert put himself at the head of one of [the factions which fought in France at this time] … he might have paid back … the indignities he had had to endure; but his mission was the restoration of his own State, not the subjugation of his neighbour's. … The same moderation and longanimity which enabled Emanuel Philibert to avoid a collision with France, because be deemed it unreasonable, equally distinguished him in his relations with his neighbours of Italy. There was now, alas! no Italy; the country had fallen a prey to the Spanish branch of the House of Austria, and the very existence of Mantua, Parma, Tuscany, etc., was at the mercy of Philip II. … This 'most able and most honest of all the princes of his line' was fully aware of the importance of his position as the 'bulwark of Italy,' and felt that on his existence hung the fate of such states in the Peninsula as still aspired to independence. 'I know full well,' he said in a moment of cordial expansion, 'that these foreigners are all bent on the utter destruction of Italy, and that I may be the first immolated; but my fall can be indifferent to no Italian state, and least of all to Venice.' Full of these thoughts, he was unwearied in his endeavours to secure the friendship of that republic. … The same instinctive dread of the crushing ascendancy of Spain and France, which made Emanuel Philibert cling to the Venetian alliance, equally urged him to settle, no matter at what cost, the differences with the other old allies of his house—the Swiss. The Pays de Vaud, Gex, Chablais, and Lower Valais were still in the power of the confederates.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

{2808}

It was not without a murmur that the Duke of Savoy could part with so fair a portion of his forefathers' inheritance; but it was not long ere he learnt to resign all hope of its recovery. A new generation had sprung up in those provinces, amongst whom all loyalty to Savoy had died off. The Bernese had introduced the Reformation into the conquered lands. … Political freedom went hand in hand with religious innovation. … Geneva was the very head-quarters of reform; it was proud of the appellation of the 'Rome of Calvinism.' … Emanuel Philibert, ill-supported by Spain and thwarted by France, laid aside all ideas of an appeal to force, and trusted his cause to negotiation. There was happily division in the enemy's camp; religious difference had set the old forest cantons into opposition with Berne and her Protestant associates. The Duke of Savoy made a treaty at Lucerne (November 11, 1560) with Schwytz, Uri, Unterwald, Zug, Lucerne, Soleure, and even Zurich; and these promised their good offices with their Protestant brethren in behalf of Savoy. Lengthy and somewhat stormy conferences ensued, the result of which was the treaty of Lausanne (October 30, 1564); by the terms of which Berne retained Vaud, and Friburg Romont, and Savoy only recovered Gex and Chablais. At a later period (March 4th, 1569) Valais also came to terms at Thonon; it gave up its own share of Chablais, but remained in possession of Lower Valais. By the recovery of Gex and Chablais Savoy now encompassed Geneva on all sides, and caused that town incessant uneasiness; but the Duke … was … earnestly bent on peace, and he reassured the Genevese by new treaties, signed at Berne (May 5th, 1570), by which he engaged to give no molestation to Geneva. These same treaties bound Savoy to allow freedom of conscience and worship to those of her subjects who had embraced Protestantism during the Swiss occupation; and we hear, in fact, of no persecutions in the provinces round the Leman in Emanuel Philibert's lifetime; but it is important to inquire how that Prince dealt in these matters with his subjects in general. … We hear from several authorities that 'the Piedmontese were more than half Protestants.' The Waldensian ministers reckoned their sectaries at the foot of the Alps at 800,000. … The Waldenses considered the prevalence of the new tenets as their own triumph. From 1526 to 1530 they entered into communication with the Reformers, and modified their own creed and worship in accordance with the new ideas, identifying themselves especially with the disciples of Calvin. … Their valleys became a refuge for all persecuted sectaries, amongst whom there were turbulent spirits, who stirred up those simple and loyal mountaineers to mutiny and revolt. Although they thus called down upon themselves the enmity of all the foes to Protestantism, these valleys continued nevertheless to be looked upon as a privileged district, and their brethren of other provinces found there a safe haven from the storms which drove them from their homes." In 1559, the Duke issued his edict of Nice, "intended not so much to suppress heresy as to repress it." The Waldenses "assumed a mutinous attitude," and "applied for succour to the Huguenot chiefs of the French provinces." Then the Duke sent 4,000 foot and 200 horse into the valleys, under the Count de la Trinita, and a fierce and sanguinary war ensued. "Its horrors were aggravated by foreign combatants, as the ranks of La Trinita were swelled by both French and Spanish marauders; and the Huguenots of France, and even some Protestant volunteers from Germany, fought with the Waldenses. … But it was not for the interest of the Duke of Savoy that his subjects should thus tear each other to pieces. After repeated checks La Trinita met with, … a covenant was signed at Cavour on the 5th of June, 1561. The Waldenses were allowed full amnesty and the free exercise of their worship within their own territory. … Within those same boundaries they consented to the erection of Catholic churches, and bound themselves to a reciprocal toleration of Roman rites. … The Treaty of Cavour satisfied neither party. It exposed the Duke to the loud reprimands of Rome, France and Spain, no less than to the bitter invectives of all his clergy …; and, on the other hand the Waldenses … again and again placed themselves in opposition to the authorities deputed to rule over them. … In his leniency towards the sectaries of the valleys, Emanuel Philibert was actuated by other motives besides the promptings of a naturally generous soul. … His great schemes for the regeneration of the country could only find their development in a few years of profound peace. … Whatever may be thought of the discontent to which his heavy taxes gave rise among the people, or his stern manners among the nobles, it is a beautiful consoling fact that the establishment of despotism in Piedmont did not cost a single drop of blood, that the prince subdued and disciplined his people by no other means than the firmness of his iron will. … The great work for which Piedmont will be eternally indebted to the memory of this great prince was the nationalization of the State. He established the seat of government at Turin, recalled to that city the senate which had been first convoked at Carignano, and the university which had been provisionally opened at Mondovi. Turin, whose bishop had been raised to metropolitan honours in 1515, had enjoyed comparative security under the French, who never lost possession of it from 1536 to 1562. It dates its real greatness and importance from Emanuel Philibert's reign, when the population … rose to 17,000 souls. … It was not without great bitterness that the transalpine provinces of Savoy submitted to the change, and saw the dignity and ascendancy of a sovereign state depart from them." Emanuel Philibert died in 1580, and was succeeded by his son, Charles Emanuel.

A. Gallenga, History of Piedmont, volume 3, chapter 1.

{2809}

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713. Vicissitudes of a century and a quarter. Profitable infidelities in war. The Duke wins Sicily and the title of King.

Emanuel Philibert, by his "well-timed policy of peace, … was enabled to leave his duchy immensely strengthened to his son Charles Emanuel (1580-1630). The new duke was much more active in his policy. His marriage with a daughter of Philip II. bound him to the side of Spain and he supported the cause of the League in France. With the help of the Catholic party he seized the vacant marquisate of Saluzzo, and thus involved himself in a long quarrel with Henry IV. In 1601 the pence of Lyons confirmed the duke in the possession of Saluzzo, in exchange for which he ceded Bresse on the Rhone frontier to Henry. All attempts made to recover Geneva for Savoy proved unsuccessful. Before his death the restless Charles Emanuel brought forward another claim to the marquisate of Montferrat. This had been held since 1533 by the dukes of Mantua, whose male line became extinct in 1627. The duke did not live to see the settlement of the Mantuan succession, but his son, Victor Amadeus I., obtained great part of Montferrat by the treaty of Cherasco (1631). Richelieu had now acquired Pinerolo and Casale for France and this effected a complete change in the policy of Savoy. Victor Amadeus was married to Christine, a daughter of Henry IV., and he and his successor remained till nearly the end of the century as faithful to France as his predecessors had been to Spain. Charles Emanuel II., who succeeded as a minor on the early death of his father, was at first under the guardianship of his mother, and when he came of age remained in the closest alliance with Louis XIV. His great object was to secure the Italian position which Savoy had assumed, by the acquisition of Genoa. But the maritime republic made a successful resistance both to open attack and to treacherous plots. Victor Amadeus II., who became duke in 1675, was married to a daughter of Philip of Orleans. But Louis XIV. had begun to treat Savoy less as an ally than as a dependency, and the duke, weary of French domination, broke off the old connexion, and in 1690 joined the League of Augsburg against Louis. His defection was well-timed and successful, for the treaty of Ryswick (1697) gave him the great fortresses of Pinerolo and Casale, which had so long dominated his duchy. In the war of the Spanish succession he first supported Louis and afterwards turned against him. His faithlessness was rewarded in the peace of Utrecht [1713] with the island of Sicily and the title of king. Within a few years, however, he was compelled to exchange Sicily for Sardinia."

R. Lodge, History of Modern Europe, chapter 12, section 9.

See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713, and UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1592. French invasion of the Vaudois.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1597-1598. Invasion by the French. Peace with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1600. French invasion. Cession of territory to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1610.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1602-1603. Abortive attempt upon Geneva. Treaty of St. Julien with that city.

See GENEVA: A. D. 1602-1603.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1620-1626. The Valtelline War. Alliance with France. Unsuccessful attempt against Genoa.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1627-1631. War over the succession to the duchy of Mantua. French invasion. Extension of territory.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635. Alliance with France against Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1630.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1635-1659. Alliance with France against Spain. Civil war and foreign war.- Sieges of Turin. Territory restored.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1655. Second persecution of the Waldenses.

See WALDENSES: A. D. 1655.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690. Joins the Grand Alliance against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1690-1691. Overrun by the armies of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1691.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1691. Toleration granted to the Vaudois.

See WALDENSES: A. D. 1691.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1693. French victory at Marsaglia.

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

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1695-1696. Desertion of the Grand Alliance by the Duke. Treaty with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1713. Acquisition of Sicily from Spain.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1717-1719. Sicily exchanged by the Duke for Sardinia, with the title of King.

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

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1792. Savoy annexed to the French Republic.

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

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1796. Savoy ceded by Sardinia to France.

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

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1798. Piedmont taken by the French. Its sovereignty relinquished by the King of Sardinia.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1815. Cession of a part of Savoy to France.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1860. Final cession of Savoy to France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

----------SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: End--------

SAVOY CONFERENCE, The.

See ENGLAND: A: D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).

SAWÂD, THE.

"The name Sawâd is given by the Arab writers to the whole fertile tract between the Euphrates and the Desert, from Hit to the Persian Gulf."

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 26, foot-note.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

SAXA RUBRA, Battle of (A. D. 312).

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

SAXE-COBURG, SAXE-GOTHA, SAXE-WEIMAR, etc.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553; and WEIMAR.

SAXON HEPTARCHY.

See ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

SAXON SHORE, Count of the (Comes Littoris Saxonici).

The title of the Roman officer who had military command of the coast of Britain, between the Wash and the Isle of Wight, which was most exposed to the ravages of the Saxons.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

----------SAXONS: Start--------

SAXONS, The.

"In the reign of Caracalla [A. D. 212-217] Rome first heard of the Goths and Alemanni; a little more than half a century later the Franks appear; and about the same time the Saxons, who had been named and placed geographically by Ptolemy [A. D. 130-160], make their first mark in history. They are found employed in naval and piratical expeditions on the coasts of Gaul in A. D. 287. Whatever degree of antiquity we may be inclined to ascribe to the names of these nations, and there is no need to put a precise limit to it, it can scarcely be supposed that they sprang from insignificance and obscurity to strength and power in a moment. {2810} It is far more probable that under the names of Frank and Saxon in the fourth century had been sunk the many better known earlier names of tribes who occupied the same seats. … The Cherusci, the Marsi, the Dulgibini and the Chauci may have been comprehended under the name of Saxons. … Whilst the nations on the Lower Rhine were all becoming Franks, those between the Rhine and the Oder were becoming Saxons; the name implied as yet no common organisation, at the most only an occasional combination for attack or defence."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"The hypothesis respecting the Saxons is as follows: The name Saxon was to the Kelts of Britain what German was to those of Gaul. Or, if not, what Suevi was—a name somewhat more specific. It probably applied to the Germans of the sea-coast, and the water-systems of the Lower Rhine, Weser, Lower Elbe, and Eyder; to Low Germans on the Rhine, to Frisians and Saxons on the Elbe, and to North Frisians on the Eyder. All the Angles were Saxons, but all the Saxons were not Angles. The reasoning in favour of this view is as follows:—That Saxon was a Britannic term is undenied. The Welsh and Gaels call us Saxons at the present moment. The Romans would take their name for certain Germans as they found it with the Britons. The Britons and Romans using the same name would be as two to one in favour of the Keltic name taking ground. It would be Roman and Keltic against a German name single-handed. The only question is whether the name Saxon was exclusively Britannic (Keltic), i. e., not German also. … I think, upon the whole, that Saxon was a word like 'Greek,' i. e., a term which, in the language of the Hellenes, was so very special, partial, and unimportant, as to have been practically a foreign term, or, at least, anything but a native name; whilst in that of the Romans it was one of general and widely extended import. Hence, mutatis mutandis, it is the insignificant Saxones of the neck of the Cimbric Chersonese, and the three Saxon islands, first mentioned by Ptolemy, who are the analogues of the equally unimportant Græci of Epirus; and these it was whose name eventually comprised populations as different as the Angles, and the Saxons of Saxony, even as the name Græcus in the mouth of a Roman comprised Dorians, Æolians, Macedonians, Athenians, Rhodians, &c. In this way the name was German; but its extended import was Keltic and Roman."

R. G. Latham, The Germany of Tacitus: Epilegomena, section 48.

See, also, GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAMES; and ANGLES AND JUTES.

SAXONS: The sea-rovers of the 5th century.

"At the end of a long letter, written by Sidonius [Apolinaris, Bishop, at Clermont, in Auvergne, A. D. 471-488] to his friend Nammatius [an officer of the Channel fleet of the Romans, then chiefly occupied in watching and warding off the Saxon pirates], after dull compliments and duller banter, we suddenly find flashed upon us this life-like picture, by a contemporary hand, of the brothers and cousins of the men, if not of the very men themselves who had fought at Aylesford under Hengest and Horsa, or who were slowly winning the kingdom of the South Saxons: 'Behold, when I was on the point of concluding this epistle in which I have already chattered on too long, a messenger has suddenly arrived from Saintonge with whom I have spent some hours in conversing about you and your doings, and who constantly affirms that you have just sounded your trumpet on board the fleet, and that with the duties of a sailor and a soldier combined you are roaming along the winding shores of the Ocean, looking out for the curved pinnaces of the Saxons. When you see the rowers of that nation you may at once make up your mind that everyone of them is an arch-pirate, with such wonderful unanimity do all at once command, obey, teach, and learn their one chosen business of brigandage. For this reason I ought to warn you to be more than ever on your guard in this warfare. Your enemy is the most truculent of all enemies. Unexpectedly he attacks, when expected he escapes, he despises those who seek to block his path, he overthrows those who are off their guard, he always succeeds in cutting off the enemy whom he follows, while he never fails when he desires to effect his own escape. Moreover, to these men a shipwreck is capital practice rather than an object of terror. The dangers of the deep are to them, not casual acquaintances, but intimate friends. For since a tempest throws the invaded off their guard, and prevents the invaders from being descried from afar, they hail with joy the crash of waves on the rocks, which gives them their best chance of escaping from other enemies than the elements. Then again, before they raise the deep-biting anchor from the hostile soil, and set sail from the Continent for their own country, their custom is to collect the crowd of their prisoners together, by a mockery of equity to make them cast lots which of them shall undergo the iniquitous sentence of death, and then at the moment of departure to slay every tenth man so selected by crucifixion, a practice which is the more lamentable because it arises from a superstitious notion that they will thus ensure for themselves a safe return. Purifying themselves as they consider by such sacrifices, polluting themselves as we deem by such deeds of sacrilege, they think the foul murders they thus commit are acts of worship to their gods, and they glory in extorting cries of agony instead of ransoms from these doomed victims.'"

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 3, chapter 3.

SAXONS: A. D. 451. At the Battle of Chalons.

In the allied army of Romans and barbarians which count Aetius brought together to encounter the Hun, Attila, on the great and terrible battlefield of Chalons, July, 451, there is mention of the "Saxones." "How came our fathers thither; they, whose homes were in the long sandy levels of Holstein? As has been already pointed out, the national migration of the Angles and Saxons to our own island had already commenced, perhaps in part determined by the impulse northward of Attila's own subjects. Possibly, like the Northmen, their successors, the Saxons may have invaded both sides of the English Channel at once, and may on this occasion have been standing in arms to defend against their old foe some newly-won possessions in Normandy or Picardy."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3.

SAXONS: A. D. 477-527. Conquests in Britain.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

SAXONS: A. D. 528-729. Struggles against the Frank dominion, before Charlemagne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

{2811}

SAXONS: A. D. 772-804. Conquest by Charlemagne.

"In the time of Charlemagne, the possessions of this great league [the Saxons] were very extensive, stretching, at one point, from the banks of the Rhine nearly to the Oder, and on the other hand, from the North Sea to the confines of Hesse and Thuringia. Warlike in their habits, vigorous in body, active and impatient in mind, their geographical situation, operating together with their state of barbarism, rendered them pirates, extending the predatory excursions, common to all the northern tribes, to the sea as well as to the land. … They held, from an early period, greater part of the islands scattered round the mouths of the German rivers; and, soon beginning to extend their dominion, they captured, at different times, all those on the coast of France and in the British sea. Not contented, however, with this peculiar and more appropriate mode of warfare, the Saxons who remained on land, while their fellow-countrymen were sweeping the ocean, constantly turned their arms against the adjacent continental countries, especially after the conquest of Britain had, in a manner, separated their people, and satisfied to the utmost their maritime cupidity in that direction. Surpassing all nations, except the early Huns, in fierceness, idolaters of the most bloody rites, insatiable of plunder, and persevering in the purpose of rapine to a degree which no other nation ever knew, they were the pest and scourge of the north. Happily for Europe, their government consisted of a multitude of chiefs, and their society of a multitude of independent tribes, linked together by some bond that we do not at present know, but which was not strong enough to produce unity and continuity of design. Thus they had proceeded from age to age, accomplishing great things by desultory and individual efforts; but up to the time of Charlemagne, no vast and comprehensive mind, like that of Attila, had arisen amongst them, to combine all the tribes under the sway of one monarch, and to direct all their energies to one great object. It was for neighbouring kings, however, to remember that such a chief might every day appear. … Such was the state of the Saxons at the reunion of the French [or Frank] monarchy under Charlemagne; and it would seem that the first step he proposed to himself, as an opening to all his great designs, was completely to subdue a people which every day ravaged his frontier provinces, and continually threatened the very existence of the nations around."

G. P. R. James, History of Charlemagne, book 3.

For generations before Charlemagne—from the period, in fact, of the sons of Clovis, early in the sixth century—the Frank kings had claimed supremacy over the Saxons and counted them among the tributaries of their Austrasian or German monarchy. Repeatedly, too, the Saxons had been forced to submit themselves and acknowledge the yoke, in terms, while they repudiated it in fact. When Charlemagne took in hand the conquest of this stubborn and barbarous people, he seems to have found the task as arduous as though nothing had been done in it before him. His first expedition into their country was undertaken in 772, when he advanced with fire and sword from the Rhine at Mayence to the Diemel in the Hessian country. It was on this occasion that he destroyed, near the head-waters of the Lippe, the famous national idol and fane of the Saxons called the Irminsul or Herminsaule supposed to be connected with the memory of Hermann, the Cheruscan patriot chief who destroyed the Roman legions of Varus. The campaign resulted in the submission of the Saxons, with a surrender of hostages to guarantee it. But in 774 they were again in arms, and the next summer Charlemagne swept their country to beyond the Weser with the besom of destruction. Once more they yielded and gave hostages, who were taken to Frank monasteries and made Christians of. But the peace did not last a twelvemonth, and there was another great campaign in 776, which so terrified the turbulent heathen that they accepted baptism in large numbers, and a wholesale conversion took place at Paderborn in May, 777. But a chief had risen at last among the Saxons who could unite them, and who would not kneel to Charlemagne nor bow his head to the waters of baptism. This was Wittekind, a Westphalian, brother-in-law of the king of the Danes and friend of the Frisian king, Ratbod. While Charlemagne was in Spain, in 778, Wittekind roused his countrymen to a rising which cleared their land of crosses, churches, priests and Frank castles at one sweep. From that time until 785 there were campaigns every year, with terrible carnage and destruction in the Saxon country and industrious baptising of the submissive. At Badenfield, at Bockholz, near Zutphen, and at Detmold, there were fierce battles in which the Saxons suffered most; but; at Sonnethal, on the Weser (the Dachtelfield), in 782, the Franks were fearfully beaten and slaughtered. Charlemagne took a barbarous vengeance for this reverse by beheading no less than 4,500 Saxon prisoners at Verden, on the Aller. Three years later, the country of the Saxons having been made, for the most part, a famine-smitten desert, they gave up the struggle. Even Wittekind accepted Christianity, became a monk—a missionary—a canonized saint— and disappeared otherwise from history. According to legend, the blood of more than 200,000 Saxons had "changed the very color of the soil, and the brown clay of the Saxon period gave way to the red earth of Westphalia." For seven years the Saxons were submissive and fought in Charlemagne's armies against other foes. Then there was a last despairing attempt to break the conqueror's yoke, and another long war of twelve years' duration. It ended in the practical annihilation of the Saxons as a distinct people in Germany. Many thousands of them were transplanted to other regions in Gaul and elsewhere; others escaped to Denmark and were absorbed into the great rising naval and military power of the Northmen. The survivors on their own soil were stripped of their possessions. "The Saxon war was conducted with almost unparalleled ferocity."

J. I. Mombert, History of' Charles the Great, book 2, chapters 3-4.

ALSO IN: P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, chapters 16-17.

----------SAXONS: End--------

{2812}

SAXONS OF BAYEUX.

"The district of Bayeux, occupied by a Saxon colony in the latest days of the old Roman Empire, occupied again by a Scandinavian colony as the result of its conquest by Rolf [or Rollo, the Northman], has retained to this day a character which distinguishes it from every other Romance-speaking portion of the Continent. The Saxons of Bayeux preserved their name and their distinct existence under the Frankish dominion; we can hardly doubt that the Scandinavian settlers found some parts at least of the district still Teutonic, and that nearness of blood and speech exercised over them the same influence which the same causes exercised over the Scandinavian settlers in England. Danes and Saxons coalesced into one Teutonic people, and they retained their Teutonic language and character long after Rouen had become, in speech at least, no less French than Paris. With their old Teutonic speech, the second body of settlers seem to have largely retained their old Teutonic religion, and we shall presently find Bayeux the centre of a heathen and Danish party in the Duchy, in opposition to Rouen, the centre of the new speech and the new creed. The blood of the inhabitants of the Bessin must be composed of nearly the same elements, mingled in nearly the same proportions, as the blood of the inhabitants of the Danish districts of England."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 4.

----------SAXONY: Start--------

SAXONY: The old Duchy.

"The great duchy of Saxony [as it existed under the Carolingian empire and after the separation of Germany from France] consisted of three main divisions, Westfalia, Engern or Angria, and Eastfalia. Thuringia to the south-east, and the Frisian lands to the north-west, may be looked on as in some sort appendages to the Saxon duchy. The duchy was also capable of any amount of extension towards the east, and the lands gradually won from the Wends on this side were all looked on as additions made to the Saxon territory. But the great Saxon duchy was broken up at the fall of Henry the Lion [A. D. 1191]. The archiepiscopal Electors of Köln received the title of Dukes of Westfalia and Engern. But in the greater part of those districts the grant remained merely nominal, though the ducal title, with a small actual Westfalian duchy, remained to the electorate till the end. From these lands the Saxon name may be looked on as having altogether passed away. The name of Saxony, as a geographical expression, clave to the Eastfalian remnant of the old duchy, and to Thuringia and the Slavonic conquests to the east. In the later division of Germany these lands formed the two circles of Upper and Lower Saxony; and it was within their limits that the various states arose which have kept on the Saxon name to our own time. From the descendants of Henry the Lion himself, and from the allodial lands which they kept, the Saxon name passed away, except so far as they became part of the Lower-Saxon circle. They held their place as princes of the Empire, no longer as Dukes of Saxony, but as Dukes of Brunswick, a house which gave Rome one Emperor and England a dynasty of kings. After some of the usual divisions, two Brunswick principalities finally took their place on the map, those of Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel, the latter having the town of Brunswick for its capital. The Lüneburg duchy grew. Late in the seventeenth century it was raised to the electoral rank, and early in the next century it was finally enlarged by the acquisition of the bishoprics of Bremen and Verden. Thus was formed the Electorate, and afterwards Kingdom, of Hannover, while the simple ducal title remained with the Brunswick princes of the other line."

E. A. Freeman, History Geography of Europe, chapter 8, section 1.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

SAXONY: A. D. 911-1024. The Imperial House.

See GERMANY: A. D. 911-936; 936-973; and 973-1122.

SAXONY: A. D. 1073-1075. Revolt against Henry IV.

The Saxons were still unreconciled to the transfer of the imperial dignity from their own ducal family to the House of Franconia, when the third of the Franconian emperors, Henry IV., came to the throne while still a boy. His long minority encouraged them to a habit of independent feeling, while his rash and injudicious measures when he grew to manhood provoked their raging enmity. They were still a turbulent, wild people, and he undertook to force the yoke of the empire on their necks, by means of garrisoned fortresses and castles, distributed through their land. The garrisons were insolent, the people were not meek, and in 1073 a furious revolt broke out. "'All Saxony,' says a chronicler, 'revolted, as one man, from the king,' and marched, 80,000 strong, to the Hartzburg, a stately citadel near Goslar, which the king had built for a residence upon a commanding height. After useless negotiations, Henry made a narrow escape by flight. When he then summoned his princes around him, no one came; and here and there it began to be said that he must be entirely abandoned and another monarch chosen. In this extremity, the cities alone remained faithful to the emperor, who for some time lay sick almost to death in his loyal city of Worms." Henry's energy, and the great abilities which he possessed, enabled him to recover his command of resources and to bring a strong army into the field against the Saxons, in the early summer of 1075. They offered submission and he might have restored peace to his country in an honorable way; but his headstrong passions demanded revenge. "After a march of extraordinary rapidity, he fell suddenly upon the Saxons and their allies, the Thuringians, on the meadows of the Unstrutt, at Langensalza, near Hohenburg. His army drawn up in an order resembling that which Otto the Great had formed on the Lech [against the Hungarians], obtained, after a fierce hand-to-hand fight of nine hours, a bloody victory. When the Saxons finally yielded and fled, the battle became a massacre. … It is asserted that of the foot-soldiers, who composed the mass of the Saxon army of 60,000, hardly any escaped; though of the noblemen, who had swift horses, few were slain. But it was a battle of Germans with Germans, and on the very evening of the struggle, the lamentations over so many slain by kindred hands could not be suppressed in the emperor's own camp. Yet for the time the spirit of Saxon independence was crushed. Henry was really master of all Germany, and seemed to have established the imperial throne again." But little more than a year afterwards, Henry, under the ban of the great Pope Gregory VII., with whom he had quarrelled, was again deserted by his subjects. Again he recovered his footing and maintained a civil war until his own son deposed him, in 1105. The next year he died.

C. T. Lewis, History of Germany, book 2, chapter 7, sections 13-20.

ALSO IN: W. Menzel, History of Germany, chapter 142.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

SAXONY: A. D. 1125-1152. The origin of the electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

{2813}

SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183. The dissolution of the old duchy.

In an account given elsewhere of the origin of the Guelf and Ghibelline parties and their names (see GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES), the circumstances under which Henry the Proud, in 1138, was stripped of the duchy of Saxony, and the duchy of Bavaria, have been briefly related. This Duke Henry the Proud died soon after that event, leaving a son who acquired the name of Henry the Lion. The Emperor Conrad, whose hostility to the father had been the cause of his ruin, now restored to the son, Henry the Lion, his duchy of Saxony, but required him to renounce the Bavarian duchy. But Conrad, dying in 1152, was succeeded on the imperial throne by his nephew, Frederick Barbarossa, who entertained a friendly feeling for the young Duke of Saxony, and who restored to him, in 1156, the whole of his father's forfeited possessions, Bavaria included. By his own warlike energies, Henry the Lion extended his dominions still further, making a conquest of the Obotrites, one of the tribes of heathen Slaves or Wends who occupied the Mecklenburg region on the Baltic. He was, now, the most powerful of the princes of the Germanic empire, and one of the most powerful in Europe. But he used his power haughtily and arbitrarily and raised up many enemies against himself. At length there arose a quarrel between the Emperor and Duke Henry, which the latter embittered by abruptly quitting the emperor's army, in Italy, with all his troops, at a time when (A. D. 1175) the latter was almost ruined by the desertion. From that moment Henry the Lion was marked, as his father had been, for ruin. Accusations were brought against him in the diet; he was repeatedly summoned to appear and meet them, and he obstinately refused to obey the summons. At length, A. D. 1178, he was formally declared to be a rebel to the state, and the "imperial ban" was solemnly pronounced against him. "This sentence placed Henry without the pale of the laws, and his person and his states were at the mercy of everyone who had the power of injuring them. The archbishop of Cologne, his ancient enemy, had the ban promulgated throughout Saxony, and at his command Godfrey, Duke of Brabant; Philip, Count of Flanders; Otho, Count of Guelders; Thierry, Lord of Cleves; William of Juliers, with the Lords of Bonn Senef, Berg, and many others, levied forces, and joining the archbishop, entered Westphalia, which they overran and laid waste, before he was aware of their intentions." This was the beginning of a long struggle, in which Henry made a gallant resistance; but the odds were too heavily against him. His friends and supporters gradually fell away, his dominions were lost, one by one, and in 1183 he took refuge in England, at the court of Henry II., whose daughter Matilda he had married. After an exile of three years he was permitted to return to Germany and his alodial estates in Saxony were restored to him. The imperial fiefs were divided. The archbishop of Cologne received the greater part of Westphalia, and Angria. Bernard, Count of Anhalt, got the remainder of the old Saxon duchy, with its ducal title. When Henry the Lion died, in 1195, the alodial possessions that he had recovered were divided between his three sons.

Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover, book 4 (volume 1).

Fifty years afterwards these were converted into imperial fiefs and became the two duchies of the house of Brunswick, —Lüneburg and Wolfenbüttel, afterwards Hanover and Brunswick—the princes of which represented the old house of Saxony and inherited the name of Guelf.

ALSO IN: H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 5.

See, also, SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY; GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268; ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553. The later Duchy and Electorate. The House of Wettin. Its Ernestine and Albertine lines, and their many branches.

"When Henry the Lion was deprived of the Duchy of Saxony in 1180, it [reduced to a small district around Lauenberg] was given to Bernhard, the youngest son of Albert the Bear, Elector of Brandenburg, and it continued with his descendants in the male line till 1422, when it was sold by the Emperor Sigismond to Frederick, surnamed the Warlike, Margrave of Misnia, descended in the female line from the Landgraves of Thuringen."

Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover, volume 1, page 426.

This line has been known as the House of Wettin, taking that name from Dedo, count of Wettin, who was the first margrave of Misnia, or Meissen; being invested with the dignity in 1048. "The Wettin line of Saxon princes, the same that yet endures [1855], known by sight to every English creature (for the high individual, Prince Albert, is of it), had been lucky enough to combine in itself, by inheritance, by good management, chiefly by inheritance and mere force of survival, all the Three separate portions and divided dignities of that country: the Thüringen Landgraviate, the Meissen Markgraviate, and the ancient Duchy and Electorate of Saxony; and to become very great among the Princes of the German Empire. … Through the earlier portion of the 15th century, this Saxon House might fairly reckon itself the greatest in Germany, till Austria, till Brandenburg gradually rose to overshadow it. Law of primogeniture could never be accepted in that country; nothing but divisions, redivisions, coalescings, splittings, and never-ending readjustments and collisions were prevalent in consequence; to which cause, first of all, the loss of the race by Saxony may be ascribed." In 1464, Frederick II. was succeeded by his two sons, Ernest and Albert. These princes governed their country conjointly for upwards of 20 years, but then made a partition from which began the separation of the Ernestine and Albertine lines that continued ever afterwards in the House of Saxony. "Ernest, the elder of those two … boys, became Kurfürst (Elector); and got for inheritance, besides the 'inalienable properties' which lie round Wittenberg, … the better or Thuringian side of the Saxon country—that is, the Weimar, Gotha, Altenburg, &c. Principalities: —while the other youth, Albert, had to take the 'Osterland (Easternland), with part of Meissen,' what we may in general imagine to be (for no German Dryasdust will do you the kindness to say precisely) the eastern region of what is Saxony in our day. These Albertines, with an inferior territory, had, as their main towns, Leipzig and Dresden, a Residenz-Schloss (or sublime enough Ducal Palace) in each city, Leipzig as yet the grander and more common one. There, at Leipzig chiefly, I say, lived the august younger or Albertine Line. … {2814} As for Ernst, the elder, he and his lived chiefly at Wittenberg, as I perceive; there or in the neighbourhood was their high Schloss; distinguished among palaces. But they had Weimar, they had Altenburg, Gotha, Coburg,—above all, they had the Wartburg, one of the most distinguished Strong Houses any Duke could live in, if he were of frugal and heroic turn. … Ernst's son was Frederick the Wise, successor in the Kur (Electorship) and paternal lands; which, as Frederick did not marry and there was only one other brother, were not further divided on this occasion. Frederick the Wise, born in 1463, was that ever-memorable Kurfürst who saved Luther from the Diet of Worms in 1521.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1522.

He died in 1525, and was succeeded by his brother, John the Steadfast. … He also was a wise and eminently Protestant man. He struggled very faithfully for the good Cause, during his term of sovereignty; died in 1532 (14 years before Luther), having held the Electorate only seven years. … His son was Johann Friedrich, the Magnanimous by epithet (der Grossmüthige), under whom the Line underwent sad destinies; lost the Electorship, lost much; and split itself after him into innumerable branches, who are all of a small type ever since." In the Albertine Line, Albert's eldest son, "successor in the eastern properties and residences, was Duke George of Saxony,—called 'of Saxony,' as all those Dukes, big and little, were and still are,—Herzog Georg von Sachsen: of whom, to make him memorable, it is enough to say that he was Luther's Duke George! Yes, this is he with whom Luther had such wrangling and jangling. … He was strong for the old religion, while his cousins went so valiantly ahead for the new. … George's brother, Henry, succeeded; lived only for two years; in which time all went to Protestantism in the eastern parts of Saxony, as in the western. This Henry's eldest son, and first successor, was Moritz, the 'Maurice' known in English Protestant books; who, in the Schmalkaldic League and War, played such a questionable game with his Protestant cousin, of the elder or Ernestine Line,—quite ousting said cousin, by superior jockeyship, and reducing his Line and him to the second rank ever since.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

This cousin was Johann Friedrich the Magnanimous … whom we left above waiting for that catastrophe. … Duke Moritz got the Electorship transferred to himself; Electorship, with Wittenberg and the 'inalienable lands and dignities.' … Moritz kept his Electorship, and, by cunning jockeying, his Protestantism too; got his Albertine or junior Line pushed into the place of the Ernestine or first; in which dishonourably acquired position it continues to this day [1855]; performing ever since the chief part in Saxony, as Electors, and now as Kings of Saxony. … The Ernestine, or honourable Protestant line is ever since in a secondary, diminished, and as it were, disintegrated state, a Line broken small; nothing now but a series of small Dukes, Weimar, Gotha, Coburg, and the like, in the Thuringian region, who, on mere genealogical grounds, put Sachsen to their name: Sachsen-Coburg, Sachsen-Weimar, &c. [Anglicised, Saxe-Coburg, etc.]."

_T. Carlyle, The Prinzenraub (Essays, volume 6)._

ALSO IN: _F. Shoberl, Historical Account of the House of Saxony._

SAXONY: A. D. 1500-1512. Formation of the Circles of Saxony and Upper Saxony.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

SAXONY: A. D. 1516-1546. The Reformation.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1516-1517, to 1517-1521, 1521-1522, 1522-1525, 1525-1529, 1530-1531; also, GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532, and after.

SAXONY: A. D. 1525. The Lutheran doctrines and system formally established in the electorate.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

SAXONY: A. D. 1539. Succession GERMANY of a Protestant prince.

See: A. D. 1533-1546.

SAXONY: A. D. 1546-1547. Treachery of Maurice of Saxony. Transfer of the electorate to him.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1546-1552.

SAXONY: A. D. 1619. Adhesion of the Elector to the Emperor Ferdinand, against Frederick of Bohemia and the Evangelical Union.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

SAXONY: A. D. 1631. Ignoble trepidations of the Elector. His final alliance with Gustavus Adolphus. The battle of Breitenfeld.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

SAXONY: A. D. 1631-1632. The Elector and his army in Bohemia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

SAXONY: A. D. 1633. Standing aloof from the Union of Heilbronn.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SAXONY: A. D. 1634. Desertion of the Protestant cause. The Elector's alliance with the Emperor.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

SAXONY: A. D. 1645. Forced to a treaty of neutrality with the Swedes and French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SAXONY: A. D. 1648. The Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

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

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

SAXONY: A. D. 1697-1698. The crown of Poland secured by the Elector.

See POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.

SAXONY: A. D. 1706. Invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden. Renunciation of the Polish crown, by the Elector Augustus.

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

SAXONY: A. D. 1733. Election of Augustus III. to the Polish throne, enforced by Russia and Austria.

See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

SAXONY: A. D. 1740. The War of the Austrian Succession: Claims of the Elector upon Austrian territory.

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

SAXONY: A. D. 1741. The War of the Austrian Succession: Alliance against Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1745. The War of the Austrian Succession: Alliance with Austria. Subjugation by Prussia. The Peace of Dresden.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

SAXONY: A. D. 1755. Intrigues with Austria and Russia against Prussia. Causes of the Seven Years War.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756.

SAXONY: A. D. 1756. Swift subjugation by Frederick of Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

SAXONY: A. D. 1759-1760. Occupied by the Austrians. Mostly recovered by Frederick.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER); and 1760.

SAXONY: A. D. 1763. The end and results of the Seven Years War. The electorate restored.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

{2815}

SAXONY: A. D. 1806.

The Elector, deserting Prussia, becomes the subject-ally of Napoleon, and is made a king.

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

SAXONY: A. D. 1807. Acquisition by the king of the grand duchy of Warsaw.

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

SAXONY: A. D. 1809. Risings against the French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

SAXONY: A. D. 1813. Occupied by the Allies. Regained by the French. Humiliating submission of the king to Napoleon. French victory at Dresden and defeat at Leipsic. Desertion from Napoleon's army by the Saxons. The king a prisoner in the hands of the Allies. French surrender of Dresden.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SAXONY: A. D. 1814-1815. The Saxon question in the Congress of Vienna. The king restored, with half of his dominions lost.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

SAXONY: A. D. 1817. Accession to the Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

SAXONY: A. D. 1848 (March). Revolutionary outbreak. Concessions to the people.

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

SAXONY: A. D. 1849. Insurrection suppressed by Prussian troops.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

SAXONY: A. D. 1866. The Seven Weeks War. Indemnity to Prussia. Union with the North German Confederation. See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

SAXONY: A. D. 1870-1871. Embraced in the new German Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER); 1871 (JANUARY); and 1871 (APRIL).

----------SAXONY: End--------

SAXONY, The English titular Dukedom of.

See WALES, PRINCE OF.

SCALDIS, The. The ancient name of the river Scheldt.

SCALDS, OR SKALDS, The.

"Before the introduction or general diffusion of writing, it is evident that a class of men whose sole occupation was to commit to memory and preserve the laws, usages, precedents, and details of all those civil affairs and rights, and to whose fidelity in relating former transactions implicit confidence could be given, must of necessity have existed in society—must have been in every locality. … This class [among the Scandinavian peoples of the North of Europe] were the Scalds—the men who were the living books, to be referred to in every case of law or property in which the past had to be applied to the present. Before the introduction of Christianity, and with Christianity the use of written documents, and the diffusion, by the church establishment, of writing in every locality, the scald must have been among the pagan landowners what the parish priest and his written record were in the older Christianised countries of Europe. … The scalds in these Christianised countries were merely a class of wandering troubadours, poets, story-tellers, minnesingers. … The scalds of the north disappeared at once when Christian priests were established through the country. They were superseded in their utility by men of education, who knew the art of writing; and the country had no feudal barons to maintain such a class for amusement only. We hear little of the scalds after the first half of the 12th century."

S. Laing, The Heimskringla: Preliminary Dissertation, chapter 1.

"At the dawn of historical times we find the skalds practising their art everywhere in the North. … The oldest Norwegian skalds, like 'Starkad' and 'Brage the Old,' are enveloped in mythic darkness, but already, in the time of Harald Fairhair (872-930), the song-smiths of the Scandinavian North appear as thoroughly historical personages. In Iceland the art of poetry was held in high honor, and it was cultivated not only by the professional skalds, but also by others when the occasion presented itself. … When the Icelander had arrived at the age of maturity, he longed to travel in foreign lands. As a skald he would then visit foreign kings and other noblemen, where he would receive a most hearty welcome. … These Icelandic skalds became a very significant factor in the literary development of the North during the greater part of the middle ages."

F. W. Horn, History of the Literature of the Scandinavian North, part 1, chapter 1.

SCALIGERI, The, or Della Scala Family.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338; also, MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

SCAMANDER, The.

See TROJA.

SCANDERBEG'S WAR WITH THE TURKS.

See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.

----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: Start--------

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: Early history.

"Those who lean implicitly on the chief props supplied by the Old Norse literature for the early history and genealogy of the North lean on very unsafe supports. The fact is, we must treat these genealogies and these continuous histories as compilations made up from isolated and detached traditions—epics in which some individual or some battle was described, and in which the links and the connections between the pieces have been supplied according to the ingenuity of the compilers; in which the arrangement and chronology are to a large extent arbitrary; and in which it has been a great temptation to transfer the deeds of one hero to another of the same name. Under these circumstances what is a modern historian to do? In the first place he must take the contemporary chronicles—Frank, English, and Irish—as his supreme guides, and not allow their statements to be perverted by the false or delusive testimony of the sagas, and where the two are at issue, sacrifice the latter without scruple, while in those cases where we have no contemporary and independent evidence then to construct as best we can our story from the glimmers of light that have reached us."

_H. H. Howorth, Early History of Sweden (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, volume 9)._

{2816}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: Their relationships in language and blood.

"Scandinavia is not a very convenient word. Norway and Sweden it suits; because, in Norway and Sweden, the geographical boundaries coincide with the phenomena of language and blood. But Denmark is not only divided from them by water, but is in actual contact with Germany. More than this, it is connected with the Empire: Holstein being German and Imperial, Sleswick partly German though not Imperial. … Generically, a Scandinavian is a German. Of the great German stock there are two divisions—the Scandinavian or Norse, and the Teutonic or German Proper. Of the Germans Proper, the nearest congeners to the Scandinavians are the Frisians; and, after them, the Saxons. … At present the languages of Sweden and Denmark, though mutually intelligible, are treated as distinct: the real differences being exaggerated by differences of orthography, and by the use on the part of the Swedes of the ordinary Italian alphabet, whilst the Danes prefer the old German black-letter. The literary Norwegian is Danish rather than Swedish. Meanwhile, the old language, the mother-tongue, is the common property of all, and so is the old literature with its Edda and Sagas; though … the Norwegians are the chief heroes of it. The language in which it is embodied is preserved with but little alteration in Iceland; so that it may fairly be called Icelandic, though the Norwegians denominate it Old Norse. …

See NORMANS—NORTHMEN. A. D. 960-1100.

The histories of the three countries are alike in their general character though different in detail. Denmark when we have got away from the heroic age into the dawn of the true historical period, is definitely separated from Germany in the parts about the Eyder—perhaps by the river itself. It is Pagan and Anti-Imperial; the Danes being, in the eyes of the Carlovingians, little better than the hated Saxons. Nor is it ever an integral part of the Empire; though Danish and German alliances are common. They end in Holstein being Danish, and in its encroaching on Sleswick and largely influencing the kingdom in general. As being most in contact with the civilization of the South, Denmark encroaches on Sweden, and, for a long time, holds Skaane and other Swedish districts. Indeed, it is always a check upon the ambition of its northern neighbour. Before, then, that Sweden becomes one and indivisible, the Danes have to be ejected from its southern provinces. Norway, too, when dynastic alliances begin and when kingdoms become consolidated, is united with Denmark. … In the way of language the Scandinavians are Germans—the term being taken in its wider and more general sense. Whether the blood coincide with the language is another question; nor is it an easy one. The one point upon which most ethnologists agree, is the doctrine that, in Norway and Sweden (at least), or in the parts north of the Baltic, the Germans are by no means aboriginal; the real aborigines having been congeners of either the Laps or the Fins; who, at a time anterior to the German immigrations, covered the whole land from the North Cape to the Naze in Norway, and from Tornea to Ystadt in Sweden. Towards these aborigines the newer occupants comported themselves much as the Angles of England comported themselves towards the Britons. At the same time, in both Britain and Scandinavia the extent to which the two populations intermarried or kept separate is doubtful. It may be added that, in both countries, there are extreme opinions on each side of the question."

R. G. Latham, The Nationalities of Europe, volume 2, chapter 37.

See, also, GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

ALSO IN: A. Lefèvre, Race and Language, page 236.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-9th Centuries. Explorations, ravages and conquests of the Vikings.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 8-11th Centuries. Formation of the Three Kingdoms.

"At the end of the 8th century, … within the two Scandinavian peninsulas, the three Scandinavian nations were fast forming. A number of kindred tribes were settling down into the kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which, sometimes separate, sometimes united, have existed ever since. Of these three, Denmark, the only one which had a frontier towards the Empire, was naturally the first to play a part in general European history. In the course of the 10th century, under the half-mythical Gorm, and his successors Harold and Sven, the Danish kingdom itself, as distinguished from other lands held in aftertimes by its kings, reached nearly its full historical extent in the two peninsulas and the islands between them. Halland and Skane or Scania, it must always be remembered, are from the beginning at least as Danish as Zealand and Jutland. The Eider remained the frontier towards the Empire, save during part of the 10th and 11th centuries, when the Danish frontier withdrew to the Dannewerk, and the laud between the two boundaries formed the Danish March of the Empire. Under Cnut the old frontier was restored. The name of Northmen, which the Franks used in a laxer way for the Scandinavian nations generally, was confined to the people of Norway. These were formed into a single kingdom under Harold Harfraga late in the 9th century. The Norwegian realm of that day stretched far beyond the bounds of the later Norway, having an indefinite extension over tributary Finnish tribes as far as the White Sea. The central part of the eastern side of the northern peninsula, between Denmark to the south and the Finnish nations to the north, was held by two Scandinavian settlements which grew into the Swedish kingdom. These were those of the Swedes strictly so called, and of the Geatas or Gauts. This last name has naturally been confounded with that of the Goths, and has given the title of 'King of the Goths' to the princes of Sweden. Gothland, east and west, lay on each side of Lake Wettern. Swithiod or Svealand, Sweden proper, lay on both sides of the great arm of the sea whose entrance is guarded by the modern capital. The union of Svealand and Gothland made up the kingdom of Sweden. Its early boundaries towards both Denmark and Norway were fluctuating. Wermeland, immediately to the north of Lake Wenern, and Jamteland farther to the north, were long a debatable land. At the beginning of the 12th century Wermeland passed finally to Sweden, and Jamteland for several ages to Norway. Bleking again, at the southeast corner of the Peninsula, was a debatable land between Sweden and Denmark which passed to Denmark. For a land thus bounded the natural course of extension by land lay to the north, along the west coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. In the course of the 11th century at the latest, Sweden began to spread itself in that direction over Helsingland. Sweden had thus a better opportunity than Denmark and Norway for extension of her own borders by land. Meanwhile Denmark and Norway, looking to the west, had their great time of Oceanic conquest and colonization in the 9th and 10th centuries."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 11, section 1.

{2817}

"Till about the year of Grace 860 there were no kings in Norway, nothing but numerous jarls,—essentially kinglets,—each presiding over a kind of republican or parliamentary little territory; generally striving each to be on some terms of human neighbourhood with those about him, but, in spite of 'Fylke Things' (Folk Things)—little parish parliaments —and small combinations of these, which had gradually formed themselves, often reduced to the unhappy state of quarrel with them. Harald Haarfagr was the first to put an end to this state of things, and become memorable and profitable to his country by uniting it under one head and making a kingdom of it; which it has continued to be ever since. His father, Halfdan the Black, had already begun this rough but salutary process, … but it was Harald the Fairhaired, his son, who conspicuously carried it on and completed it. Harald's birth-year, death-year, and chronology in general, are known only by inference and computation; but, by the latest reckoning, he died about the year 933 of our era, a man of 83. The business of conquest lasted Harald about twelve years (A. D. 860-872?), in which he subdued also the Vikings of the out-islands, Orkneys, Shetlands, Hebrides, and Man. Sixty more years were given him to consolidate and regulate what he had conquered, which he did with great judgment, industry, and success. His reign altogether is counted to have been of over 70 years. … These were the times of Norse colonization; proud Norsemen flying into other lands, to freer scenes,—to Iceland, to the Faroe Islands, which were hitherto quite vacant (tenanted only by some mournful hermit, Irish Christian fakir, or so); still more copiously to the Orkney and Shetland Isles, the Hebrides and other countries where Norse squatters and settlers already were. Settlement of Iceland, we say, settlement of the Faroe Islands, and, by far the notablest of all, settlement of Normandy by Rolf the Ganger (A. D. 876?)."

T. Carlyle, The Early Kings of Norway, chapter 1.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 9th Century. Introduction of Christianity.

See CHRISTIANITY: 9-11TH CENTURIES.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397. The empire of Canute and its dissolution. Disturbed state of the Three Kingdoms. The Folkungas in Sweden. Rise of Denmark. The reign of Queen Margaret and the Union of Calmar.

"A Northern Empire … for a time seemed possible when Canute the Great arose. King by inheritance of England and of Denmark, he was able by successful war to add almost the whole of Norway to his dominions.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016, and 1016-1042

The definite incorporation of Sleswig under treaty with the Emperor Conrad, and the submission of the Wendish tribes, appeared to open for him a way on to the continent. … Had men with like capacity succeeded to his throne, the world might have beheld an Empire of the North as well as of the East and West. But the kingdoms of the great Danish monarch fell asunder on his death and his successors sink again into insignificance. Another century passes before a bright page illumines their obscure annals. The names of Waldemar the Great [1157-1182], of Canute VI. [1182-1202] and Waldemar the Victorious [1202-1241] his sons, are then found attracting the attention of Europe. Again their kingdom seemed about to raise itself to be a continental power. They sallied forth from their peninsula, they again conquered the Wends; the southern shores of the Baltic, even as far as Courland and Esthonia, were made to tremble at the Danish arms. … But the greatness was again but temporary. Waldemar the Victorious, surprised and made a prisoner in Germany, beheld his empire returning to its fragments. Regaining his liberty he tried to regain his power, but a disastrous battle at Bornhoved in 1227 gave a death-blow to his ambition. An alliance of the petty princes who feared his greatness prevailed against him, and Denmark relapsed again into decline. Many causes now contributed to the downfall of the kingdom. By the fatal policy of Waldemar it was divided among his sons. … While anarchy increased within the country, new enemies arose around it. The Norwegians in a war that lasted for long years harassed it. The necessities of Christopher obliged him to pledge Scania, Halland, and Bleking to Sweden. A formidable foe too was now appearing in the Hanseatic League [see HANSA TOWNS], whose rise had followed upon the fall of Waldemar's power. The rich cities of Lubeck and Hamburg had seized the opportunity to assert their freedom. … Harassed by foreign enemies and by strife with his own nobles, Christopher [the Second, who came to the throne in 1319] at last was driven from his kingdom. A count of Holstein, known as the Black Geert, became for fourteen years the virtual sovereign, and imposed upon the country his nephew, Waldemar III., the heir of the rebellious house of Sleswig, as a titular King. Dismembered and in anarchy, the country had sunk low, and it was not until the assassination of Black Geert, in 1340, that any hope appeared of its recovery." In Sweden the national history had its real beginning, perhaps, in the days of St. Eric, who reigned from 1155 to 1160. "In this reign the spread of Christianity became the spread of power. Eric … earned his title from his definite establishment of the new faith. … The remaining sovereigns of his line can hardly be said to have contributed much towards the advancement of their country, and it was reserved for a new dynasty to carry on the work of the earlier kings. A powerful family had risen near the throne, and, retaining the old tribal rank of Jarls, had filled almost the position of mayors of the palace. The death of Eric Ericson without children removed the last obstacle to their ambition. The infant son of Birger Jarl was elected to the vacant throne, and the transfer of the royal title to the family [known as the Folkungas] that had long held royal power seemed as natural to the Swedes as it had done earlier to the Franks. As regent for his child, Birger upheld and added to the greatness of his country; he became the conspicuous figure of the 13th century in the North; he is the founder of Stockholm, the conqueror of the Finns, the protector of the exiled princes of Russia, the mediator in differences between Norway and Denmark. His sceptred descendants however did not equal their unsceptred sire. The conquest of Finland was indeed completed by Torkel Knutson at the close of the 13th century, and shed some lustre upon the reign of King Birger, but the quarrels of succeeding princes among themselves disgraced and distracted the country." {2818} In Norway, "the conquests of Harold Harfager had secured the crown to a long line of his descendants; but the strife of these descendants among themselves, and the contests which were provoked by the attempts of successive sovereigns, with imprudent zeal, to enforce the doctrines of Christianity upon unwilling subjects, distracted and weakened the kingdom. A prey to anarchy, it fell also a prey to its neighbours. In the 10th century it belonged for a time to Denmark; Sweden joined later in dismembering it; and Canute the Great was able to call himself its King. These were times indeed in which conquests and annexations were often more rapid than lasting, and a King of Norway soon reigned in his turn over Denmark. Yet there is no doubt that the Norwegians suffered more than they inflicted, and were from the first the weakest of the three nations. … Wars, foreign and domestic, that have now no interest, exhausted the country; the plague of 1348 deprived it of at least one half its population. Its decline had been marked, upon the extinction of its royal dynasty in 1319, by the election of Swedish princes to fill its throne; and after the reign of two stranger Kings it sank forever from the list of independent kingdoms. Drifting through anarchy and discord the three kingdoms had sunk low. Denmark was first to raise herself from the abasement, and the reign of a fourth Waldemar not only restored her strength but gave her a pre-eminence which she retained until the days of Gustavus Adolphus. The new sovereign, a younger son of Christopher II., was raised to the throne in 1340, and no competitor, now that Black Geert was dead, appeared to dispute it with him." Waldemar gave up, on the one hand, his claims to Scania, Halland, and Bleking (which he afterwards reclaimed and repossessed), as well as the distant possessions in Esthonia, while he bought back Jutland and the Isles, on the other. "The isle of Gothland, and Wisby its rich capital, the centre of the Hanseatic trade within the Baltic, were plundered and annexed [1361], giving the title thenceforward of King of the Goths to the Danish monarchs. This success indeed was paid for by the bitter enmity of the Hansa, and by a war in which the pride of Denmark was humbled to the dust beneath the power of the combined cities. Copenhagen was pillaged [1362]; and peace was only made by a treaty [1363] which confirmed all former privileges to the conquerors, which gave them for fifteen years possession of the better part of Scania and its revenues, and which humbly promised that the election of all sovereigns of Denmark should thenceforth he submitted for their approval. Yet Waldemar has left behind him the reputation of a prudent and successful prince, and his policy prepared the way for the greatness of his successors. At his death in 1375 two daughters, on behalf of their children, became claimants for his throne. The youngest, Margaret, had married Hako, King of Norway, the son of a deposed King of Sweden [the last of the Folkungas, or Folkungers]; and the attractive prospect of a union between the two kingdoms, supported by her own prudent and conciliatory measures, secured the election of her son Olaf. As regent for her child, who soon by the death of his father became King of Norway as well as of Denmark, she showed the wisdom of a ruler, and won the affections of her subjects; and when the death of Olaf himself occurred in 1387 she was rewarded in both kingdoms by the formal possession of the sceptres which she had already shown herself well able to hold. Mistress in Denmark and in Norway, she prepared to add Sweden to her dominions. Since the banishment of the Folkungas, Albert Duke of Mecklenburg had reigned as King." But Sweden preferred Margaret, and she easily expelled Albert from the throne, defeating him and making him a prisoner, in 1389. A few years later, "her nephew, Eric, long since accepted in Denmark and in Norway as her successor, and titularly King, was now [1397] at a solemn meeting of the states at Calmar crowned Sovereign of the Three Kingdoms. At a later meeting the Union, since known as that of Calmar, was formally voted, and the great work of her life was achieved."

C. F. Johnstone, Historical Abstracts, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: E. G. Geijer, History of the Swedes, volume 1, chapters 3-5.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: 14-15th Centuries. Power and influence of the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527. Under the Union of Calmar until its dissolution. The brutality of Christian II. and his overthrow. Gustavus Vasa and his elevation to the throne of Sweden. The introduction of the Reformation.

The most noteworthy articles of the Union of Calmar, by which Norway, Sweden and Denmark were united together, in 1397, under the Danish queen Margaret, were the following: "That the right of electing a sovereign should be exercised in common by the three kingdoms; that a son of the reigning king, if there were any, should be preferred; that each kingdom should be governed by its own laws; and that all should combine for the common defence. But this confederacy, which seemed calculated to promote the power and tranquility of Scandinavia, proved the source of much discontent and jealousy and of several bloody wars. Margaret was succeeded on her death in 1412 by Eric of Pomerania, the son of her niece. … Eric's reign was turbulent. In 1438 the Danes, and in the following year the Swedes, renounced their allegiance; and Eric fled to the island of Gothland, where he exercised piracy till his death. The Danes elected in Eric's stead Christopher of Bavaria, son of his sister Catharine; … but after Christopher's death in 1448 the union was dissolved. The Danes now elected for their king Count Christian of Oldenburg; while the Swedes chose Charles Knutson. But in the following year Charles was compelled to resign Norway to Denmark, and in 1457 he lost Sweden itself through an insurrection led by the Archbishop of Upsala. Christian I. of Denmark was chosen in his place and crowned at Upsala, June 19th; and in the following year all the councillors of the three kingdoms, assembled at Skarn, recognised Christian's son John as his successor. Christian I. became a powerful monarch by inheriting Schleswic and Holstein from his uncle. He had, however, to contend for a long period with Charles Knutson for the throne of Sweden, and after Charles's death in 1470, with Sten Sture, of a noble family in Dalecarlia, to whom Charles, with the approbation of the Swedes, had left the administration of the kingdom. In October 1471 a battle was fought on the Brunkeberg, a height now enclosed in the city of Stockholm, in which the Danish King was defeated, though he continued to hold the southern provinces of Sweden. {2819} Christian died in 1481 and was succeeded by his son John. The Swedes in 1483 acknowledged the supremacy of Denmark by renewing the Union of Calmar; yet … John could never firmly establish himself in that country. … King John of Denmark died in 1513. … It was during the reign of Christian II. [his son and successor] that Denmark first began to have any extensive connections with the rest of Europe. In the year of his accession, he allied himself with the Wendish, or northeastern towns of the Hanseatic League, whose metropolis was Lübeck; and he subsequently formed alliances with Russia, France, England, and Scotland, with the view of obtaining their aid in his contemplated reduction of Sweden. … In 1517 Trolle [Archbishop of Upsala] had levied open war against the administrator, Sten Sture, in which Christian supported him with his fleet; but Sten Sture succeeded in capturing Trolle. … In the next year (1518) Christian again appeared near Stockholm with a fleet and army, in which were 2,000 French sent by Francis I. Christian was defeated by Sten Sture in a battle near Bränkirka. … The Archbishop of Upsala having proceeded to Rome to complain of Sten Sture, the Pope erected in Denmark an ecclesiastical tribunal, which deposed the administrator and his party, and laid all Sweden under an interdict. This proceeding, however, served to pave the way for the acceptance in Sweden of the Lutheran reformation; though it afforded Christian II. a pretence for getting up a sort of crusade against that country. … Early in 1520 … Sture was defeated and wounded in a battle fought on the ice of Lake Asunden, near Bogesund in West Gothland. … Sten Sture, in spite of his wound, hastened to the defence of Stockholm, but expired on the way in his sledge on Malar Lake, February 3rd 1520. The Swedes were defeated in a second battle near Upsala, after which a treaty was concluded to the effect that Christian should reign in Sweden, agreeably to the Union of Calmar, but on condition of' granting an entire amnesty. Christian now proceeded to Stockholm, and in October was admitted into that city by Sture's widow, who held the command. Christian at first behaved in the most friendly manner …; yet he had no sooner received the crown than he took the most inhuman vengeance on his confiding subjects. … The city was abandoned to be plundered by the soldiers like a place taken by storm. Orders were despatched to Finland to proceed in a similar manner; while the King's progress through the southern provinces was everywhere marked by the erection of gallowses. These cruelties … occasioned insurrections in all his dominions. That in Sweden was led by Gustavus Ericson, … a young man remarkable alike by his origin, connections, talent and courage; whose family, for what reason is unknown, afterwards assumed the name of Vasa, which was borne neither by himself nor by his forefathers." Gustavus, who had been a hostage in Christian's hands; had escaped from his captivity, in 1519, taking refuge at Lübeck. In May, 1520, he secretly entered Sweden, remaining in concealment. A few months later his father perished, among the victims of the Danish tyrant, and Gustavus fled to Dalecarlia, "a district noted for its love of freedom and hatred of the Danes. Here he worked in peasant's clothes, for daily wages, in hourly danger from his pursuers, from whom he had many narrow escapes. … The news of Christian's inhumanity procured Gustavus Vasa many followers; he was elected as their leader by a great assembly of the people at Mora, and found himself at the head of 5,000 men," out of whom he made good soldiers, although they were wretchedly armed. "In June, 1521, he invested Stockholm; but the siege, for want of proper artillery and engineering skill, was protracted two years. During this period his command was legally confirmed in a Herrendag, or assembly of the nobles, at Wadstena, "August 24th 1521; the crown was proffered to him, which he declined, but accepted the office of Regent. The Danes were now by degrees almost entirely expelled from Sweden; and Christian II., so far from being able to relieve Stockholm, found himself in danger of losing the Danish crown," which he did, in fact, in 1523, through a revolution that placed on the throne his uncle, Duke Frederick of Holstein. "The Union of Calmar was now entirely dissolved. The Norwegians claimed to exercise the right of election like the Danes; and when Frederick called upon the Swedish States to recognise his title in conformity with the Union, they replied that it was their intention to elect Gustavus Ericson for their king; which was accordingly done at the Diet of Strengnäs, June 7th 1523. Three weeks after Stockholm surrendered to Gustavus." The dethroned Christian II. escaped to the Netherlands, where he found means to equip an expedition with which he invaded Norway, in 1531. It left him a prisoner in the hands of the Danes, who locked him up in the castle of Sonderburg until his death, which did not occur until 1559. "Meanwhile, in Sweden, Gustavus was consolidating his power, partly by moderation and mildness, partly by examples of necessary severity. He put himself at the head of the Reformation, as Frederick I. also did in Denmark. … Luther's doctrines had been first introduced into Sweden in 1519, by two brothers, Olaus and Lawrence Petri, who had studied under the great apostle of reform at Wittenberg. The Petris soon attracted the attention of Gustavus, who gave them his protection, and entered himself into correspondence with Luther. … As in other parts of Europe, the nobles were induced to join the movement from the prospect of sharing the spoils of the church; and in a great Diet at Westeräs in 1527, the Reformation was introduced.

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: _P. B. Watson, The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa._

_A. Alberg, Gustavus Vasa and his Stirring Times._

{2820}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1523. Accession of Frederick I.

(Sweden): A. D. 1523-1604. The reigns of Gustavus Vasa and his sons. Wars with Russia and Denmark. The Baltic question. Prince Sigismund elected king of Poland and his consequent loss of the Swedish crown, Resulting hostilities.

"Gustavus Vasa, the founder of his dynasty, was not a very religious man. He had determined to make Sweden a Lutheran country for two main reasons: first, because he wanted the lands of the Church, both in order to enrich the crown and also to attach the nobles to his cause; secondly, because, as he said, the 'priests were all unionists in Sweden'—that is, they all wished to maintain the union of the three Scandinavian kingdoms which he had broken, and they were, therefore, irreconcilably hostile to his dynasty. Three other great services were rendered to Sweden by Gustavus I.:

(1) at the Diet of Westeräs, in 1544, the hereditary character of the monarchy was definitely declared. This was a great victory over the nobles, who in nearly all the Northern and Eastern Kingdoms of Europe—and in Sweden itself at a later time—succeeded in erecting an oligarchy, which oppressed the peasants and crippled the activity of the State.

(2) Again, by his consistent favouring of the middle classes, and his conclusion of commercial treaties with Russia, France, and the Netherlands, he became the founder of Swedish commerce, and dealt a serious blow at the Baltic supremacy of the Hanseatic League.

(3) And lastly, he appears as the founder of that policy of territorial aggression (toward the South and East), which, however we may judge of its morality in this age of peace, was certainly looked upon then as the prime duty of all Kings, and which in the case of Sweden was the direct path toward the great part which she was destined to play in the 17th century.

His first enemy was Russia, a recently consolidated State, already bordering on the half-Polish province of Livonia and the Swedish province of Finland; already extending her flanks to the Caucasus and the Don on the south and to the White Sea on the north. … The wars of Ivan the Terrible (1534-84) for Finland and Livonia were unsuccessful, and the chief interest which they possess for us is that in 1561, the year after the death of Gustavus I., his son Eric acquired for Sweden the province of Esthonia, which appears to have previously fluctuated between dependence on Denmark and on Russia. This was the first of the so-called 'Baltic provinces' of Sweden; herewith began the exclusion of Russia from the 'Dominium Maris Baltici.' But this possession brought Eric face to face with Poland, a country which was disputing with Russia the possession of Livonia. Poland, under the last of the great Jaghellon line, was already displaying the fatal tendency to anarchy which at last devoured her. … Poland turned for help to the King of Denmark, in whom Eric, with keen insight, recognised the most dangerous foe for Sweden. In 1563 Eric concluded peace with Russia, and the nations of the North began to assume their natural relation to each other. The Baltic question rapidly became an European one. English sympathies were with Sweden and Russia; Spain and the Emperor as naturally took the other side, and suggested to the King of Denmark, Frederick II. (1559-1588), that he should ask for the hand of Mary Stuart; to counteract which King Eric indulged in an elaborate flirtation with Elizabeth. The powers of North Germany took sides in the war (1565), but the war itself produced but little result. The able Eric displayed symptoms of insanity and was extremely unpopular with the Swedish nobles, and Denmark was as yet too powerful an enemy for Sweden to overthrow. In 1567 Eric was deposed by a revolution, the fruit of which was reaped by his brother John. When the great Gustavus I. was dying, and could no longer speak, he made a sign that he wished to write, and wrote half a sentence of warning to his people: 'Rather die a hundred times than abandon the Gospel. …' Then his hand failed, and he dropped back dead. He was not, I have said, a particularly religious man, but he marked out the true path for Sweden. Now in 1567 a certain reaction set in: many of the nobles, who had felt the yoke of Gustavus heavy and of Eric heavier, seemed ready to drift back to Catholicism, and John's reign (1567-1590) was one of reaction in many ways. John never openly went over to Catholicism, but he cast off all the Lutheranism that he dared to cast off. He made peace with Denmark and war with Russia; thereby he allowed the former country to develop her trade and foreign relations enormously and rapidly, and made the task of his successors doubly hard. Above all, he originated, by his marriage with Catherine Jaghellon, the disastrous connexion with Poland. That unhappy country, 'the fatal byword for all years to come' of genuine anarchy, had just closed its period of prosperity. The last of the Jaghellon Kings died in 1572, and the elected King, Stephen Bathori, died in 1586. Ivan the Terrible sought the crown of Poland. … John of Sweden, on the other hand, saw an opening for the House of Vasa. His son Sigismund was, by dint of bribes and intrigue, elected King of Poland. But he had to become a Catholic. … The union of Sweden with Poland, which would necessarily follow, if Sigismund succeeded his father on the Swedish throne, would be almost certainly a Catholic union. … Sweden was still a free country, in the sense of being governed in a parliamentary way with the consent of the four estates, Nobles, Clergy, Citizens, and Peasants. Whatever the Riddarhus might think upon the subject, the three non-noble estates were red-hot Protestants and would have no Catholic king. Even the nobles were only induced to consent to Sigismund becoming King of Poland without forfeiting his right to succeed in Sweden, by the grant of extravagant privileges, practically so great, had they been observed, as to emasculate the Vasa monarchy. Luckily the people had a deliverer at hand. Charles, Duke of Sudermania, the youngest of the sons of Gustavus I., lived wholly in the best traditions of his father's policy. He might be relied upon to head an insurrection, if necessary. Even before John's death in 1590 murmurs began to be heard that he had been an usurper—was his son necessarily the heir? These murmurs increased, when in 1593, after waiting three years, Sigismund came home to claim his kingdom, with a present of 20,000 crowns from the Pope in his pocket, 'to defray the cost of the restoration of Catholicism in Sweden.' Duke Charles had already prepared his plans when the King arrived; there seems little doubt that he was playing a game, and for the crown. We are not concerned with his motives, it is sufficient to know that they corresponded with the interests of his country. In 1593, just before Sigismund had landed, Charles had been chosen Regent and President of the Council of State. … When Sigismund went back to Poland at the end of the year 1594, he could not prevent Charles being chosen to administer the kingdom in his absence, and Diet after Diet subsequently confirmed the power of the Regent. {2821} The peasants of Dalecarlia, the great province of the centre, which had first come forward to the support of Gustavus I. in 1520, sent up a petition to the effect that there ought to be only one king in Sweden, and that Sigismund had forfeited the crown. Charles himself had been unwilling to lead a revolution, until it became apparent that Sigismund was massing troops and raising money in Poland for an attack upon his native land. In 1597 the civil war may be said to have begun; in the following year Sigismund landed (with only 5,000 Polish troops) and was utterly defeated near Linköping (on September 25, 1598). On the next day a treaty was concluded by which Sigismund was acknowledged as King, but promised to send away his foreign troops and maintain Protestantism. It was obviously a mere effort to gain time, and in the following year on failing to keep the condition, which he never had the remotest intention of keeping, he was formally deposed (July, 1599). The contest, however, was by no means over, and it led to that perpetual hostility between Sweden and Poland which played such an important part in the history of Northern Europe in the 17th century. … In 1604 Charles was solemnly crowned King; that was the second birthday of the Vasa monarchy; the crown was entailed upon his eldest son, Gustavus Adolphus, and his descendants, being Protestants, and the descendants of Sigismund were forever excluded. 'Every prince who should deviate from the Confession of Augsburg should ipso facto lose the crown. Anyone who should attempt to effect any change of religion should be declared an enemy and a traitor. Sweden should never be united with another kingdom under one crown; the King must live in Sweden.'"

C. R. L. Fletcher, Gustavus Adolphus, introduction.

ALSO IN: E. G. Geijer, History of the Swedes, volume 1, chapters 9-14.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1534. Accession of Christian III.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1559. Accession of Frederick II.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1588. Accession of Christian IV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611. Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1611-1629. The Danish, Russian and Polish wars of Gustavus Adolphus.

On the death of Charles in 1611 his son, Gustavus Adolphus, did not immediately assume the title of king. "Sweden remained without a sovereign for two months; for, according to the will of the deceased king, the queen and his nephew (Duke John), with six councillors of state, were to rule till the wishes of the people could be made known in the customary manner. After an interregnum of two months, the Diet opened at Nyköping. … Duke John was the son of Sigismund, King of Poland, had been brought up in Sweden, and might be considered as having some just claim to the throne. The queen-mother and Duke John laid down the tutelage and the regency. … Nine days later the young king, in the presence of the representatives of the estates of Sweden, received the reins of government. … He was then in the first month of his 18th year. He took charge of the kingdom when it was in a critical condition. Since the death of Gustavus Vasa, his grandfather, a period of more than 50 years, Sweden had not enjoyed a single year of peace. In that long space of time, there had been constant dissensions and violence. … Sweden was much constrained and embarrassed by her boundaries, and by the jealousies and hostile feelings of her neighbours on the north and the south. Denmark and Norway were united in a kind of dual government under the same king; and both alike were opposed to the growth of Swedish power, and were in continual dispute with her in respect to territory, as well as to the naval and commercial uses of the adjacent seas. Those provinces in the south which are now the most productive and valuable of Sweden, then belonged to Denmark, or were in dispute between the two countries. On the east, Russia and Poland embarrassed and threatened her." During the first year of his reign Gustavus devoted his energies to the war with Denmark. He fought at a disadvantage. His resources were unequal to those of the Danes. His capital, Stockholm, was once attacked by a Danish fleet and in serious peril. But he secured an advantageous peace in the spring of 1613. "Sweden renounced some of its conquests and pretensions, and the Danes gave up to Sweden the city of Calmar on the Baltic, and at the end of six years were to surrender to Sweden its city of Elfsborg on the North Sea; the latter agreeing to pay to the Danes 1,000,000 thalers for the surrender. … At the death of Charles IX., and the ascension of Gustavus to the throne, Sweden was in a state of war with Russia, and was so to continue for several years; though hostilities were not all the time prosecuted with vigor, and were some of the time practically suspended. … The Swedes held possession of a large area of what is now Russian territory, as well as important towns and fortresses. The extensive country of Finland, which makes to-day so important a province of Russia, had been united with Sweden nearly five centuries, as it continued to be nearly two hundred years longer. But towns and territory, also a long distance within the lines of the Russian population, were then in the power of the Swedish forces. The troubles and dissensions relative to the succession, and extreme dislike to the Poles, had caused a numerous party to seek a Swedish prince for its sovereign, and to this end had sent an embassy to Stockholm near the date of the death of Charles IX. Finding that the young Gustavus had acceded to the crown of his father, this Russian party desired to secure for the Russian throne Charles Philip, a younger brother of Gustavus. The Swedish king did not show eagerness to bring this plan to success; but, the war being terminated with Denmark, he was resolved to draw what advantage he could from the weakened condition of Russia, to the advancement and security of the interests of Sweden. In July, 1613, the Russians chose for czar Michael Romanoff, then sixteen years of age. … Gustavus proceeded to push military operations with as much vigor as possible. … For four years more the war between these two countries continued; … the advantages being generally on the side of the Swedes, though they were not always successful in important sieges." Finally, through the mediation of English agents, terms of peace were agreed upon. "The treaty was signed February, 1617. Russia yielded to Sweden a large breadth of territory, shutting herself out from the Baltic; the land where St. Petersburg now stands becoming Swedish territory. … {2822} The next important work in hand was to deal with Poland. … At the death of Charles IX. an armistice had been signed, which was to continue until July, 1612. This was thrice extended, the last time to January, 1616. The latter date had not been reached when the Polish partisans began to intrigue actively in Sweden, and those Swedes who still adhered to the religion and the dynastic rights of Sigismund could not be otherwise than secretly or openly stirred. Sigismund was not only supported by the power of Poland, and by his strong show of legal title to the Swedish crown, but there were strong influences on his side in European high political and religious quarters. He was united to the house of Hapsburg by the bonds of relationship ns well as of theology. Philip III. of Spain, and he who afterwards became Ferdinand II. of Austria, were his brothers-in-law. … Sigismund came then to the resolution to make war for the possession of Sweden. He was promised enrolment of troops in Germany, the Spaniards had engaged to arm a fleet in his support, and the estates of Poland were to furnish their quota. … Efforts were made to stir up revolt against Gustavus in his own kingdom," and he promptly declared war. "During the year 1617 hostilities were prosecuted on both sides with much vigor, and loss of life. Towns and strong positions were taken, and invasions and sudden attacks were made on both sides; the advantages being generally with the Swedes, though not decisive. During the winter of 1618 the Poles invaded Livonia and Esthonia, carrying pillage and fire in their march, and then retiring." Gustavus would not allow his generals to retaliate. "'We wish not,' he said, 'to war against the peasant, whom we had rather protect than ruin.'" In 1618 there was an armistice, with peace negotiations which failed, and the war began anew. In August, 1621, Gustavus laid siege to Riga with a strong fleet and army, and met with an obstinate resistance; but the place was surrendered to him at the end of nearly six weeks. Again the belligerents agreed to an armistice, and "the year 1624 is declared by the Swedish historians to have been the only one in which Gustavus Adolphus was able to devote all his labors and cares to the interior administration of his country. In the following year the war was renewed. The third campaign of the Swedish king against Poland was terminated by the completion of the conquest of Livonia; and the possession of Courland assured to him Riga, the object of his special care." The decisive battle of the campaign was fought at Wallhof, January 7, 1626. The king of Sweden then "resolved to transport the theatre of war from the banks of the Duna to those of the Vistula, to attack Poland at the heart, and approach Germany. Here commences that part of the war of Poland which is called also the war of Prussia. … He [Gustavus] realized the need of a port in Eastern Prussia; and the elector of Brandenburg, his brother-in-law, was invested, with that duchy under the suzerainty of Poland. Gustavus did not allow these considerations to arrest his course. … June 26 the king arrived before Pillau, and possessed himself of that city without much resistance, the garrison being small. … Braunsberg capitulated June 30. July I, Flanenberg surrendered, and Elbing on the 6th, which was followed by Marienberg on the 8th; the last a well-fortified city. Many towns of less importance were likewise soon captured. Gustavus rapidly pushed aside all resistance, and soon reached the frontiers of Pomerania." In the engagements of the campaign of 1627 the king was twice wounded—once by a musket-ball in the groin, and the second time by a ball that entered near the neck and lodged at the upper corner of the right shoulder-blade. In June, 1629, "there was a heated engagement at Stum, in which Gustavus ran great danger, his force being inferior to the enemy." In September of that year "an armistice was concluded for six years between the belligerent kingdoms. Five cities which had been conquered by Swedish arms were given up to Poland, and three others delivered to the elector of Brandenburg, to be held during the armistice. Gustavus was to continue to occupy Pillau and three other towns of some importance. Liberty of conscience was to be accorded to Protestants and Catholics, and commerce was declared free between the two nations."

J. L. Stevens, History of Gustavus Adolphus, chapters 3 and 7.

ALSO IN: B. Chapman, History of Gustavus Adolphus, chapters 2-4.

See, also, POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1625-1630. The Protestant Alliance. Engagement of King Christian IV. in the Thirty Years War. The Treaty of Lübeck.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626; and 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1627. The country overrun by Wallenstein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1628. Gustavus Adolphus' first interference in the war in Germany. The relief of Stralsund.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1627-1629.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1630-1632. The campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus in Germany. His death.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, to 1631-1632.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1631. Treaty of Barwalde with France.

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

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1632. Full powers given to Oxenstiern in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1638-1640. The planting of a colony in America, on the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1640-1645. Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1643-1645. War between Sweden and Denmark. Torstenson's conquest of Holstein and Schleswig. The Peace of Bromsebro.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1644-1697. Reign and abdication of Queen Christina. Wars of Charles X. and Charles XI. with Poland and Denmark and in Germany. Establishment of absolutism.

"Christina, the only child and successor of Gustavus Adolphus, had been brought up by her aunt, Katerina, the Princess Palatine, until the death of the latter in 1639, and in the year 1644, when she reached the age of eighteen, the regency was absolved, and she began to rule in her own name. She had inherited much of her father's talent, and was perhaps the most learned and accomplished woman of her time. {2823} She had received the education of a man. … She had great taste for the fine arts and for the pursuits of science; but while she encouraged scientific men at her court, she also spent money too recklessly in rewarding artistic merit of all kinds. … As a dangerous drawback to her many splendid qualities, she had all the waywardness, caprice, restlessness of mind, fickleness and love of display for which her beautiful mother, Maria Eleanora of Brandenburg, had been noted. She lavished crown lands and the money of the state upon favourites. … In the meanwhile the national Estates had been split up into parties, the aristocrats being led by Axel Oxenstjerna, and the democrats, with whom the queen sided, by Johan Skytte. The clergy struggled to maintain their independence under the oppressive patronage of the nobles, and the peasants agitated to recover some of the power which the great Gustavus Vasa had granted them, but which his successors had by degrees taken from them. The kingdom was in a ferment, and a civil war seemed to be unavoidable. The council urged upon the queen to marry, and her cousin, Karl Gustaf of the Palatinate, entreated her to fulfil the promise which she had given him in earlier years of choosing him for her husband. At length … she proposed him for her successor. … After much opposition, Karl Gustaf was declared successor to the throne in the event of the queen having no children of her own. … The few years of Christina's reign after her solemn coronation were disquieted by continued dissensions in the diet, attempts at revolts, and by a general distress, which was greatly increased by her profuse wastefulness and her reckless squandering of the property of the crown. As ear]y as the year 1648 she had conceived the idea of abdicating, but, being hindered by her old friends and councillors, she deferred carrying out her wishes till 1654." In that year the abdication was formally accomplished, and she left the country at once, travelling through Europe. In 1655 she renounced Protestantism and entered the Roman Catholic Church. "At the death [1660] of her cousin and successor, Karl X. Gustaf, as he was called by the Swedes, and who is known to us as Charles X., she returned to Sweden and claimed the crown for herself; but neither then, nor in 1667, when she renewed her pretensions, would the council encourage her hopes, and, after a final attempt to gain the vacant throne of Poland in 1668, she gave up all schemes of ever reigning again, and retired to Rome, where she died in 1689 at the age of sixty-three. … The short reign of Charles X., from 1655 to 1660, was a time of great disorder and unquiet in Sweden. … He resolved to engage the people in active war. … The ill-timed demand of the Polish king, Johan Kasimir, to be proclaimed the true heir to Christina's throne, drew the first attack upon Poland. Charles X. was born to be a soldier and a conqueror, and the success and rapidity with which he overran all Poland, and crushed the Polish army in a three days' engagement at Warsaw in 1656, showed that he was a worthy pupil and successor of his uncle, the great Gustavus Adolphus. But it was easier for him to make conquests than to keep them, and when the Russians, in their jealousy of the increasing power of Sweden, took part in the war, and began to attack Livonia and Esthonia, while an imperial army advanced into Poland to assist the Poles, who, infuriated at the excesses of the Swedish soldiers, had risen en masse against them, Charles saw the expediency of retreating; and, leaving only a few detachments of troops to watch his enemies, he turned upon Denmark. This war, which was closed by the peace signed at Roeskilde in 1658, enriched Sweden at the expense of Denmark, and gave to the former the old provinces of Skaania, Halland and Bleking, by which the Swedish monarchy obtained natural and well-defined boundaries. The success of this first Danish war, in which Denmark for a time lay crushed under the power of the Swedish king, emboldened him to renew his attacks, and between 1658 and 1660 Charles X. made war five times on the Danish monarch; more than once laid siege to Copenhagen; and, under his able captain, Wrangel, nearly destroyed the Danish fleet. At the close of 1659, when it seemed as if Denmark must be wholly subjugated by Sweden, the English and Dutch, alarmed at the ambition of the Swedish king, sent an allied fleet into the Cattegat to operate with the Danes." Charles, checked in his operations, was preparing to carry the war into Norway, when he died suddenly, in the winter of 1660, and peace was made by the treaty of Oliva. "By the early death of Charles X., Sweden was again brought under the rule of a regency, for his son and successor, Charles XI., was only four years old when he became king. … Every department of the government was left to suffer from mismanagement, the army and navy were neglected, the defences of the frontiers fell into decay, and the public servants were unable to procure their pay. To relieve the great want of money, the regency accepted subsidies, or payments of money from foreign states to maintain peace towards them, and hired out troops to serve in other countries. In this state of things the young king grew up without receiving any very careful education. … Charles was declared of age in his 18th year. … He was not left long in the enjoyment of mere exercises of amusement, for in 1674 Louis XIV. of France, in conformity with the treaty which the regents had concluded with him, called upon the young Swedish king to help him in the war which he was carrying on against the German princes.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1674-1678.

Charles sent an army into Germany, which advanced without opposition into the heart of Brandenburg, but before these forces could form a junction with the French troops then encamped in the Rhinelands, the Elector came upon them unawares at Fehrbellin [June 18, 1675] and defeated them. The losses of the Swedes on this occasion were not great, but the result of their defeat was to give encouragement to the old rivals of Sweden; and early in 1675 both Holland and Denmark declared war against the Swedish king, who, finding that he had been left by the regency almost without army, navy, or money, resolved for the future to take the management of public affairs entirely into his own hands." When he "began the war by a sea engagement with the enemy off Oeland, he found that his ships of war had suffered as much as the land-defences from the long-continued neglect of his regents. The Danes, under their great admiral, Niels Juel, and supported by a Dutch squadron, beat the Swedish fleet, many of whose ships were burnt or sunk. {2824} This defeat was atoned for by a victory on land, gained by Charles himself in 1676, over the Danes on the snow-covered hills around the town of Lund. Success was not won without heavy cost, for after a most sanguinary fight, continued from daybreak till night, King Charles, although master of the field, found that more than half his men had been killed. The Danes, who had suffered fully as much, were forced to retreat, leaving Lund in the hands of the Swedes; and although they several times repeated the attempt, they failed in recovering the province of Skaania, which was the great object of their ambition. In Germany the fortune of war did not favor the Swedes, although they fought gallantly under their general, Otto Königsmark; [Stettin was surrendered after a long siege in 1677, and Stralsund in 1678] and Charles XI. was glad to enter into negotiations for taking part in the general peace which France was urging upon all the leading powers of Europe, and which was signed at the palace of St. Germains, in 1679, by the representatives of the respective princes. Sweden recovered the whole of Pomerania, which had been occupied during the war by Austria and Brandenburg, and all Swedish and Danish conquests were mutually renounced. … At the close of this war Charles XI. began in good earnest to put his kingdom in order." By sternly reclaiming crown-lands which had been wantonly alienated by former rulers, and by compelling other restitutions, Charles broke the power of the nobles, and so humbled the National Estates that they "proclaimed him, in a diet held in 1693, to be an absolute sovereign king, 'who had the power and right to rule his kingdom as he pleased.'" He attained an absolutism, in fact, which was practically unlimited. He died in 1697, leaving three children, the eldest of whom, who succeeded him, was the extraordinary Charles XII.

E. C. Otté, Scandinavian History, chapter 21.

ALSO IN: H. Tuttle, History of Prussia to 1740, chapter 5.

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 5, chapters 2 and 4 (volume 3).

G. B. Malleson, Battle-Fields of Germany, chapter 8.

See, also, BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1646-1648. Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1648. Accession of Frederick III.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1648. The Peace of Westphalia. Acquisition of part of Pomerania and other German territory.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1655. Conquest of the Delaware colony by the Dutch.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1668. Triple Alliance with Holland and England against Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1670. Accession of Christian V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1674-1679. In the coalition to resist Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678; also, NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1686. The League of Augsburg against Louis XIV.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697. Accession of Charles XII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1697. The Peace of Ryswick.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1697-1700. The conspiracy of three sovereigns against Charles XII. and how he met it First campaigns of the young king, in Denmark and Russia.

"Charles XII, at his accession to the throne, found himself the absolute and undisturbed master, not only of Sweden and Finland, but also of Livonia, Carelia, Ingria, Wismar, Viborg, the Islands of Rügen and Oesel, and the finest part of Pomerania, together with the duchy of Bremen and Verden,—all of them the conquests of his ancestors. … The beginning of the king's reign gave no very favorable idea of his character. It was imagined that he had been more ambitious of obtaining the supreme power than worthy of possessing it. True it is, he had no dangerous passion; but his conduct discovered nothing but the sallies of youth and the freaks of obstinacy. He seemed to be equally proud and lazy. The ambassadors who resided at his court took him even for a person of mean capacity, and represented him as such to their respective masters. The Swedes entertained the same opinion of him: nobody knew his real character: he did not even know it himself, until the storm that suddenly arose in the North gave him an opportunity of displaying his great talents, which had hitherto lain concealed. Three powerful princes, taking the advantage of his youth, conspired his ruin almost at the same time. The first was his own cousin, Frederick IV, king of Denmark: the second, Augustus, elector of Saxony and King of Poland; Peter the Great, czar of Muscovy, was the third, and most dangerous. … The founder of the Russian empire was ambitious of being a conqueror. … Besides, he wanted a port on the east side of the Baltic, to facilitate the execution of all his schemes. He wanted the province of Ingria, which lies to the northeast of Livonia. The Swedes were in possession of it, and from them he resolved to take it by force. His predecessors had had claims upon Ingria, Esthonia, and Livonia; and the present seemed a favorable opportunity for reviving these claims, which had lain buried for a hundred years, and had been cancelled by the sanction of treaties. He therefore made a league with the King of Poland, to wrest from young Charles XII all the territories that are bounded by the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea, Poland, and Muscovy. The news of these preparations struck the Swedes with consternation, and alarmed the council." But the effect on the young King was instantly and strangely sobering. He assumed the responsibilities of the situation at once, and took into his own hands the preparations for war. From that moment "he entered on a new course of life, from which he never afterwards deviated in one single instance. Full of the idea of Alexander and Cæsar, he proposed to imitate those two conquerors in every thing but their vices. No longer did he indulge himself in magnificence, sports, and recreations: he reduced his table to the most rigid frugality. He had formerly been fond of gayety and dress; but from that time he was never clad otherwise than as a common soldier. He was supposed to have entertained a passion for a lady of his court: whether there was any foundation for this supposition does not appear; certain it is, he ever after renounced all commerce with women, not only for fear of being governed by them, but likewise to set an example of continence to his soldiers. … {2825} He likewise determined to abstain from wine during the rest of his life. … He began by assuring the Duke of Holstein, his brother-in-law, of a speedy assistance. Eight thousand men were immediately sent into Pomerania, a province bordering upon Holstein, in order to enable the duke to make head against the Danes. The duke indeed had need of them. His dominions were already laid waste, the castle of Gottorp taken, and the city of Tönningen pressed by an obstinate siege, to which the King of Denmark had come in person. … This spark began to throw the empire into a flame. On the one side, the Saxon troops of the King of Poland, those of Brandenburg Wolfenbüttel, and Hesse Cassel, advanced to join the Danes. On the other, the King of Sweden's 8,000 men, the troops of Hanover and Zell, and three Dutch regiments, came to the assistance of the duke. While the little country of Holstein was thus the theatre of war, two squadrons, the one from England and the other from Holland, appeared in the Baltic. … They joined the young King of Sweden, who seemed to be in danger of being crushed. … Charles set out for his first campaign on the 8th day of May, new style, in the year 1700, and left Stockholm, whither he never returned. … His fleet consisted of three-and-forty vessels. … He joined the squadrons of the allies," and made a descent upon Copenhagen. The city surrendered to escape bombardment, and in less than six weeks Charles had extorted from the Danish King a treaty of peace, negotiated at Travendahl, which indemnified the Duke of Holstein for all the expenses of the war and delivered him from oppression. For himself, Charles asked nothing. "Exactly at the same time, the King of Poland invested Riga, the capital of Livonia; and the czar was advancing on the east at the head of nearly 100,000 men." Riga was defended with great skill and determination, and Augustus was easily persuaded to abandon the siege on the remonstrance of the Dutch, who had much merchandise in the town. "The only thing that Charles had now to do towards the finishing of his first campaign, was to march against his rival in glory, Peter Alexiovitch." Peter had appeared before Narva on the 1st of October, at the head of 80,000 men, mostly undisciplined barbarians, "some armed with arrows, and others with clubs. Few of them had guns; none of them had ever seen a regular siege; and there was not one good cannoneer in the whole army. … Narva was almost without fortifications: Baron Horn, who commanded there, had not 1,000 regular troops; and yet this immense army could not reduce it in six weeks. It was now the 15th of November, when the czar learned that the King of Sweden had crossed the sea with 200 transports, and was advancing to the relief of Narva. The Swedes were not above 20,000 strong." But the czar was not confident. He had another army marching to his support, and he left the camp at Narva to hasten its movements. Charles' motions were too quick for him. He reached Narva on the 30th of November, after a forced march, with a vanguard of only 8,000 men, and at once, without waiting for the remainder of his army to come up, he stormed the Russian intrenchments. "The Swedes advanced with fixed bayonets, having a furious shower of snow on their backs, which drove full in the face of the enemy." The victory was complete. "The Swedes had not lost above 600 men. Eight thousand Muscovites had been killed in their intrenchments: many were drowned; many had crossed the river," and 30,000 who held a part of the camp at nightfall, surrendered next morning. When czar Peter, who was pressing the march of his 40,000 men, received news of the disaster at Narva, he turned homeward, and set himself seriously to the work of drilling and disciplining his troops. "The Swedes," he said phlegmatically, "will teach us to beat them."

Voltaire, History of Charles XII., King of Sweden, books 1-2.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1699. Accession of Frederick IV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1701-1707. Invasion and subjugation of Poland and Saxony by Charles XII. Deposition of Augustus from the Polish throne. Charles at the summit of his career.

"Whilst Peter, abandoning all the provinces he had invaded, retreated to his own dominions, and employed himself in training his undisciplined serfs, Charles prepared to take the field against his only remaining adversary, the King of Poland. Leaving Narva, where he passed the winter, he entered Livonia, and appeared in the neighbourhood of Riga, the very place which the Poles and Saxons had in vain besieged. Dreading the storm that now approached, Augustus had entered into a closer alliance with the czar; and at an interview which took place at Birsen, a small town in Lithuania, it was agreed that each should furnish the other with a body of 50,000 mercenaries, to be paid by Russia. … The Saxon army, having failed in their attempt on Riga, endeavoured to prevent the Swedes from crossing the Dwina; but the passage was effected under cover of a thick cloud of smoke from the burning of wet straw, and by means of large boats with high wooden parapets along the sides, to protect the soldiers from the fire of the enemy, who were driven from their intrenchments with the loss of 2,000 killed and 1,500 prisoners. Charles immediately advanced to Mittau, the capital of Courland, the garrison of which, with all the other towns and forts in the duchy, surrendered at discretion. He next passed into Lithuania, conquering wherever he came, and driving 20,000 Russians before him with the utmost precipitation. On reaching Birsen, it gave him no little satisfaction, as he himself confessed, to enter in triumph the very town where, only a few months before, Augustus and the czar had plotted his destruction. It was here that he formed the daring project of dethroning the King of Poland by means of his own subjects, whose notions of liberty could not tolerate the measures of a despotic government. … The fate of Augustus, already desperate, was here consummated by the treachery of the primate Radziewiski, who caused it to be immediately notified to all the palatines, that no alternative remained but to submit to the will of the conqueror. The deserted monarch resolved to defend his crown by force of arms; the two kings met near Clissau (July 13, 1702), where after a bloody battle fortune again declared for the Swedes. Charles halted not a moment on the field of victory, but marched rapidly to Cracow in pursuit of his antagonist. {2826} That city was taken without firing a shot, and taxed with a contribution of 100,000 rix-dollars. The fugitive prince obtained an unexpected respite of six weeks, his indefatigable rival having had his thigh-bone fractured by an accidental fall from his horse. The interval was spent in hostile preparations, but the recovery of Charles overturned all the schemes of his enemies, and the decisive battle of Pultusk (May 1, 1703) completed the humiliation of the unfortunate Augustus. At the instigation of the faithless cardinal, the diet at Warsaw declared (February 14, 1704) that the Elector of Saxony was incapable of wearing the crown, which was soon after bestowed on Stanislaus Leczinski, the young palatine of Posnania. Count Piper strongly urged his royal master to assume the sovereignty himself. … But the splendours of a diadem had few charms in the eyes of a conqueror who confessed that he felt much more pleasure in bestowing thrones upon others than in winning them for himself. Having thus succeeded in his favourite project, Charles resumed his march to complete the entire conquest of the kingdom. Every where had fortune crowned the bold expeditions of this adventurous prince. Whilst his generals and armies were pursuing their career from province to province, he had himself opened a passage for his victorious troops into Saxony and the imperial dominions. His ships, now masters of the Baltic, were employed in transporting to Sweden the prisoners taken in the wars. Denmark, bound up by the treaty of Travendhal, was prevented from offering any active interference; the Russians were kept in check towards the east by a detachment of 30,000 Swedes; so that the whole region was kept in awe by the sword of the conqueror, from the German Ocean almost to the mouth of the Borysthenes, and even to the gates of Moscow. The Czar Peter in the mean time, having carried Narva by assault, and captured several towns and fortresses in Livonia, held a conference with Augustus at Grodno, where the two sovereigns concerted their plans for attacking the Scandinavian invaders in their new conquests, with a combined army of 60,000 men, under Prince Menzikoff and General Schullemberg. Had the fate of the contest depended on numerical superiority alone, Charles must have been crushed before the overwhelming power of his enemies; but his courage and good fortune prevailed over every disadvantage. The scattered hordes of Muscovy were overthrown with so great celerity, that one detachment after another was routed before they learned the defeat of their companions. Schullemberg, with all his experience and reputation, was not more successful, having been completely beaten by Renschild, the Parmenio of the northern Alexander, in a sanguinary action (February 12, 1706), at the small town of Travenstadt, near Punitz, a place already fatal to the cause of Augustus. … The reduction of Saxony, which Charles next invaded, obliged Augustus to implore peace on any terms. The conditions exacted by the victor were, that he should renounce for ever the crown of Poland; acknowledge Stanislaus as lawful king; and dissolve his treaty of alliance with Russia. The inflexible temper of Charles was not likely to mitigate the severity of these demands, but their rigour was increased in consequence of the defeat of General Meyerfeld, near Kalisch, by Prince Menzikoff—the first advantage which the Muscovites had gained over the Swedes in a pitched battle. … The numerous victories of Charles, and the arbitrary manner in which he had deposed the King of Poland, filled all Europe with astonishment. Some states entertained apprehensions of his power, while others prepared to solicit his friendship. France, harassed by expensive wars in Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, courted his alliance with an ardour proportioned to the distressing state of her affairs. Offended at the declaration issued against him by the diet of Ratisbon, and resenting an indignity offered to Baron de Stralheim, his envoy at Vienna, he magnified these trivial affronts into an occasion of quarrelling with the emperor, who was obliged to succumb, and among other mortifying concessions, to grant his Lutheran subjects in Silesia the free exercise of their religious liberties as secured by the treaties of Westphalia. … The ambitious prince was now in the zenith of his glory; he had experienced no reverse, nor met with any interruption to his victories. The romantic extravagance of his views increased with his success. One year, he thought, will suffice for the conquest of Russia. The court of Rome was next to feel his vengeance, as the pope had dared to oppose the concession of religious liberty to the Silesian Protestants. No enterprise at that time appeared impossible to him."

A. Crichton, Scandinavia, Ancient and Modern, volume 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: S. A. Dunham, History of Poland, pages 219-221.

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

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1707-1718. Charles XII. in Russia. His ruinous defeat at Pultowa. His refuge among the Turks. His fruitless intrigues. His return to Sweden. His death.

"From Saxony, Charles marched back into Poland [September, 1707], where Peter was making some ineffectual efforts to revive the party of Augustus. Peter retired before his rival, who had, however, the satisfaction of defeating an army of 20,000 Russians [at Golowstschin, in the spring of 1708], strongly intrenched. Intoxicated by success, he rejected the czar's offers of peace, declaring that he would treat at Moscow; and without forming any systematic plan of operations, he crossed the frontiers, resolved on the destruction of that ancient city. Peter prevented the advance of the Swedes, on the direct line, by destroying the roads and desolating the country; Charles, after having endured great privations, turned off towards the Ukraine, whither he had been invited by Mazeppa, the chief of the Cossacks, who, disgusted by the conduct of the czar, had resolved to throw off his allegiance. In spite of all the obstacles that nature and the enemy could throw in his way, Charles reached the place of rendezvous; but he had the mortification to find Mazeppa appear in his camp as a fugitive rather than an ally, for the czar had discovered his treason, and disconcerted his schemes by the punishment of his associates. A still greater misfortune to the Swedes was the loss of the convoy and the ruin of the reinforcement they had expected from Livonia, General Lewenhaupt, to whose care it was entrusted, had been forced into three general engagements by the Russians; and though he had eminently distinguished himself by his courage and conduct, he was forced to set fire to his wagons to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy. {2827} Undaunted by these misfortunes, Charles continued the campaign even in the depth of a winter so severe that 2,000 men were at once frozen to death almost in his presence. At length he laid siege to Pultowa, a fortified city on the frontiers of the Ukraine, which contained one of the czar's principal magazines. The garrison was numerous and the resistance obstinate; Charles himself was dangerously wounded in the heel whilst viewing the works; and while he was still confined to his tent he learned that Peter was advancing with a numerous army to raise the siege. Leaving 7,000 men to guard the works, Charles ordered his soldiers to march and meet the enemy, while he accompanied them in a litter (July 8, 1709). The desperate charge of the Swedes broke the Russian cavalry, but the infantry stood firm, and gave the horse an opportunity of rallying in the rear. In the meantime the czar's artillery made dreadful havoc in the Swedish line; and Charles, who had been forced to abandon his cannon in his forced marches, in vain contended against this formidable disadvantage. After a dreadful combat of more than two hours' duration, the Swedish army was irretrievably ruined; 8,000 of their best troops were left dead on the field, 6,000 were taken prisoners, and about 12,000 of the fugitives were soon after forced to surrender on the banks of the Dnieper, from want of boats to cross the river. Charles, accompanied by about 300 of his guards, escaped to Bender, a Turkish town in Bessarabia, abandoning all his treasures to his rival, including the rich spoils of Poland and Saxony. Few victories have ever had such important consequences as that which the czar won at Pultowa; in one fatal day Charles lost the fruits of nine years' victories; the veteran army that had been the terror of Europe was completely ruined; those who escaped from the fatal field were taken prisoners, but they found a fate scarcely better than death; for they were transported by the czar to colonize the wilds of Siberia; the elector of Saxony re-entered Poland and drove Stanislaus from the throne; the kings of Denmark and Prussia revived old claims on the Swedish provinces, while the victorious Peter invaded not only Livonia and Ingria, but a great part of Finland. Indeed, but for the interference of the German emperor and the maritime powers, the Swedish monarchy would have been rent in pieces. Charles, in his exile, formed a new plan for the destruction of his hated rival; he instigated the Turks to attempt the conquest of Russia, and flattered himself that he might yet enter Moscow at the head of a Mohammedan army. The bribes which Peter lavishly bestowed on the counsellors of the sultan, for a time frustrated these intrigues; but Charles, through his friend Poniatowski, informed the sultan of his vizier's corruption, and procured the deposition of that minister. … The czar made the most vigorous preparations for the new war by which he was menaced (A. D. 1711). The Turkish vizier, on the other hand, assembled all the forces of the Ottoman Empire in the plains of Adrianople. Demetrius Cantemir, the hospodar of Moldavia, believing that a favourable opportunity presented itself for delivering his country from the Mohammedan yoke, invited the czar to his aid; and the Russians, rapidly advancing, reached the northern banks of the Pruth, near Yassi, the Moldavian capital. Here the Russians found that the promises of Prince Cantemir were illusory," and they were soon so enveloped by the forces of the Turks that there seemed to be no escape for them. But the czarina, Catherine —the Livonian peasant woman whom Peter had made his wife—gathered up her jewels and all the money she could find in camp, and sent them as a gift to the vizier, whereby he was induced to open negotiations. "A treaty [known as the Treaty of the Pruth] was concluded on terms which, though severe [requiring the Russians to give up Azof], were more favourable than Peter, under the circumstances, could reasonably have hoped; the Russians retired in safety, and Charles reached the Turkish camp, only to learn the downfall of all his expectations. A new series of intrigues in the court of Constantinople led to the appointment of a new vizier; but this minister was little inclined to gratify the king of Sweden; on the contrary, warned by the fate of his predecessors, he resolved to remove him from the Ottoman empire (A. D. 1713). Charles continued to linger; even after he had received a letter of dismissal from the sultan's own hand, he resolved to remain, and when a resolution was taken to send him away by force, he determined, with his few attendants, to dare the whole strength of the Turkish empire. After a fierce resistance, he was captured and conveyed a prisoner to Adrianople. … Another revolution in the divan revived the hopes of Charles, and induced him to remain in Turkey, when his return to the North would probably have restored him to his former eminence. The Swedes, under General Steenbock, gained one of the most brilliant victories that had been obtained during the war, over the united forces of the Danes and Saxons, at Gadebusch [November 20, 1712], in the duchy of Mecklenburg; but the conqueror sullied his fame by burning the defenceless town of Altona [January 19, 1713] an outrage which excited the indignation of all Europe." He soon after met with reverses and was compelled to surrender his whole army. "The czar in the meantime pushed forward his conquests on the side of Finland; and the glory of his reign appeared to be consummated by a naval victory obtained over the Swedes near the island of Oeland. … Charles heard of his rival's progress unmoved; but when he learned that the Swedish senate intended to make his sister regent and to make peace with Russia and Denmark, he announced his intention of returning home." He traversed Europe incognito, making the journey of 1,100 miles, mostly on horseback, in seventeen days, "and towards the close of the year [1714] reached Stralsund, the capital of Swedish Pomerania. Charles, at the opening of the next campaign, found himself surrounded with enemies (A. D. 1715). Stralsund itself was besieged by the united armies of the Prussians, Danes, and Saxons, while the Russian fleet, which now rode triumphant in the Baltic, threatened a descent upon Sweden. After an obstinate defence, in which the Swedish monarch displayed all his accustomed bravery, Stralsund was forced to capitulate, Charles having previously escaped in a small vessel to his native shores. All Europe believed the Swedish monarch undone; it was supposed he could no longer defend his own dominions, when, to the inexpressible astonishment of everyone, it was announced that he had invaded Norway. {2828} His attention, however, was less engaged by the war than by the gigantic intrigues of his new favourite, Goertz, who, taking advantage of a coolness between the Russians and the other enemies of Sweden, proposed that Peter and Charles should unite in strict amity, and dictate the law to Europe. … While the negotiations were yet in progress, Charles invaded Norway a second time, and invested the castle of Frederickshall in the very depth of winter. But while engaged in viewing the works he was struck by a cannon-ball, and was dead before any of his attendants came to his assistance [December 11, 1718]. The Swedish senate showed little grief for the loss

W. C. Taylor, Student's Manual of Modern History, chapter 7, section 6.

ALSO IN: E. Schuyler, Peter the Great, chapters 53-56 and 61-66 (volume 2).

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 18.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719. Accession of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1719-1721. Constitutional changes. Treaties of Peace ending the Great Northern War. Swedish cessions of Territory.

"An assembly of the States was summoned in February [1719], and completely altered the constitution. Sweden was declared an elective kingdom, and the government was vested in a council of 24 members, divided into eight colleges, who were invested with a power so absolute that their elected queen was reduced to a mere shadow. In short, the ancient oligarchy was restored, and Sweden became the prey of a few noble families. … In November a treaty was signed at Stockholm between Sweden and Great Britain, by which the Duchies of Bremen and Verden were ceded to George I. [as Elector of Hanover] in consideration of a payment of one million rix-dollars. By another treaty in January 1720, George engaged to support Sweden against Denmark and Russia, and to pay a yearly subsidy of $300,000 during the war. About the same time an armistice was concluded with Poland till a definitive treaty should be arranged on the basis of the Peace of Oliva. Augustus was to be recognised as King of Poland; but Stanislaus was to retain the royal title during his life, and to receive from Augustus a million rix-dollars. Both parties were to unite to check the preponderance of the Czar, whose troops excited great discontent and suspicion by their continued presence in Poland. On February 1st a peace was concluded with Prussia under the mediation of France and Great Britain. The principal articles of this treaty were that Sweden ceded to Prussia, Stettin, the Islands of Wollin and Usedom, and all the tract between the Oder and Peene, together with the towns of Damm and Golnau beyond the Oder. The King of Prussia, on his side, engaged not to assist the Czar, and to pay two million rix-dollars to the Queen of Sweden. The terms of a peace between Sweden and Denmark were more difficult of arrangement. … By the Treaty of Stockholm, June 12th 1720, the King of Denmark restored to Sweden, Wismar, Stralsund, Rügen, and all that he held in Pomerania; Sweden paying 600,000 rix-dollars and renouncing the freedom of the Sound. Thus the only territorial acquisition that Denmark made by the war was the greater part of the Duchy of Schleswig, the possession of which was guaranteed to her by England and France. Sweden and Russia were now the only Powers that remained at war. … At length, through the mediation of France, conferences were opened in May 1721, and the Peace of Nystad was signed, September 10th. … The only portion of his conquests that [Peter] relinquished was Finnland, with the exception of a part of Carelia; but as, by his treaty with Augustus II., at the beginning of the war, he had promised to restore Livonia to Poland if he conquered it, he paid the Crown of Sweden $2,000,000 in order to evade this engagement by alleging that he had purchased that province."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 5, chapter 7 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: F. C. Schlosser, History of the 18th Century, period 1, division 1, chapter 2, section 3.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720. Accession of Frederick of Hesse-Cassel, husband of Ulrica Eleonora.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1720-1792. Wars with Russia and Prussia. Humiliating powerlessness of the king. The parties of the Hats and the Caps. A constitutional Revolution. Assassination of Gustavus III.

Ulrica Eleonora, the sister of Charles XII., resigned the crown in 1720, in favor of her husband, Prince of Hesse, who became king under the title of Frederick I. His reign witnessed the conquest of Finland and the cession (1743) of a part of that province to Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.

On his death in 1751, Adolphus Frederick, bishop of Lubeck, and administrator of Holstein, was raised to the throne. "Though his personal qualities commanded respect, his reign was a disastrous one. He had the folly to join the coalition of Russia, Poland, Austria, and France against the king of Prussia. Twenty thousand Swedes were marched into Pomerania, on the pretext of enforcing the conditions of the treaty of Westphalia, but with the view of recovering the districts which had been ceded to Prussia after the death of Charles XII. They reduced Usedom and Wollin, with the fortresses on the coast; but this success was owing to the absence of the Prussians. When, in 1758, Schwald, the general of Frederic the Great, was at liberty to march with 30,000 men into Pomerania, he recovered the places which had been lost, and forced the invaders to retire under the cannon of Stralsund. The accession of the tsar Peter was still more favourable to Frederic. An enthusiastic admirer of that prince, he soon concluded a treaty with him. Sweden was forced to follow the example; and things remained, at the peace of Hubertsburg, in the same condition as before the war. Scarcely was Sweden at harmony with her formidable enemy, when she became agitated by internal commotions. We have alluded to the limitations set to the royal authority after the death of Charles XII., and to the discontent it engendered in the breasts of the Swedish monarchs. While they strove to emancipate themselves from the shackles imposed upon them, the diet was no less anxious to render them more enslaved. That diet, consisting of four orders, the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, and the peasants, was often the scene of tumultuous proceedings: it was rarely tranquil; yet it enjoyed the supreme legislative authority. {2829} It was also corrupt; for impoverished nobles and needy tradesmen had a voice, no less than the wealthiest members. All new laws, all ordinances, were signed by the king; yet he had no power of refusal; he was the mere registrar-general. … The king had sometimes refused to sign ordinances which he judged dangerous to the common weal: in 1756 an act was passed, that in future a stamp might be used in lieu of the sign-manual, whenever he should again refuse. More intolerable than all this was the manner in which the diet insisted on regulating the most trifling details of the royal household. This interference was resented by some of the members, belonging to what was called the 'Hat' party, who may be termed the tories of Sweden. Opposed to these were the 'Caps,' who were for shackling the crown with new restrictions, and of whom the leaders were undoubtedly in the pay of Russia. … As Russia was the secret soul of the Caps, so France endeavoured to support the Hats, whenever the courts of St. Petersburgh and St. Germains were hostile to each other. Stockholm therefore was an arena in which the two powers struggled for the ascendancy." Gustavus III., who succeeded his father Adolphus Frederic in 1771, was able with the help of French money and influence, and by winning to his support the burgher cavalry of the capital, to overawe the party of the Caps, and to impose a new constitution upon the country. The new constitution "conferred considerable powers on the sovereign; enabled him to make peace, or declare war, without the consent of the diet; but he could make no new law, or alter any already made, without its concurrence; and he was bound to ask, though not always to follow, the advice of his senate in matters of graver import. The form of the constitution was not much altered; and the four orders of deputies still remained. On the whole, it was a liberal constitution. If this revolution was agreeable to the Swedes themselves, it was odious to Catherine II., who saw Russian influence annihilated by it." The bad feeling between the two governments which followed led to war, in 1787, when Russia was engaged at the same time in hostilities with the Turks. The war was unpopular in Sweden, and Gustavus was frustrated in his ambitious designs on Finland. Peace was made in 1790, each party restoring its conquests, "so that things remained exactly as they were before the war." On the 16th March, 1792, Gustavus III. was assassinated, being shot at a masquerade ball, by one Ankerstrom, whose motives have remained always a mystery. Suspicion attached to others, the king's brother included, but nothing to justify it is proved. The murdered king was succeeded by his son Gustavus IV., who had but just passed the age of three years.

S. A. Dunham, History of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, book 3, chapter 4 (volume 3).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1730. Accession of Christian VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1746. Accession of Frederick V.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1751. Accession of Adolphus Frederick.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1766. Accession of Christian VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1771. Accession of Gustavus Ill.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1792. Accession of Gustavus Adolphus.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1795. Peace with France.

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

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1801-1802. The Northern Maritime League. English bombardment of Copenhagen and summary extortion of peace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1805. Joined in the Third Coalition against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1806. In the Russo-Prussian alliance against Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810. Northern fruits of the conspiracy of the two Emperors at Tilsit. Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Danish Fleet by the English. War of Russia and Denmark with Sweden, and conquest of Finland. Deposition of the Swedish king.

On the 7th of July, 1807, Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia, meeting on a raft, moored in the river Nieman, arranged the terms of the famous Treaty of Tilsit.

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

"There were Secret Articles in this Treaty of Tilsit in which England had a vital interest. These secret articles are not to be found in any collection of State Papers; but Napoleon's diplomatists have given a sufficient account of them to enable us to speak of them with assurance. Napoleon would not part with Constantinople; but he not only gave up Turkey as a whole to be dealt with as Alexander pleased, but agreed to unite his efforts with Alexander to wrest from the Porte all its provinces but Roumelia, if within three months she had not made terms satisfactory to Alexander. In requital for this, if England did not before the 1st of November make terms satisfactory to Napoleon, on the requisition of Russia, the two Emperors were to require of Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal, to close their ports against the English, and were to unite their forces in war against Great Britain. … In the month of May, the Duke of Portland had had an audience of the Prince of Wales at Carlton House, at which he had heard a piece of news from the Prince which it deeply concerned him, as Prime Minister, to know. The Prince Regent of Portugal had sent secret information that Napoleon wanted to invade our shores with the Portuguese and Danish fleets. The Portuguese had been refused. It was for us to see to the Danish. Mr. Canning lost no time in seeing to it: and while the Emperors were consulting at Tilsit, he was actively engaged in disabling Denmark from injuring us. When he had confidential information of the secret articles of the Tilsit Treaty, his proceedings were hastened, and they were made as peremptory as the occasion required. He endured great blame for a long time on account of this peremptoriness; and he could not justify himself because the government were pledged to secrecy. … Mr. Jackson, who had been for some years our envoy at the Court of Berlin, was sent to Kiel, to require of the Crown Prince (then at Kiel), who was known to be under intimidation by Napoleon, that the Danish navy should be delivered over to England, to be taken care of in British ports, and restored at the end of the war. The Crown Prince refused, with the indignation which was to be expected. … Mr. Jackson had been escorted, when he went forth on his mission, by 20 ships of the line, 40 frigates and other assistant vessels, and a fleet of transports, conveying 27,000 land troops. {2830} Admiral Gambier commanded the naval, and Lord Cathcart the military expedition. These forces had been got ready within a month, with great ability, and under perfect secrecy; and before the final orders were given, ministers had such information of the secret articles of the Treaty of Tilsit as left them no hesitation whatever about seizing the Danish fleet, if it was not lent quietly. … When, therefore, Mr. Jackson was indignantly dismissed by the Crown Prince, no time was to be lost in seizing the fleet. … On the 15th [of August] the forces were landed at Wedbeck, for their march upon Copenhagen, and the fleet worked up before the city. Once more, an attempt was made to avoid extremities. … The Crown Prince replied by a proclamation, amounting to a declaration of war. … And now the affair was decided. There could be no doubt as to what the end must be. … By the 1st of September, however, Stralsund was occupied by the French; and part of the British force was detached to watch them; and this proved that it would have been fatal to lose time. By the 8th of September, all was over; the Danish navy and arsenal were surrendered. One fourth of the buildings of the city were by that time destroyed; and In one street 500 persons were killed by the bombardment. … Efforts were made to conciliate the Danes after all was over; but, as was very natural, in vain. … Almost as soon as the news of the achievement reached England, the victors brought the Danish fleet into Portsmouth harbour. One of the most painful features of the case is the confiscation which ensued, because the surrender was not made quietly. At the moment of the attack, there were Danish merchantmen in our waters, with cargoes worth £2,000,000. These we took possession of; and, of course, of the navy which we had carried off."

H. Martineau, History of England, 1800-1815, book 2, chapter 1.

In fulfilment of the agreements of the Treaty of Tilsit, early in August, 1807, "a show was made by Russia of offering her mediation to Great Britain for the conclusion of a general peace; but as Mr. Canning required, as a pledge of the sincerity of the Czar, a frank communication of the secret articles at Tilsit, the proposal fell to the ground." Its failure was made certain by the action of England in taking possession by force of the Danish fleet. On the 5th of November, upon the peremptory demand of Napoleon, war was accordingly declared against Great Britain by the Czar. "Denmark had concluded (October 16) an alliance, offensive and defensive, with France, and Sweden was now summoned by Russia to join the Continental League. But the King, faithful to his engagements [with England], resolutely refused submission; on which war was declared against him early in 1808, and an overwhelming force poured into Finland, the seizure of which by Russia had been agreed on at Tilsit."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe, sections 455-456 (chapter 51, volume. 11, of complete work).

In November, 1808, Finland was virtually given up to Alexander; and Sweden was thus deprived of her great granary, and destined to ruin. England had of late aided her vigourously, driving the Russian navy into port, and blockading them there; and sending Sir John Moore, with 10,000 men, in May, when France, Russia, and Denmark, were all advancing to crush the gallant Swedes. Sir John Moore found the King in what he thought a very wild state of mind, proposing conquests, when he had not forces enough for defensive operations. All agreement in their views was found to be impossible: the King resented the Englishman's caution; Sir John Moore thought the King so nearly mad that he made off in disguise from Stockholm, and brought back his troops, which had never been landed. … After the relinquishment of Finland, the Swedish people found they could endure no more. Besides Finland, they had lost Pomerania: they were reduced to want; they were thinned by pestilence as well as by war; but the King's ruling idea was to continue the conflict to the last. … As the only way to preserve their existence, his subjects gently deposed him, and put the administration of affairs into the hands of his aged uncle, the Duke of Sudermania. The poor King was arrested on the 13th of March, 1809, as he was setting out for his country seat, … and placed in imprisonment for a short time. His uncle, at first called Regent, was soon made King. … Peace was made with Russia in September, 1809, and with France in the following January. Pomerania was restored to Sweden, but not Finland; and she had to make great sacrifices. … She was compelled to bear her part in the Continental System of Napoleon, and to shut her ports against all communications with England."

H. Martineau, History of England, 1800-1815, book 2, chapter 1.

"The invasion by the Tzar Alexander I. in 1808 led to the complete separation of Finland and the other Swedish lands east of the gulf of Bothnia from the Swedish crown. Finland was conquered and annexed by the conqueror; but it was annexed after a fashion in which one may suppose that no other conquered land ever was annexed. In fact one may doubt whether 'annexed' is the right word. Since 1809 the crowns of Russia and Finland are necessarily, worn by the same person; the Russian and the Finnish nation have necessarily the same sovereign. But Finland is not incorporated with Russia; in everything but the common sovereign Russia and Finland are countries foreign to one another. And when we speak of the crown and the nation of Finland, we speak of a crown and a nation which were called into being by the will of the conqueror himself. … The conqueror had possession of part of the Swedish dominions, and he called on the people of that part to meet him in a separate Parliament, but one chosen in exactly the same way as the existing law prescribed for the common Parliament of the whole. … In his new character of Grand Duke of Finland, the Tzar Alexander came to Borga, and there on March 27th, 1809, fully confirmed the existing constitution, laws, and religion of his new State. The position of that State is best described in his own words. Speaking neither Swedish nor Finnish, and speaking to hearers who understood no Russian, the new Grand Duke used the French tongue. Finland was 'Placé désormais au rang des nations'; it was a 'Nation, tranquille au dehors, libre dans l'intérieur.' [Finland was 'Placed henceforth in the rank of the nations; it was a Nation tranquil without, free within.'] And it was a nation of his own founding. {2831} The people of Finland had ceased to be a part of the Swedish nation; they had not become a part of the Russian nation; they had become a nation by themselves. All this, be it remembered, happened before the formal cession of the lost lands by Sweden to Russia. This was not made till the Peace of Frederikshamn on September 17th of the same year. The treaty contained no stipulation for the political rights of Finland; their full confirmation by the new sovereign was held to be enough. Two years later, in 1811, the boundary of the new State was enlarged. Alexander, Emperor of all the Russias and Grand Duke of Finland, cut off from his empire, and added to his grand duchy, the Finnish districts which had been ceded by Sweden to Russia sixty years before. The boundary of his constitutional grand duchy was brought very near indeed to the capital of his despotic empire."

_E. A. Freeman, Finland (Macmillan's Magazine, March, 1892)._

ALSO IN: General Monteith, editor, Narrative of the Conquest of Finland, by a Russian Officer (with appended documents).

C. Joyneville, Life and Times of Alexander I., volume 2, chapter 2.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark and Norway): A. D. 1808. Accession of Frederick VI.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809. Accession of Charles XIII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1809. Granting of the Constitution.

See CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810. Election of Bernadotte to be Crown Prince and successor to the throne.

The new king, lately called to the throne, being aged, "the eyes of the people were fixed on the successor, or Crown Prince, who took upon himself the chief labour of the government, and appears to have given satisfaction to the nation. But his government was of short duration. On the 28th of .May 1810, while reviewing some troops, he suddenly fell from his horse and expired on the spot, leaving Sweden again without any head excepting the old King. This event agitated the whole nation, and various candidates were proposed for the succession of the kingdom. Among these was the King of Denmark, who, after the sacrifices he had made for Buonaparte, had some right to expect his support. The son of the late unfortunate monarch, rightful heir of the crown, and named like him Gustavus, was also proposed as a candidate. The Duke of Oldenburg, brother-in-law of the Emperor of Russia, had partizans. To each of these candidates there lay practical objections. To have followed the line of lawful succession, and called Gustavus to the throne, (which could not be forfeited by his father's infirmity, so far as he was concerned,) would have been to place a child at the head of the state, and must have inferred, amid this most arduous crisis, all the doubts and difficulties of choosing a regent. Such choice might, too, be the means, at a future time, of reviving his father's claim to the crown. The countries of Denmark and Sweden had been too long rivals, for the Swedes to subject themselves to the yoke of the King of Denmark; and to choose the Duke of Oldenburg would have been, in effect, to submit themselves to Russia, of whose last behaviour towards her Sweden had considerable reason to complain. In this embarrassment they were thought to start a happy idea, who proposed to conciliate Napoleon by bestowing the ancient crown of the Goths upon one of his own Field Marshals, and a high noble of his empire, namely, John Julian Baptiste Bernadotte, Prince of Ponte Corvo. This distinguished officer was married to a sister of Joseph Buonaparte's wife, (daughter of a wealthy and respectable individual, named Clary,) through whom he had the advantage of an alliance with the Imperial family of Napoleon, and he had acquired a high reputation in the north of Europe, both when governor of Hanover, and administrator of Swedish Pomerania. On the latter occasion, Bernadotte was said to have shown himself in a particular manner the friend and protector of the Swedish nation; and it was even insinuated that he would not be averse to exchange the errors of Popery for the reformed tenets of Luther. The Swedish nation fell very generally into the line of policy which prompted this choice. … It was a choice, sure, as they thought, to be agreeable to him upon whose nod the world seemed to depend. Yet, there is the best reason to doubt, whether, in preferring Bernadotte to their vacant throne, the Swedes did a thing which was gratifying to Napoleon. The name of the Crown Prince of Sweden elect, had been known in the wars of the Revolution, before that of Buonaparte had been heard of. Bernadotte had been the older, therefore, though certainly not the better soldier. On the 18th Brumaire, he was so far from joining Buonaparte in his enterprise against the Council of Five Hundred, notwithstanding all advances made to him, that he was on the spot at St. Cloud armed and prepared, had circumstances permitted, to place himself at the head of any part of the military, who might be brought to declare for the Directory. And although, like everyone else, Bernadotte submitted to the Consular system, and held the government of Holland under Buonaparte, yet then, as well as under the empire, he was always understood to belong to a class of officers, whom Napoleon employed indeed, and rewarded, but without loving them, or perhaps relying on them more than he was compelled to do, although their character was in most instances a warrant for their fidelity. These officers formed a comparatively small class, yet comprehending some of the most distinguished names in the French army. … Reconciled by necessity to a state of servitude which they could not avoid, this party considered themselves as the soldiers of France, not of Napoleon, and followed the banner of their country rather than the fortunes of the Emperor. Without being personally Napoleon's enemies, they were not the friends of his despotic power. … Besides the suspicion entertained by Napoleon of Bernadotte's political opinions, subjects of positive discord had recently arisen between them. … But while such were the bad terms betwixt the Emperor and his general, the Swedes, unsuspicious of the true state of the case, imagined, that in choosing Bernadotte for successor to their throne, they were paying to Buonaparte the most acceptable tribute. And, notwithstanding that Napoleon was actually at variance with Bernadotte, and although, in a political view, he would much rather have given his aid to the pretensions of the King of Denmark, he was under the necessity of reflecting, that Sweden retained a certain degree of independence; that the sea separated her shores from his armies; and that, however willing to conciliate him, the Swedes were not in a condition absolutely to be compelled to receive laws at his hand. {2832} It was necessary to acquiesce in their choice, since he could not dictate to them; and by doing so he might at the same time exhibit another splendid example of the height to which his service conducted his generals. … We have, however, been favoured with some manuscript observations … which prove distinctly, that while Napoleon treated the Crown Prince Elect of Sweden with fair language, he endeavoured by underhand intrigues to prevent the accomplishment of his hopes. The Swedes, however, remained fixed in their choice, notwithstanding the insinuations of Desaugier, the French envoy, whom Napoleon afterwards affected to disown and recall, for supporting in the diet of Orebro the interest of the King of Denmark, instead of that of Bernadotte. Napoleon's cold assent, or rather an assurance that he would not dissent, being thus wrung reluctantly from him, Bernadotte, owing to his excellent character among the Swedes, and their opinion of his interest with Napoleon, was chosen Crown Prince of Sweden by the States of that kingdom, 21st August 1810."

Sir W. Scott, Life of Napoleon, volume 2, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: M. de Bourrienne, Private Memoirs of Napoleon, volume 4, chapter 7.

Lady Bloomfield, Memoirs of Lord Bloomfield, volume 1, pages 17-34.

_W. G. Meredith, Memorials of Charles John, King of Sweden and Norway._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1810. Alliance with Russia against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1813. Joined with the new Coalition against Napoleon. Participation in the War of Liberation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813 to 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1813-1814. The Peace of Kiel. Cession of Norway to Sweden and of Swedish Pomerania to Denmark.

"The Danes, having been driven out of Holstein by Bernadotte [see GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER)], concluded an armistice December 18th, and, finally, the Peace of Kiel, January 14th 1814, by which Frederick VI. ceded Norway to Sweden; reserving, however, Greenland, the Ferroe Isles, and Iceland, which were regarded as dependencies of Norway. Norway, which was anciently governed by its own kings, had remained united with Denmark ever since the death of Olaf V. in 1387. Charles XIII., on his side, ceded to Denmark Swedish Pomerania and the Isle of Rugen. This treaty founded the present system of the North. Sweden withdrew entirely from her connection with Germany, and became a purely Scandinavian Power. The Norwegians, who detested the Swedes, made an attempt to assert their independence under the conduct of Prince Christian Frederick, cousin-german and heir of Frederick VI. of Denmark. Christian Frederick was proclaimed King of Norway; but the movement was opposed by Great Britain and the Allied Powers from considerations of policy rather than justice; and the Norwegians found themselves compelled to decree the union of Norway and Sweden in a storting, or Diet, assembled at Christiania, November 4th 1814. Frederick VI. also signed a peace with Great Britain at Kiel, January 14th 1814. All the Danish colonies, except Heligoland, which had been taken by the English, were restored."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 7, chapter 16 (volume 4).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1814. The Allies in France and in possession of Paris. Fall of Napoleon.

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

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Norway): A. D. 1814-1815. The Norwegian constitution under the union with Sweden.

"When, by the treaty of Kiel in 1814, Norway was taken from Denmark, and handed over to Sweden, the Norwegians roused them·selves to once more assert their nationality. The Swedes appeared in force, by land and sea, upon the frontiers of Norway. It was not, however, until the latter country had been guaranteed complete national independence that she consented to a union of the countries under the one crown. The agreement was made, and the constitution of Norway granted on the 17th of May 1814, at which date the contemporary history of Norway begins. … The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv), which almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and hung up in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th of November 1814. The Act of Union with Sweden is dated the 6th of August 1815. The union of the two states is a union of the crown alone. … Sweden and Norway form, like Great Britain, a hereditary limited monarchy. One of the clauses in the Act of Union provides that the king of the joint countries must reside for a certain part of the year in Norway. But, as a matter of fact, this period is a short one. In his absence, the king is represented by the Council of State (Statsraad), which must be composed entirely of Norwegians, and consist of two Ministers of State (Cabinet Ministers), and nine other Councillors of State. As with us, the king personally can do no wrong; the responsibility for his acts rests with his ministers. Of the State Council, or Privy Council (above spoken of), three members, one a Cabinet Minister, and two ordinary members of the Privy Council, are always in attendance upon the king, whether he is residing in Norway or Sweden. The rest of the Council forms the Norwegian Government resident in the country. All functionaries are appointed by the king, with the ad·vice of this Council of State. The officials, who form what we should call the Government (as distinguished from what we should call the Civil Service), together with the préfets (Amtmen) and the higher grades of the army are, nominally, removable by the king; but, If removed, they continue to draw two-thirds of their salary until their case has come before Parliament (the Stor-thing, Great Thing), which decides upon their pensions. … In 1876 the number of electors to the Storthing were under 140,000, not more than 7.7 per cent. of the whole population. So that the franchise was by no means a very wide one. … In foreign affairs only does Norway not act as an independent nation. There is a single foreign minister for the two countries and he is usually a Swede. For the purposes of internal administration, Norway is divided into twenty districts, called Amter—which we may best translate 'Prefectures.' Of these, the two chief towns of the country, Christiania (with its population of 150,000) and Bergen (population about 50,000) form each a separate Amt."

C. F. Keary, Norway and the Norwegians, chapter 13.

See CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1815. Swedish Pomerania sold to Prussia.

See VIENNA, CONGRESS.

{2833}

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1818. Accession of Charles XIV. (Bernadotte).

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1839. Accession of Christian VIII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1844. Accession of Oscar I.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848. Accession of Frederick VII.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1848-1862. The Schleswig-Holstein question. First war with Prussia.

"The two Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein lie to the south of modern Denmark. Holstein, the more southern of the two, is exclusively German in its population. Schleswig, the more northern, contains a mixed population of Danes and Germans. In the course of the 14th century Schleswig was conquered by Denmark, but ceded to Count Gerard of Holstein—the Constitution of Waldemar providing that the two Duchies should be under one Lord, but that they should never be united to Denmark. This is the first fact to realise in the complex history of the Schleswig-Holstein question. The line of Gerard of Holstein expired in 1375. It was succeeded by a branch of the house of Oldenburg. In 1448 a member of this house, the nephew of the reigning Duke, was elected to the throne of Denmark. The reigning Duke procured in that year a confirmation of the compact that Schleswig should never be united with Denmark. Dying without issue in 1459, the Duke was succeeded, by the election of the Estates, by his nephew Christian I. of Denmark. In electing Christian, however, the Estates compelled him in 1460 to renew the compact confirmed in 1448. And, though Duchies and Crown were thenceforward united, the only link between them was the sovereign. Even this link could possibly be severed. For the succession in the Duchy was secured to the male heir in direct contradiction of the law of Denmark. … It would complicate this narrative if stress were laid on the various changes in the relations between Kingdom and Duchies which were consequent on the unsettled state of Europe during the three succeeding centuries. It is sufficient to say that, by a treaty made in 1773, the arrangements concluded more than 300 years before were confirmed. Schleswig-Holstein reverted once more to the King of Denmark under exactly the same conditions as in the time of Christian I., who had expressly recognised that he governed them as Duke, that is, by virtue of their own law of succession. Such an arrangement was not likely to be respected amidst the convulsions which affected Europe in the commencement of the present century. In 1806 Christian VII. took advantage of the disruption of the German Empire formally to incorporate the Duchies into his Kingdom. No one was in a position to dispute the act of the monarch. In 1815, however, the King of Denmark, by virtue of his rights in Holstein and Lauenburg, joined the Confederation of the Rhine; and the nobility of Holstein, brought in this way into fresh connection with Germany, appealed to the German Diet. But the Diet, in the first quarter of the 19th century, was subject to influences opposed to the rights of nationalities. It declined to interfere, and the union of Duchies and Kingdom was maintained. Christian VII. was succeeded in 1808 by his son Frederick VI., who was followed in 1839 by his cousin Christian VIII. The latter monarch had only one son, afterwards Frederick VII., who, though twice married, had no children. On his death, if no alteration had been made, the crown of Denmark would have passed to the female line—the present reigning dynasty —while the Duchies, by the old undisputed law, would have reverted to a younger branch, which descended through males to the house of Augustenburg. With this prospect before them it became very desirable for the Danes to amalgamate the Duchies; and in the year 1844 the Danish Estates almost unanimously adopted a motion that the King should proclaim Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg one indivisible State. In 1846 the King put forth a declaration that there was no doubt that the Danish law of succession prevailed in Schleswig. He admitted that there was more doubt respecting Holstein. But he promised to use his endeavours to obtain the recognition of the integrity of Denmark as a collective State. Powerless alone against the Danes and their sovereign, Holstein appealed to the Diet; and the Diet took up the quarrel, and reserved the right of enforcing its legitimate authority in case of need. Christian VIII. died in .January 1848. His son, Frederick VII., the last of his line, grasped the tiller of the State at a critical moment. Crowns, before a month was over, were tumbling off the heads of half the sovereigns of Europe; and Denmark, shaken by these events, felt the full force of the revolutionary movement. Face to face with revolution at home and Germany across the frontier, the new King tried to cut instead of untying the Gordian knot. He separated Holstein from Schleswig, incorporating the latter in Denmark but allowing the former under its own constitution to form part of the German Confederation. Frederick VII. probably hoped that the German Diet would be content with the half-loaf which he offered it. The Diet., however, replied to the challenge by formally incorporating Schleswig in Germany, and by committing to Prussia the office of mediation.

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

War broke out, but the arms of Prussia were crippled by the revolution which shook her throne. The sword of Denmark, under these circumstances, proved victorious; and the Duchies were ultimately compelled to submit to the decision which force had pronounced. These events gave rise to the famous protocol which was signed in London, in August 1850, by England, France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark. This document settled the question, so far as diplomacy could determine it, in the interests of Denmark. The unity of Denmark, Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg was secured by a uniform law of succession, and their internal affairs were placed, as far as practicable, under a common administration. The protocol of 1850 was signed by Lord Palmerston during the Russell Administration. It was succeeded by the treaty of 1852, which was concluded by Lord Malmesbury. This treaty, to which all the great powers were parties, was the logical consequence of the protocol. Under it the succession to Kingdom and Duchies was assigned to Prince Christian of Glücksburg, the present reigning King of Denmark. The integrity of the whole Danish Monarchy was declared permanent; but the rights of the German Confederation with respect to Holstein and Schleswig were reserved. {2834} The declaration was made in accordance with the views of Russia, England, and France; the reservation was inserted in the interests of the German powers; and in a manifesto, which was communicated to the German Courts, the King of Denmark laid down elaborate rules for the treatment and government of the Duchies. Thus, while the succession to the Danish throne and the integrity of Denmark had been secured by the protocol of 1850 and the treaty of 1852, the elaborate promises of the Danish King, formally communicated to the German powers, had given the latter a pretext for contending that these pledges were at least as sacred as the treaty. And the next ten years made the pretext much more formidable than it seemed in 1852. … The Danes endeavoured to extricate themselves from a constantly growing embarrassment by repeating the policy of 1848, by granting, under what was known as the Constitution of 1855, autonomous institutions to Holstein, by consolidating the purely Danish portions of the Monarchy, and by incorporating Schleswig, which was partly Danish and partly German, in Denmark. But the German inhabitants of Schleswig resented this arrangement. They complained of the suppression of their language and the employment of Danish functionaries, and they argued that, under the engagements which had been contracted between 1851 and 1852, Holstein had a voice in constitutional changes of this character. This argument added heat to a dispute already acute. For it was now plain that, while the German Diet claimed the right to interfere in Holstein, Holstein asserted her claim to be heard on the affairs of the entire Kingdom."

S. Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, chapter 30 (volume 2).

In the first period of the war of 1848-9, the only important battle was fought at Duppeln, June 5, 1848. The Prussians were superior in land forces, but the Danes were able to make use of a flotilla of gunboats in defending their strong position. "After a useless slaughter, both parties remained nearly in the same position as they had occupied at the commencement of the conflict." The war was suspended in August by an armistice—that of Malmö—but was renewed in the April following. "On the 20th April [1849] the Prussians invaded Jutland with 48 battalions, 48 guns, and 2,000 horse; and the Danish generals, unable to make head against such a crusade, retired through the town of Kolding, which was fortified and commanded an important bridge that was abandoned to the invaders. The Danes, however, returned, and after a bloody combat dislodged the Prussians, but were finally obliged to evacuate it by the fire of the German mortars, which reduced the town to ashes. On the 3d May the Danes had their revenge, in the defeat of a large body of the Schleswig insurgents by a Danish corps near the fortress of Fredericia, with the loss of 340 men. A more important advantage was gained by them on the 6th July," over the Germans who were besieging Fredericia. "The loss of the Germans in this disastrous affair was 96 officers and 3,250 men killed and wounded, with their whole siege-artillery and stores. … This brilliant victory was immediately followed by the retreat of the Germans from nearly the whole of Jutland. A convention was soon after concluded at Berlin, which established an armistice for six months," and which was followed by the negotiations and treaties described above. But hostilities were not yet at an end; for the insurgents of Schleswig and Holstein remained in arms, and were said to receive almost open encouragement and aid from Prussia. Their army, 32,000 strong, occupied Idstedt and Wedelspang. They were attacked at the former place, on the 25th of July, 1850, by the Danes, and defeated after a bloody conflict. "The loss on both sides amounted to nearly 8,000 men, or about one in eight of the troops engaged; a prodigious slaughter, unexampled in European war since the battle of Waterloo. Of these, nearly 3,000, including 85 officers, were killed or wounded on the side of the Danes, and 5,000 on that of the insurgents, whose loss in officers was peculiarly severe."

Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1815-1852, chapter 53.

From 1855 to 1862 the history of Denmark was uneventful. But in the next year King Frederick VII. died, and the Treaty of London, which had settled the succession upon Prince Christian of Glücksburg, failed to prevent the reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question.

ALSO IN: C. A. Gosch, Denmark and Germany since 1815, chapters 3-9.

_A Forgotten War (Spectator, September 22, 1894, reviewing Count von Moltke's "Geschichte des Krieges gegen Dänemark, 1848-49 "). _

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark-Iceland): A. D. 1849-1874. The Danish constitution. Relations of Iceland to Denmark.

Denmark became a constitutional monarchy in 1849. The principal provisions of the Constitution are these: Every king of Denmark, before he can assume the government of the monarchy, must deliver a written oath that he will observe the constitution. He alone is invested with the executive power, but the legislative he exercises conjointly with the Assembly (Rigsdag). He can declare war and make peace, enter and renounce alliances. But he cannot, without the consent of the Assembly, sign away any of the possessions of the kingdom or encumber it with any State obligations. … The king's person is sacred and inviolable; he is exempt from all responsibility. The ministers form the Council of State, of which the king is the president, and where, by right, the heir-apparent has a seat. The king has an absolute veto. The Rigsdag (Assembly) meets every year, and cannot be prorogued till the session has lasted for two months at least. It consists of two Chambers—the Upper Chamber, 'Landsting,' and the Lower Chamber, 'Folketing.' The Upper Chamber consists of 66 members, twelve of which are Crown-elects for life, seven chosen by Copenhagen, and one by the so-called Lagting of Faro. The 46 remaining members are voted in by ten electoral districts, each of which comprises from one to three Amts, or rural governorships, with the towns situated within each of them included. The elections are arranged on the proportional or minority system. In Copenhagen and in the other towns one moiety of electors is chosen out of those who possess the franchise for the Lower House, the other moiety is selected from among those who pay the highest municipal rates. In every rural commune one elector is chosen by all the enfranchised members of the community. … The Lower House is elected for three years, and consists of 102 members; consequently there are 102 electorates or electoral districts. … The Lower House is elected by manhood suffrage. {2835} Every man thirty years old has a vote, provided there be no stain on his character, and that he possesses the birthright of a citizen within his district, and has been domiciled for a year within it before exercising his right of voting, and does not stand in such a subordinate relation of service to private persons as not to have a home of his own. … The two Chambers of the Rigsdag stand, as legislative bodies, on an equal footing, both having the right to propose and to alter laws. … At present [1891] this very Liberal Constitution is not working smoothly. As was to be expected, two parties have gradually come into existence—a Conservative and a Liberal, or, as they are termed after French fashion, the Right and the Left. The country is governed at present arbitrarily against an opposition in overwhelming majority in the Lower House. The dispute between the Left and the Ministry does not really turn so much upon conflicting views with regard to great public interests, as upon the question whether Denmark has, or has not, to have parliamentary government. … The Right represents chiefly the educated and the wealthy classes; the Left the mass of the people, and is looked down upon by the Right. … I said in the beginning that I would tell you how the constitutional principle has been applied to Iceland. I have only time briefly to touch upon that matter. In 1800 the old Althing (All Men's Assembly, General Diet), which had existed from 930, came to an end. Forty-five years later it was re-established by King Christian VIII. in the character of a consultative assembly. … The Althing at once began to direct its attention to the question—What Iceland's proper position should be in the Danish monarchy when eventually its anticipated constitution should be carried out. The country had always been governed by its special laws; it had a code of laws of its own, and it had never been ruled, in administrative sense, as a province of Denmark. Every successive king had, on his accession to the throne, issued a proclamation guaranteeing to Iceland due observance of the country's laws and traditional privileges. Hence it was found entirely impracticable to include Iceland under the provisions of the charter for Denmark; and a royal rescript of September 23, 1848, announced that with regard to Iceland no measures for settling the constitutional relation of that part of the monarchy would be adopted until a constitutive assembly in the country itself 'had been heard' on the subject. Unfortunately, the revolt of the duchies intervened between this declaration and the date of the constitutive assembly which was fixed for 1851. The Government took fright, being unfortunately quite in the dark about the real state of public opinion in the distant dependency. … The Icelanders only wanted to abide by their laws, and to have the management of their own home affairs, but the so-called National-Liberal Government wanted to incorporate the country as a province in the kingdom of Denmark proper. This idea the Icelanders really never could understand as seriously meant. … The constitutive assembly was brusquely dissolved by the Royal Commissary when he saw that it meant to insist on autonomy for the Icelanders in their own home affairs. And from 1851 to 1874 every successive Althing (but one) persisted in calling on the Government to fulfil the royal promise of 1848. It was no doubt due to the very loyal, quiet, and able manner in which the Icelanders pursued their case, under the leadership of the trusted patriot, Jon Sigurdsson, that in 1874 the Government at last agreed to give Iceland the constitution it demanded. But instead of frankly meeting the Icelandic demands in full, they were only partially complied with, and from the first the charter met with but scanty popularity."

_E. Magnusson, Denmark and Iceland (National Life and Thought, chapter 12)._

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden): A. D. 1855. In the alliance against Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1859. Accession of Charles XV.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1863. Accession of Christian IX.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Denmark): A. D. 1864. Reopening of the Schleswig-Holstein question. Austro-Prussian invasion and conquest of the duchies.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: (Sweden and Norway): A. D. 1872. Accession of Oscar II.

SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1890. Population.

By a census taken, at the close of 1890, the population of Sweden was found to be 4,784,981, and that of Norway 2,000,917. The population of Denmark, according to a census taken in February, 1890, was 2,185,335.

Statesman's Year-Book, 1894.

----------SCANDINAVIAN STATES: End--------

SCANZIA, Island of.

The peninsula of Sweden and Norway was so called by some ancient writers.

See GOTHS, ORIGIN OF THE.

SCHAH, SHAH.

See BEY.

SCHAMYL'S WAR WITH THE RUSSIANS.

See CAUCASUS.

SCHARNHORST'S MILITARY REFORMS IN PRUSSIA.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807-1808.

SCHELLENBERG, or HERMANSTADT, Battle of (1599).

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14-18TH CENTURIES (ROUMANIA, ETC.).

SCHENECTADY: A. D. 1690. Massacre and Destruction by French and Indians.

See CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

SCHEPENS.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

SCHILL'S RISING.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (APRIL-JULY).

SCHISM, The Great.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417, and 1414-1418; also, ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389, and 1386-1414.

SCHISM ACT.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

SCHKIPETARS, Albanian.

See ILLYRIANS.

SCHLESWIG, and the Schleswig-Holstein question.

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

SCHMALKALDIC LEAGUE, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1530-1532.

SCHŒNE, The.

An ancient Egyptian measure of length which is supposed, as in the case of the Persian parasang, to have been fixed by no standard, but to have been merely a rude estimate of distance.

See PARASANG.

{2836}

SCHOFIELD, General J. M. Campaign in Missouri and Arkansas.

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

The Atlanta Campaign.

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

Campaign against Hood.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE), and (DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

SCHOLARII.

The household troops or imperial life-guards of the Eastern Roman Empire.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 5, chapter 20.

SCHOLASTICISM. SCHOOLMEN.

See EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL: SCHOLASTICISM.

SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, Charlemagne's.

"Charlemagne took great care to attract distinguished foreigners into his states, and … among those who helped to second intellectual development in Frankish Gaul, many came from abroad. … He not only strove to attract distinguished men into his states, but he protected and encouraged them wherever he discovered them. More than one Anglo-Saxon abbey shared his liberality; and learned men who, after following him into Gaul, wished to return to their country, in no way became strangers to him. … Alcuin fixed himself there permanently. He was born in England, at York, about 735. The intellectual state of Ireland and England was then superior to that of the continent; letters and schools prospered there more than anywhere else. … The schools of England, and particularly that of York, were superior to those of the continent. That of York possessed a rich library, where many of the works of pagan antiquity were found; among others, those of Aristotle, which it is a mistake to say were first introduced to the knowledge of modern Europe by the Arabians, and the Arabians only; for from the fifth to the tenth century, there is no epoch in which we do not find them mentioned in some library, in which they were not known and studied by some men of letters. … In 780, on the death of archbishop Ælbert, and the accession of his successor, Eanbald, Alcuin received from him the mission to proceed to Rome for the purpose of obtaining from the pope and bringing to him the 'pallium.' In returning from Rome, he came to Parma, where he found Charlemagne. … The emperor at once pressed him to take up his abode in France. After some hesitation, Alcuin accepted the invitation, subject to the permission of his bishop, and of his own sovereign. The permission was obtained, and in 782 we find him established in the court of Charlemagne, who at once gave him three abbeys, those of Ferrieres in Gatanois, of St. Loup at Troyes, and of St. Josse in the county of Ponthieu. From this time forth, Alcuin was the confidant, the councillor, the intellectual prime minister, so to speak, of Charlemagne. … From 782 to 796, the period of his residence in the court of Charlemagne, Alcuin presided over a private school, called 'The School of the Palace,' which accompanied Charlemagne wherever he went, and at which were regularly present all those who were with the emperor. … It is difficult to say what could have been the course of instruction pursued in this school; I am disposed to believe that to such auditors Alcuin addressed himself generally upon all sorts of topics as they occurred; that in the 'Ecole du Palais,' in fact, it was conversation rather than teaching, especially so called, that went on; that movement given to mind, curiosity constantly excited and satisfied, was its chief merit."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 22 (volume 3).

See, also, EDUCATION, MEDIÆVAL.

ALSO IN: _A. F. West, Alcuin and the Rise of the Christian Schools._

SCHOOLS.

See EDUCATION.

SCHÖNBRUNN, Treaty of (1806).

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

Treaty of (1809).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCHOUT AND SCHEPENS.

The chief magistrate and aldermen of the chartered towns of Holland were called the Schout and the Schepens.

J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction, section 6.

"In every tribunal there is a Schout or sheriff, who convenes the judges, and demands from them justice for the litigating parties; for the word 'schout' is derived from 'schuld,' debt, and he is so denominated because he is the person who recovers or demands common debts, according to Grotius."

Van Leeuwen, Commentaries on Roman Dutch Law, quoted in O'Callaghan's History of New Netherland, volume 1, page 101, foot-note, and volume 2, page 212.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

SCHUMLA, Siege of (1828).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

SCHUYLER, General Philip, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY-AUGUST); 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

SCHUYLER, Fort (Late Fort Stanwix): A. D. 1777. Defense against the British and Indians under St. Leger.

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

SCHWECHAT, Battle of (1848).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SCHWEIDNITZ, Battle of (1642).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

SCHWEIDNITZ: Captured and recaptured.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

SCINDE, SINDH.

"Sindh is the Sanskrit word Sindh or Sindhu, a river or ocean. It was applied to the river Indus, the first great body of water encountered by the Aryan invaders. … Sindh, which is part of the Bombay Presidency, is bounded on the north and west by the territories of the khan of Khelat, in Beluchistan; the Punjab and the Bahawalpur State lie on the north-east. … Three-fourths of the people are Muhammadans and the remainder Hindus." Sindh was included in the Indian conquests of Mahmud of Ghazni, Akbar, and Nadir Shah.

See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290; 1399-1605; and 1662-1748).

"In 1748 the country became an appanage of Kabul, as part of the dowry bestowed by the reigning emperor upon Timur, son of Ahmed Shah Durani, who founded the kingdom of Afghanistan. … The connection of the British government with Sindh had its origin in A. D. 1758, when Ghulam Shah Kalhora … granted a 'purwanah,' or permit, to an officer in the East India Company's service for the establishment of a factory in the province. … In their relations with the British government the Amirs throughout displayed much jealousy of foreign interference. Several treaties were made with them from time to time. {2837} In 1836, owing to the designs of Ranjit Singh on Sindh, which, however, were not carried out because of the interposition of the British government, more intimate connection with the Amirs was sought. Colonel Pottinger visited them to negotiate for this purpose. It was not, however, till 1838 that a short treaty was concluded, in which it was stipulated that a British minister should reside at Haidarabad. At this time the friendly alliance of the Amirs was deemed necessary in the contemplated war with Afghanistan which the British government was about to undertake, to place a friendly ruler on the Afghan throne. The events that followed led to the occupation of Karachi by the British, and placed the Amirs in subsidiary dependence on the British government. New treaties became necessary, and Sir Charles Napier was sent to Haidarabad to negotiate. The Beluchis were infuriated at this proceeding, and openly insulted the officer, Sir James Outram, at the Residency at Haidarabad. Sir Charles Napier thereupon attacked the Amir's forces at Meanee, on 17th February, 1843, with 2,800 men, and twelve pieces of artillery, and succeeded in gaining a complete victory over 22,000 Beluchis, with the result that the whole of Sindh was annexed to British India."

D. Ross, The Land of the Five Rivers and Sindh, pages 1-6.

ALSO IN: Mohan Lal, Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan, chapter 14 (volume 2).

See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

SCIO.

See CHIOS.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS, The Campaigns of.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS MINOR, Destruction of Carthage by.

See CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

SCIR-GEREFA.

See SHERIFF; SHIRE; and EALDORMAN.

SCIRONIAN WAY, The.

"The Scironian Way led from Megara to Corinth, along the eastern shore of the isthmus. At a short distance from Megara it passed along the Scironian rocks, a long range of precipices overhanging the sea, forming the extremity of a spur which descends from Mount Geranium. This portion of the road is now known as the 'Kaki Scala,' and is passed with some difficulty. The way seems to have been no more than a footpath until the time of Adrian, who made a good carriage road throughout the whole distance. There is but one other route by which the isthmus can be traversed. It runs inland, and passes over a higher portion of Mount Geranium, presenting to the traveller equal or greater difficulties."

G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus, book 8, section 71, foot-note.

SCLAVENES. SCLAVONIC PEOPLES.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

SCLAVONIC.

See SLAVONIC.

SCODRA, OR SKODRA.·

See ILLYRIANS.

SCONE, Kingdom of.

See SCOTLAND: 8-9TH CENTURIES.

SCORDISCANS, The.

The Scordiscans, called by some Roman writers a Thracian people, but supposed to have been Celtic, were settled in the south of Pannonia in the second century, B. C. In B. C. 114 they destroyed a Roman army under consul C. Portius Cato. Two years later consul M. Livius Drusus drove them across the Danube.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 18, section 1 (volume 2).

SCOT AND LOT.

"Paying scot and lot; that is, bearing their rateable proportion in the payments levied from the town for local or national purposes."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 20, section 745 (volume 3).

SCOTCH HIGHLAND AND LOWLAND.

"If a line is drawn from a point on the eastern bank of Loch Lomond, somewhat south of Ben Lomond, following in the main the line of the Grampians, and crossing the Forth at Aberfoil, the Teith at Callander, the Almond at Crieff, the Tay at Dunkeld, the Ericht at Blairgowrie, and proceeding through the hills of Brae Angus till it reaches the great range of the Mounth, then crossing the Dee at Ballater, the Spey at lower Craigellachie, till it reaches the Moray Firth at Nairn—this forms what was called the Highland Line and separated the Celtic from the Teutonic-speaking people. Within this line, with the exception of the county of Caithness which belongs to the Teutonic division, the Gaelic language forms the vernacular of the inhabitants."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 2, page 453.

SCOTCH-IRISH, The.

In 1607, six counties in the Irish province of Ulster, formerly belonging to the earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel, were confiscated by the English crown. The two earls, who had submitted and had been pardoned, after a long rebellion during the reign of queen Elizabeth, had now fled from new charges of treason, and their great estates were forfeited.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1559-1603, and 1607-1611.

These estates, thus acquired by King James, the first of the Stuarts, were "parcelled out among a body of Scotch and English, brought over for the purpose. The far greater number of these plantations were from the lower part of Scotland, and became known as 'Scotch-Irish.' Thus a new population was given to the north of Ireland, which has changed its history. The province of Ulster, with fewer natural advantages than either Munster, Leinster, or Connaught, became the most prosperous, industrious and law-abiding of all Ireland. … But the Protestant population thus transplanted to the north of Ireland was destined to suffer many … persecutions. … In 1704, the test-oath was imposed, by which everyone in public employment was required to profess English prelacy. It was intended to suppress Popery, but was used by the Episcopal bishops to check Presbyterianism. To this was added burdensome restraints on their commerce, and extortionate rents from their landlords, resulting in what is known as the Antrim evictions. There had been occasional emigrations from the north of Ireland from the plantation of the Scotch, and one of the ministers sent over in 1683, Francis Makemie, had organized on the eastern shore of Maryland and in the adjoining counties of Virginia the first Presbyterian churches in America. But in the early part of the eighteenth century the great movement began which transported so large a portion of the Scotch-Irish into the American colonies, and, through their influence, shaped in a great measure the destinies of America. Says the historian Froude: 'In the two years which followed the Antrim evictions, thirty-thousand Protestants left Ulster for a land where there was no legal robbery, and where those who sowed the seed could reap the harvest.' Alarmed by the depletion of the Protestant population, the Toleration Act was passed, and by it, and further promises of relief, the tide of emigration was checked for a brief period. {2838} In 1728, however, it began anew, and from 1729 to 1750, it was estimated that 'about twelve thousand came annually from Ulster to America.' So many had settled in Pennsylvania before 1729 that James Logan, the Quaker president of that colony, expressed his fear that they would become proprietors of the province. … This bold stream of emigrants struck the American continent mainly on the eastern border of Pennsylvania, and was, in great measure, turned southward through Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, reaching and crossing the Savannah river. It was met at various points by counter streams of the same race, which had entered the continent through the seaports of the Carolinas and Georgia. Turning westward the combined flood overflowed the mountains and covered the rich valley of the Mississippi beyond. As the Puritans or Round-heads of the south, but freed from fanaticism, they gave tone to its people and direction to its history. … The task would be almost endless to simply call the names of this people [the Scotch-Irish] in the South who have distinguished themselves in the annals of their country. Yet some rise before me, whose names demand utterance in any mention of their people —names which the world will not willingly let die. Among the statesmen they have given to the world are Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, Benton. Among the orators, Henry, Rutledge, Preston, McDuffie, Yancy. Among the poets, the peerless Poe. Among the jurists, Marshall, Campbell, Robertson. Among the divines, Waddell, the Alexanders, Breckinridge, Robinson, Plummer, Hoge, Hawks, Fuller, McKendree. Among the physicians, McDowell, Sims, McGuire. Among the inventors, McCormick. Among the soldiers, Lee, the Jacksons, the Johnstons, Stuart. Among the sailors, Paul Jones, Buchanan. Presidents from the South, seven—Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Polk, Johnson."

_W. W. Henry, The Scotch Irish of the South, (Proceedings of the Scotch-Irish Congress, 1889)._

"Full credit has been awarded the Roundhead and the Cavalier for their leadership in our history; nor have we been altogether blind to the deeds of the Hollander and the Huguenot; but it is doubtful if we have wholly realized the importance of the part played by that stern and virile people, the Irish whose preachers taught the creed of Knox and Calvin. These Irish representatives of the Covenanters were in the west almost what the Puritans were in the northeast, and more than the Cavaliers were in the south. Mingled with the descendants of many other races, they nevertheless formed the kernel of the distinctively and intensely American stock who were the pioneers of our people in their march westward, the vanguard of the army of fighting settlers, who with axe and rifle won their way from the Alleghanies to the Rio Grande and the Pacific. … They … made their abode at the foot of the mountains, and became the outposts of civilization. … In this land of hills, covered by unbroken forest, they took root and flourished, stretching in a broad belt from north to south, a shield of sinewy men thrust in between the people of the seaboard and the red warriors of the wilderness. All through this region they were alike; they had as little kinship with the Cavalier as with the Quaker; the west was won by those who have been rightly called the Roundheads of the south, the same men who, before any others, declared for American independence. The two facts of most importance to remember in dealing with our pioneer history are, first, that the western portions of Virginia and the Carolinas were peopled by an entirely different stock from that which had long existed in the tide-water regions of those colonies; and, secondly, that, except for those in the Carolinas who came from Charleston, the immigrants of this stock were mostly from the north, from their great breeding ground and nursery in western Pennsylvania. That these Irish Presbyterians were a bold and hardy race is proved by their at once pushing past the settled regions, and plunging into the wilderness as the leaders of the white advance. They were the first and last set of immigrants to do this; all others have merely followed in the wake of their predecessors. But, indeed, they were fitted to be Americans from the very start; they were kinsfolk of the Covenanters; they deemed it a religious duty to interpret their own Bible, and held for a divine right the election of their own clergy. For generations, their whole ecclesiastic and scholastic systems had been fundamentally democratic."

T. Roosevelt, The Winning of the West, volume 1, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: _J. Phelan, History of Tennessee, chapter 23. _

SCOTCH MILE ACT.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

SCOTIA, The name.

See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.

----------SCOTLAND: Start--------

SCOTLAND: The name.

"The name of Scotia, or Scotland, whether in its Latin or its Saxon form, was not applied to any part of the territory forming the modern kingdom of Scotland till towards the end of the tenth century. Prior to that period it was comprised in the general appellation of Britannia, or Britain, by which the whole island was designated in contradistinction from that of Hibernia, or Ireland. That part of the island of Britain which is situated to the north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde seems indeed to have been known to the Romans as early as the first century by the distinctive name of Caledonia, and it also appears to have borne from an early period another appellation, the Celtic form of which was Albu, Alba, or Alban, and Its Latin form Albania. The name of Scotia, however, was exclusively appropriated to the island of Ireland. Ireland was emphatically Scotia, the 'patria,' or mother-country of the Scots; and although a colony of that people had established themselves as early as the beginning of the sixth century in the western districts of Scotland, it was not till the tenth century that any part of the present country of Scotland came to be known under that name. … {2839} From the tenth to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries the name of Scotia, gradually superseding the older name of Alban, or Albania, was confined to a district nearly corresponding with that part of the Lowlands of Scotland which is situated on the north of the Firth of Forth. … The three propositions—

1st, That Scotia, prior to the tenth century, was Ireland, and Ireland alone;

2d, That when applied to Scotland it was considered a new name superinduced upon the older designation of Alban or Albania; and;

3d, That the Scotia of the three succeeding centuries was limited to the districts between the Forth, the Spey, and Drumalban,—lie at the very threshold of Scottish history."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 1, introduction.

SCOTLAND: The Picts and Scots.

"Cæsar tells us that the inhabitants of Britain in his day painted themselves with a dye extracted from woad; by the time, however, of British independence under Carausius and Allectus, in the latter part of the third century, the fashion had so far fallen off in Roman Britain that the word 'Picti,' Picts, or painted men, had got to mean the peoples beyond the Northern wall. … Now, all these Picts were natives of Britain, and the word Picti is found applied to them for the first time, in a panegyric by Eumenius, in the year 296; but in the year 360 another painted people appeared on the scene. They came from Ireland, and, to distinguish these two sets of painted foes from one another, Latin historians left the painted natives to be called Picti, as had been done before, and for the painted invaders from Ireland they retained, untranslated, a Celtic word of the same (or nearly the same) meaning, namely 'Scotti.' Neither the Picts nor the Scotti probably owned these names, the former of which is to be traced to Roman authors, while the latter was probably given the invaders from Ireland by the Brythons, whose country they crossed the sea to ravage. The Scots, however, did recognize a national name, which described them as painted or tattooed men. … This word was Cruithnig, which is found applied equally to the painted people of both islands. … The eponymus of all the Picts was Cruithne, or Cruithneehan, and we have a kindred Brythonic form in Prydyn, the name by which Scotland once used to be known to the Kymry."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 7.

A different view of the origin and signification of these names is maintained by Dr. Guest.

E. Guest, Origines Celticae, volume 2, part 1, chapter 1.

Prof. Freeman looks upon the question as unsettled. He says: "The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from Ireland. The only question is as to the Picts or Caledonians. Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation, or were they simply Britons who had never been brought under the Roman dominion? The geographical aspect of the case favours the former belief, but the weight of philological evidence seems to be on the side of the latter."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 2, section 1, foot-note.

ALSO IN: W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 5.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 78-84. Roman conquests under Agricola.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 208-211. Campaigns of Severus against the Caledonians.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 367-370. The repulse of the Picts and Scots by Theodosius.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

SCOTLAND: 6th Century. The Mission of St. Columba.

See COLUMBAN CHURCH.

SCOTLAND: 6-7th Centuries. Part included in the English Kingdom of Northumberland.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

SCOTLAND: 7th Century. The Four Kingdoms.

"Out of these Celtic and Teutonic races [Picts, Scots, Britons of Strathclyde, and Angles] there emerged in that northern part of Britain which eventually became the territory of the subsequent monarchy of Scotland, four kingdoms within definite limits and under settled forms of government; and as such we find them in the beginning of the 7th century, when the conflict among these races, which succeeded the departure of the Romans from the island, and the termination of their power in Britain, may be held to have ceased and the limits of these kingdoms to have become settled. North of the Firths of Forth and Clyde were the two kingdoms of the Scots of Dalriada on the west and of the Picts on the east. They were separated from each other by a range of mountains termed by Adamnan the Dorsal ridge of Britain, and generally known by the name of Drumalban. … The colony [of Dalriada] was originally founded by Fergus Mor, son of Erc, who came with his two brothers Loarn and Angus from Irish Dalriada in the end of the 5th century [see DALRIADA], but the true founder of the Dalriadic kingdom was his great grandson Aedan, son of Gabran. … The remaining districts north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde formed the kingdom of the Picts. … The districts south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and extending to the Solway Firth on the west and to the Tyne on the east, were possessed by the two kingdoms of the Britons [afterwards Strathclyde], on the west and of the Angles of Bernicia on the east. The former extended from the river Derwent in Cumberland in the south to the Firth of Clyde in the north, which separated the Britons from the Scots of Dalriada. … The Angles of Bernicia … were now in firm possession of the districts extending along the east coast as far as the Firth of Forth, originally occupied by the British tribe of the Ottadeni and afterwards by the Picts, and including the counties of Berwick and Roxburgh and that of East Lothian or Haddington, the rivers Esk and Gala forming here their western boundary. … In the centre of Scotland, where it is intersected by the two arms of the sea, the Forth and the Clyde, and where the boundaries of these four kingdoms approach one another, is a territory extending from the Esk to the Tay, which possessed a very mixed population and was the scene of most of the conflicts between these four states." About the middle of the 7th century, Osuiu or Oswiu, king of Northumberland (which then included Bernicia), having overcome the Mercians, "extended his sway not only over the Britons but over the Picts and Scots; and thus commenced the dominion of the Angles over the Britons of Alclyde, the Scots of Dalriada, and the southern Picts, which was destined to last for thirty years. … In the meantime the little kingdom of Dalriada was in a state of complete disorganisation. We find no record of any real king over the whole nation of the Scots, but each separate tribe seems to have remained isolated from the rest under its own chief, while the Britons exercised a kind of sway over them, and along with the Britons they were under subjection to the Angles." {2840} In 685, on an attempt being made to throw off the yoke of the Angles of Northumbria, King Ecgfrid or Ecgfrith, son of Oswiu, led an army into the country of the Picts and was there defeated crushingly and slain in a conflict styled variously the battle of Dunnichen, Duin Nechtain, and Nechtan's Mere. The effect of the defeat is thus described by Bede; "'From that time the hopes and strength of the Anglic kingdom began to fluctuate and to retrograde, for the Picts recovered the territory belonging to them which the Angles had held, and the Scots who were in Britain and a certain part of the Britons regained their liberty, which they have now enjoyed for about forty-six years.'"

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: 8-9th Centuries. The kingdom of Scone and the kingdom of Alban.

"The Pictish kingdom had risen fast to greatness after the victory of Nectansmere in 685. In the century which followed Ecgfrith's defeat, its kings reduced the Scots of Dalriada from nominal dependence to actual subjection, the annexation of Angus and Fife carried their eastern border to the sea, while to the south their alliance with the Northumbrians in the warfare which both waged on the Welsh extended their bounds on the side of Cumbria or Strath·Clyde. But the hour of Pictish greatness was marked by the extinction of the Pictish name. In the midst of the 9th century the direct line of their royal house came to an end, and the under-king of the Scots of Dalriada, Kenneth Mac Alpin, ascended the Pictish throne in right of his maternal descent. For fifty years more Kenneth and his successors remained kings of the Picts. At the moment we have reached, however [the close of the 9th century], the title passed suddenly away, the tribe which had given its chief to the throne gave its name to the realm, and 'Pict-land' disappeared from history to make room first for Alban or Albania, and then for 'the land of the Scots.'"

J. R. Green, The Conquest of England, chapter 4.

It appears however that, before the kingdom of Alban was known, there was a period during which the realm established by the successors of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the Scot, occupying the throne of the Picts, was called the kingdom of Scone, from the town which became its capital. "It was at Scone too that the Coronation Stone was 'reverently kept for the consecration of the kings of Alban,' and of this stone it was believed that 'no king was ever wont to reign in Scotland unless he had first, on receiving the royal name, sat upon this stone at Scone.' … Of its identity with the stone now preserved in the coronation chair at Westminster there can be no doubt. It is an oblong block of red sandstone, some 26 inches long by 16 inches broad, and 10½ inches deep. … Its mythic origin identifies it with the stone which Jacob used as a pillow at Bethel, … but history knows of it only at Scone." Some time near the close of the 9th century "the kingdom ceased to be called that of Scone and its territory Cruithentuath, or Pictavia its Latin equivalent, and now became known as the kingdom of Alban or Albania, and we find its kings no longer called kings of the Picts but kings of Alban."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapters 6-7 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: 9th Century. The Northmen on the coasts and in the Islands.

See NORMANS.—NORTHMEN; 8-9TH CENTURIES.

SCOTLAND: 10-11th Centuries. The forming of' the modern kingdom and its relations to England.

"The fact that the West-Saxon or English Kings, from Eadward the Elder [son of Alfred the Great] onwards, did exercise an external supremacy over the Celtic princes of the island is a fact too clear to be misunderstood by anyone who looks the evidence on the matter fairly in the face. I date their supremacy over Scotland from the reign of Eadward the Elder, because there is no certain earlier instance of submission on the part of the Scots to any West-Saxon King. … The submission of Wales [A. D. 828] dates from the time of Ecgberht; but it evidently received a more distinct and formal acknowledgement [A. D. 922] in the reign of Eadward. Two years after followed the Commendation of Scotland and Strathclyde. … I use the feudal word Commendation, because that word seems to me better than any other to express the real state of the case. The transaction between Eadward and the Celtic princes was simply an application, on an international scale, of the general principle of the Comitatus. … A man 'chose his Lord'; he sought some one more powerful than himself, with whom he entered into the relation of Comitatus; as feudal ideas strengthened, he commonly surrendered his allodial land to the Lord so chosen, and received it back again from him on a feudal tenure. This was the process of Commendation, a process of everyday occurrence in the case of private men choosing their Lords, whether those Lords were simple gentlemen or Kings. And the process was equally familiar among sovereign princes themselves. … There was nothing unusual or degrading in the relation; if Scotland, Wales, Strathclyde, commended themselves to the West-Saxon King, they only put themselves in the same relation to their powerful neighbour in which every continental prince stood in theory, and most of them in actual fact, to the Emperor, Lord of the World. … The original Commendation to the Eadward of the tenth century, confirmed by a series of acts of submission spread over the whole of the intermediate time, is the true justification for the acts of his glorious namesake [Edward I.] in the thirteenth century. The only difference was that, during that time, feudal notions had greatly developed on both sides; the original Commendation of the Scottish King and people to a Lord had changed, in the ideas of both sides, into a feudal tenure of the land of the Scottish Kingdom. But this change was simply the universal change which had come over all such relations everywhere. … But it is here needful to point out two other distinct events which have often been confounded with the Commendation of Scotland, a confusion through which the real state of the case has often been misunderstood. … It is hard to make people understand that there have not always been Kingdoms of England and Scotland, with the Tweed and the Cheviot Hills as the boundaries between them. It must be borne in mind that in the tenth century no such boundaries existed, and that the names of England and Scotland were only just beginning to be known. At the time of the Commendation the country which is now called Scotland was divided among three quite distinct sovereignties. {2841} North of the Forth and Clyde reigned the King of Scots, an independent Celtic prince reigning over a Celtic people, the Picts and Scots, the exact relation between which two tribes is a matter of perfect indifference to my present purpose. South of the two great firths the Scottish name and the Scottish dominion were unknown. The south-west part of modern Scotland formed part of the Kingdom of the Strathclyde Welsh, which up to 924 was, like the Kingdom of the Scots, an independent Celtic principality. The south-eastern part of modern Scotland, Lothian in the wide sense of the word, was purely English or Danish, as in language it remains to this day. It was part of the Kingdom of Northumberland, and it had its share in all the revolutions of that Kingdom. In the year 924 Lothian was ruled by the Danish Kings of Northumberland, subject only to that precarious superiority on the part of Wessex which had been handed on from Ecgberht and Ælfred. In the year 924, when the three Kingdoms, Scotland, Strathclyde and Northumberland, all commended themselves to Eadward, the relation was something new on the part of Scotland and Strathclyde; but on the part of Lothian, as an integral part of Northumberland, it was only a renewal of the relation which had been formerly entered into with Ecgberht and Ælfred. … The transactions which brought Scotland, Strathclyde, and Lothian into their relations to one another and to the English Crown were quite distinct from each other. They were as follows:—First, the Commendation of the King and people of the Scots to Eadward in 924. Secondly, the grant of Cumberland by Eadmund to Malcolm in 945. … In 945 the reigning King [of Cumberland, or Strathclyde] revolted against his over-lord Eadmund; he was overthrown and his Kingdom ravaged; it was then granted on tenure of military service to his kinsman Malcolm King of Scots. … The southern part of this territory was afterwards … annexed to Eng]and; the northern part was retained by the Scottish Kings, and was gradually, though very gradually, incorporated with their own Kingdom. The distinction between the two states seems to have been quite forgotten in the 13th century." The third transaction was "the grant of Lothian to the Scottish kings, either under Eadgar or under Cnut. … The date of the grant of Lothian is not perfectly clear. But whatever was the date of the grant, there can be no doubt at all as to its nature. Lothian, an integral part of England, could be granted only as any other part of England could be granted, namely to be held as part of England, its ruler being in the position of an English Earl. … But in such a grant the seeds of separation were sown. A part of the Kingdom which was governed by a foreign sovereign, on whatever terms of dependence, could not long remain in the position of a province governed by an ordinary Earl. … That the possession of Lothian would under all ordinary circumstances remain hereditary, must have been looked for from the beginning. This alone would distinguish Lothian from all other Earldoms. … It was then to be expected that Lothian, when once granted to the King of Scots, should gradually be merged in the Kingdom of Scotland. But the peculiar and singular destiny of this country could hardly have been looked for. Neither Eadgar nor Kenneth could dream that this purely English or Danish province would become the historical Scotland. The different tenures of Scotland and Lothian got confounded; the Kings of Scots, from the end of the eleventh century, became English in manners and language; they were not without some pretensions to the Crown of England, and not without some hopes of winning it. They thus learned to attach more and more value to the English part of their dominions, and they laboured to spread its language and manners over their original Celtic territory. They retained their ancient title of Kings of Scots, but they became in truth Kings of English Lothian and of Anglicized Fife. A state was thus formed, politically distinct from England, and which political circumstances gradually made bitterly hostile to England, a state which indeed retained a dark and mysterious Celtic background, but which, as it appears in history, is English in laws, language and manners, more truly English indeed, in many respects, than England itself remained after the Norman Conquest."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of England, chapter 3, section. 4.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1005-1034. The kingdom acquires its final name.

"The mixed population of Picts and Scots had now become to a great extent amalgamated, and under the influence of the dominant race of the Scots were identified with them in name. Their power was now to be further consolidated, and their influence extended during the thirty years' reign of a king who proved to be the last of his race, and who was to bequeath the kingdom, under the name of Scotia, to a new line of kings. This was Malcolm, the son of Kenneth, who slew his predecessor, Kenneth, the son of Dubh, at Monzievaird. … With Malcolm the descendants of Kenneth Mac Alpin, the founder of the Scottish dynasty, became extinct in the male line."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 8.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1039-1054. The reign of Macbeth or Macbeda.

Malcolm was succeeded by his daughter's son, Duncan. "There is little noticeable in his [Duncan's] life but its conclusion. He had made vain efforts to extend his frontiers southward through Northumberland, and was engaged in a war with the holders of the northern independent states at his death in the year 1039. … He was slain in 'Bothgowan,' which is held to be Gaelic for 'a smith's hut.' The person who slew him, whether with his own hand or not, was Macbeda, the Maarmor of Ross, or of Ross and Moray; the ruler, in short, of the district stretching from the Moray Frith and Loch Ness northwards. The place where the smith's hut stood is said to have been near Elgin. This has not been very distinctly established; but at all events it was near if not actually within the territory ruled by Macbeda, and Duncan was there with aggressive designs. The maarmor's wife was Gruach, a granddaughter of Kenneth IV. If there was a grandson of Kenneth killed by Malcolm, this was his sister. But whether or not she had this inheritance of revenge, she was, according to the Scots authorities, the representative of the Kenneth whom the grandfather of Duncan had deprived of his throne and his life. … The deeds which raised Macbeda and his wife to power were not to appearance much worse than others of their day done for similar ends. However he may have gained his power, he exercised it with good repute, according to the reports nearest to his time. {2842} It is among the most curious of the antagonisms that sometimes separate the popular opinion of people of mark from anything positively known about them, that this man, in a manner sacred to splendid infamy, is the first whose name appears in the ecclesiastical records both as a king of Scotland and a benefactor of the Church; and is also the first who, as king of Scotland, is said by the chroniclers to have offered his services to the Bishop of Rome. The ecclesiastical records of St. Andrews tell how he and his queen made over certain lands to the Culdees of Lochleven, and there is no such fact on record of any earlier king of Scotland. Of his connection with Rome, it is a question whether he went there himself. … That he sent money there, however, was so very notorious as not only to be recorded by the insular authorities, but to be noticed on the Continent as a significant event. … The reign of this Macbeda or Macbeth forms a noticeable period in our history. He had a wider dominion than any previous ruler, having command over all the country now known as Scotland, except the Isles and a portion of the Western Highlands. … With him, too, ended that mixed or alternative regal succession which, whether it was systematic or followed the law of force, is exceedingly troublesome to the inquirer. … From Macbeth downwards … the rule of hereditary succession holds, at all events to the extent that a son, where there is one, succeeds to his father. Hence this reign is a sort of turning-point in the constitutional history of the Scottish crown."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 10.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1093. Effects of the Norman Conquest of England. Civilization and growth of the Northern Kingdom. Reign of Malcolm III.

"The Norman Conquest of England produced a great effect upon their neighbours. In the first place, a very great number of the Saxons who fled from the cruelty of William the Conqueror, retired into Scotland, and this had a considerable effect in civilizing the southern parts of that country; for if the Saxons were inferior to the Normans in arts and in learning, they were, on the other hand, much superior to the Scots, who were a rude and very ignorant people. These exiles were headed and accompanied by what remained of the Saxon royal family, and particularly by a young prince named Edgar Etheling, who was a near kinsman of Edward the Confessor, and the heir of his throne, but dispossessed by the Norman Conqueror. This prince brought with him to Scotland two sisters, named Margaret and Christian. They were received with much kindness by Malcolm III., called Canmore [Ceanmore] (or Great Head), who remembered the assistance which he had received from Edward the Confessor. … He himself married the Princess Margaret (1068), and made her the Queen of Scotland. … When Malcolm, King of Scotland, was thus connected with the Saxon royal family of England, he began to think of chasing away the Normans, and of restoring Edgar Etheling to the English throne. This was an enterprise for which he had not sufficient strength; but he made deep and bloody inroads into the northern parts of England, and brought away so many captives, that they were to be found for many years afterwards in every Scottish village, nay, in every Scottish hovel. No doubt, the number of Saxons thus introduced into Scotland tended much to improve and civilize the manners of the people. … Not only the Saxons, but afterwards a number of the Normans themselves, came to settle in Scotland, … and were welcomed by King Malcolm. He was desirous to retain these brave men in his service, and for that purpose he gave them great grants of land, to be held for military services; and most of the Scottish nobility are of Norman descent. And thus the Feudal System was introduced into Scotland as well as England, and went on gradually gaining strength, till it became the general law of the country, as indeed it was that of Europe at large. Malcolm Canmore, thus increasing in power, and obtaining re-enforcements of warlike and civilized subjects, began greatly to enlarge his dominions. At first he had resided almost entirely in the province of Fife, and at the town of Dunfermline, where there are still the ruins of a small tower which served him for a palace. But as he found his power increase, he ventured across the Frith of Forth, and took possession of Edinburgh, and the surrounding country, which had hitherto been accounted part of England. The great strength of the castle of Edinburgh, situated upon a lofty rock, led him to choose that town frequently for his residence, so that in time it became the metropolis, or chief city of Scotland. This king Malcolm was a brave and wise prince, though without education. He often made war upon King William the Conqueror of England, and upon his son and successor, William, who, from his complexion, was called William Rufus, that is, Red William. Malcolm was sometimes beaten in these wars, but he was more frequently successful; and not only made a complete conquest of Lothian, but threatened also to possess himself of the great English province of Northumberland, which he frequently invaded." Malcolm Canmore was killed in battle at Alnwick Castle (1093), during one of his invasions of English territory.

Sir W. Scott, Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland); abridged by E. Ginn, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 11.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1093-1153. Successors of Malcolm III. The reign of David I. His civilizing work and influence.

"Six sons and two daughters were the offspring of the marriage between Malcolm and Margaret. Edward, the eldest, perished with his father, and Ethelred, created Abbot of Dunkeld and Earl of Fife, appears to have survived his parents for a very short time: Edmund died in an English cloister, a penitent and mysterious recluse; Edgar, Alexander, and David, lived to wear, in succession, the crown of Scotland. Of the two daughters, Editha … became the queen of Henry of England. … Three parties may be said to have divided Scot·land at the period of Malcolm's death." One of these parties, inspired with jealousy of the English influence which had come into the kingdom with queen Margaret, succeeded in raising Donald Bane, a brother of the late king Malcolm, to the throne. Donald was soon displaced by Edmund, who is sometimes said to have been an illegitimate son of Malcolm; and in 1097 Edmund was dethroned by Edgar, the son of Malcolm and Margaret. Edgar, dying in 1107, was succeeded by Alexander I., and he, in 1124, by David I. {2843} The reign of David was contemporary with the dark and troubled time of Stephen in England, and he took an unfortunate part in the struggle between Stephen and the Empress Matilda, suffering a dreadful defeat in the famous Battle of the Standard (see STANDARD, BATTLE OF). But "the whole of the north of England beyond the Tees" was "for several years … under the influence, if not under the direct authority, of the Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part of the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy prevailing in every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of the northern counties to look with favour upon a continuance of the Scottish connection. … Pursuing the policy inaugurated by his mother [the English princess Margaret] …, he encouraged the resort of foreign merchants to the ports of Scotland, insuring to native traders the same advantages which they had enjoyed during the reign of his father; whilst he familiarized his Gaelic nobles, in their attendance upon the royal court, with habits of luxury and magnificence, remitting three years' rent and tribute—according to the account of his contemporary Malmesbury—to all his people who were willing to improve their dwellings, to dress with greater elegance, and to adopt increased refinement in their general manner of living. Even in the occupations of his leisure moments he seems to have wished to exercise a softening influence over his countrymen, for, like many men of his character, he was fond of gardening, and he delighted in indoctrinating his people in the peaceful arts of horticulture, and in the mysteries of planting and of grafting. For similar reasons he sedulously promoted the improvement of agriculture, or rather, perhaps, directed increased attention to it; for the Scots of that period were still a pastoral, and, in some respects, a migratory people. … David hoped to convert the lower orders into a more settled and industrious population; whilst he enjoined the higher classes to 'live like noblemen' upon their own estates, and not to waste the property of their neighbours. … In consequence of these measures feudal castles began, ere long, to replace the earlier buildings of wood and wattles rudely fortified by earthworks; and towns rapidly grew up around the royal castles and about the principal localities of commerce. … The prosperity of the country during the last fifteen years of his reign [he died in 1153] contrasted strongly with the miseries of England under the disastrous rule of Stephen; Scotland became the granary from which her neighbour's wants were supplied; and to the court of Scotland's king resorted the knights and nobles of foreign origin, whom the commotions of the Continent had hitherto driven to take refuge in England."

E. W. Robertson, Scotland under her Early Kings, volume 1, chapters 6-8.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1153. Accession of Malcolm IV.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1165. Accession of William IV. (called The Lion).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189. Captivity of William the Lion, his oath of fealty to the English king, and his release from it.

In 1174, on the occasion of a general conspiracy of rebellion against Henry II., contrived at Paris, headed by his wife and sons, and joined by great numbers of the nobles throughout his dominions, both in England and in France, William the Lion, king of Scotland, was induced to assist the rebellion by the promise of Northumberland for himself. Henry was in France until July, 1174, when he was warned that "only his own presence could retrieve England, where a Scotch army was pouring in from the north, while David of Huntingdon headed an army in the midland counties, and the young prince was preparing to bring over fresh forces from Gravelines. Henry crossed the channel in a storm, and, by advice of a Norman bishop, proceeded at once to do penance at Becket's shrine. On the day of his humiliation, the Scotch king, William the Lion, was surprised at Alnwick and captured. This, in fact, ended the war, for David of Huntingdon was forced to return into Scotland, where the old feud of Gael and Saxon had broken out. The English rebels purchased peace by a prompt submission. In less than a month Henry was able to leave England to itself." The king of Scotland was taken as a prisoner to Falaise, in Normandy, where he was detained for several months. "By advice of a deputation of Scotch prelates and barons he at last consented to swear fealty to Henry as his liege lord, and to do provisional homage for his son. His chief vassals guaranteed this engagement; hostages were given; and English garrisons received into three Scotch towns, Roxburgh, Berwick, and Edinburgh. Next year [1175] the treaty was solemnly ratified at York."

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 1, chapter 31.

This engagement of fealty on the part of William the Lion is often referred to as the Treaty of Falaise. Fourteen years afterwards, when Henry's son, Richard, Cœur de Lion, had succeeded to the throne, the Scotch king was absolved from it. "Early in December [1189], while Richard was at Canterbury on his way to the sea [preparing to embark upon his crusade], William the Lion came to visit him, and a bargain was struck to the satisfaction of both parties. Richard received from William a sum of 10,000 marks, and his homage for his English estates, as they had been held by his brother Malcolm; in return, he restored to him the castles of Roxburgh and Berwick, and released him and his heirs for ever from the homage for Scotland itself, enforced by Henry in 1175."

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 2, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: W. Burns, Scottish War of Independence, volume 1, chapter 12.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1214. Accession of Alexander II.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1249. Accession of Alexander III.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1263. The Norwegian invasion and the Battle of Largs.

"The western Highlands and Islands formed the original territory of the Scots. But we have seen how the Norwegians and Danes, seizing Shetland and Orkney, spread themselves over the western Archipelago, even as far south as Man, thereby putting an end, for 300 years, to the intercommunication between the mainlands of Scotland and Ireland. These islands long formed a sort of maritime community, sometimes under the active authority of the kings of Norway, sometimes connected with the Norwegian settlers in Ireland—Ostmen, as they were called; sometimes partially ruled by kings of Man, but more generally subject to chieftains more or less powerful, who, when opportunity offered, made encroachments even on the mainland. … {2844} Alexander II. seems to have determined to bring this sort of interregnum to a close, and he was engaged in an expedition for that purpose when he died at the little island of Kerrera, near Oban. His son, as he advanced to manhood, appears to have revived the idea of completely re-annexing the Islands. Complaints were made by the islanders to Haco, king of Norway, of aggressions by the earl of Ross and other mainland magnates, in the interest of the king of Scots; and Haco, who was at once a powerful and a despotic monarch, resolved to vindicate his claims as suzerain of the isles. … Haco accordingly fitted out a splendid fleet, consisting of 100 vessels, mostly of large size, fully equipped, and crowded with gallant soldiers and seamen. … On the 10th of July, 1263, 'the mightiest armament that ever left the shores of Norway sailed from the haven of Herlover.' … The island chieftains, Magnus of the Orkneys, Magnus, king of Man, Dougal MacRoderic, and others, met the triumphant fleet, swelling its numbers as it advanced amongst the islands. Most of the chiefs made their peace with Haco; though there were exceptions. … The invading fleet entered the Clyde, numbering by this time as many as 160 ships. A squadron of 60 sail proceeded up Loch-long; the crews drew their boats across the narrow isthmus at Tarbet, launched on Loch-lomond, and spread their ravages, by fire and sword, over the Lennox and Stirlingshire. … The alarm spread over the surrounding country, and gradually a Scottish army began to gather on the Ayrshire side of the firth. … Whether voluntarily, or from stress of weather, some portion of the Norwegians made a landing near Largs, on the Ayrshire coast, opposite to Bute. These being attacked by the Scots, reinforcements were landed, and a fierce but desultory struggle was kept up, with varying success, from morning till night. Many of the ships were driven ashore. Most of the Norwegians who had landed were slain. The remainder of the fleet was seriously damaged. … Retracing its course among the islands, on the 20th of October it reached Kirkwall in Orkney, where king Haco expired on 15th December. Such was the result of an expedition which had set out with such fair promises of success."

W. Burns, The Scottish War of Independence, chapter 13 (volume 1).

"In the Norse annals our famous Battle of Largs makes small figure, or almost none at all, among Hakon's battles and feats. … Of Largs there is no mention whatever in Norse books. But beyond any doubt, such is the other evidence, Hakon did land there; land and fight, not conquering, probably rather beaten; and very certainly 'retiring to his ships,' as in either case he behooved to do! It is further certain he was dreadfully maltreated by the weather on those wild coasts; and altogether credible, as the Scotch records bear, that he was so at Largs very specially. The Norse Records or Sagas say merely he lost many of his ships by the tempests, and many of his men by land fighting in various parts,—tacitly including Largs, no doubt, which was the last of these misfortunes to him. … To this day, on a little plain to the south of the village, now town, of Largs, in Ayrshire, there are seen stone cairns and monumental heaps, and, until within a century ago, one huge, solitary, upright stone; still mutely testifying to a battle there—altogether clearly to this battle of King Hakon's; who by the Norse records, too, was in these neighbourhoods at that same date, and evidently in an aggressive, high kind of humour."

T. Carlyle, Early Kings of Norway, chapter 15.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 15 (volume 2).

See, also, NORMANS. NORTHMEN: 8-9TH CENTURIES, and 10-13TH CENTURIES.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1266. Acquisition of the Western Islands.

Three years after the battle of Largs, "in 1266, Magnus IV., the new King [of Norway], by formal treaty ceded to the King of Scots Man and all the Western Isles, specially reserving Orkney and Shetland to the crown of Norway. On the other hand, the King of Scots agreed to pay down a ransom for them of a thousand marks, and an annual rent of a hundred marks."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 15 (volume 2).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1286. Accession of Queen Margaret (called The Maid of Norway) who died on her way to Scotland in 1290.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305. Death of the Maid of Norway. Reign of John Balliol. English conquest by Edward I. Exploits of Wallace.

Alexander III. of Scotland, dying in 1286, left only an infant granddaughter to inherit his crown. This was the child of his daughter Margaret, married to the king of Norway and dead after her first confinement. The baby queen, known in Scottish history as the Maid of Norway, was betrothed in her sixth year to Prince Edward of England, son of Edward I., and all looked promising for an early union of the Scottish and English crowns. "But this project was abruptly frustrated by the child's death on her voyage to Scotland, and with the rise of claimant after claimant of the vacant throne Edward was drawn into far other relations to the Scottish realm. Of the thirteen pretenders to the throne of Scotland, only three could be regarded as serious claimants. By the extinction of the line of William the Lion, the right of succession passed to the daughters of his brother David. The claim of John Balliol, Lord of Galloway, rested on his descent from the eldest of these; that of Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, on his descent from the second; that of John Hastings, Lord of Abergavenny, on his descent from the third. … All the rights of a feudal suzerain were at once assumed by the English King; he entered into the possession of the country as into that of a disputed fief to be held by its overlord till the dispute was settled. … Scotland was thus reduced to the subjection which she had experienced under Henry II. … The commissioners whom he named to report on the claims to the throne were mainly Scotch; a proposal for the partition of the realm among the claimants was rejected as contrary to Scotch law, and the claim of Balliol as representative of the elder branch was finally preferred to that of his rivals. The castles were at once delivered to the new monarch, and Balliol did homage to Edward with full acknowledgment of the services due to him from the realm of Scotland. For a time there was peace." But, presently, Edward made claims upon the Scotch nobles for service in his foreign wars which were resented and disregarded. He also asserted for his courts a right of hearing appeals from the Scottish tribunals, which was angrily denied. Barons and people were provoked to a hostility that forced Balliol to challenge war. He obtained from the pope absolution from his oath of fealty and he entered into a secret alliance with the king of France. {2845} In the spring of 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, carried Berwick by storm, slaughtered 8,000 of its citizens, defeated the Scots with great slaughter at Dunbar, occupied Edinburgh, Stirling and Perth, and received, in July, the surrender of Balliol, who was sent to imprisonment in the Tower of London. "No further punishment, however, was exacted from the prostrate realm. Edward simply treated it as a fief, and declared its forfeiture to be the legal consequence of Balliol's treason. It lapsed in fact to the overlord, and its earls, barons and gentry swore homage in Parliament at Berwick to Edward as their king. … The government of the new dependency was intrusted to Warenne, Earl of Surrey, at the head of an English Council of Regency. … The disgraceful submission of their leaders brought the people themselves to the front. … The genius of an outlaw knight, William Wallace, saw in their smouldering discontent a hope of freedom for his country, and his daring raids on outlying parties of the English soldiery roused the country at last into revolt. Of Wallace himself, of his life or temper, we know little or nothing; the very traditions of his gigantic stature and enormous strength are dim and unhistorical. But the instinct of the Scotch people has guided it aright in choosing Wallace for its national hero. He … called the people itself to arms." At Stirling, in September, 1297, Wallace caught the English army in the midst of its passage of the Forth, cut half of it in pieces and put the remainder to flight. At Falkirk, in the following July, Edward avenged himself upon the forces of Wallace with terrible slaughter, and the Scottish leader narrowly escaped. In the struggle which the Scots still maintained for several years, he seems to have borne no longer a prominent part. But when they submitted, in 1303, Wallace refused Edward's offered amnesty; he was afterwards captured, sent to London for trial, and executed, his head being placed on London Bridge, according to the barbarous custom of the time.

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

ALSO: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapters 15 and 18-22.

C. H. Pearson, History of England during the Early and Middle Ages, volume 2, chapters 12-13.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1305-1307. The rising under Robert Bruce.

After the submission of Scotland in 1303, King Edward of England "set to work to complete the union of the two kingdoms. In the meantime Scotland was to be governed by a Lieutenant aided by a council of barons and churchmen. It was to be represented in the English parliament by ten deputies,—four churchmen, four barons, and two members of the commons, one for the country north of the Firths, one for the south. These members attended one parliament at Westminster, and an ordinance was issued for the government of Scotland. … But the great difficulty in dealing with the Scots was that they never knew when they were conquered, and, just when Edward hoped that his scheme for union was carried out, they rose in arms once more. The leader this time was Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale, Earl of Carrick in right of his mother, and the grandson and heir of the rival of Balliol. He had joined Wallace, but had again sworn fealty to Edward at the Convention of Irvine, and had since then received many favours from the English king. Bruce signed a bond with William Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, who had also been one of Wallace's supporters. In this bond each party swore to stand by the other in all his undertakings, no matter what, and not to act without the knowledge of the other. … This bond became known to Edward; and Bruce, afraid of his anger, fled from London to Dumfries. There in the Church of the Grey Friars he had an interview with John Comyn of Badenoch, called the Red Comyn, who, after Balliol and his sons, was the next heir to the throne. … What passed between them cannot be certainly known, as they met alone"—but Comyn was slain. "By this murder and sacrilege Bruce put himself at once out of the pale of the law and of the Church, but by it he became the nearest heir to the crown, after the Balliols. This gave him a great hold on the people, whose faith in the virtue of hereditary succession was strong, and on whom the English yoke weighed heavily. On March 27, 1306, Bruce was crowned [at Scone] with as near an imitation of the old ceremonies as could be compassed on such short notice. The actual crowning was done by Isabella, Countess of Buchan, who, though her husband was a Comyn, and, as such, a sworn foe of Bruce, came secretly to uphold the right of her own family, the Macduffs, to place the crown on the head of the King of Scots. Edward determined this time to put down the Scots with rigour. … All who had taken any part in the murder of the Red Comyn were denounced as traitors, and death was to be the fate of all persons taken in arms. Bruce was excommunicated by a special bull from the Pope. The Countess of Buchan was confined in a room, made like a cage, in one of the towers of Berwick Castle. One of King Robert's sisters was condemned to a like punishment. His brother Nigel, his brother-in-law Christopher Seaton, and three other nobles were taken prisoners, and were put to death as traitors. … Edward this time made greater preparations than ever. All classes of his subjects from all parts of his dominions were invited to join the army, and he exhorted his son, Edward Prince of Wales, and 300 newly-created knights, to win their spurs worthily in the reduction of contumacious Scotland. It was well for Scotland that he did not live to carry out his vows of vengeance. He died at Burgh-on-the-Sands, July 30th. His death proved a turning-point in the history of Scotland, for, though the English still remained in possession of the strongholds, Edward II. took no effective steps to crush the rebels. He only brought the army raised by his father as far as Cumnock in Ayrshire, and retreated without doing anything."

M. MacArthur, History of Scotland, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapters 8-9.

W. Burns, Scottish War of Independence, volume 2, chapters 21-22.

{2846}

SCOTLAND: A. D, 1314. The Battle of Bannockburn.

"It is extremely difficult to give distinctness and chronological sequence to the events in Scotland from 1306 to 1310: the conditions are indeed antagonistic to distinctness. We have a people restless and feverishly excited to efforts for their liberty when opportunity should come, but not yet embodied in open war against their invaders, and therefore doing nothing distinct enough to hold a place in history. … The other prominent feature in the historical conditions was the new-made king [Robert Bruce], … a tall strong man, of comely, attractive, and commanding countenance. … He is steady and sanguine of temperament; his good spirits and good-humour never fail, and in the midst of misery and peril he can keep up the spirits of his followers by chivalrous stories and pleasant banter. … The English were driven out of the strong places one by one—sometimes by the people of the district. We hear of the fall of Edinburgh, Roxburgh, Linlithgow, Perth, Dundee, Rutherglen, and Dumfries. … In the beginning of the year 1309 Scotland was so far consolidated as to be getting into a place in European diplomacy. The King of France advised his son-in-law, Edward II., to agree to a souffrance or truce with the Scots. … While the negotiations with France went on, countenance still more important was given to the new order of things at home. The clergy in council set forth their adherence to King Robert, with the reasons for it. … This was an extremely important matter, for it meant, of course, that the Church would do its best to protect him from all ecclesiastical risk arising from the death of Comyn. … A crisis came at last which roused the Government of England to a great effort. After the fortresses had fallen one by one, Stirling Castle still held out. It was besieged by Edward Bruce [brother of Robert] before the end of the year 1313. Mowbray, the governor, stipulated that he would surrender if not relieved before the Feast of St. John the Baptist in the following year, or the 24th of June. The taking of this fortress was an achievement of which King Edward [I.] was prouder than of anything else he had done in the invasions of Scotland. … That the crowning acquisition of their mighty king should thus be allowed to pass away, and stamp emphatically the utter loss of the great conquest he had made for the English crown, was a consummation too humiliating for the chivalry of England to endure without an effort. Stirling Castle must be relieved before St. John's Day, and the relieving of Stirling Castle meant a thorough invasion and resubjection of Scotland." On both sides the utmost efforts were made,—the one to relieve the Castle, the other to strengthen its besiegers. "On the 23d of June [1314] the two armies were visible to each other. If the Scots had, as it was said, between 30,000 and 40,000 men, it was a great force for the country at that time to furnish. Looking at the urgency of the measures taken to draw out the feudal array of England, to the presence of the Welsh and Irish, and to a large body of Gascons and other foreigners, it is easy to be believed that the army carried into Scotland might be, as it was said to be, 100,000 in all. The efficient force, however, was in the mounted men, and these were supposed to be about equal in number to the whole Scottish army." The Scots occupied a position of great strength and advantage (on the banks of the Bunnock Burn), which they had skilfully improved by honeycombing all the flat ground with hidden pits, to make it impassable for cavalry. The English attacked them at daybreak on the 24th of June, and suffered a most ignominious and awful defeat. "The end was rout, confused and hopeless. The pitted field added to the disasters; for though they avoided it in their advance, many horsemen were pressed into it in the retreat, and floundered among the pitfalls. Through all the history of her great wars before and since, never did England suffer a humiliation deep enough to approach even comparison with this. Besides the inferiority of the victorious army, Bannockburn is exceptional among battles by the utter helplessness of the defeated. There seems to have been no rallying point anywhere. … None of the parts of that mighty host could keep together, and the very chaos among the multitudes around seems to have perplexed the orderly army of the Scots. The foot-soldiers of the English army seem simply to have dispersed at all points, and the little said of them is painfully suggestive of the poor wanderers having to face the two alternatives—starvation in the wilds, or death at the hands of the peasantry. The cavalry fled right out towards England. … Stirling Castle was delivered up in terms of the stipulation."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 23.

"The defeated army … left dead upon the field about 30,000 men, including 200 knights and 700 esquires."

W. Burns, Scottish War of Independence, chapter 23 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 3.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314-1328. After Bannockburn. The consequences of the battle in different views.

"A very general impression exists, especially among Englishmen, that the defeat at Bannockburn put an end to the attempted subjugation of Scotland. This is a mistake. … No doubt the defeat was of so decisive a character as to render the final result all but certain. But it required many others, though of a minor kind, to bring about the conviction described by Mr. Froude [that the Scotch would never stoop to the supremacy inflicted upon Wales]; and it was yet fourteen long years till the treaty of Northampton."

W. Burns, The Scottish War of Independence, chapter 24 (volume 2).

"No defeat, however crushing, ever proved half so injurious to any country as the victory of Bannockburn did to Scotland. This is the testimony borne by men whose patriotism cannot be called in question. … It drove from Scotland the very elements of its growing civilization and its material wealth. The artisans of North Britain were at that time mostly English. These retired or were driven from Scotland, and with them the commercial importance of the Scottish towns was lost. The estates held by Englishmen in Scotland were confiscated, and the wealth which through the hands of these proprietors had found its way from the southern parts of the kingdom and fertilized the more barren soil of the north, at once ceased. The higher and more cultured clergy were English; these retired when the severance of Scotland from England was effected, and with them Scottish scholarship was almost extinguished, and the budding literature of the north disappeared. How calamitous was the period which followed upon Bannockburn may be partially estimated by two significant facts. Of the six princes who had nominal rule in Scotland from the death of Robert III. to James VI., not one died a natural death. Of the ten kings whose names are entered on the roll of Scottish history from the death of Robert Bruce, seven came to the throne whilst minors, and James I. was detained in England for nineteen years. The country during these long minorities, and the time of the captivity of James, was exposed to the strife commonly attendant on minorities.… {2847} The war commenced by Bruce lingered for almost three centuries, either in the shape of formal warfare proclaimed by heralds and by the ceremonials usually observed at the beginning of national strife, or in the informal but equally destructive hostilities which neighbours indulge in, and which partake of the bitterness of civil war. … For three centuries the lands south of the Tweed, and almost as far as the Tyne at its mouth, were exposed to the ceaseless ravages of moss-troopers. … For a while men were killed, and women outraged and murdered, and children slain without pity, and houses plundered and then burnt, and cattle swept off the grazing lands between Tweed and Tyne, until none cared, unless they were outlaws, to occupy any part of the country within a night's ride of the borders of Scotland. The sufferers in their turn soon learned to recognize no law save that of might, and avenged their wrongs by inflicting like wrongs upon others; and thus there grew up along the frontiers of either country a savage population, whose occupation was murder and plunder, and whose sole wealth was what they had obtained by violence. … The war, indeed, which has been called a war of independence, and fills so large a part of the annals of England and Scotland during the Middle Ages, was successful so far as its main object was concerned, the preservation of power in the hands of 'barbarous chieftains who neither feared the king nor pitied the people'; the war was a miserable failure if we regard the well-being of the people themselves and the progress of the nation."

W. Denton, England in the Fifteenth Century, pages 68-78.

On the other side: "It [the battle of Bannockburn] put an end for ever to all hopes upon the part of England of accomplishing the conquest of her sister country. … Nor have the consequences of this victory been partial or confined. Their duration throughout succeeding centuries of Scottish history and Scottish liberty, down to the hour in which this is written, cannot be questioned; and without launching out into any inappropriate field of historical speculation, we have only to think of the most obvious consequences which must have resulted from Scotland becoming a conquered province of England; and if we wish for proof, to fix our eyes on the present condition of Ireland, in order to feel the reality of all that we owe to the victory at Bannockburn, and to the memory of such men as Bruce, Randolph, and Douglas."

P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 3.

"It is impossible, even now, after the lapse of more than 570 years, to read any account of that battle—or still more to visit the field—without emotion. For we must remember all the political and social questions which depended on it. For good or for evil, tremendous issues follow on the gain or on the loss of national independence. … Where the seeds of a strong national civilisation, of a strong national character, and of intellectual wealth have been deeply sown in any human soil, the preservation of it from conquest, and from invasion, and from foreign rule, is the essential condition of its yielding its due contribution to the progress of the world. Who, then, can compute or reckon up the debt which Scotland owes to the few and gallant men who, inspired by a splendid courage and a noble faith, stood by The Bruce in the War of Independence, and on June 24, 1314, saw the armies of the invader flying down the Carse of Stirling?"

The Duke of Argyll, Scotland as it was and as it is, volume 1, chapter 2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1326-1603. The formation of the Scottish Parliament.

"As many causes contributed to bring government earlier to perfection in Eng]and than in Scotland; as the rigour of the feudal institutions abated sooner, and its defects were supplied with greater facility in the one kingdom than in the other; England led the way in all these changes, and burgesses and knights of the shire appeared in the parliaments of that nation, before they were heard of in ours. Burgesses were first admitted into the Scottish parliaments by Robert Bruce [A. D. 1326]; and in the preamble to the laws of Robert III. they are ranked among the constituent members of that assembly. The lesser barons were indebted to James I. [A. D. 1427] for a statute exempting them from personal attendance, and permitting them to elect representatives: the exemption was eagerly laid hold on, but the privilege was so little valued that, except one or two instances, it lay neglected during one hundred and sixty years; and James VI. first obliged them to send representatives regularly to parliament. A Scottish parliament, then, consisted anciently of great barons, of ecclesiastics, and a few representatives of boroughs. Nor were these divided, as in Eng]and, into two houses, but composed one assembly, in which the lord chancellor presided. … The great barons, or lords of parliament, were extremely few; even so late as the beginning of the reign of James VI. they amounted only to 53. The ecclesiastics equalled them in number, and, being devoted implicitly to the crown, … rendered all hopes of victory in any struggle desperate. … As far back as our records enable us to trace the constitution of our parliaments, we find a committee distinguished by the name of lords of articles. It was their business to prepare and to digest all matters which were to be laid before the parliament. There was rarely any business introduced into parliament but what had passed through the channel of this committee. … This committee owed the extraordinary powers vested in it to the military genius of the ancient nobles, too impatient to submit to the drudgery of civil business. … The lords of articles, then, not only directed all the proceedings of parliament, but possessed a negative before debate. That committee was chosen and constituted in such a manner as put this valuable privilege entirely in the king's hands. It is extremely probable that our kings once had the sole right of nominating the lords of articles. They came afterwards to be elected by the parliament, and consisted of an equal number out of each estate."

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, book 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1328. The Peace of Northampton.

In 1327 King Edward III. of England collected a splendid army of 60,000 men for his first campaign against the Scots. After several weeks of tiresome marching and countermarching, in vain attempts to bring the agile Scots to an engagement, or to stop the bold ravages of Douglas and Randolph, who led them, the young king abandoned his undertaking in disgust. {2848} He next "convoked a parliament at York, in which there appeared a tendency on the part of England to concede the main points on which proposals for peace had hitherto failed, by acknowledging the independence of Scotland and the legitimate sovereignty of Bruce." A truce was presently agreed upon, "which it was now determined should be the introduction to a lasting peace. As a necessary preliminary, the English statesmen resolved formally to execute a resignation of all claims of dominion and superiority which had been assumed over the kingdom of Scotland, and agreed that all muniments or public instruments asserting or tending to support such a claim should be delivered up. This agreement was subscribed by the king on the 4th of March, 1328. Peace was afterwards concluded at Edinburgh the 17th of March, 1328, and ratified at a parliament held at Northampton, the 4th of May, 1328. It was confirmed by a match agreed upon between the princess Joanna, sister to Edward III., and David, son of Robert I., though both were as yet infants. Articles of strict amity were settled betwixt the nations, without prejudice to the effect of the alliance between Scotland and France. … It was stipulated that all the charters and documents carried from Scotland by Edward I. should be restored, and the king of England was pledged to give his aid in the court of Rome towards the recall of the excommunication awarded against king Robert. Lastly, Scotland was to pay a sum of £20,000 in consideration of these favourable terms. The borders were to be maintained in strict order on both sides, and the fatal coronation-stone was to be restored to Scotland. There was another separate obligation on the Scottish side, which led to most serious consequences in the subsequent reign. The seventh article of the Peace of Northampton provided that certain English barons … should be restored to the lands and heritages in Scotland, whereof they had been deprived during the war, by the king of Scots seizing them into his own hand. The execution of this article was deferred by the Scottish king, who was not, it may be conceived, very willing again to introduce English nobles as landholders into Scotland. The English mob, on their part, resisted the removal of the fatal stone from Westminster, where it had been deposited. … The deed called Ragman's Roll, being the list of the barons and men of note who subscribed the submission to Edward I. in 1296, was, however, delivered up to the Scots."

Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 12 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: J. Froissart, Chronicles (translated by Johnes), book 1, chapter 18.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1329. Accession of David II.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333. The Disinherited Barons. Balliol's invasion. Siege of Berwick and battle of Halidon Hill.

Until his death, in 1329, King Robert Bruce evaded the enforcement of that provision of the Treaty of Northampton which pledged him to restore the forfeited estates of English nobles within the Scottish border. His death left the crown to a child of seven years, his son David, under the regency of Randolph, Earl of Murray, and the regent still procrastinated the restoration of the estates in question. At length, in 1332, the "disinherited barons," as they were called, determined to prosecute their claim by force of arms, and they made common cause with Edward Balliol, son of the ex-king of Scotland, who had been exiled in France. The English king, Edward III. would not openly give countenance to their undertaking, nor permit them to invade Scotland across the English frontier; but he did nothing to prevent their recruiting in the northern counties an army of 3,300 men, which took ship at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire, and landed on the coast of Fifeshire, under Balliol's command. Marching westward, the invaders "finally took up a strong position in the heart of the country, with the river Earn in their front. Just before this crisis, the wise and capable Regent, Randolph, Earl of Murray, had died, and the great Sir James Douglas, having gone with King Robert's heart to offer it at the shrine of the Holy Sepulchre, had perished on his way, in conflict with the Moors of Spain. The regency had devolved upon the Earl of Mar, a man wanting both in energy and in military capacity; but so strong was the national antipathy to Balliol, as representing the idea of English supremacy, that Mar found no difficulty in bringing an army of 40,000 men into the field against him. He drew up over against the enemy on the northern bank of the Earn, on Dupplin Moor, while the Earl of March, with forces scarcely inferior to the Regent's, threatened the flank of the little army of the invaders. Balliol, however, was not wanting in valour or generalship, and there were, as usual, traitors in the Scotch army, one of whom led the English, by a ford which he knew, safe across the river in the darkness of the night. They threw themselves upon the scattered, over-secure, and ill-sentinelled camp of the enemy with such a sudden and furious onslaught, that the huge Scottish army broke up into a panic-stricken and disorganised crowd and were slaughtered like sheep, the number of the slain four times exceeding that of the whole of Balliol's army, which escaped with the loss of thirty men. The invaders now took possession of Perth, which the Earl of March forthwith surrounded, by land and water, and thought to starve into submission; but Balliol's ships broke through the blockade on the Tay, and the besiegers, despairing of success, marched off and disbanded without striking another blow. Scotland having been thus subdued by a handful of men, the nobles one by one came to make their submission. Young King David and his affianced bride were sent over to France for security, and Edward Balliol was crowned King at Scone on September 24, 1332, two months after his disembarkation in Scotland. As Balliol was thus actual (de facto) King of Scotland, Edward could now form an alliance with him without a breach of the treaty; and there seemed to be many arguments in favour of espousing his cause. The young Bruce and his dynasty represented the troublesome spirit of Scottish independence, and were closely allied with France, whose king, as will be seen, lost no opportunity of stimulating and supporting the party of resistance to England. Balliol, on the other hand, admitted in a secret despatch to Edward that the success of the expedition was owing to that King's friendly non-intervention, and the aid of his subjects; offered to hold Scotland 'as his man,' doing him homage for it as an English fief; and, treating the princess Joan's hastily formed union with David as a mere engagement, proposed to marry her himself instead. The King, as always, even on less important issues than the present, consulted his Parliament. … {2849} Balliol in the meanwhile, having dismissed the greater part of his English auxiliaries, was lying unsuspicious of danger at Annan, when his camp was attacked in the middle of the night by a strong body of cavalry under Murray, son of the wise Regent, and Douglas, brother of the great Sir James. The entrenchments were stormed in the darkness; noble, vassal and retainer were slaughtered before they were able to organise any resistance, and Balliol himself barely escaped with his life across the English border." In the following year, however, Edward restored his helpless vassal, invading Scotland in person, besieging Berwick, and routing and destroying, at Halidon Hill, a Scotch army which came to its relief.

W. Warburton, Edward III., chapter 2.

ALSO IN: W. Longman, Life and Times of Edward III., volume 1, chapter 4.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapter 25.

See, also, BERWICK-UPON-TWEED.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370. The long-continued wars with Edward III.

"Throughout the whole country of Scotland, only four castles and a small tower acknowledged the sovereignty of David Bruce, after the battle of Halidon; and it is wonderful to see how, by their efforts, the patriots soon afterwards changed for the better that unfavourable and seemingly desperate state of things. In the several skirmishes and battles which were fought all over the kingdom, the Scots, knowing the country, and having the good-will of the inhabitants, were generally successful, as also in surprising castles and forts, cutting off convoys of provisions which were going to the English, and destroying scattered parties of the enemy; so that, by a long and incessant course of fighting, the patriots gradually regained what they lost in great battles. … You may well imagine that, during those long and terrible wars which were waged, when castles were defended and taken, prisoners made, many battles fought, and numbers of men wounded and slain, the state of the country of Scotland was most miserable. There was no finding refuge or protection in the law. … All laws of humanity and charity were transgressed without scruple. People were found starved to death in the woods with their families, while the country was so depopulated and void of cultivation that the wild deer came out of the remote forests, and approached near to cities and the dwellings of men. … Notwithstanding the valiant defence maintained by the Scots, their country was reduced to a most disastrous state, by the continued wars of Edward III., who was a wise and warlike King as ever lived. Could he have turned against Scotland the whole power of his kingdom, he might probably have effected the complete conquest, which had been so long attempted in vain. But while the wars in Scotland were at the hottest, Edward became also engaged in hostilities with France, having laid claim to the crown of that kingdom. … The Scots sent an embassy to obtain money and assistance from the French; and they received supplies of both, which enabled them to recover their castles and towns from the English. Edinburgh Castle was taken from the invaders by a stratagem. … Perth, and other important places, were also retaken by the Scots, and Edward Baliol retired out of the country, in despair of, making good his pretensions to the crown. The nobles of Scotland, finding the affairs of the kingdom more prosperous, now came to the resolution of bringing back from France, where he had resided for safety, their young King, David II., and his consort, Queen Joanna. They arrived in 1341. David II. was still a youth, neither did he possess at any period of life the wisdom and talents of his father, the great King Robert. The nobles of Scotland had become each a petty prince on his own estates; they made war on each other as they had done upon the English, and the poor King possessed, no power of restraining them. Edward III. being absent in France, and in the act of besieging Calais, David was induced, by the pressing and urgent counsels of the French King, to renew the war, and profit by the King's absence from England. The young King of Scotland raised, accordingly, a large army, and, entering England on the west frontier, he marched eastward towards Durham, harassing and wasting the country with great severity; the Scots boasting that, now the King and his nobles were absent, there were none in England to oppose them, save priests and base mechanics. But they were greatly deceived. The lords of the northern counties of England, together with the Archbishop of York, assembled a gallant army. They defeated the vanguard of the Scots and came upon the main body by surprise. … The Scottish army fell fast into disorder. The King himself fought bravely in the midst of his nobles and was twice wounded with arrows. At length he was captured. …The left wing of the Scottish army continued fighting long after the rest were routed, and at length made a safe retreat. It was commanded by the Steward of Scotland and the Earl of March. Very many of the Scottish nobility were slain; very many made prisoners. The King himself was led in triumph through the streets of London, and committed to the Tower a close prisoner. This battle was fought at Neville's Cross, near Durham, on 17th October, 1346. Thus was another great victory gained by the English over the Scots. It was followed by farther advantages, which gave the victors for a time possession of the country from the Scottish Border as far as the verge of Lothian. But the Scots, as usual, were no sooner compelled to momentary submission, than they began to consider the means of shaking off the yoke. Edward III. was not more fortunate in making war on Scotland in his own name, than when he used the pretext of supporting Baliol. He marched into East-Lothian in spring, 1355, and committed such ravages that the period was long marked by the name of the Burned Candlemas, because so many towns and villages were burned. But the Scots had removed every species of provisions which could be of use to the invaders, and avoided a general battle, while they engaged in a number of skirmishes. In this manner Edward was compelled to retreat out of Scotland, after sustaining much loss. After the failure of this effort, Edward seems to have despaired of the conquest of Scotland, and entered into terms for a truce, and for setting the King at liberty. Thus David II. at length obtained his freedom from the English, after he had been detained in prison eleven years. The latter years of this King's life have nothing very remarkable. He died in 1370."

Sir W. Scott, Tales of a Grandfather (Scotland); abridged by E. Ginn, chapters 14-15.

{2850}

ALSO IN: J. Froissart, Chronicles (translated by Johnes), book 1.

W. Longman, Life and Times of Edward III., volume 1, chapters 4, 10, 15, 22.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1346. Founding of the Lordship of the Isles.

See HEBRIDES: A. D. 1346-1504.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1370. The accession of Robert II. the first of the Stewart or Stuart Dynasty.

On the death of David II. of Scotland (son of Robert Bruce) A. D. 1370, he was succeeded on the throne by his nephew, "Robert the High Steward of Scotland," whose mother was Marjory, daughter of Robert Bruce. The succession had been so fixed by act of the Scottish Parliament during "good King Robert's" life. The new King Robert began the Stewart line, as a royal dynasty. "The name of his family was Allan, or Fitz Allan, but it had become habitual to call them by the name of the feudal office held by them in Scotland, and hence Robert II. was the first of the Steward, or, as it came to be written, the Stewart dynasty. They obtained their feudal influence through the office enjoyed by their ancestors at the Court of Scotland—the office of Steward."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 26 (volume 3).

The succession of the family on the Scottish throne was as follows:

Robert II., Robert III., James I., James II., James III., James IV., James V., Mary, James VI.

The grandmother of Mary, the great grandmother of James VI., was Margaret Tudor, of the English royal family—sister of Henry VIII. The death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 left the English throne with no nearer heir than the Scottish King James. He, therefore, united the two crowns and became James I. of England, as well as James VI. of Scotland. His successors of the dynasty in England were Charles I., before the Rebellion and Commonwealth, then Charles II., James II., Mary (of the joint reign of William and Mary), and Anne. The Hanoverian line, which succeeded, was derived from the Stuart, through a daughter of James I.—Elizabeth of Bohemia.

_M. Noble, Historical Genealogy of the House of Stuart._

ALSO IN: Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 15 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1388. The Battle of Otterburn.

See OTTERBURN.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1390. Accession of Robert III.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1400-1436. Homildon Hill and Shrewsbury. The captivity of James I.

From 1389 to 1399 there was a truce between England and Scotland, and the Scotch borderers watched impatiently for the termination of it, that they might be let loose on the northern English counties, "like hounds let off the leash. It was asserted on the part of England, indeed, that they did not wait for the conclusion. Ten years of peaceful husbandry had prepared a harvest for them, and they swept it off in the old way—the English borderers retaliating by an invasion of the Lowlands. The political aspect again became menacing for Scotland. The conditions which rendered peace almost a necessity for England had ceased with a revolution. It was no longer Richard II., but Henry IV., who reigned; and he began his reign by a great invasion of Scotland." He marched with a large army (A. D. 1400) as far as Leith and threatened Edinburgh Castle, which was stoutly defended by the Scottish king's son; but the expedition was fruitless of results. Henry, however, gained the adhesion of the Earl of March, one of the most powerful of the Scottish nobles, who had received an unpardonable affront from the Duke of Albany, then regent of Scotland, and who joined the English against his country in consequence. In the autumn of 1402 the Scotch retaliated Henry's invasion by a great plundering expedition under Douglas, which penetrated as far as Durham. The rievers were returning, laden with plunder, when they were intercepted by Hotspur and the traitor March, at Homildon Hill, near Wooler, and fearfully beaten, a large number of Scotch knights and lords being killed or taken prisoner. Douglas and others among the prisoners of this battle were subsequently released by Hotspur, in defiance of the orders of King Henry, and they joined him with a considerable force when he raised his standard of revolt. Sharing the defeat of the rebellious Percys, Douglas was again taken prisoner at Shrewsbury, A. D. 1403. Two years later the English king gained a more important captive, in the person of the young heir to the Scottish throne, subsequently King James I., who was taken at sea while on a voyage to France. The young prince (who became titular king of Scotland in 1406, on his father's death) was detained at the English court nineteen years, treated with friendly courtesy by Henry IV. and Henry V. and educated with care. He married Jane Beaufort, niece of Henry IV., and was set free to return to his kingdom in 1424, prepared by his English training to introduce in Scotland a better system of government and more respectful ideas of law. The reforms which he undertook gave rise to fear and hatred among the lawless lords of the north, and they rid themselves of a king who troubled them with too many restraints, by assassinating him, on the 20th of February, 1436.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapters 26-27.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapters 16-18.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1411. Battle of Harlaw. Defeat of the Lord of the Isles and the Highland clans.

See HARLAW.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1437-1460. Reign of James II. Feuds in the kingdom. The Douglases.

James II. was crowned (1437) at six years of age. "Sir Alexander Livingstone became guardian of his person; Sir William Crichton, Chancellor of his kingdom; and Archibald, fifth Earl of Douglas, … nephew of the late King, became Lieutenant-General. The history of the regency is the history of the perpetual strife of Livingstone and Crichton with each other and with the Earl of Douglas, who had become 'very potent in kine and friendis.' His 'kine and friend is' now spread over vast territories in southern Scotland, including Galloway and Annandale, and in France he was Lord of Longueville and possessor of the magnificent duchy of Touraine. The position the Douglases occupied in being nearly related to the house of Baliol (now extinct) and to the house of Comyn placed them perilously near the throne; but there was a greater peril still, and this lay in the very dearness of the name of Douglas to Scotland. … To the Queen-mother had been committed by Parliament the care of her son, but as Crichton, the Chancellor, seemed disposed to take this charge upon himself, she determined to outwit him and to fulfil her duties. Accordingly, saying she was bound on a pilgrimage, she contrived to pack the boy up in her luggage, and carried him off to Stirling Castle. {2851} He was soon, however, brought back to Edinburgh by those in power, and then they executed a wicked plot for the destruction of William, who, in 1439, had, at the age of sixteen, succeeded his father, Archibald, as Earl of Douglas. The Earl and his brother … were executed, and for a time it would appear that the mightiness of the Douglases received a shock. … The Queen-mother had been early thrust out of the regency by Livingstone and Crichton. Distrusted because she was by birth one 'of our auld enemies of England'; separated from her son; still comparatively young, and needing a strong protector, she gave her hand to Sir James Stewart, the Black Knight of Lorn. … After her second marriage she sinks out of notice, but enough is told to make it apparent that neglect and suffering accompanied the last years of the winning Jane Beaufort, who had stolen the heart of the King of Scots at Windsor Castle. … The long minority of James, and the first years of his brief reign, were too much occupied in strife with the Douglases to leave time for good government. … When there was peace, the King and his Parliament enacted many good laws. … Although the Wars of the Roses left the English little time to send armies to Scotland, and although there were no great hostilities with England, yet during this reign a great Scottish army threatened England, and a great English army threatened Scotland. James was on the side of the House of Lancaster; and 'the only key to the complicated understanding of the transactions of Scotland during the Wars of the two Roses is to recollect that the hostilities of James were directed, not against England, but against the successes of the House of York.' … Since the Battle of Durham, the frontier fortress of Roxburgh had been in English hands; and when, in 1460, it was commanded by the great partisan of York, the Earl of Warwick, James laid siege to it in person. Artillery had been in use for some time, and years before we hear of the 'cracks of war.' Still many of the guns were novelties, and, curious to study the strange new machinery of death, 'more curious than became the majesty of ane King,' James ventured too near 'ane misframed gun.' It burst, and one of its oaken wedges striking him, he fell to the ground, and 'died hastlie thairafter,' being in the thirtieth year of his age. … King James III., who was eight years old, was crowned at the Monastery of Kelso in 1460."

M. G. J. Kinloch, History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 16.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1460. Accession of James Ill.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1482-1488. Lauder Bridge and Sauchie Burn.

James III., who was an infant at the time of his father's death, developed a character, as he came to manhood, which the rude nobles of his court and kingdom could not understand. "He had a dislike to the active sports of hunting and the games of chivalry, mounted on horseback rarely, and rode ill. … He was attached to what are now called the fine arts of architecture and music; and in studying these used the instructions of Rogers, an English musician, Cochrane, a mason or architect, and Torphichen, a dancing-master. Another of his domestic minions was Hommil, a tailor, not the least important in the conclave, if we may judge from the variety and extent of the royal wardrobe, of which a voluminous catalogue is preserved. Spending his time with such persons, who, whatever their merit might be in their own several professions, could not be fitting company for a prince, James necessarily lost the taste for society of a different description, whose rank imposed on him a certain degree of restraint. … The nation, therefore, with disgust and displeasure, saw the king disuse the society of the Scottish nobles, and abstain from their counsel, to lavish favours upon and be guided by the advice of a few whom the age termed base mechanics. In this situation, the public eye was fixed upon James's younger brothers, Alexander duke of Albany, and John earl of Mar." The jealousy and suspicion of the king were presently excited by the popularity of his brothers and he caused them to be arrested (1478). Mar, accused of having dealings with witches, was secretly executed in prison and his earldom was sold to the king's favourite, Cochrane, who had amassed wealth by a thrifty use of his influence and opportunities. Albany escaped to France and thence to England, where he put himself forward as a claimant of the Scottish throne, securing the support of Edward IV. by offering to surrender the hard-won independence of the kingdom. An English army, under Richard of Gloucester (afterwards King Richard III.) was sent into Scotland to enforce his claim. The Scotch king assembled his forces and advanced from Edinburgh as far as Lauder (1482), to meet the invasion. At Lauder, the nobles, having becoming deeply exasperated by the arrogant state which the ex-architect assumed as Earl of Mar, held a meeting which resulted in the sudden seizure and hanging of all the king's favourites on Lauder Bridge. "All the favourites of the weak prince perished except a youth called Ramsay of Balmain, who clung close to the king's person," and was spared. Peace with Albany and his English allies was now arranged, on terms which made the duke lieutenant-general of the kingdom; but it lasted no more than a year. Albany became obnoxious and fled to England again. The doings of the king were still hateful to his nobles and people and a continual provocation of smouldering wrath. In 1488, the discontent broke out in actual rebellion, and James was easily defeated in a battle fought at Sauchie Burn, between Bannockburn and Stirling. Flying from the battlefield, he fell from his horse and was taken, badly injured, into the house of a miller near by, where he disclosed his name. "The consequence was, that some of the rebels who followed the chase entered the hut and stabbed him to the heart. The persons of the murderers were never known, nor was the king's body ever found."

Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 20 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: C. M. Yonge, Cameos from English History, series 3, chapters 18 and 22.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1488. Accession of James IV.

{2852}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502. The marriage which brought the crown of England to the Stuarts.

"On the 8th of August 1502 the ceremony of marriage between King James [IV. of Scotland] and Margaret, Princess of England [daughter of Henry VII. and sister of Henry VIII.], was celebrated in the Chapel of Holyrood. A union of crowns and governments might be viewed as a possible result of such a marriage; but there had been others between Scotland and England whence none followed. It was long ere such a harvest of peace seemed likely to arise from this union—it seemed, indeed, to be so buried under events of a contrary tenor that it was almost forgotten; yet, a hundred and one years later, it sent the great-grandson of James IV. to be King of England."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 30 (volume 3).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1502-1504. The Highlands brought to order. Suppression of the independent Lordship of the Isles.

"The marriage of James in 1502 with the Princess Margaret, daughter of Henry VII., helped to prolong the period of tranquillity. But, in fact, his energetic administration of justice had, almost from the beginning of his reign, restored confidence, and re-awakened in his subjects an industrial activity, that had slumbered since the death of Alexander III. Everywhere he set his barons the novel task of keeping their territories in order. The Huntlys in the North, the Argylls in the West, were made virtual viceroys of the Highlands; the Douglasses were charged with maintaining the peace of the Borders; and at length the formidable Lordship of the Isles, which had been the source of all the Celtic troubles of Scotland since the days of Somerled, was broken up in 1504, after a series of fierce revolts, and the claim to an independent sovereignty abandoned forever. Henceforth the chieftains of the Hebrides held their lands of the Crown, and were made responsible for the conduct of their clans."

J. M. Ross, Scottish History and Literature, chapter 5, page 177.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513. The Battle of Flodden.

In 1513, while Henry VIII. of England, who had joined the Holy League against France, was engaged in the latter country, besieging Terouenne, he received an embassy from James IV., king of Scotland, his brother-in-law. "French intrigues, and the long-standing alliance between the nations, had induced James to entertain the idea of a breach with England. Causes of complaint were not wanting. There was a legacy due from Henry VII.; Sir Robert Ker, the Scotch Warden of the Marches, had been killed by a Heron of Ford, and the murderer found refuge in England; Andrew Barton, who, licensed with letters of marque against the Portuguese in revenge for the death of his father, had extended his reprisals to general piracy, had been captured and slain by Lord Thomas and Sir Edward Howard, and the Scotch King demanded justice for the death of his captain. To these questions, which had been long unsettled, an answer was now imperiously demanded. Henry replied with scorn, and the Scotch King declared war. The safety of England had been intrusted to the Earl of Surrey, who, when James crossed the border, was lying at Pontefract. Without delay, he pushed forward northward, and, challenging James to meet him on the Friday next following, came up with him when strongly posted on the hill of Flodden, with one flank covered by the river Till, the other by an impassable morass, and his front rendered impregnable by the massing of his artillery. Ashamed, after his challenge, to avoid the combat, Surrey moved suddenly northward, as though bound for Scotland, but soon marching round to the left, he crossed the Till near its junction with the Tweed, and thus turned James's position. The Scots were thus compelled to fight [September 9, 1513]. On the English right, the sons of Surrey with difficulty held their own. In the centre, where Surrey himself was assaulted by the Scotch King and his choicest troops, the battle inclined against the English; but upon the English left the Highlanders were swept away by the archers, and Stanley, who had the command in that wing, fell on the rear of the successful Scotch centre, and determined the fortune of the day. The slaughter of the Scotch was enormous, and among the number of the slain was James himself, with all his chief nobility."

J. F. Bright, History of England, volume 2, pages 370-372.

"There lay slain on the fatal field of Flodden twelve Scottish earls, thirteen lords, and five eldest sons of peers—fifty chiefs, knights, and men of eminence, and about 10,000 common men. Scotland had sustained defeats in which the loss had been numerically greater, but never one in which the number of the nobles slain bore such a proportion to those of the inferior rank. The cause was partly the unusual obstinacy of the long defence, partly that when the common people began … to desert their standards, the nobility and gentry were deterred by shame and a sense of honour from following their example."

Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 21 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513. Accession of James V.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542. The disaster at Solway-frith.

James V. of Scotland, who was the nephew of Henry VIII. of England—the son of Henry's sister, Margaret Tudor—gave offense to his proud and powerful uncle (A. D. 1541) by excusing himself from a meeting which had been arranged to take place between the two kings, and for which Henry had taken the trouble to travel to York. It was the eager wish of the English king to persuade his royal nephew to take possession of the property of the monasteries of Scotland, in imitation of his own example. The appointed meeting was for the further urging of these proposals, more especially, and it had been frustrated through the influence of the Catholic clergy with young King James,—very much to the disgust of many among the Scottish nobles, as well as to the wrath of King Henry. Whence came results that were unexpectedly sad. Henry determined to avenge himself for the slight that had been put upon him, and, having made his preparations for war, he issued a manifesto, alleging various injuries which gave color to his declaration of hostilities. "He even revived the old claim to the vassalage of Scotland, and he summoned James to do homage to him as his liege lord and superior. He employed the Duke of Norfolk, whom he called the scourge of the Scots, to command in the war." After some preliminary raiding expeditions, the Duke of Norfolk advanced to the border with 20,000 men, or more. "James had assembled his whole military force at Fala and Sautrey, and was ready to advance as soon as he should be informed of Norfolk's invading his kingdom. The English passed the Tweed at Berwick, and marched along the banks of the river as far as Kelso; but hearing that James had collected near 30,000 men, they repassed the river at that village, and retreated into their own country. The King of Scots, inflamed with a desire of military glory, and of revenge on his invaders, gave the signal for pursuing them, and carrying the war into England. {2853} He was surprised to find that his nobility, who were in general disaffected on account of the preference which he had given to the clergy, opposed this resolution, and refused to attend him in his projected enterprise. Enraged at this mutiny, he reproached them with cowardice, and threatened vengeance; but still resolved, with the forces which adhered to him, to make an impression on the enemy. He sent 10,000 men to the western borders, who entered England at Solway-frith [or Solway Moss]; and he himself followed them at a small distance, ready to join them upon occasion." At the same time, he took the command of his little army away from Lord Maxwell, and conferred it on one of his favorites, Oliver Sinclair. "The army was extremely disgusted with this alteration, and was ready to disband; when a small body of English appeared, not exceeding 500 men, under the command of Dacres and Musgrave. A panic seized the Scots, who immediately took to flight, and were pursued by the enemy. Few were killed in this rout, for it was no action; but a great many were taken prisoners, and some of the principal nobility." The effect of this shameful disaster upon the mind of James was so overwhelming that he took to his bed and died in a few days. While he lay upon his deathbed, his queen gave birth to a daughter, who inherited his crown, and who played in subsequent history the unfortunate role of Mary, Queen of Scots."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 33.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 33.

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, book 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1542. Accession of Queen Mary.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548. The English Wooing of Queen Mary.

Immediately on the death of James V., Henry VIII. of England began a most resolute undertaking to secure the hand of the infant queen Mary for his own infant son. Scotland, however, was averse to the union, and resisted all the influences which the English king could bring to bear. Enraged by his failure, Henry despatched the Earl of Hertford, in May 1544, with a military and naval force, commissioned to do the utmost destructive work in its power, without attempting permanent conquest, for which it was not adequate. The expedition landed at Newhaven and seized the town of Leith, before Cardinal Beaton or Beatoun, then governing Scotland in the name of the Regent, the Earl of Arran, had learned of its approach. "The Cardinal immediately deserted the capital and fled in the greatest dismay to Stirling. The Earl of Hertford demanded the unconditional surrender of the infant Queen, and being informed that the Scottish capital and nation would suffer every disaster before they would submit to his ignominious terms, he marched immediately with his whole forces upon Edinburgh. … The English army entered by the Water-gate without opposition, and assaulted the Nether Bow Port, and beat it open on the second day, with a terrible slaughter of the citizens. They immediately attempted to lay siege to the Castle. … Baffled in their attempts on the fortress, they immediately proceeded to wreak their vengeance on the city. They set it on fire in numerous quarters, and continued the work of devastation and plunder till compelled to abandon it by the smoke and flames, as well as the continual firing from the Castle. They renewed the work of destruction on the following day; and for three successive days they returned with unabated fury to the smoking ruins, till they had completely effected their purpose. The Earl of Hertford then proceeded to lay waste the surrounding country with fire and sword. … This disastrous event forms an important era in the history of Edinburgh; if we except a portion of the Castle, the churches, and the north-west wing of Holyrood Palace, no building anterior to this date now exists in Edinburgh. … The death of Henry VIII. in 1547 tended to accelerate the renewal of his project for enforcing the union of the neighbouring kingdoms, by the marriage of his son with the Scottish Queen. Henry, on his deathbed, urged the prosecution of the war with Scotland; and the councillors of the young King Edward VI. lost no time in completing their arrangements for the purpose. … In the beginning of September, the Earl of Hertford, now Duke of Somerset, and Lord Protector of England, during the minority of his nephew Edward VI., again entered Scotland at the head of a numerous army; while a fleet of about 60 sail co-operated with him, by a descent on the Scottish coast. At his advance, he found the Scottish army assembled in great force to oppose him. … After skirmishing for several days with various success in the neighbourhood of Prestonpans, where the English army was encamped,—a scene long afterwards made memorable by the brief triumph of Mary's hapless descendant, Charles Stuart,—the two armies at length came to a decisive engagement on Saturday the 10th of September 1547, long after known by the name of 'Black Saturday.' The field of Pinkie, the scene of this fatal contest, lies about six miles distant from Edinburgh. … The Scots were at first victorious, and succeeded in driving back the enemy, and carrying off the royal standard of England; but being almost destitute of cavalry … they were driven from the field, after a dreadful slaughter, with the loss of many of their nobles and leaders, both slain and taken prisoners." Notwithstanding their severe defeat, the Scots were still stubbornly resolved that their young queen should not be won by such savage wooing; and the English returned home, after burning Leith and desolating the coast country once more. Next year the royal maid of Scotland, then six years old, was betrothed to the dauphin of France and sent to the French court to be reared. So the English scheme of marriage was frustrated in a decisive way. Meantime, the Scots were reinforced by 8,000 French and 1,000 Dutch troops, and expelled the English from most of the places they held in the country.

D. Wilson, Memorials of Edinburgh, part 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapters 1-2.

J. A. Froude, History of England, chapter 22 (volume 4) and chapters 24-25 (volume 5).

{2854}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546. The murder of Cardinal Beatoun.

Cardinal Beatoun [who had acquired practical control of the government, although the Earl of Arran was nominally Regent] had not used his power with moderation, equal to the prudence by which he attained it. Notwithstanding his great abilities, he had too many of the passions and prejudices of an angry leader of a faction, to govern a divided people with temper. His resentment against one party of the nobility, his insolence towards the rest, his severity to the reformers, and, above all, the barbarous and illegal execution of the famous George Wishart, a man of honourable birth and of primitive sanctity, wore out the patience of a fierce age; and nothing but a bold hand was wanting to gratify the public wish by his destruction. Private revenge, inflamed and sanctified by a false zeal for religion, quickly supplied this want. Norman Lesly, the eldest son of the earl of Rothes, had been treated by the cardinal with injustice and contempt. It was not the temper of the man, or the spirit of the times, quietly to digest an affront. … The cardinal, at that time, resided in the castle of St. Andrew's, which he had fortified at great expense, and, in the opinion of the age, had rendered it impregnable. His retinue was numerous, the town at his devotion, and the neighbouring country full of his dependents. In this situation, sixteen persons undertook to surprise his castle, and to assassinate himself; and their success was equal to the boldness of the attempt. … His death was fatal to the catholic religion, and to the French interest in Scotland. The same zeal for both continued among a great party in the nation, but when deprived of the genius and authority of so skilful a leader, operated with less effect." The sixteen conspirators, having full possession of the castle of St. Andrew's, were soon joined by friends and sympathizers—John Knox being one of the party—until 150 men were within the walls. They stood a siege for five months and only surrendered to a force sent over by the king of France, on being promised their lives. They were sent as prisoners to France, and the castle of St. Andrew's was demolished.

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, book 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapters 1-2.

T. M'Crie, Life of John Knox, period 2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557. The birth of the Protestant Reformation.

In Scotland, the kings of the house of Stuart "obtained a decisive influence over the appointment to the high dignities in the Church, but this proved advantageous neither to the Church nor, at last, to themselves. … The French abuses came into vogue here also: ecclesiastical benefices fell to the dependents of the court, to the younger sons of leading houses, often to their bastards: they were given or sold 'in commendam,' and then served only for pleasure and gain: the Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous and corrupt state. It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in Germany, nor again the attempt to keep out Papal influence as in England, but mainly aversion to the moral corruption of the spirituality which gave the first impulse to the efforts at reformation in Scotland. We find Lollard societies among the Scots much later than in England: their tendencies spread through wide circles, owing to the anti-clerical spirit of the century, and received fresh support from the doctrinal writings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy was resolved to defend itself with all its might. … It persecuted all with equal severity as tending to injure the stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extreme penalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the order of the day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting persecution by flight, which was only possible amid great peril. These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition, and relentless punishment of those who blamed it as it well deserved, gave the Reform movement in Scotland, which was repressed but not stifled, a peculiar character of exasperation and thirst for vengeance. Nor was it without a political bearing, in Scotland as elsewhere. In particular, Henry VIII. proposed to his nephew, King James V., to remodel the Church after his example: and a part of the nobility, which was already favourably disposed towards England, would have gladly seen this done. But James preferred the French pattern to the English: he was kept firm in his Catholic and French sympathies by his wife, Mary of Guise, and by the energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he became involved in the war with England in which he fell, and after this it occasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions by the Duke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion with them the Protestant, sympathies would gain the ascendancy. But national feelings were still stronger than the religious. Exactly because England defended and recommended the religious change it failed to make way in Scotland. Under the regency of the Queen dowager, with some passing fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole kept the upper hand. … It is remarkable how under these unfavourable circumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid. Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content to provide for their subsistence in a foreign land and improve their own culture. But there was one among them who did not reconcile himself for one moment to this fate. John Knox was the first who formed a Protestant congregation in the besieged fortress of S. Andrew's; when the French took the place in 1547 he was made prisoner and condemned to serve in the galleys. … After he was released, he took a zealous share in the labours of the English Reformers under Edward VI., but was not altogether content with the result; after the King's death he had to fly to the continent. He went to Geneva, where he became a student once more and tried to fill up the gaps in his studies, but above all he imbibed, or confirmed his knowledge of, the views which prevailed in that Church. … A transient relaxation of ecclesiastical control in Scotland made it possible for him to return thither … towards the end of 1555: without delay he set his hand to form a church-union, according to his ideas of religious independence, which was not to be again destroyed by any state power. … Sometimes in one and sometimes in another of the places of refuge which he found, he administered the Communion to little congregations according to the Reformed rite; this was done with greater solemnity at Easter 1556, in the house of Lord Erskine of Dun, one of those Scottish noblemen who had ever promoted literary studies and the religious movement as far as lay in his power. A number of people of consequence from the Mearns (Mearnshire) were present. But they were not content with partaking the Communion; following the mind of their preacher they pledged themselves to avoid every other religious community, and to uphold with all their power the preaching of the Gospel. In this union we may see the origin of the Scotch Church, properly so called. … {2855} At Erskine's house met together also Lord Lorn, afterwards Earl of Argyle, and the Prior of S. Andrew's, subsequently Earl of Murray; in December 1557 Erskine, Lorn, Murray, Glencairn (also a friend of Knox), and Morton, united in a solemn engagement, to support God's word and defend his congregation against every evil and tyrannical power even unto death. When, in spite of this, another execution took place which excited universal aversion, they proceeded to an express declaration, that they would not suffer any man to be punished for transgressing a clerical law based on human ordinances. What the influence of England had not been able to effect was now produced by antipathy to France. The opinion prevailed that the King of France wished to add Scotland to his territories, and that the Regent gave him aid thereto. When she gathered the feudal army on the borders in 1557 (for the Scots had refused to contribute towards enlisting mercenaries) to invade England according to an understanding with the French, the barons held a consultation on the Tweed, in consequence of which they refused their co-operation for this purpose. … It was this quarrel of the Regent with the great men of the country that gave an opportunity to the lords who were combined for the support of religion to advance with increasing resolution."

L. Von Ranke, History of England principally in the 17th Century, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: T. M'Crie, Life of John Knox, period 1-6.

G. Stuart, History of the Establishment of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland, books 1-2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557. The First Covenant and the Lords of the Congregation.

In 1556 John Knox withdrew from Scotland and returned to Geneva—whether through fear of increasing dangers, or for other reasons, is a question in dispute. The following year he was solicited to come back to the Scottish field of labor, by those nobles who favored the reformation, and he gave up his Genevan congregation for the purpose of obeying their summons. "In the beginning of October he proceeded to Dieppe; but while he waited there for a vessel to convey him to Scotland, he received other letters which dashed all his hopes, by counselling him to remain where he was. The Reformers had suddenly changed their minds. … Sitting down in his lodging at Dieppe, Knox wrote a letter to the lords whose faith had failed, after inviting him to come to their help. … With it he despatched another addressed to the whole nobility of Scotland, and others to particular friends. … The letters of Knox had an immediate and powerful effect in stimulating the decaying zeal of the Reforming nobles. Like a fire stirred up just when ready to die out among its own ashes, it now burned more brightly than ever. Meeting at Edinburgh in the month of December, they drew up a bond which knit them into one body, pledged them to a definite line of conduct and gave consistency and shape to their plans. They had separated from the Roman communion; they now formed themselves into an opposing phalanx. This document is known in our Church history as the first Covenant, and is so important that we give it entire:

'We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the anti-christs of our time, cruelly do rage, seeking to overthrow and destroy the gospel of Christ and His congregation, ought, according to our bounden duty, to strive in our Master's cause, even unto the death, being certain of the victory in Him. The which our duty being well considered, we do promise before the Majesty of God and His congregation, that we, by His grace, shall, with all diligence, continually apply our whole power, substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and establish the most blessed Word of God and His congregation; and shall labour, at our possibility, to have faithful ministers, truly and purely to administer Christ's gospel and sacraments to His people. We shall maintain them, nourish them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and every member thereof, at our whole powers and waging of our lives, against Satan and all wicked power that doth intend tyranny or trouble against the foresaid congregation. Unto the which holy word and congregation we do join us, and so do forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the superstitious abomination and idolatry thereof; and, moreover, shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this our faithful promise before God, testified to His congregation by our subscription to these presents, at Edinburgh, the 3rd day of December 1557 years. God called to witness—A., Earl of Argyle, Glencairn, Morton, Archibald, Lord of Lorn, John Erskine of Dun,' &c.

From the time that the Reformers had resolved to refrain from being present at mass, they had been in the habit of meeting among themselves for the purpose of worship. … Elders and deacons were chosen to superintend the affairs of these infant communities. Edinburgh has the honour of having given the example, and the names of her first five elders are still preserved. The existence of these small Protestant 'congregations,' scattered over the country, probably led the lords to employ the word so frequently in their bond, and this again led to their being called the Lords of the Congregation. It was a bold document to which they had thus put their names. It was throwing down the gauntlet to all the powers of the existing Church and State."

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: _John Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland (Works, volume 1), book 1._

_D. Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1557 (volume 1)._

T. M'Crie, Life of John Knox, periods 5-6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558. Marriage of Mary Stuart to the Dauphin of France. Contemplated union of Crowns.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560. Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation. The Geneva Confession adopted.

"In 1558 the burning of an old preacher, Walter Mill, at St. Andrew's, aroused the Lords of the Congregation, as the signers of the Covenant now called themselves. They presented their demands to the regent [the queen-dowager, Mary of Guise], and some time was spent in useless discussion. But the hands of the Reformers were strengthened by Elizabeth's accession in England, and on May 2, 1559, the leading spirit of the Scottish Reformation, John Knox, returned to Scotland. … Knox's influence was soon felt in the course of affairs. In May, 1559, the regent, stirred to action by the Cardinal of Lorraine, summoned the reformed clergy to Stirling. They came, but surrounded by so many followers, that the regent was afraid, and promised that, if they would disperse, she would proceed no further. They agreed; but scarcely were they gone before Mary caused the preachers to be tried and condemned in their absence. {2856} Knox's anger broke out in a fierce sermon against idolatry, preached at Perth. The people of the town rose and destroyed the images in the churches, and tore down all architectural ornaments which contained sculpture. The example of Perth was followed elsewhere, and the churches of Scotland were soon robbed of their old beauty. From this time we must date the decay of the fine ecclesiastical buildings of Scotland, whose ruins still bear witness to their former splendour. … The Lords of the Congregation were now in open rebellion against the regent, and war was on the point of breaking out. It was, however, averted for a time by the mediation of a few moderate men, amongst whom was Lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son of the late king, known in later history as the Earl of Murray. Both parties agreed to lay down their arms, and submit their disputes to a meeting of the Estates of the Realm, while the regent promised not to molest the people of Perth, or garrison the town with French soldiers. She kept the letter only of her promise; for she hired native troops with French money, and proceeded to punish the people of Perth. This perfidy gave strength to the Congregation. They again took up arms, seized Edinburgh, summoned a parliament, and deposed the regent (October, 1559). This was a bold step; but without help from England it could not be maintained. As the regent was strong in French troops, the Congregation must ally with England. Elizabeth wished to help them; but her course was by no means clear. To ally with rebels fighting against their lawful sovereign was a bad example for one in Elizabeth's position to set. … At last, in January, 1560, a treaty was made at Berwick, between Elizabeth and the Duke of Chatelherault [better known as the Earl of Arran, who had resigned the regency of Scotland in favor of Mary of Guise, and received from the French king the duchy of Chatelherault], the second person in the Scottish realm. Elizabeth undertook to aid the Scottish lords in expelling the French, but would only aid them so long as they acknowledged their queen. And now a strange change had come over Scotland. The Scots were fighting side by side with the English against their old allies the French. Already their religious feelings had overcome their old national animosities; or, rather, religion itself had become a powerful element in their national spirit. … But meanwhile affairs in France took a direction favourable to the Reformers. … The French troops were needed at home, and could no longer be spared for Scotland. The withdrawal of the French made peace necessary in Scotland, and by the treaty of Edinburgh (July, 1560), it was provided that henceforth no foreigners should be employed in Scotland without the consent of the Estates of the Realm. Elizabeth's policy was rewarded by a condition that Mary and Francis II. should acknowledge her queen of England, lay aside their own pretensions, and no longer wear the British arms. Before the treaty was signed the queen-regent died (June 20), and with her the power of France and the Guises in Scotland was gone for the present. The Congregation was now triumphant, and the work of Reformation was quickly carried on. A meeting of the Estates approved of the Geneva Confession of Faith, abjured the authority of the Pope, and forbade the administration, or presence at the administration, of the mass, on pain of death for the third offence (August 25, 1560). … The plans of the Guises were no longer to be carried on in Scotland and Eng]and by armed interference, but by the political craft and cunning of their niece, Mary of Scotland [now widowed by the death, December 4, 1560, of her husband, the young French king, Francis II.], who had been trained under their influence."

M. Creighton, The Age of Elizabeth, book 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. A. Froude, History of England, volume 7, chapters 2-3.

J. Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, book 2 (Works, volume 1).

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapters 37-38 (volume 4).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568. The reign of Mary. Differing views of her conduct and character.

In August, 1561, Queen Mary returned from her long residence in France, to undertake the government of a country of which she was the acknowledged sovereign, but of which she knew almost nothing. "She was now a widow, so the Scots were freed from the fear they had felt of seeing their country sink into a province of France. The people, who had an almost superstitious reverence for kingship, which was very inconsistent with their contempt for kingly authority, welcomed her with open arms. … They had yet to find out that she had come back to them French in all but birth, gifted with wit, intellect, and beauty, but subtle beyond their power of searching, and quite as zealous for the old form of religion as they were for the new one. The Queen, too, who came thus as a stranger among her own people, had to deal with a state of things unknown in former reigns. Hitherto the Church had taken the side of the Crown against the nobles; now both [the Reformed Church and the Lords of the Congregation] were united against the Crown, whose only hope lay in the quarrels between these ill-matched allies. The chief cause of discord between them was the property of the Church. The Reformed ministers fancied that they had succeeded, not only to the Pope's right of dictation in all matters, public and private, but to the lands of the Church as well. To neither of these claims would the Lords agree. They were as little inclined to submit to the tyranny of presbyters as to the tyranny of the Pope. They withstood the ministers who wished to forbid the Queen and her attendants hearing mass in her private chapel, and they refused to accept as law the First, Book of Discipline, a code of rules drawn up by the ministers for the guidance of the new Church. As to the land, much of it had already passed into the hands of laymen, who, with the lands, generally bore the title of the Church dignitary who had formerly held them. The Privy Council took one-third of what remained to pay the stipends of the ministers, while the rest was supposed to remain in the hands of the Churchmen in possession, and, as they died out, it was to fall in to the Crown. Lord James Stewart, Prior of St. Andrews, whom the Queen created Earl of Murray, was the hope of the Protestants, but in the north the Romanists were still numerous and strong. Their head was the Earl of Huntly, chief of the Gordons, who reigned supreme over most of the north." One of the first proceedings of the Queen was to join the Earl of Murray in hostilities which pursued the Earl of Huntly and his son to their death. {2857} And yet they were the main pillars of the Church which she was determined to restore! "The most interesting question now for all parties was, whom the Queen would marry. Many foreign princes were talked of, and Elizabeth suggested her own favourite, the Earl of Leicester, but Mary settled the matter herself by falling in love with her own cousin, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley." Murray opposed the marriage with bitterness, and took up arms against it, but failed of support and fled to England. The wretched consequences of Mary's union with the handsome but worthless Darnley are among the tragedies of history which all the world is acquainted with. She tired of him, and inflamed his jealousy, with that of all her court, by making a favorite of her Italian secretary, David Rizzio. Rizzio was brutally murdered, in her presence, March 9, 1566, by a band of conspirators, to whom Darnley had pledged his protection. The Queen dissembled her resentment until she had power to make it effective, flying from Edinburgh to Dunbar, meantime. When, within a month, she returned to the capital, it was with a strong force, brought to her support by James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. The murderers of Rizzio were outlawed, and Darnley, while recovering from an attack of smallpox, was killed (February 9, 1567) by the blowing up of a house, outside of Edinburgh, in which the Queen had placed him. "It was commonly believed that Bothwell was guilty of the murder, and it was suspected that he had done it to please the Queen and with her consent. This suspicion was strengthened by her conduct. She made no effort to find out the murderer and to bring him to punishment, and on the day of the funeral she gave Bothwell the feudal superiority over the town of Leith." In May, three months after Darnley's death, she married the Earl of Bothwell,—who had freed himself from an earlier tie by hasty divorce. This shameless conduct caused a rising of the barons, who occupied Edinburgh in force. Bothwell attempted to oppose them with an army; but there was no battle. The Queen surrendered herself, at Carberry, June 15, 1567; Bothwell escaped, first to Orkney, and then to Denmark, where he died about ten years later. "Just a month after her third marriage the Queen was brought back to Edinburgh, to be greeted by the railings of the mob, who now openly accused her as a murderess. … From Edinburgh she was taken to a lonely castle built on a small island in the centre of Loch Leven. A few days later a casket containing eight letters was produced. These letters, it was said, Bothwell had left behind him in his flight, and they seemed to have been written by Mary to him while Darnley was ill in Glasgow. If she really wrote them, they proved very plainly that she had planned the murder with Bothwell. They are called the 'casket letters,' from the box or casket in which they were found. The confederate barons acted as if they were really hers. The Lord Lindsay and Robert Melville were sent to her at Loch Leven, and she there signed the demission of the government to her son, and desired that Murray should be the first regent." The infant king, James VI., was crowned at Stirling; and Murray, recalled from France, became regent. Within a year Mary escaped from her prison, reasserted her right of sovereignty, and was supported by a considerable party. Defeated in a battle fought at Langside, May 13, 1568, she then fled to England, and received from Elizabeth the hospitality of a prison. She was confined in various castles and manor-houses, ending her life, after many removes, at Fotheringay, where she was executed February 8, 1587.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

M. Macarthur, History of Scotland, chapter 6.

"In spite of all the prurient suggestions of writers who have fastened on the story of Mary's life as on a savoury morsel, there is no reason whatever for thinking that she was a woman of licentious disposition, and there is strong evidence to the contrary. There was never anything to her discredit in France. … The charge of adultery with Rizzio is dismissed as unworthy of belief even by Mr. Froude, the severest of her judges. Bothwell indeed she loved, and, like many another woman who does not deserve to be called licentious, she sacrificed her reputation to the man she loved. But the most conclusive proof that she was no slave to appetite is afforded by her nineteen years' residence in England, which began when she was only twenty-five. During almost the whole of that time she was mixing freely in the society of the other sex, with the fullest opportunity for misconduct had she been so inclined. It is not to be supposed that she was fettered by any scruples of religion or morality. Yet no charge of unchastity is made against her. … That Darnley was murdered by Bothwell is not disputed. That Mary was cognisant of the plot and lured him to the shambles, has been doubted by few investigators at once competent and unbiased. She lent herself to this part not without compunction. Bothwell had the advantage over her that the loved has over the lover; and he used it mercilessly for his headlong ambition, hardly taking the trouble to pretend that he cared for the unhappy woman who was sacrificing everything for him. He in fact cared more for his lawful wife, whom he was preparing to divorce, and to whom he had been married only six months. … What brought sudden and irretrievable ruin on Mary was not the murder of Darnley, but the infatuation which made her the passive instrument of Bothwell's presumptuous ambition."

E. S. Beesly, Queen Elizabeth, chapter 4.

"Constitutionally, Mary was not a person likely to come under the sway of a violent and absorbing passion. Her whole nature was masculine in its moderation, its firmness, its magnanimity. She was tolerant, uncapricious, capable of carrying out a purpose steadily, yet with tact and policy. She was never hysterical, never fanciful. With her, love was not an engrossing occupation; on the contrary, to Mary, as to most men, it was but the child and plaything of unfrequent leisure. Her lovers went mad about her, but she never went mad about her lovers. She sent Chatelar to the scaffold. She saw Sir John Gordon beheaded. She admitted Rizzio to a close intimacy. Rizzio was her intellectual mate, the depository of her state secrets, her politic guide and confidant: but the very notoriety of her intercourse with him showed how innocent and unsexual it was in its nature,—the frank companionship of friendly statesmen. {2858} Had she been Rizzio's mistress, nay, even had love in the abstract been a more important matter to her than it was, she would have been more cautious and discreet; however important the public business which they were transacting might have been, she would hardly have kept the Italian secretary in her boudoir half the night. Her marriage with Darnley was not exclusively a love-match: it was a marriage to which her judgment, as well as her heart, consented. Her love-letters abound in pretty trifles: her business letters are clear, strong, rapid, brilliantly direct. By the fantastic irony of fate this masculine unsentimental career has been translated into an effeminate love-story,—the truth being, as I have had to say again and again, that no woman ever lived to whom love was less of a necessity. This was the strength of Mary's character as a queen—as a woman, its defect. A love-sick girl, when her castle in the air was shattered, might have come to hate Darnley with a feverish feminine hatred; but the sedate and politic intelligence of the Queen could only have been incidentally affected by such considerations. She knew that, even at the worst, Darnley was a useful ally, and the motives which induced her to marry him must have restrained her from putting him forcibly away. Yet when the deed was done, it is not surprising that she should have acquiesced in the action of the nobility. Bothwell, again, was in her estimation a loyal retainer, a trusted adviser of the Crown; but he was nothing more. Yet it need not surprise us that after her forcible detention at Dunbar, she should have resolved to submit with a good grace to the inevitable. Saving Argyle and Huntley, Bothwell was the most powerful of her peers. He was essentially a strong man; fit, it seemed, to rule that turbulent nobility. He had been recommended to her acceptance by the unanimous voice of the aristocracy, Protestant and Catholic. … On a woman of ardent sentimentality these considerations would have had little effect: they were exactly the considerations which would appeal to Mary's masculine common-sense. Yet, though she made what seemed to her the best of a bad business, she was very wretched."

J. Skelton, Essays in History and Biography, pages 40-41.

"To establish the genuineness of the Casket Letters is necessarily to establish that Mary was a co-conspirator with Bothwell in the murder of her husband. … The expressions in the letters are not consistent with an innocent purpose, or with the theory that she brought Darnley to Edinburgh in order to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce. Apart even from other corroborative evidence, the evidence of the letters, if their genuineness be admitted, is sufficient to establish her guilt. Inasmuch, however, as her entire innocence is not consistent with other evidence, it can scarcely be affirmed that the problem of the genuineness of the letters has an absolutely vital bearing on the character of Mary. Mr. Skelton, who does not admit the genuineness of the letters, and who may be reckoned one of the most distinguished and ingenious defenders of Mary in this country, has taken no pains to conceal his contempt for what he terms the 'theory of the ecclesiastics'—that Mary, during the whole progress of the plot against Darnley's life, was 'innocent as a child, immaculate as a saint.' He is unable to adopt a more friendly attitude towards her than that of an apologizer, and is compelled to attempt the assumption of a middle position—that she was neither wholly innocent nor wholly guilty; that, ignorant of the details and method of the plot, she only vaguely guessed that it was in progress, and failed merely in firmly and promptly forbidding its execution. But in a case of murder a middle position—a position of even partial indifference—is, except in very peculiar circumstances, well-nigh impossible; in the case of a wife's attitude to the murder of her husband, the limit of impossibility is still more nearly approached; but when the wife possesses such exceptional courage, fertility of resource, and strength of will as were possessed by Mary, the impossibility may be regarded as absolute. Besides, as a matter of fact, Mary was not indifferent in the matter. She had long regarded her husband's conduct with antipathy and indignation; she did not conceal her eager desire to be delivered from the yoke of marriage to him; and she had abundant reasons, many of which were justifiable, for this desire. … The fatal weakness … of all such arguments as are used to establish either Mary's absolute or partial innocence of the murder is, that they do not harmonize with the leading traits of her disposition. She was possessed of altogether exceptional decision and force of will; she was remarkably wary and acute; and she was a match for almost any of her contemporaries in the art of diplomacy. She was not one to be concussed into a course of action to which she had any strong aversion."

T. F. Henderson, The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots, chapter 1.

"The beauties of her person, and graces of her air, combined to make her the most amiable of women; and the charms of her address and conversation aided the impression which her lovely figure made on the hearts of all beholders. Ambitious and active in her temper, yet inclined to cheerfulness and society; of a lofty spirit, constant and even vehement in her purpose, yet polite, and gentle, and affable in her demeanour; she seemed to partake only so much of the male virtues as to render her estimable, without relinquishing those soft graces which compose the proper ornament of her sex. In order to form a just idea of her character, we must set aside one part of her conduct, while she abandoned herself to the guidance of a profligate man; and must consider these faults, whether we admit them to be imprudences or crimes, as the result of an inexplicable, though not uncommon, inconstancy in the human mind, of the frailty of our nature, of the violence of passion, and of the influence which situations, and sometimes momentary incidents, have on persons whose principles are not thoroughly confirmed by experience and reflection. Enraged by the ungrateful conduct of her husband, seduced by the treacherous counsels of one in whom she reposed confidence, transported by the violence of her own temper, which never lay sufficiently under the guidance of discretion, she was betrayed into actions which may with some difficulty be accounted for, but which admit of no apology, nor even of alleviation. An enumeration of her qualities might carry the appearance of a panegyric: an account of her conduct must in some parts wear the aspect of severe satire and invective. Her numerous misfortunes, the solitude of her long and tedious captivity, and the persecutions to which she had been exposed on account of her religion, had wrought her up to a degree of bigotry during her later years; and such were the prevalent spirit and principles of the age, that it is the less wonder if her zeal, her resentment, and her interest uniting, induced her to give consent to a design which conspirators, actuated only by the first of these motives, had formed against the life of Elizabeth."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 42 (volume 4).

{2859}

"More books have been written about Mary Stuart than exist as to all the Queens in the world; yet, so greatly do those biographies vary in their representations of her character, that at first it seems scarcely credible how any person could be so differently described. The triumph of a creed or party has unhappily been more considered than the development of facts, or those principles of moral justice which ought to animate the pen of the Historian; and, after all the literary gladiatorship that has been practised in this arena for some three hundred years, the guilt or innocence of Mary Queen of Scots is still under consideration, for party feeling and sectarian hate have not yet exhausted their malice. … If the opinions of Mary Stuart's own sex were allowed to decide the question at issue, a verdict of not guilty would have been pronounced by an overwhelming majority of all readers, irrespective of creed or party. Is, then, the moral standard erected by women for one another, lower than that which is required of them by men? Are they less acute in their perceptions of right and wrong, or more disposed to tolerate frailties? The contrary has generally been proved. With the exception of Queen Elizabeth, Catharine de Medicis, Lady Shrewsbury, and Margaret Erskine (Lady Douglas), of infamous memory, Mary Stuart had no female enemies worthy of notice. It is a remarkable fact that English gold could not purchase witnesses from the female portion of the household of the Queen of Scots. None of the ladies of the Court, whether Protestant or Catholic, imputed crime at any time to their mistress. In the days of her Royal splendour in France Queen Mary was attended by ladies of ancient family and unsullied honour, and, like true women, they clung to her in the darkest hour of her later adversity, through good and evil report they shared the gloom and sorrow of her prison life."

S. H. Burke, Historical Portraits of the Tudor Dynasty and the Reformation Period, volume 4, chapter 7.

"Mary Stuart was in many respects the creature of her age, of her creed, and of her station; but the noblest and most noteworthy qualities of her nature were independent of rank, opinion, or time. Even the detractors who defend her conduct on the plea that she was a dastard and a dupe are compelled in the same breath to retract this implied reproach, and to admit, with illogical acclamation and incongruous applause, that the world never saw more splendid courage at the service of more brilliant intelligence; that a braver if not 'a rarer spirit never did steer humanity.' A kinder or more faithful friend, a deadlier or more dangerous enemy, it would be impossible to dread or to desire. Passion alone could shake the double fortress of her impregnable heart and ever active brain. The passion of love, after very sufficient experience, she apparently and naturally outlived; the passion of hatred and revenge was as inextinguishable in her inmost nature as the emotion of loyalty and gratitude. Of repentance it would seem that she knew as little as of fear; having been trained from her infancy in a religion where the Decalogue was supplanted by the Creed. Adept as she was in the most exquisite delicacy of dissimulation, the most salient note of her original disposition was daring rather than subtlety. Beside or behind the voluptuous or intellectual attractions of beauty and culture, she had about her the fresher charm of a fearless and frank simplicity, a genuine and enduring pleasure in small and harmless things no less than in such as were neither. … For her own freedom of will and of way, of passion and of action, she cared much; for her creed she cared something; for her country she cared less than nothing. She would have flung Scotland with England into the hellfire of Spanish Catholicism rather than forego the faintest chance of personal revenge. … In the private and personal qualities which attract and attach a friend to his friend and a follower to his leader, no man or woman was ever more constant and more eminent than Mary Queen of Scots."

_A. C. Swinburne, Mary Queen of Scots (Miscellanies, pages 357-359)._

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapters 41-47 (volume 4).

M. Laing, History of Scotland, volumes 1-2.

_F. A. Mignet, History of Mary, Queen of Scots._

_A. Strickland, Life of Mary, Queen of Scots._

_J. Skelton, Maitland of Lethington._

_W. Robertson, History of Scotland, Appendix._

C. M. Yonge, Cameos of English History, series 4, chapter 32, and series 5, chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1567. Accession of James VI.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1568-1572. Distracted state of the kingdom. The Reformed Church and John Knox.

During the whole minority of the young king, James VI., Scotland was torn by warring factions. Murray, assassinated in 1570, was succeeded in the regency by the Earl of Lennox, who was killed in a fight the next year. The Earl of Mar followed him, and Morton held the office next. "The civil commotions that ensued on Murray's assassination were not wholly adverse to the reformed cause, as they gave it an overwhelming influence with the king's party, which it supported. On the other hand they excused every kind of irregularity. There was a scramble for forfeited estates and the patrimony of the kirk, from which latter source the leaders of both parties rewarded their partisans. … The church … viewed with alarm the various processes by which the ecclesiastical revenues were being secularised. Nor can it be doubted that means, by which the evil might be stayed, were the subject of conference between committees of the Privy Council and General Assembly. The plan which was actually adopted incorporated in the reformed church the spiritual estate, and reintroduced the bishops by their proper titles, subject to stringent conditions of qualification. …

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

Knox, whose life had been attempted in March 1570-1, had been constrained to retire from Edinburgh and was at St. Andrews when the new platform was arranged. On the strength of certain notices that are not at all conclusive, it has been strenuously denied that he was a party to it even by consent. … There are facts, however, to the contrary. … On the evidence available Knox cannot be claimed as the advocate of a divine right, either of presbytery or episcopacy. … With fast-failing strength he returned to Edinburgh towards the end of August." On the 24th of November, 1572, he died.

_M. C. Taylor, John Knox (St. Giles' Lectures, 3d series)._

{2860}

"It seems to me hard measure that this Scottish man [John Knox], now after three-hundred years, should have to plead like a culprit before the world; intrinsically for having been, in such way as it was then possible to be, the bravest of all Scotchmen! Had he been a poor Half-and-half, he could have crouched into the corner, like so many others; Scotland had not been delivered; and Knox had been without blame. He is the one Scotchman to whom, of all others, his country and the world owe a debt. He has to plead that Scotland would forgive him for having been worth to it any million 'unblamable' Scotchmen that need no forgiveness. He bared his breast to the battle; had to row in French galleys, wander forlorn in exile, in clouds and storms; was censured, shot-at through his windows; had a right sore fighting life; if this world were his place of recompense, he had made but a bad venture of it. I cannot apologise for Knox. To him it is very indifferent, these two-hundred-and-fifty years or more, what men say of him."

T. Carlyle, Heroes and Hero-worship, lecture 4.

"Altogether, if we estimate him [Knox], as we are alone entitled to do, in his historical position and circumstances, Knox appears a very great and heroic man—no violent demagogue, or even stern dogmatist—although violence and sternness and dogmatism were all parts of his character. These coarser elements mingled with but did not obscure the fresh, living, and keenly sympathetic humanity beneath. Far inferior to Luther in tenderness and breadth and lovableness, he is greatly superior to Calvin in the same qualities. You feel that he had a strong and loving heart under all his harshness, and that you can get near to it, and could have spent a cheery social evening with him in his house at the head of the Canon gate, over that good old wine that he had stored in his cellar, and which he was glad and proud to dispense to his friends. It might not have been a very pleasant thing to differ with him even in such circumstances; but, upon the whole, it would have been a pleasanter and safer audacity than to have disputed some favourite tenet with Calvin. There was in Knox far more of mere human feeling and of shrewd worldly sense, always tolerant of differences; and you could have fallen back upon these, and felt yourself comparatively safe in the utterance of some daring sentiment. And in this point of view it deserves to be noticed that Knox alone of the reformers, along with Luther, is free from all stain of violent persecution. Intolerant he was towards the mass, towards Mary, and towards the old Catholic clergy; yet he was no persecutor. He was never cruel in act, cruel as his language sometimes is, and severe as were some of his judgments. Modern enlightenment and scientific indifference we have no right to look for in him. His superstitions about the weather and witches were common to him with all men of his time. … As a mere thinker, save perhaps on political subjects, he takes no rank; and his political views, wise and enlightened as they were, seem rather the growth of his manly instinctive sense than reasoned from any fundamental principles. Earnest, intense, and powerful in every practical direction, he was not in the least characteristically reflective or speculative. Everywhere the hero, he is nowhere the philosopher or sage.—He was, in short, a man for his work and time—knowing what was good for his country there and then, when the old Catholic bonds had rotted to the very heart. A man of God, yet with sinful weaknesses like us all. There is something in him we can no longer love,—a harshness and severity by no means beautiful or attractive; but there is little in him that we cannot in the retrospect heartily respect, and even admiringly cherish."

_J. Tulloch, Leaders of the Reformation: Knox._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573. Civil War.

"All the miseries of civil war desolated the kingdom. Fellow-citizens, friends, brothers, took different sides, and ranged themselves under the standards of the contending factions. In every county, and almost in every town and village, 'king's men' and 'queen's men' were names of distinction. Political hatred dissolved all natural ties, and extinguished the reciprocal good-will and confidence which hold mankind together in society. Religious zeal mingled itself with these civil distinctions, and contributed not a little to heighten and to inflame them. The factions which divided the kingdom were, in appearance, only two; but in both these there were persons with views and principles so different from each other that they ought to be distinguished. With some, considerations of religion were predominant, and they either adhered to the queen because they hoped by her means to reestablish popery, or they defended the king's authority as the best support of the protestant faith. Among these the opposition was violent and irreconcilable. … As Morton, who commanded the regent's forces [1572, during the regency of Mar], lay at Leith, and Kirkaldy still held out the town and castle of Edinburgh [for the party of the queen], scarce a day passed without a skirmish. … Both parties hanged the prisoners which they took, of whatever rank or quality, without mercy and without trial. Great numbers suffered in this shocking manner; the unhappy victims were led by fifties at a time to execution; and it was not till both sides had smarted severely that they discontinued this barbarous practice." In 1573, Morton, being now regent, made peace with one faction of the queen's party, and succeeded, with the help of a siege train and force which Queen Elizabeth sent him from England, in overcoming the other faction which held Edinburgh and its castle. Kirkaldy was compelled to surrender after a siege of thirty-three days, receiving promises of protection from the English commander, in spite of which he was hanged.

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, book 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapters 53-56 (volume 5).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572. Episcopacy restored. The Concordat of Leith. The Tulchan Bishops.

"On the 12th of January, 1572, a Convention of the Church assembled at Leith. By whom it was convened is unknown. It was not a regular Assembly, but it assumed to itself 'the strength, force, and effect of a General Assembly,' and it was attended by 'the superintendents, barons, commissioners to plant kirks, commissioners of provinces, towns, kirks, and ministers.' … {2861} By the 1st of February the joint committees framed a concordat, of which the following articles were the chief;

1. That the names of archbishops and bishops, and the bounds of dioceses, should remain as they were before the Reformation, at the least till the majority of the king, or till a different arrangement should be made by the parliament; and that to every cathedral church there should be attached a chapter of learned men; but that the bishops should have no more power than was possessed by the superintendents, and should like them be subject to the General Assemblies.

2. That abbots and friars should be continued as parts of the Spiritual Estate of the realm. …

Such was the famous concordat agreed upon by the Church and State in Scotland in 1572. … The Church had in vain … struggled to get possession of its patrimony. It had in vain argued that the bishoprics and abbacies should be dissolved, and their revenues applied for the maintenance of the ministry, the education of the youthhead, and the support of the poor. The bishoprics and abbacies were maintained as if they were indissoluble. Some of them were already gifted to laymen, and the ministers of the Protestant Church were poorly paid out of the thirds of benefices. The collection of these even the regent had recently stopped, and beggary was at the door. What was to be done? The only way of obtaining the episcopal revenues was by reintroducing the episcopal office. … The ministers regarded archbishops, bishops, deans and chapters as things lawful, but not expedient—'they sounded ·of papistry'; but now, under the pressure of a still stronger expediency, they received them into the Church. … Knox yielded to the same necessity under which the Church had bowed. … It was a mongrel prelacy that was thus introduced into Scotland—a cross betwixt Popery and Presbytery. It was not of the true Roman breed. It was not even of the Anglican. It could not pretend to the apostolical descent."

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 12.

"The new dignitaries got from the populace the name of the Tulchan bishops. A tulchan, an old Scots word of unknown origin, was applied to a stuffed calf-skin which was brought into the presence of a recently-calved cow. It was an agricultural doctrine of that age, and of later times, that the presence of this changeling induced the bereaved mother easily to part with her milk. To draw what remained of the bishops' revenue, it was expedient that there should be bishops; but the revenues were not for them, but for the lay lords, who milked the ecclesiastical cow."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 54 (volume 5).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581. The Second Covenant, called also The First National Covenant.

"The national covenant of Scotland was simply an abjuration of popery, and a solemn engagement, ratified by a solemn oath, to support the protestant religion. Its immediate occasion was a dread, too well founded—a dread from which Scotland was never entirely freed till the revolution—of the re-introduction of popery. It was well known that Lennox was an emissary of the house of Guise, and had been sent over to prevail on the young king to embrace the Roman Catholic faith. … A conspiracy so dangerous at all times to a country divided in religious sentiment, demanded a counter-combination equally strict and solemn, and led to the formation of the national covenant of Scotland. This was drawn up at the king's request, by his chaplain, John Craig. It consisted of an abjuration, in the most solemn and explicit terms, of the various articles of the popish system, and an engagement to adhere to and defend the reformed doctrine and discipline of the reformed church of Scotland. The covenanters further pledged themselves, under the same oath, 'to defend his majesty's person and authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ's evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within the realm or without.' This bond, at first called 'the king's confession,' was sworn and subscribed by the king and his household, for example to others, on the 28th of January 1581; and afterwards, in consequence of an order in council, and an act of the general assembly, it was cheerfully subscribed by all ranks of persons through the kingdom; the ministers zealously promoting the subscription in their respective parishes."

T. M'Crie, Sketches of Scottish Church History, volume 1, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: D. Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, volume 3, 1581.

_J. Row, History of the Kirk of Scotland, 1581._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1582. The Raid of Ruthven.

"The two favourites [Lennox and Arran], by their ascendant over the king, possessed uncontrolled power in the kingdom, and exercised it with the utmost wantonness." The provocation which they gave brought about, at length, a combination of nobles, formed for the purpose of removing the young king from their influence. Invited to Ruthven Castle in August, 1582, by its master, Lord Ruthven, lately created Earl of Gowrie, James found there a large assemblage of the conspirators and was detained against his will. He was afterwards removed to Stirling, and later to the palace of Holyrood, but still under restraint. This continued until the following June, when the king effected his escape and Arran recovered his power. Lennox had died meantime in France. All those concerned in what was known as the Raid of Ruthven were proclaimed guilty of high treason and fled the country. The clergy gave great offense to the king by approving and sustaining the Raid of Ruthven. He never forgave the Church for its attitude on this occasion.

W. Robertson, History of Scotland, book 6 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: C. M. Yonge, Cameos from English History, series 5, chapter 20.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584. The Black Acts.

"James was bent upon destroying a form of Church government which he imagined to be inconsistent with his own kingly prerogatives. The General Assembly rested upon too popular a basis; they were too independent of his absolute will; they assumed a jurisdiction which he could not allow. The ministers were too much given to discuss political subjects in the pulpit—to speak evil of dignities—to resist the powers that were ordained of God. … On the 22d of May, 1584, the Parliament assembled. … A series of acts were passed almost entirely subversive of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the Church. By one, the ancient jurisdiction of the Three Estates was ratified,—and to speak evil of any one of them was declared to be treason; thus were the bishops hedged about. By another, the king was declared to be supreme in all causes and over all persons, and to decline his judgment was pronounced to be treason; thus was the boldness of such men as Melville to be chastised. {2862} By a third, all convocations except those specially licensed by the king were declared to be unlawful; thus were the courts of the Church to be shorn of their power. By a fourth, the chief jurisdiction of the Church was lodged in the hands of the Episcopal body; for the bishops must now do what the Assemblies and presbyteries had hitherto done. By still another act, it was provided 'that none should presume, privately or publicly, in sermons, declamations, or familiar conferences, to utter any false, untrue, or slanderous speeches, to the reproach of his Majesty or council, or meddle with the affairs of his Highness and Estate, under the pains contained in the acts of parliament made against the makers and reporters of lies.' … The parliament registered the resolves of the king; for though Scottish barons were turbulent, Scottish parliaments were docile, and seldom thwarted the reigning power. But the people sympathized with the ministers; the acts became known as the Black Acts; and the struggle between the court and the Church, which lasted with some intermissions for more than a century, was begun."

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 1, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: D. Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland, volume 4, 1584.

Scottish Divines (St. Giles' Lectures, series 3), lecture 2.

_J. Melville, Autobiography and Diary, 1584._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587. The execution of Mary Stuart in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1585-1587.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587. Appropriation of Church lands and ruin of the Episcopacy.

The parliament of 1587 passed an act which "annexed to the crown such lands of the church as had not been inalienably bestowed upon the nobles or landed gentry; these were still considerable, and were held either by the titular bishops who possessed the benefices, or were granted to laymen by rights merely temporary. The only fund reserved for the clergy who were to serve the cure was the principal mansion house, with a few acres of glebe land. The fund from which their stipends were to be paid was limited to the tithes. … The crown … was little benefited by an enactment which, detaching the church lands from all connection with ecclesiastical persons, totally ruined the order of bishops, for the restoration of whom, with some dignity and authority, king James, and his successor afterwards, expressed considerable anxiety."

Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 37 (volume 2).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1600. The Gowrie Plot.

"On the morning of the 5th of August, 1600, as James was setting out hunting from Falkland Palace, he was met by Alexander Ruthven, the younger brother of the Earl of Gowrie [both being sons of the Gowrie of the ' Raid of Ruthven'], who told him with a great air of mystery that he had discovered a man burying a pot of money in a field, and that he thought the affair so suspicious that he had taken him prisoner, and begged the King to come to Gowrie House in Perth to see him. James went, taking with him Mar, Lennox, and about twenty other gentlemen. After dinner Alexander took the King aside, and, when his attendants missed him, they were told that he had gone back to Falkland. They were preparing to follow him there when some of them heard cries from a turret. They recognized the King's voice, and they presently saw his head thrust out of a window, calling for help. They had much ado to make their way to him, but they found him at last in a small room struggling with Alexander, while a man dressed in armour was looking on. Alexander Ruthven and Gowrie were both killed in the scuffle which followed. A tumult rose in the town, for the Earl had been Provost and was very popular with the towns-folk, and the King and his followers had to make their escape by the river. The doom of traitors was passed on the dead men, and their name was proscribed, but as no accomplice could be discovered, it was hard to say what was the extent or object of their plot. The whole affair was very mysterious, the only witnesses being the King himself and Henderson the man in armour. Some of the ministers thought it so suspicions that they refused to return thanks for the King's safety, as they thought the whole affair an invention of his own." Eight years later, however, some letters were discovered which seemed to prove that there had really been a plot to seize the King's person.

M. Macarthur, History of Scotland, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Scott, History of Scotland, chapter 40 (volume 2).

P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 4, chapter 11.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1603. Accession of James VI. to the English throne.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1603.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618. The Five Articles of Perth.

After his accession to the English throne, James became more deeply enamoured of Episcopacy, and of its ecclesiastical and ceremonial incidents, than before, and more determined to force them on the Scottish church. He worked to that end with arbitrary insolence and violence, and with every kind of dishonest intrigue, until he had accomplished his purpose completely. Not only were his bishops seated, with fair endowments and large powers restored, but he had them ordained in England, to ensure their apostolic legitimacy. When this had been done, he resolved to impose a liturgy upon the Church, with certain ordinances of his own framing. The five articles in which the latter were embodied became for two years the subject of a most bitter and heated struggle between the court and its bishops on one side, with most of the general clergy on the other. At length, in August, 1618, an Assembly made up at Perth proved subservient enough to submit to the royal brow-beating and to adopt the five articles. These Five Articles of Perth, as they are known, enjoined kneeling at the communion, observance of five holidays, and episcopal confirmation; and they authorized the private dispensation both of baptism and of the Lord's Supper. The powers of the court of high commission were actively brought into play to enforce them.

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637. Laud's Liturgy and Jenny Geddes' Stool.

"Now we are summoned to a sadder subject; from the sufferings of a private person [John Williams, bishop of Lincoln, pursued and persecuted by Laud] to the miseries and almost mutual] ruin of two kingdoms, England and Scotland. I confess, my hands have always been unwilling to write of that cold country, for fear my fingers should be frostbitten therewith; but necessity to make our story entire puts me upon the employment. Miseries, caused from the sending of the Book of Service or new Liturgy thither, which may sadly be termed a 'Rubric' indeed, dyed with the blood of so many of both nations, slain on that occasion. {2863} It seems the design began in the reign of king James; who desired and endeavoured an uniformity of public prayers through the kingdom of Scotland. … In the reign of king Charles, the project being resumed (but whether the same book or no, God knoweth), it was concluded not to send into Scotland the same Liturgy of England 'totidem verbis,' lest this should be misconstrued a badge of dependence of that church on ours. It was resolved also, that the two Liturgies should not differ in substance, lest the Roman party should upbraid us with weighty and material differences. A similitude therefore not identity being resolved of, it was drawn up with some, as they termed them, insensible alterations, but such as were quickly found and felt by the Scotch to their great distaste. … The names of sundry saints, omitted in the English, are inserted into the Scotch Calendar (but only in black letters), on their several days. … Some of these were kings, all of them natives of that country. … But these Scotch saints were so far from making the English Liturgy acceptable, that the English Liturgy rather made the saints odious unto them. … No sooner had the dean of Edinburgh begun to read the book in the church of St. Giles, Sunday, July 23rd, in the presence of the Privy Council, both the archbishops, divers bishops, and magistrates of the city, but presently such a tumult was raised that, through clapping of hands, cursing, and crying, one could neither hear nor be heard. The bishop of Edinburgh endeavoured in vain to appease the tumult; when a stool, aimed to be thrown at him [according to popular tradition by an old herb-woman named Jenny Geddes], had killed, if not diverted by one present; so that the same book had occasioned his death and prescribed the form of his burial; and this hubbub was hardly suppressed by the lord provost and bailiffs of Edinburgh. This first tumult was caused by such, whom I find called 'the scum of the city,' considerable for nothing but their number. But, few days after, the cream of the nation (some of the highest and best quality therein) engaged in the same cause, crying out, 'God defend all those who will defend God's cause! and God confound the service-book and all the maintainers of it!'"

T. Fuller, Church History of Britain, book 11, section 2 (volume 3).

"One of the most distinct and familiar of historical traditions attributes the honour of flinging the first stool, and so beginning the great civil war, to a certain Jenny or Janet Geddes. But a search among contemporary writers for the identification of such an actor on the scene, will have the same inconclusive result that often attends the search after some criminal hero with a mythical celebrity when he is wanted by the police. … Wodrow, on the authority of Robert Stewart—a son of the Lord Advocate of the Revolution—utter]y dethrones Mrs. Geddes: 'He tells me that it's the constantly-believed tradition that it was Mrs. Mean, wife to John Mean, merchant in Edinburgh, that cast the first stool when the service was read in the New Kirk, Edinburgh, 1637; and that many of the lasses that carried on the fray were prentices in disguise, for they threw stools to a great length.'"

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 6, pages 443-444, foot-note.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638. The Tables, and the signing of the National Covenant.

"Nobles, ministers, gentlemen, and burghers from every district poured into Edinburgh to take part in a national resistance to these innovations [of the Service Book], and an appeal was made from the whole body assembled in the capital, not only against the Service Book, but also against the Book of Canons and the conduct of the bishops. Instead, however, of granting redress of these grievances, the King issued a series of angry and exasperating proclamations, commanding the crowds of strangers in the capital to return immediately to their own homes, and instructing the Council and the Supreme Courts of Law to remove to Linlithgow. But instead of obeying the injunction to leave Edinburgh, the multitudes there continued to receive accessions from all parts of the country. … In answer to the complaint of the Council that their meeting in such numbers was disorderly and illegal, the supplicants offered to choose a limited number from each of the classes into which they were socially divided—nobles, lesser barons, burgesses, and clergy—to act as their representatives. This was at once very imprudently agreed to by the Council. A committee of four was accordingly selected by each of these classes, who were instructed to reside in the capital, and were empowered to take all necessary steps to promote their common object. They had also authority to assemble the whole of their constituents should any extraordinary emergency arise. The opponents of the new Canons and Service Book were thus organised with official approval into one large and powerful body, known in history as 'The Tables,' which speedily exercised an important influence in the country. As soon as this arrangement was completed, the crowds of supplicants who thronged the metropolis returned to their own homes, leaving the committee of sixteen to watch the progress of events." But the obstinacy of the King soon brought affairs to a crisis, and early in 1638 the deputies of The Tables "resolved to summon the whole body of supplicants to repair at once to the capital in order to concert measures for their common safety and the furtherance of the good cause. The summons was promptly obeyed, and after full deliberation it was resolved, on the suggestion of Johnstone of Warriston, that in order to strengthen their union against the enemies of the Protestant faith they should renew the National Covenant, which had been originally drawn up and sworn to at a time [A. D. 1581] when the Protestant religion was in imminent peril, through the schemes of France and Spain, and the plots of Queen Mary and the Roman Catholics in England and Scotland. The original document denounced in vehement terms the errors and devices of the Romish Church, and an addition was now made to it, adapting its declarations and pledges to existing circumstances."

J. Taylor, The Scottish Covenanters, chapter 1.

"It was in the Greyfriars' Church at Edinburgh that it [the National Covenant] was first received, on February 28, 1638. The aged Earl of Sutherland was the first to sign his name. Then the whole congregation followed. Then it was laid on the flat grave-stone still preserved in the church-yard. Men and women crowded to add their names. Some wept aloud, others wrote their names in their own blood; others added after their names 'till death.' For hours they signed, till every corner of the parchment was filled, and only room left for their initials, and the shades of night alone checked the continual flow. {2864} From Greyfriars' church-yard it spread to the whole of Scotland. Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it 'in their portmanteaus and pockets, requiring and collecting subscriptions publicly and privately.' Women sat in church all day and all night, from Friday till Sunday, in order to receive the Communion with it. None dared to refuse their names."

A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland, lecture 2.

ALSO IN: J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 2.

D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 1, chapter 7.

R. Chambers, Domestic Annals of Scotland, volume 2, pages 116-127.

The following is the text of the Scottish National Covenant:

"The confession of faith of the Kirk of Scotland, subscribed at first by the King's Majesty and his household in the year of God 1580; thereafter by persons of all ranks in the year 1581, by ordinance of the Lords of the secret council, and acts of the General Assembly; subscribed again by all sorts of persons in the year 1590, by a new ordinance of council, at the desire of the General Assembly; with a general band for the maintenance of the true religion, and the King's person, and now subscribed in the year 1638, by us noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under subscribing; together with our resolution and promises for the causes after specified, to maintain the said true religion, and the King's Majesty, according to the confession aforesaid, and Acts of Parliament; the tenure whereof here followeth: 'We all, and every one of us underwritten, do protest, that after long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved of the truth, by the word and spirit of God; and therefore we believe with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm before God and the whole world, that this only is the true Christian faith and religion, pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is by the mercy of God revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed evangel, and received, believed, and defended by many and sundry notable kirks and realms, but chiefly by the Kirk of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this realm, as God's eternal truth and only ground of our salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the confession of our faith, established and publicly confirmed by sundry Acts of Parliament; and now of a long time hath been openly professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm, both in burgh and land. To the which confession and form of religion we willingly agree in our consciences in all points, as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon His written Word; and therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine, but chiefly all kind of papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland. But in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men; all his tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty; his erroneous doctrine against the sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law, the office of Christ and His blessed evangel; his corrupted doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God's law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature, number, and use of the holy sacraments; his five bastard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments, without the Word of God; his cruel judgments against infants departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessity of baptism; his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real presence of Christ's body in the elements, and receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations, with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage, forbidden in the Word; his cruelty against the innocent divorced; his devilish mass; his blasphemous priesthood; his profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick; his canonization of men, calling upon angels or saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses, dedicating of kirks, altars, days, vows to creatures; his purgatory, prayers for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; with his processions and blasphemous litany, and multitudes of advocates or mediators; his manifold orders, auricular confession; his desperate and uncertain repentance; his general and doubtsome faith; his satisfaction of men for their sins; his justification by works, "opus operatum," works of supererogation, merits, pardons, perigrinations and stations; his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God's good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined therewith; his worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy; his three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts; his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers and approvers of that cruel and bloody band conjured against the Kirk of God. And finally, we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in the Kirk without or against the Word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed Kirk, to which we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, religion, faith, discipline, and life of the holy sacraments, as lively members of the same, in Christ our head, promising and swearing, by the great name of the Lord our God, that we shall continue in the obedience of the doctrine and discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same according to our vocation and power all the days of our lives, under the pains contained in the law, and danger both of body and soul in the day of God's fearful judgment. And seeing that many are stirred up by Satan and that Roman Antichrist, to promise, swear, subscribe, and for a time use the holy sacraments in the Kirk, deceitfully against their own consciences, minding thereby, first under the external cloak of religion, to corrupt and subvert secretly God's true religion within the Kirk; and afterwards, when time may serve, to become open enemies and persecutors of the same, under vain hope of the Pope's dispensation, devised against the Word of God, to his great confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of the Lord Jesus. {2865} We therefore, willing to take away all suspicion of hypocrisy, and of such double dealing with God and his Kirk, protest and call the Searcher of all hearts for witness, that our minds and hearts do fully agree with this our confession, promise, oath, and subscription: so that we are not moved for any worldly respect, but are persuaded only in our consciences, through the knowledge and love of God's true religion printed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed. And because we perceive that the quietness and stability of our religion and Kirk doth depend upon the safety and good behaviour of the King's Majesty, as upon a comfortable instrument of God's mercy granted to this country for the maintenance of His Kirk, and ministration of justice among us, we protest and promise with our hearts under the same oath, handwrit, and pains, that we shall defend his person and authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ His evangel, liberties of our country, ministration of justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within this realm or without, as we desire our God to be a strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death, and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; to Whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Like as many Acts of Parliament not only in general do abrogate, annul, and rescind all laws, statutes, acts, constitutions, canons civil or municipal, with all other ordinances and practick penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true religion, and professors thereof, or of the true Kirk discipline, jurisdiction, and freedom thereof; or in favours of idolatry and superstition; or of the papistical kirk (as Act 3. Act 31. Parliament 1. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament 12, of K. James VI), that papistry and superstition may be utter]y suppressed, according to the intention of the Acts of Parliament reported in Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI. And to that end they ordained all papists and priests to be punished by manifold civil and ecclesiastical pains, as adversaries to God's true religion preached, and by law established within this realm (Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James VI) as common enemies to all Christian government (Act 18. Parliament 16. K. James VI), as rebellers and gainstanders of our Sovereign Lord's authority (Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, and as idolaters, Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI), but also in particular (by and attour the confession of faith) do abolish and condemn the Pope's authority and jurisdiction out of this land, and ordains the maintainers thereof to be punished (Act 2. Parliament 1. Act 51. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 114. Parliament 12. of K. James VI); do condemn the Pope's erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous doctrine repugnant to any of the Articles of the true and Christian religion publicly preached, and by law established in this realm; and ordains the spreaders or makers of books or libels, or letters or writs of that nature, to be punished (Act 46. Parliament 3. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn all baptism conform to the Pope's kirk, and the idolatry of the Mass; and ordains all sayers, wilful hearers, and concealers of the Mass, the maintainers, and resetters of the priests, Jesuits, trafficking Papists, to be punished without exception or restriction (Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 120. Parliament 12. Act 164. Parliament 13. Act 193. Parliament 14. Act 1. Parliament 19. Act 5. Parliament 20. K. James VI); do condemn all erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine against the religion presently professed, or containing superstitious rights or ceremonies papistical, whereby the people are greatly abused; and ordains the home-bringers of them to be punished (Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI); do condemn the monuments and dregs of bygone idolatry, as going to crosses, observing the festival days of saints, and such other superstitious and papistical rites, to the dishonour of God, contempt of true religion, and fostering of great errors among the people, and ordains the users of them to be punished for the second fault as idolaters (Act 104. Parliament 7. K. James VI). Like us many Acts of Parliament are conceived for maintenance of God's true and Christian religion, and the purity thereof in doctrine and sacraments of the true Church of God, the liberty and freedom thereof in her national synodal assemblies, presbyteries, sessions, policy, discipline, and jurisdiction thereof, as that purity of religion and liberty of the Church was used, professed, exercised, preached, and confessed according to the reformation of religion in this realm. (As for instance: Act 99. Parliament 7. Act 23. Parliament 11. Act 114. Parliament 12. Act 160. Parliament 13. K. James VI, ratified by Act 4. K. Charles.) So that Act 6. Parliament 1. and Act 68. Parliament 6. of K. James VI, in the year of God 1579, declare the ministers of the blessed evangel, whom God of His mercy had raised up or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that then lived in doctrine and administration of the sacraments, and the people that professed Christ, as He was then offered in the evangel, and doth communicate with the holy sacraments (as in the reformed Kirks of this realm they were presently administered) according to the confession of faith to be the true and holy Kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm, and discerns and declares all and sundry, who either gainsays the word of the evangel, received and approved as the heads of the confession of faith, professed in Parliament in the year of God 1560, specified also in the first Parliament of K. James VI, and ratified in this present parliament, more particularly do specify; or that refuses the administration of the holy sacraments as they were then ministrated, to be no members of the said Kirk within this realm and true religion presently professed, so long as they keep themselves so divided from the society of Christ's body. And the subsequent Act 69. Parliament 6. K. James VI, declares that there is no other face of Kirk, nor other face of religion than was presently at that time by the favour of God established within this realm, which therefore is ever styled God's true religion, Christ's true religion, the true and Christian religion, and a perfect religion, which by manifold Acts of Parliament all within this realm are bound to profess to subscribe the Articles thereof, the confession of faith, to recant all doctrine and errors repugnant to any of the said Articles (Act 4 and 9. Parliament 1. Act 45. 46. 47. Parliament 3. Act 71. Parliament 6. Act 106. Parliament 7. Act 24. Parliament 11. Act 123. Parliament 12. Act 194 and 197. Parliament 14 of King James VI). And all magistrates, sheriffs, &c., on the one part, are ordained to search, apprehend, and punish all contraveners (for instance, Act 5. Parliament 1. Act 104. Parliament 7. Act 25. Parliament 11. K. James VI), and that, notwithstanding of the King's Majesty's licences on the contrary, which are discharged and declared to be of no force, in so far as they tend in any ways to the prejudice and hindrance of the execution of the Acts of Parliament against Papists and adversaries of the true religion (Act 106. Parliament 7. K. James VI). {2866} On the other part, in Act 47. Parliament 3. K. James VI, it is declared and ordained, seeing the cause of God's true religion and His Highness's authority are so joined as the hurt of the one is common to both; and that none shall be reputed as loyal and faithful subjects to our Sovereign Lord or his authority, but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same, who shall not give their confession and make profession of the said true religion; and that they, who after defection shall give the confession of their faith of new, they shall promise to continue therein in time coming to maintain our Sovereign Lord's authority, and at the uttermost of their power to fortify, assist, and maintain the true preachers and professors of Christ's religion, against whatsoever enemies and gainstanders of the same; and namely, against all such of whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have joined or bound themselves, or have assisted or assists to set forward and execute the cruel decrees of Trent, contrary to the preachers and true professors of the Word of God, which is repeated word by word in the Articles of Pacification at Perth, the 23d Feb., 1572, approved by Parliament the last of April 1573, ratified in Parliament 1578, and related Act 123. Parliament 12. of K. James VI., with this addition, that they are bound to resist all treasonable uproars and hostilities raised against the true religion, the King's Majesty and the true professors. Like as an lieges are bound to maintain the King's Majesty's royal person and authority, the authority of Parliaments, without which neither any laws or lawful judicatories can be established (Act 130. Act 131. Parliament 8. K. James VI), and the subject's liberties, who ought only to live and be governed by the King's laws, the common laws of this realm allanerly (Act 48. Parliament 3. K. James I, Act 79. Parliament 6. K. James VI, repeated in Act 131. Parliament 8. K. James VI), which if they be innovated or prejudged the commission anent the union of the two kingdoms of Scotland and England, which is the sole Act of 17 Parliament James VI, declares such confusion would ensue as this realm could be no more a free monarchy, because by the fundamental laws, ancient privileges, offices, and liberties of this kingdom, not only the princely authority of His Majesty's royal descent hath been these many ages maintained; also the people's security of their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties and dignities preserved; and therefore for the preservation of the said true religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, it is statute by Act 8. Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7. ratified in Act 23. Parliament 11 and 14. Act of K. James VI and 4 Act of K. Charles, that all Kings and Princes at their coronation and reception of their princely authority, shall make their faithful promise by their solemn oath in the presence of the Eternal God, that during the whole time of their lives they shall serve the same Eternal God to the utmost of their power, according as He hath required in His most Holy Word, contained in the Old and New Testaments, and according to the same Word shall maintain the true religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of His Holy Word, the due and right ministration of the sacraments now received and preached within this realm (according to the confession of faith immediately preceding); and shall abolish and gainstand all false religion contrary to the same; and shall rule the people committed to their charge according to the will and commandment of God revealed in His aforesaid Word, and according to the lowable laws and constitutions received in this realm, no ways repugnant to the said will of the Eternal God; and shall procure to the utmost of their power, to the Kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfect peace in all time coming; and that they shall be careful to root out of their Empire all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true Kirk of God of the aforesaid crimes. Which was also observed by His Majesty at his coronation in Edinburgh, 1633, as may be seen in the Order of the Coronation. In obedience to the commands of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times, and according to the laudable example of our worthy and religious progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us, which was warranted also by act of council, commanding a general band to be made and subscribed by His Majesty's subjects of all ranks for two causes: one was, for defending the true religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed in the confession of faith above written, and a former large confession established by sundry acts of lawful general assemblies and of Parliament unto which it hath relation, set down in public catechisms, and which had been for many years with a blessing from heaven preached and professed in this Kirk and kingdom, as God's undoubted truth grounded only upon His written Word. The other cause was for maintaining the King's Majesty, his person and estate: the true worship of God and the King's authority being so straitly joined, as that they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand and fall together. And finally, being convinced in our minds; and confessing with our mouths, that the present and succeeding generations in this land are bound to keep the aforesaid national oath and subscription inviolable:—We noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons under subscribing, considering divers times before, and especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed religion of the King's honour, and of the public of the kingdom, by the manifold innovations and evils generally contained and particularly mentioned in our late supplications, complaints, and protestations, do hereby profess, and before God, His angels and the world, solemnly declare, that with our whole hearts we agree and resolve all the days of our life constantly to adhere unto and to defend the aforesaid true religion, and forbearing the practice of all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the public government of the Kirk, or civil places and power of kirkmen till they be tried and allowed in free assemblies and in Parliaments, to labour by all means lawful to recover the purity and liberty of the Gospel as it was established and professed before the aforesaid novations; and because, after due examination, we plainly perceive and undoubtedly believe that the innovations and evils contained in our supplications, complaints and protestations have no warrant of the Word of God, are contrary to the articles of the aforesaid confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed reformers of religion in this land, to the above-written Acts of Parliament, and do sensibly tend to the reestablishing of the popish religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and ruin of the true reformed religion, and of our liberties, laws and estates; we also declare that the aforesaid confessions are to be interpreted, and ought to be understood of the aforesaid novations and evils, no less than if everyone of them had been expressed in the aforesaid confessions; and that we are obliged to detest and abhor them, amongst other particular heads of papistry abjured therein. {2867} And therefore from the knowledge and conscience of our duty to God, to our King and country, without any worldly respect or inducement so far as human infirmity will suffer, wishing a further measure of the grace of God for this effect, we promise and swear by the great name of the Lord our God, to continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid religion; that we shall defend the same, and resist all these contrary errors and corruptions according to our vocation, and to the utmost of that power that God hath put into our hands, all the days of our life. And in like manner, with the same heart we declare before God and men, that we have no intention or desire to attempt anything that may turn to the dishonour of God or the diminution of the King's greatness and authority; but on the contrary we promise and swear that we shall to the utmost of our power, with our means and lives, stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign the King's Majesty, his person and authority, in the defence and preservation of the aforesaid true religion, liberties and laws of the kingdom; as also to the mutual defence and assistance everyone of us of another, in the same cause of maintaining the true religion and His Majesty's authority, with our best counsels, our bodies, means and whole power, against all sorts of persons whatsoever; so that whatsoever shall be done to the least of us for that cause shall be taken as done to us all in general, and to everyone of us in particular; and that we shall neither directly or indirectly suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn by whatsoever suggestion, combination, allurement or terror from this blessed and loyal conjunction; nor shall cast in any let or impediment that may stay or hinder any such resolution as by common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends; but on the contrary shall by all lawful means labour to further and promote the same; and if any such dangerous and divisive motion be made to us by word or writ, we and everyone of us shall either suppress it or (if need be) shall incontinently make the same known, that it may be timously obviated. Neither do we fear the foul aspersions of rebellion, combination or what else our adversaries from their craft and malice would put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and ariseth from an unfeigned desire to maintain the true worship of God, the majesty of our King, and the peace of the kingdom for the common happiness of ourselves and posterity. And because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our proceedings, except with our profession and subscription, we join such a life and conversation as beseemeth Christians who have renewed their covenant with God: we therefore faithfully promise, for ourselves, our followers, and all other under us, both in public, in our particular families and personal carriage, to endeavour to keep ourselves within the bounds of Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all godliness, soberness and righteousness, and of every duty we owe to God and man; and that this our union and conjunction may be observed without violation we call the living God, the searcher of our hearts to witness, who knoweth this to be our sincere desire and unfeigned resolution, as we shall answer to Jesus Christ in the great day, and under the pain of God's everlasting wrath, and of infamy, and of loss of all honour and respect in this world; most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with a happy success, that religion and righteousness may flourish in the land, to the glory of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of us all.' In witness whereof we have subscribed with our hands all the premises, &c."

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640. The First Bishops' War.

In November, 1638, a General Assembly was convened at Glasgow, with the consent of the king, and was opened by the Marquis of Hamilton as Royal Commissioner. But when the Assembly took in hand the trial of the bishops, Hamilton withdrew and ordered the members to disperse. They paid no heed to the order, but deposed the bishops and excommunicated eight of them. "The Canons and the Liturgy were then rejected, and all acts of the Assemblies held since 1606 were annulled. In the North, where Huntly was the King's lieutenant, the Covenant had not been received, and the Tables resolved to enforce it with the sword. Scotland was now full of trained soldiers just come back from Germany, where they had learnt to fight in the Thirty Years' war, and as plenty of money had been collected among the Covenanters, an army was easily raised. Their banner bore the motto, 'For Religion, the Covenant, and the Country,' and their leader was James Graham, Earl of Montrose, one of the most zealous among the champions of the cause. … While Montrose had been thus busy for the Covenant in the North, the King had been making ready to put down his rebellious Scottish subjects with the sword. Early in May a fleet entered the Forth under the command of Hamilton. But the Tables took possession of the strongholds, and seized the ammunition which had been laid in for the King. They then raised another army of 22,000 foot and 1,200 horse, and placed at its head Alexander Leslie, a veteran trained in the German war. Their army they sent southwards to meet the English host which the King was bringing to reduce Scotland. The two armies faced each other on opposite banks of the Tweed. The Scots were skilfully posted on Dunse Law, a hill commanding the Northern road. To pass them without fighting was impossible, and to fight would have been almost certain defeat. The King seeing this agreed to treat. By a treaty called the Pacification of Berwick, it was settled that the questions at issue between the King and the Covenanters should be put to a free Assembly, that both armies should be disbanded, and that the strongholds should be restored to the King (June 9, 1639). The Assembly which met at Edinburgh repeated and approved all that had been done at Glasgow. When the Estates met for the first time in the New Parliament-house, June 2, 1640, they went still further, for they not only confirmed the Acts of the Assemblies, but ordered every one to sign the Covenant under pain of civil penalties. {2868} Now for the first time they acted in open defiance of the King, to whom hitherto they had professed the greatest loyalty and submission. Three times had they been adjourned by the King, who had also refused to see the Commissioners whom they sent up to London. Now they met in spite of him, and, as in former times of troubles and difficulties, they appealed to France for help. When this intrigue with the French was found out, the Lord Loudon, one of their Commissioners, was sent to the Tower, and the English Parliament was summoned to vote supplies for putting down the Scots by force of arms."

M. Macarthur, History of Scotland, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: S. R. Gardiner, History of England, 1603-1641, chapters 88-89 (volume 9).

D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 2, book 1, chapter 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1640. The Second Bishops' War.- Invasion of England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1643. The Solemn League and Covenant with the English Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645. The exploits of Montrose.

At the beginning of the conflict between Charles I. and the Covenanters, James Graham, the brilliant and accomplished Earl of Montrose, attached himself to the latter, but soon deserted their cause and gave himself with great earnestness to that of the court. For his reward, he was raised to the dignity of Marquis of Montrose. After the great defeat of Prince Rupert at Marston Moor, Montrose obtained a commission to raise forces among the Highlanders and proved to be a remarkably successful leader of these wild warriors. Along with his Highlanders he incorporated a body of still wilder Celts, received from Ireland. On the 1st of September, 1644, Montrose attacked an army of the Covenanters, 6,000 foot and horse, at Tippermuir, "totally routed them, and took their artillery and baggage, without losing a man. Perth immediately surrendered to Montrose, and he had some further successes; but threatened by a superior force under the Marquis of Argyll, he retreated northwards into Badenoch, and thence sweeping down into Argyllshire, he mercilessly ravaged the country of the Campbells. Exasperated with the devastation of his estates, Argyll marched against Montrose, who, not waiting to be attacked, surprised the army of the Covenanters at Inverlochy, 2d February, 1645, and totally defeated them, no fewer than 1,500 of the clan Campbell perishing in the battle, while Montrose lost only four or five men. Brilliant as were these victories, they had no abiding influence in quenching this terrible civil war. It was a game of winning and losing; and looking to the fact that the Scotch generally took the side of the Covenant, the struggle was almost hopeless. Still Montrose was undaunted. After the Inverlochy affair, he went southwards through Elgin and Banff into Aberdeenshire, carrying everything before him. Major-general Baillie, a second-rate Covenanting commander, and his lieutenant, General Hurry, were at Brechin, with a force to oppose him; but Montrose, by a dexterous movement, eluded them, captured and pillaged the city of Dundee, and escaped safely into the Grampians. On the 4th May, he attacked, and by extraordinary generalship routed Hurry at Auldearn, near Nairn. After enjoying a short respite with his fierce veterans in Badenoch, he again issued from his wilds, and inflicted a still more disastrous defeat on Baillie, at Alford, in Aberdeenshire, July 2. There was now nothing to prevent his march south, and he set out with a force of from 5,000 to 6,000 men." Overtaken by Baillie at Kilsyth, he once more defeated that commander overwhelmingly. "The number of slain was upwards of 6,000, with very few killed on the side of the royalists. The victory so effected, 15th August 1645, was the greatest Montrose ever gained. His triumph was complete, for the victory of Kilsyth put him in possession of the whole of Scotland. The government of the country was broken up; every organ of the recent administration, civil and ecclesiastical, at once vanished. The conqueror was hailed as 'the great Marquis of Montrose.' Glasgow yielded him tribute and homage; counties and burghs compounded for mercy. The city of Edinburgh humbly deprecated his vengeance, and implored his pardon and forgiveness." But, if the conquest of Scotland was complete for the moment, it came too late. The battle of Naseby had been fought two months before the battle of Kilsyth, and the king's cause was lost. It was in vain that Charles sent to his brilliant champion of the north a commission as Lieutenant-governor of Scotland. Montrose's army melted away so rapidly that when, in September, he marched south, leading his forlorn hope to the help of the king in England, he had but 700 foot and 200 mounted gentlemen. The small force was intercepted and surprised at Philiphaugh (September 13, 1645) by Leslie, with 4,000 horse. Montrose, after fighting with vain obstinacy until no more fighting could be done, made his escape, with a few followers. Most of his troops, taken prisoners, were massacred a few days afterwards, cold-bloodedly, in the courtyard of Newark Castle; and the deed is said to have been due, not to military, but to clerical malignity.

W. Chambers, Stories of Old Families, pages 206-217.

ALSO in: _M. Napier, Montrose and the Covenanters._

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 73 (volume 7).

_Lady V. Greville, Montrose._

P. Bayne, The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution, chapter 7.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1646-1647. Flight of King Charles to the Scots army and his surrender to the English Parliament.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1648. Royalist invasion of England and Battle of Preston.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (APRIL-AUGUST).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY). Scottish loyalty revived. Charles II. accepted as a "Covenant King."

"The Scots had begun the great movement whose object was at once to resist the tyranny of the Stuarts and the tyranny of Rome, and which was destined to result in incalculable consequences for Europe. But now they retraced their steps, and put themselves in opposition to the Commonwealth of England. They wanted a leader. 'With Oliver Cromwell born a Scotchman,' says Carlyle; 'with a Hero King and a unanimous Hero Nation at his back, it might have been far otherwise. With Oliver born Scotch, one sees not but the whole world might have become Puritan.' Without shutting our eyes to the truth there may be in this pas·sage, we find the cause of this northern war elsewhere. In spiritual things the Scots acknowledged Jesus Christ as their king; in temporal, they recognized Charles II. {2869} They had no wish that the latter should usurp the kingdom of the former; but they also had no desire that Cromwell should seize upon the Stuarts' throne. They possessed a double loyalty—one towards the heavenly king, and another to their earthly sovereign. They had cast off the abuses of the latter, but not the monarchy itself. They accordingly invited the prince, who was then in Holland, to come to Scotland, and take possession of his kingdom. … Charles at this time was conniving at Montrose, who was spreading desolation throughout Scotland; and the young king hoped by his means to recover a throne without having to take upon himself any embarrassing engagement. But when the marquis was defeated, he determined to surrender to the Scottish parliament. One circumstance had nearly caused his ruin. Among Montrose's papers was found a commission from the king, giving him authority to levy troops and subdue the country by force of arms. The indignant parliament immediately recalled their commissioner from Holland; but the individual to whom the order was addressed treacherously concealed the document from his colleagues, and by showing it to none but the prince, gave him to understand that he could no longer safely temporize. Charles being thus convinced hurried on board, and set sail for Scotland, attended by a train of unprincipled men. The most serious thinkers in the nation saw that they could expect little else from him than duplicity, treachery, and licentiousness. It has been said that the Scotch compelled Charles to adopt their detested Covenant voluntarily. Most certainly the political leaders cannot be entirely exculpated of this charge; but it was not so with the religious part of the government. When he declared his readiness to sign that deed on board the ship, even before he landed, Livingston, who doubted his sincerity, begged him to wait until he had reached Scotland, and given satisfactory proofs of his good faith. But it was all to no effect. … If Charles Stuart had thought of ascending his native throne only, Cromwell and the English would have remained quiet; but he aimed at the recovery of the three kingdoms, and the Scotch were disposed to aid him. Oliver immediately saw the magnitude of the danger which threatened the religion, liberty, and morals of England, and did not hesitate."

J. H. Merle d'Aubigne, The Protector, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: A. Bisset, Omitted Chapters of the History of England, volume 1, chapter 5.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 75 (volume 7).

P. Bayne, The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution, chapter 6.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (September). Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

War with Scotland having been determined upon by the English Council of State, and Fairfax having declined the command, Cromwell was recalled from Ireland to head the army. "He passed the Tweed with an army of 16,000 men on the 16th of July. The Scots had placed themselves under the command of the old Earl of Leven and of David Leslie. As yet their army was a purely Covenanting one. By an act of the Scotch Church, called the Act of Classes, all known Malignants, and the Engagers (as those men were called who had joined Hamilton's insurrection), had been removed from the army. The country between the Tweed and Edinburgh had been wasted; and the inhabitants, terrified by ridiculous stories of the English cruelty, had taken flight; but Cromwell's army, marching by the coast, was supplied by the fleet. He thus reached the immediate neighbourhood of Edinburgh; but Leslie skilfully availed himself of the advantages of the ground and refused to be brought to an engagement. It became necessary for Cromwell to withdraw towards his supplies. He fell back to Dunbar, which lies upon a peninsula, jutting out into the Firth of Forth. The base of this peninsula is at a little distance encircled by high ground, an offshoot of the Lammermuir Hills. These heights were occupied by the Scotch army, as was also the pass through which the road to Berwick lies. Cromwell was therefore apparently shut up between the enemy and the sea, with no choice but to retire to his ships or surrender. Had Leslie continued his cautious policy, such might have been the event. A little glen, through which runs a brook called the Broxburn, separated the two enemies. Between it and the high grounds lay a narrow but comparatively level tract. Either army attacking the other must cross this glen. There were two convenient places for passing it: one, the more inland one, towards the right of the English, who stood with their back to the sea, was already in the hands of the Scotch. Could Leslie secure the other, at the mouth of the glen, he would have it in his power to attack when he pleased. The temptation was too strong for him; be gradually moved his army down from the hills towards its own right flank, thereby bringing it on the narrow ground between the hill and the brook, intending with his right to secure the passage at Broxmouth, Cromwell and Lambert saw the movement, saw that it gave them a corresponding advantage if they suddenly crossed the glen at Broxmouth, and fell upon Leslie's right wing, while his main body was entangled in the narrow ground before mentioned. The attack was immediately decided upon, and [next morning] early on the 3rd of September carried out with perfect success. The Scotch horse of the right wing were driven in confusion back upon their main body, whom they trampled under foot, and the whole army was thus rolled back upon itself in inextricable confusion."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 2, pages 694-696.

"The pursuit extended over a distance of eight miles, and the total loss of the Scots amounted to 3,000 killed and 10,000 prisoners, while 30 guns and 15,000 stand of arms were taken; the casualties of the English army did not exceed 20 men. Of the prisoners, 5,000, being wounded, old men or boys, were allowed to return home; the remaining 5,000 were sent into England, whence, after enduring terrible hardships, they were, as had been the prisoners taken at Preston, sold either as slaves to the planters or as soldiers to the Venetians. On the day following that of the battle, Lambert pushed on to Edinburgh with six regiments of horse and one of foot; Cromwell himself, after a rest of a few days, advanced on the capital, which at once surrendered to the victors. The example thus set was followed by Leith, but Edinburgh Castle still held out [until the following December] against the English. The remnant of the Scottish army (but 1,300 horse remained of the 6,000 who took part in the battle) retired on Stirling, while Charles himself took up his residence at Perth."

N. L. Walford, Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: A. Bisset, Omitted Chapters of the History of England, chapter 6.

T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 6.

{2870}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August). Charles' rash advance into England. Cromwell's pursuit and crushing victory at Worcester.

"Lesley was gathering the wreck of his army about him at Stirling. Charles, with the Scottish authorities, had retired to Perth. The Presbyterian party became divided; and the royalists obtained a higher influence in the direction of the national policy. Charles, without further question of his real intentions, was crowned at Scone on the 1st of January, 1651. After a three months' blockade, and then a bombardment, Edinburgh Castle was surrendered to Cromwell on the 18th of December. He had little to do to make himself master of Scotland on the south of the Forth. On the 4th of February the army marched towards Stirling, but returned without any result, driven to the good quarters of Edinburgh by terrible storms of sleet and snow. The Lord-General became seriously ill through this exposure. But on the 5th of June he was out again; and at the end of the month was vigorously prosecuting the campaign. The Scottish army was entrenched at Stirling. The king had been invited to take its command in person. Cromwell, on the 2nd of August, had succeeded in possessing himself of Perth. At that juncture the news reached him that the royal camp at Stirling was broken up, on the 31st of July; and that Charles was on his march southward, at the head of 11,000 men, his lieutenant-general being David Lesley. Argyll was opposed to this bold resolution, and had retired to Inverary. Charles took the western road by Carlisle; and when on English ground issued a proclamation offering pardon to those who would return to their allegiance—exempting from his promised amnesty Bradshaw, Cromwell, and Cook. He was also proclaimed king of England, at the head of his army: and similar proclamation was made at Penrith and other market-towns. Strict discipline was preserved, and although the presence of Scots in arms was hateful to the people, they were not outraged by any attempts at plunder. Charles, however, had few important accessions of strength. There was no general rising in his favour. The gates of Shrewsbury were shut against him. At Warrington, his passage of the Mersey was opposed by Lambert and Harrison, who had got before him with their cavalry. On the 22nd of August Charles reached Worcester, the parliamentary garrison having evacuated the city. He there set up his standard, and a summons went forth for all male subjects of due age to gather round their Sovereign Lord, at the general muster of his forces on the 26th of August. An inconsiderable number of gentlemen came, with about 200 followers. Meanwhile Cromwell had marched rapidly from Scotland with 10,000 men, leaving behind him 6,000 men under Monk. The militias of the counties joined him with a zeal which showed their belief that another civil war would not be a national blessing. On the 28th of August the General of the Commonwealth was close to Worcester, with 30,000 men." On the 3d of September (the anniversary of the victory of Dunbar, won just a year before), he attacked the royalist army and made an end of it. "'We beat the enemy from hedge to hedge [he wrote to parliament] till we beat him into Worcester. The enemy then drew all his forces on the other side the town, all but what he had lost; and made a very considerable fight with us, for three hours' space; but in the end we beat him totally, and pursued him to his royal fort, which we took,—and indeed have beaten his whole army.' The prisoners taken at the battle of Worcester, and in the subsequent flight, exceeded 7,000. They included some of the most distinguished leaders of the royalists in England and Scotland. Courts-martial were held upon nine of these; and three, amongst whom was the earl of Derby, were executed." Charles Stuart escaped by flight, with his long cavalier locks cut close and his royal person ignobly disguised, wandering and hiding for six weeks before he reached the coast and got ship for France. The story of his adventures—his concealment in the oak at Boscobel, his ride to Bristol as a serving man, with a lady on the pillion behind him, &c., &c.,—has been told often enough.

C. Knight, Crown History of England, chapter 27.

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 6, letters 96-124.

Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, book 13 (volume 5).

A. Bisset, Omitted Chapters of English History, chapters 10-11 (volume 2).

F. P. Guizot, History of Oliver Cromwell, book 2 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (August-September). The conquest completed by Monk.

When Cromwell followed Charles and his Scottish army into England, to destroy them at Worcester, he left Monk in Scotland, with a few thousand men, and that resolute general soon completed the conquest of the kingdom. He met with most resistance at Dundee. "Dundee was a town well fortified, supplied with a good garrison under Lumisden, and full of all the rich furniture, the plate, and money of the kingdom, which had been sent thither as to a place of safety. Monk appeared before it: and having made a breach, gave a general assault. He carried the town; and, following the example and instructions of Cromwell, put all the inhabitants to the sword, in order to strike a general terror into the kingdom. Warned by this example, Aberdeen, St. Andrew's, Inverness, and other towns and forts, yielded, of their own accord, to the enemy. … That kingdom, which had hitherto, through all ages, by means of its situation, poverty, and valour, maintained its independence, was reduced to total subjection."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 60 (volume 5).

ALSO IN: J. Browne, History of the Highlands, volume 2, chapter 4.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654. Incorporated with England by Protector Cromwell.

In 1654, "Cromwell completed another work which the Long Parliament and the Barebone Parliament had both undertaken and left unfinished. Under favour of the discussions which had arisen between the great powers of the Commonwealth, the Scottish royalists had once more conceived hopes, and taken up arms. … The insurrection, though chiefly confined to the Highlands, descended occasionally to ravage the plains; and towards the beginning of February, 1654, Middleton had been sent from France, by Charles II., to attempt to give, in the king's name, that unity and consistency of action in which it had until then been deficient. {2871} No sooner had he been proclaimed Protector, than Cromwell took decisive measures to crush these dangers in their infancy: he despatched to Ireland his second son, Henry, an intelligent, circumspect, and resolute young man, and to Scotland, Monk, whom that country had already once recognized as her conqueror. Both succeeded in their mission. … Monk, with his usual prompt and intrepid boldness, carried the war into the very heart of the Highlands, established his quarters there, pursued the insurgents into their most inaccessible retreats, defeated Middleton and compelled him to re-embark for the Continent, and, after a campaign of four months, returned to Edinburgh at the end of August, 1654, and began once more, without passion or noise, to govern the country which he had twice subjugated. Cromwell had reckoned beforehand on his success, for, on the 12th of April, 1654, at the very period when he ordered Monk to march against the Scottish insurgents, be had, by a sovereign ordinance, incorporated Scotland with England, abolished all monarchical or feudal jurisdiction in the ancient realm of the Stuarts, and determined the place which its representatives, as well as those of Ireland, should occupy in the common Parliament of the new State."

F. P. Guizot, History of Oliver Cromwell, book 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. Lingard, History of England, volume 11, chapter 1.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666. The restored King and the restored prelatical Church. The oppression of the Covenanters.

"In Scotland the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed with delight; for it was regarded as the restoration of national independence. And true it was that the yoke which Cromwell had imposed was, in appearance, taken away, that the Scottish Estates again met in their old hall at Edinburgh, and that the Senators of the College of Justice again administered the Scottish law according to the old forms. Yet was the independence of the little kingdom necessarily rather nominal than real: for, as long as the King had England on his side, he had nothing to apprehend from disaffection in his other dominions. He was now in such a situation that he could renew the attempt which had proved destructive to his father without any danger of his father's fate. … The government resolved to set up a prelatical church in Scotland. The design was disapproved by every Scotchman whose judgment was entitled to respect. … The Scottish Parliament was so constituted that it had scarcely ever offered any serious opposition even to Kings much weaker than Charles then was. Episcopacy, therefore, was established by law. As to the form of worship, a large discretion was left to the clergy. In some churches the English Liturgy was used. In others, the ministers selected from that Liturgy such prayers and thanksgivings as were likely to be least offensive to the people. But in general the doxology was sung at the close of public worship, and the Apostles' Creed was recited when baptism was administered. By the great body of the Scottish nation the new Church was detested both as superstitious and as foreign; as tainted with the corruptions of Rome, and as a mark of the predominance of England. There was, however, no general insurrection. The country was not what it had been twenty-two years before. Disastrous war and alien domination had tamed the spirit of the people. … The bulk of the Scottish nation, therefore, sullenly submitted, and, with many misgivings of conscience, attended the ministrations of the Episcopal clergy, or of Presbyterian divines who had consented to accept from the government a half toleration known by the name of the Indulgence. But there were, particularly in the western lowlands, many fierce and resolute men who held that the obligation to observe the Covenant was paramount to the obligation to obey the magistrate. These people, in defiance of the law, persisted in meeting to worship God after their own fashion. The Indulgence they regarded, not as a partial reparation of the wrongs inflicted by the State on the Church, but as a new wrong, the more odious because it was disguised under the appearance of a benefit. Persecution, they said, could only kill the body; but the black Indulgence was deadly to the soul. Driven from the towns, they assembled on, heaths and mountains. Attacked by the civil power, they without scruple repelled force by force. At every conventicle they mustered in arms. They repeatedly broke out into open rebellion. They were easily defeated and mercilessly punished: but neither defeat nor punishment could subdue their spirit. Hunted down like wild beasts, tortured till their bones were beaten fiat, imprisoned by hundreds, hanged by scores, exposed at one time to the license of soldiers from England, abandoned at another time to the mercy of troops of marauders from the Highlands, they still stood at bay, in a mood so savage that the boldest and mightiest oppressor could not but dread the audacity of their despair."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 2 (volume 1).

The Scottish Parliament by which Episcopacy was established at the king's bidding is known as the Drunken Parliament. "Every man of them, with one exception, is said to have been intoxicated at the time of passing it [October 1, 1662]. Its effect was that 350 ministers were ejected from their livings. The apparatus of ecclesiastical tyranny was completed by a Mile Act, similar to the Five Mile Act of England, forbidding any recusant minister to reside within twenty miles of his own parish, or within three miles of a royal borough."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 2, page 729.

"The violence of the drunken parliament was finally shown in the absurdity of what was called the 'Act Rescissory,' by which every law that had been passed in the Scottish parliament during twenty-eight years was wholly annulled. The legal foundations of Presbytery were thus swept away."

C. Knight, Crown History of England, chapter 29.

ALSO IN: J. Aikman, Annals of the Persecution in Scotland, volume 1, books 2-5.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679. Lauderdale's despotism. The Highland host.

"A new Parliament was assembled [October 19, 1669] at Edinburgh, and Lauderdale was sent down commissioner. … It were endless to recount every act of violence and arbitrary authority exercised during Lauderdale's administration. All the lawyers were put from the bar, nay banished, by the king's order, twelve miles from the capital, and by that means the whole justice of the kingdom was suspended for a year, till these lawyers were brought to declare it as their opinion that all appeals to Parliament were illegal. A letter was procured from the king, for expelling twelve of the chief magistrates of Edinburgh, and declaring them incapable of an public office, though their only crime had been their want of compliance with Lauderdale. … {2872} The private deportment of Lauderdale was as insolent and provoking as his public administration was violent and tyrannical. Justice likewise was universally perverted by faction and interest: and from the great rapacity of that duke, and still more of his duchess, all offices and favours were openly put to sale. No one was allowed to approach the throne who was not dependent on him; and no remedy could be hoped for or obtained against his manifold oppressions. … The law enacted against conventicles had called them seminaries of rebellion. This expression, which was nothing but a flourish of rhetoric, Lauderdale and the privy council were willing to understand in a literal sense; and because the western counties abounded in conventicles, though otherwise in profound peace, they pretended that these counties were in a state of actual war and rebellion. They made therefore an agreement with some highland chieftains to call out their clans, to the number of 8,000 men; to these they joined the guards, and the militia of Angus: and they sent the whole to live at free quarters upon the lands of such as had refused the bonds [engaging them as landlords to restrain their tenants from attending conventicles] illegally required of them. The obnoxious counties were the most populous and most industrious in Scotland. The highlanders were the people the most disorderly and the least civilized. It is easy to imagine the havoc and destruction which ensued. … After two months' free quarter, the highlanders were sent back to their hills, loaded with the spoils and the execrations of the west. … Lest the cry of an oppressed people should reach the throne, the council forbad, under severe penalties, all noblemen or gentlemen of landed property to leave the kingdom. … It is reported that Charles, after a full hearing of the debates concerning Scottish affairs, said, 'I perceive that Lauderdale has been guilty of many bad things against the people of Scotland; but I cannot find that he has acted anything contrary to my interest.'"

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 66 (volume 6).

ALSO IN: G. Burnet, History of My Own Time, books 2-3.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 78 (volume 7).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (May-June). The Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.

"The public indignation which these measures [under Lauderdale] roused was chiefly directed against the Archbishop of St. Andrews [Dr. James Sharp], who was generally regarded as their author or instigator, and was doubly obnoxious as the Judas of the Presbyterian Church." On the 3d of May, 1679, the Archbishop was dragged from his carriage on Magus Moor, three miles from St. Andrews, and murdered, by a band of twelve Covenanters, headed by Hackston of Rathillet, and Balfour of Burley, his brother-in-law. "The great body of the Presbyterians, though doubtless thinking that 'the loon was weel away,' condemned this cruel and bloody deed as a foul murder; and they could not fail to see that it would greatly increase the severity of the persecution against their party. … It was now declared a treasonable act to attend a conventicle, and orders were issued to the commanders of the troops in the western district to disperse all such meetings at the point of the sword. … Towards the end of May preparations were made to hold a great conventicle on a moor in the parish of Avondale, near the borders of Lanarkshire. The day selected for the service was the first of June. No secret was made of the arrangement, and it became known to John Graham of Claverhouse, the 'Bloody Claverhouse,' as he was called, who commanded a body of dragoons, stationed at Glasgow, for the purpose of suppressing the Covenanters in that district. … Having been apprised of the intended meeting, he hastened towards the spot at the head of his own troop of horse and two companies of dragoons. … The Covenanters had assembled on the farm of Drumclog, in the midst of a high and moorland district out of which rises the wild craggy eminence of Loudoun Hill, in whose vicinity Robert Bruce gained his first victory. … The preacher, Thomas Douglas, had proceeded only a short way with his sermon when a watchman posted on an adjoining height fired his gun as a signal that the enemy was approaching. The preacher paused in his discourse, and closed with the oft-quoted words—'You have got the theory; now for the practice.' The women and children were sent to the rear. The armed men separated from the rest of the meeting and took up their position. … Claverhouse and his dragoons were descending the slope of the opposite eminence, called Calder Hill, and with a loud cheer they rushed towards the morass and fired a volley at the Covenanters. It was returned with great effect, emptying a number of saddles. The dragoons made several unsuccessful attempts to cross the marsh, and flanking parties sent to the right and to the left were repulsed with considerable loss. At this juncture John Nisbet [an old soldier of the Thirty Years' War] cried out, 'Jump the ditch and charge the enemy.' The order was instantly obeyed. Balfour, at the head of the horsemen, and Cleland, with a portion of the infantry, crossed the marsh and attacked the dragoons with such fury that they were thrown into confusion and took to flight, leaving from forty to fifty of their number dead on the field. Claverhouse himself had his horse killed under him and narrowly escaped his pursuers. … The victory at Drumclog roused the whole country. Great numbers poured in to join the victors, and in a short time their ranks had swelled to upwards of 6,000 men."

J. Taylor, The Scottish Covenanters, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: M. Morris, Claverhouse, chapter 4.

_Sir W. Scott, Old Morality._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (June). Monmouth's success at Bothwell Bridge.

"The King was for suppressing the insurrection immediately by forces from England to join those in Scotland, and the Duke of Monmouth to command them all. … The Duke of Monmouth, after a friendly parting with the King, who had been displeased with him, set out from London, June 18, for Scotland, where he arrived in three days, with an expedition considered incredible, and took the command. The Covenanters were 5,000 or 6,000 strong, and had taken up a position six miles from Hamilton, at Bothwell Bridge, which they barricaded and disputed the Duke's passage. These Covenanters were irresolute. An attempt to negotiate was made, but they were told that no proposal could be received from rebels in arms. One half hour was allowed. The Covenanters went on consuming their time in theological controversy, considering 'the Duke to be in rebellion against the Lord and his people.' {2873} While thus almost unprepared, they were entirely defeated in an action, 22d of June, which, in compliment to the Duke of Monmouth, was too proudly called the battle of Bothwell Bridge. Four hundred Covenanters were killed, and 1,200 made prisoners. Monmouth was evidently favourable to them. … The Duke would not let the dragoons pursue and massacre those (as Oldmixon calls them) Protestants. … The same historian adds, that the Duke of York talked of Monmouth's expedition to Scotland, as a courting the people there, and their friends in England, by his sparing those that were left alive; and that Charles himself said to Monmouth, 'If I had been there, we would not have had the trouble of prisoners.' The Duke answered, 'I cannot kill men in cold blood; that's work only for butchers.' The prisoners who promised to live peaceably were set at liberty; the others, about 270, were transported to our plantations, but were all cast away at sea! The Duke of Lauderdale's creatures pressed the keeping the army some time in Scotland, with a design to have them eat it up; but the Duke of Monmouth sent home the militia, and put the troops under discipline; so that all the country was sensible he had preserved them from ruin. The Duke asked the King to grant an indemnity for what was past, and liberty to the Covenanters to hold their meetings under the King's license; but these softening measures fell with Monmouth, and rage and slaughter again reigned when the Duke of York obtained the government of Scotland."

G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 79 (volume 7).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689. The pitiless rule of James II. The hunting of the Cameronians. Claverhouse's brutalities.

In 1681 the government of Scotland was committed to the king's brother, the duke of York (afterwards James II.), as viceroy. "Succeeding the duke of Monmouth, who was universally beloved, he was anxious to exhibit as a statesman that capacity which he thought he had given sufficient proof of as a general and as a naval commander. In assuming the direction of the affairs of Scotland, he at first affected moderation; but at a very early period an occasion presented itself for displaying severity; he was then pitiless. A few hundred presbyterians, under the conduct of two ministers, Cameron and Cargill, having taken arms and declared that they would acknowledge neither the king nor the bishops, he sent the troops against them. The insurgents, who called themselves Cargillites and Cameronians, were beaten, and a great number of them killed. The prisoners, taken to Edinburgh, were tortured and put to death. The duke was present at the executions, which he witnessed with an unmoved countenance, and as though they were curious experiments."

A. Carrel, History of the Counter-Revolution in England, chapter 2.

"Unlike the English Puritans, the great majority of the Scottish Presbyterians were staunch supporters of monarchy. … Now, however, owing to the 'oppression which maketh a wise man mad,' an extreme party arose among them, who not only condemned the Indulgence and refused to pay cess, but publicly threw off their allegiance to the King, on the ground of his violation of his coronation oath, his breach of the Covenant which he solemnly swore to maintain, his perfidy, and his 'tyranny in matters civil.' A declaration to this effect was publicly read, and then affixed (June 22d, 1680) to the market cross of Sanquhar in Dumfriesshire, by Richard Cameron and Donald Cargill, two of the most distinguished Covenanting ministers, accompanied by an armed party of about twenty persons. … These acts of the 'Society men,' or Cameronians, as they were called after their leader, afforded the government a plausible pretext for far more severe measures than they had yet taken against the Hillmen, whom they hunted for several weeks through the moors and wild glens of Ayr and Galloway."

J. Taylor, The Scottish Covenanters, chapter 4.

"He [James II.], whose favourite theme had been the injustice of requiring civil functionaries to take religious tests, established in Scotland, when he resided there as Viceroy, the most rigorous religious test that has ever been known in the empire. He, who had expressed just indignation when the priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, amused himself with hearing Covenanters shriek and seeing them writhe while their knees were beaten flat in the boots. In this mood he became King, and he immediately demanded and obtained from the obsequious Estates of Scotland, as the surest pledge of their loyalty, the most sanguinary law that has ever in our islands been enacted against Protestant Nonconformists. With this law the whole spirit of his administration was in perfect harmony. The fiery persecution, which had raged when he ruled Scotland as vicegerent, waxed hotter than ever from the day on which he he came sovereign. Those shires in which the Covenanters were most numerous were given up to the license of the army. … Preeminent among the bands which oppressed and wasted these unhappy districts were the dragoons commanded by John Graham of Claverhouse. The story ran that these wicked men used in their revels to play at the torments of hell, and to call each other by the names of devils and damned souls. The chief of this Tophet, a soldier of distinguished courage and professional skill, but rapacious and profane, of violent temper and obdurate heart, has left a name which, wherever the Scottish race is settled on the face of the globe, is mentioned with a peculiar energy of hatred. To recapitulate all the crimes by which this man, and men like him, goaded the peasantry of the Western Lowlands into madness, would be an endless task."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: J. Cunningham, History of the Church of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 6.

_M. Morris, Claverhouse._

J. Aikman, Annals of the Persecution in Scotland, volume 2, books 5-12.

A Cloud of Witnesses.

_J. Howie, The Scots Worthies._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1685. Argyll's invasion. Monmouth's rebellion.

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

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1687. Declarations of Indulgence by James II.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

{2874}

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690. The Revolution. Fall of the Stuarts and their Bishops. Presbyterianism finally restored and established.

"At the first prospect of invasion from Holland [by William of Orange], James had ordered the regiments on duty in Scotland to march southward. The withdrawal of the troops was followed by outbreaks in various parts. In Glasgow the Covenanters rose, and proclaimed the Prince of Orange king. In Edinburgh riots broke out. The chapel of Holyrood Palace was dismantled, and the Romish bishops and priests fled in fear for their lives. On hearing that William had entered into London, the leading Whigs, under the Duke of Hamilton, repaired thither, and had an interview with him. He invited them to meet in Convention. This they accordingly did, and on January 9, 1689, it was resolved to request William to summon a meeting of the Scottish Estates for the 14th of March, and in the interim to administer the government. To this William consented. The Estates of Scotland met on the appointed day. All the bishops, and a great number of the peers were adherents of James. After a stormy debate, the Duke of Hamilton was elected President. But the minority (Jacobites) was a large one. … The Duke of Gordon still held Edinburgh Castle for James, and when the minority found it hopeless to carry their measures, he proposed they should with him withdraw from Edinburgh and hold a rival Convention at Stirling. But these intentions were discovered, many Jacobites were arrested, and many others, amongst them Viscount Dundee, escaped to the Highlands. In the end, the crown was offered to William and Mary on the same terms on which it had been offered by the English Convention. The offer was accompanied by a claim of rights, almost identical with the English declaration, but containing the additional clause, that 'prelacy was a great and insupportable grievance.' On April 11, 1689, William and Mary were solemnly proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh. It was high time some form of government should be settled, for, throughout the Lowlands, scenes of mob violence were daily witnessed. The Presbyterians, so long down-trodden, rose in many a parish. The Episcopal clergy were ejected, in some cases with bloodshed. The 'rabbling,' as it is called in Scotch history, continued for some months, until the Presbyterian Church was reinstated by law as the Established Church of Scotland, in June 1690."

E. Hale, The Fall of the Stuarts, chapter 13.

"Episcopacy was now thrown down; but Presbytery was yet to be built up. … Months passed away, and the year 1690 began. King William was quite prepared to establish Presbytery, but he was most unwilling to abolish patronage. Moreover, he was desirous that the foundations of the new Church should be as widely laid as possible, and that it should comprehend all the ministers of the old Church who chose to conform to its discipline. But he began to see that some concession was necessary, if a Church was to be built up at all. On the 25th of April the Parliament met which was to give us the Establishment which we still enjoy. Its first act was to abolish the Act 1669, which asserted the king's supremacy over all persons and in all causes. Its second act was to restore all the Presbyterian ministers who had been ejected from their livings for not complying with Prelacy. This done, the parliament paused in its full career of ecclesiastical legislation, and abolished the Lords of the Articles, who for so many centuries had managed the whole business of the Scotch Estates, and ordained that the electors of commissioners to the Estates should take the Oath of Allegiance before exercising the franchise. The next act forms the foundation of our present Establishment. It ratifies the 'Westminster Confession of Faith'; it revives the Act 1592; it repeals all the laws in favour of Episcopacy; it legalizes the ejections of the western rabble; it declares that the government of the Church was to be vested in the ministers who were outed for nonconformity, on and after the 1st January 1661, and were now restored, and those who had been or should be admitted by them; it appoints the General Assembly to meet; and empowers it to nominate visitors to purge out all insufficient, negligent, scandalous, and erroneous ministers, by due course of ecclesiastical process. In this act the Presbyterians gained all that they could desire, as Presbytery was established, and the government of the Church was placed entirely in their hands. By this act, the Westminster Confession became the creed of the Church, and is recorded at length in the minutes of the parliament. But the Catechisms and the 'Directory of Worship' are not found by its side. A pamphleteer of the day declares that the Confession was read amid much yawning and weariness, and, by the time it was finished, the Estates grew restive, and would hear no more. It is at least certain that the Catechisms and Directory are not once mentioned, though the Presbyterian ministers were very anxious that they should. From this it would appear that, while the State has fixed the Church's faith, it has not fixed the Church's worship. … The Covenants were utterly ignored, though there were many in the Church who would have wished them revived."

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland, volume 2, chapter 7.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 July). War in the Highlands. The Battle of Killiecrankie.

"The duke of Gordon still held out the castle of Edinburgh for James; and the viscount Dundee [Graham of Claverhouse], the soul of the Jacobite party in Scotland, having collected a small but gallant army of Highlanders, threatened with subjection the whole northern part of the kingdom. Dundee, who had publicly disavowed the authority of the Scottish convention, had been declared an outlaw by that assembly; and general Mackay was sent against him with a body of regular troops. The castle of Blair being occupied by the adherents of James, Mackay resolved to attempt its reduction. The viscount, apprised of the design of his antagonist, summoned up all his enterprising spirit, and by forced marches arrived at Athol before him. He was soon [July 27, 1689] informed that Mackay's vanguard had cleared the pass of Killicranky; a narrow defile, formed by the steep sides of the Grampian hills, and a dark, rapid, and deep river. Though chagrined at this intelligence he was not disconcerted. He despatched Sir Alexander Maclean to attack the enemy's advanced party while he himself should approach with the main body of the Highlanders. But before Maclean had proceeded a mile, Dundee received information that Mackay had marched through the pass with his whole army. He commanded Maclean to halt, and boldly advanced with his faithful band, determined to give battle to the enemy." Mackay's army, consisting of four thousand five hundred foot, and two troops of horse, was formed in eight battalions, and ready for action when Dundee came in view. His own brave but undisciplined followers, of all ranks and conditions, did not exceed 3,300 men. "These he instantly ranged in hostile array. {2875} They stood inactive for several hours in sight of the enemy, on the steep side of a hill, which faced the narrow plain where Mackay had formed his line, neither party choosing to change its ground. But the signal for battle was no sooner given, than the Highlanders rushed down the hill in deep columns; and having discharged their muskets with effect, they had recourse to the broadsword, their proper weapon, with which they furiously attacked the enemy. Mackay's left wing was instantly broken, and driven from the field with great slaughter by the Macleans, who formed the right of Dundee's army. The Macdonalds, who composed his left, were not equally successful: Colonel Hasting's regiment of English foot repelled their most vigorous efforts, and obliged them to retreat. But Maclean and Cameron, at the head of part of their respective clans, suddenly assailed this gallant regiment in flank, and put it to the rout. Two thousand of Mackay's army were slain; and his artillery, baggage, ammunition, provisions, and even king William's Dutch standard, fell into the hands of the Highlanders. But their joy, like a smile upon the cheek of death, delusive and insincere, was of short duration. Dundee was mortally wounded by a musket shot as he was pursuing the fugitives; he expired soon after his victory, and with him perished the hopes of James in Scotland. The castle of Edinburgh had already surrendered to the convention; and the Highlanders, discouraged by the loss of a leader whom they loved and almost adored, gradually dispersed themselves, and returned to their savage mountains, to bewail him in their songs. His memory is still dear to them; he is considered as the last of their heroes; and his name, even to this day, is seldom mentioned among them without a sigh or a tear."

W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 17 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. Browne, History of the Highlands, volume 2, chapters 6-7.

M. Morris, Claverhouse, chapter 11.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (August). Cameronian victory at Dunkeld.

After the victory and death of Dundee at Killiecrankie, the command of his Highlanders had devolved upon Cannon, an Irish officer. "With an army increased to 4,000 men, he continued to coast along the Grampians, followed by Mackay; the one afraid to descend from the mountains, and the other to quit, with his cavalry, the advantage of the open plains. Returning by a secret march to Dunkeld [August 21], he surrounded the regiment of Cameronians, whose destruction appeared so inevitable that they were abandoned by a party of horse to their fate. But the Cameronians, notwithstanding the loss of Cleland, their gallant commander, defended themselves … with such desperate enthusiasm that the highlanders, discouraged by the repulse, and incapable of persevering fortitude, dispersed and returned to their homes."

M. Laing, History of Scotland, 1603-1707, book 10 (volume 4).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1692. The Massacre of Glenco.

A scheme, originating with Lord Breadalbane, for the pacifying of the Highlanders, was approved by King William and acted upon, in 1691. It offered a free pardon and a sum of money to all the chiefs who would take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary before the first of January, 1692, and it contemplated the extirpation of such clans as refused. "The last man to submit to government was Macdonald of Glenco. Towards the end of December he applied to the governor of Fort William, who refused, as not being a civil magistrate, to administer the oaths; but dispatched him in haste, with an earnest recommendation to the Sheriff of Argyle. From the snows and other interruptions which he met with on the road, the day prescribed for submission had elapsed, before he reached Inverary, the county town. The benefit of the indemnity was strictly forfeited; the sheriff was moved, however, by his tears and entreaties, to receive his oath of allegiance, and to certify the unavoidable cause of his delay. But his oath was industriously suppressed, by the advice particularly of Stair the president; the certificate was erased from the list presented to the privy council; and it appears that an extensive combination was formed for his destruction. The earl of Breadalbane, whose lands he had plundered, and … Dalrymple, the secretary, … persuaded William that Glenco was the chief obstacle to the pacification of the highlands. Perhaps they concealed the circumstance that he had applied within due time for the oaths to government, and had received them since. But they procured instructions, signed, and for their greater security, countersigned by the king himself, to proceed to military execution against such rebels as had rejected the indemnity, and had refused to submit on assurance of their lives. As these instructions were found insufficient, they obtained an additional order, signed, and also countersigned, by the king, 'that if Glenco and his clan could well be separated from the rest, it would be a proper vindication of public justice to extirpate that sect of thieves.' But the directions given by Dalrymple far exceeded even the king's instructions. … Glenco, assured of an indemnity, had remained at home, unmolested for a month, when a detachment arrived from Fort William, under Campbell of Glenlyon, whose niece was married to one of his sons. The soldiers were received on assurance of peace and friendship; and were quartered among the inhabitants of the sequestered vale. Their commander enjoyed for a fortnight the daily hospitality of his nephew's table. They had passed the evening at cards together, and the officers were to dine with his father next day. Their orders arrived that night, to attack their defenceless hosts while asleep at midnight, and not to suffer a man, under the age of seventy, to escape their swords. From some suspicious circumstances the sons were impressed with a sudden apprehension of danger, and discovered their approach; but before they could alarm their father, the massacre spread through the whole vale. Before the break of day, a party, entering as friends, shot Glenco as he rose from his bed. His wife was stript naked by the soldiers, who tore the rings with their teeth from her fingers; and she expired next morning with horror and grief. Nine men were bound and deliberately shot at Glenlyon's quarters; his landlord was shot by his orders, and a young boy, who clung to his knees for protection, was stabbed to death. At another part of the vale the inhabitants were shot while sitting around their fire; women perished with their children in their arms; an old man of eighty was put to the sword; another, who escaped to a house for concealment, was burnt alive. {2876} Thirty-eight persons were thus inhumanly massacred by their inmates and guests. The rest, alarmed by the report of musquetry, escaped to the hills, and were preserved from destruction by a tempest that added to the horrors of the night. … The carnage was succeeded by rapine and desolation. The cattle were driven off or destroyed. The houses, to fulfil Dalrymple's instructions, were burnt to the ground; and the women and children, stript naked, were left to explore their way to some remote and friendly habitation, or to perish in the snows. The outcry against the massacre of Glenco was not confined to Scotland; but, by the industry of the Jacobites, it resounded with every aggravation through Europe. Whether the inhuman rigour or the perfidious execution of the orders were considered, each part of the bloody transaction discovered a deliberate, treacherous, and an impolitic cruelty, from which the king himself was not altogether exempt. Instead of the terror which it was meant to inspire, the horror and universal execration which it excited rendered the highlanders irreconcilable to his government, and the government justly odious to his subjects."

M. Laing, History of Scotland, 1603-1707, book 10 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 18 (volume 4).

J. Browne, History of the Highlands, volume 2, chapter 10.

G. Burnet, History of My Own Time, book 5 (volume 4), 1692.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699. The Darien scheme. King William urges a Union of the kingdoms.

"The peace of Ryswic was succeeded by an event which had well nigh created a civil war between Scotland and England. As the writers of no nation are more marked by grandeur and meanness of composition in the same person, and the actors in public life by grandeur and meanness of character in the same person, than those of England; so the proceedings of the national assembly of England, the noblest that ever was on earth, except that of Rome, are often tinctured with a strange mixture of the great and the little. Of this truth an instance appeared at this time, in the proceedings of parliament with regard to the Scots colony of Darien, settled by Mr. Paterson. … Paterson, having examined the places, satisfied himself that on the isthmus of Darien there was a tract of country running across from the Atlantic to the South Sea, which the Spaniards had never possessed, and inhabited by a people continually at war with them; … that the two seas were connected by a ridge of hills, which, by their height, created a temperate climate; … that roads could be made with ease along the ridge, by which mules, and even carriages, might pass from the one sea to the other in the space of a day, and that consequently this passage seemed to be pointed out by the finger of nature, as a common centre, to connect together the trade and intercourse of the universe. … By this obscure Scotsman a project was formed to settle, on this neglected spot, a great and powerful colony, not as other colonies have for the most part been settled, by chance, and unprotected by the country from whence they went, but by system, upon foresight, and to receive the ample protection of those governments to whom he was to offer his project. And certainly no greater idea has been formed since the time of Columbus. … Paterson's original intention was to offer his project to England, as the country which had the most interest in it." Receiving no encouragement, however, in London, nor in Holland, nor Germany, to which countries he repaired, he returned finally to Scotland, and there awakened the interest of several influential gentlemen, including Mr. Fletcher of Salton, the Marquis of Tweddale, Lord Stair, and others. "These persons, in June 1695, procured a statute from parliament, and afterwards a charter from the crown in terms of it, for creating a trading company to Africa and the new world, with power to plant colonies and build forts, with consent of the inhabitants, in places not possessed by other European nations. Paterson, now finding the ground firm under him, … threw his project boldly upon the public, and opened a subscription for a company. The frenzy of the Scots nation to sign the solemn league and covenant never exceeded the rapidity with which they ran to subscribe to the Darien company. The nobility, the gentry, the merchants, the people, the royal burghs, without the exception of one, most of the other public bodies, subscribed. Young women threw their little fortunes into the stock, widows sold their jointures to get the command of money for the same purpose. Almost in an instant £400,000 were subscribed in Scotland, although it be now known that there was not at that time above £800,000 of cash in the kingdom. … The English subscribed £300,000, and the Dutch and Hamburghers £200,000 more. … In the mean time, the jealousy of trade, which has done more mischief to the trade of England than all other causes put together, created an alarm in England; and the houses of lords and commons, without previous inquiry or reflection, on the 13th December of the year 1695, concurred in a joint address to the King against the establishment of the Darien company, as detrimental to the interest of the East India company. Soon after, the commons impeached some of their own countrymen for being instrumental in erecting the company. … The King's answer was 'that he had been ill-advised in Scotland.' He soon after changed his Scottish ministers, and sent orders to his resident at Hamburgh to present a memorial to the senate, in which he disowned the company, and warned them against all connections with it. … The Scots, not discouraged, were rather animated by this oppression; for they converted it into a proof of the envy of the English, and of their consciousness of the great advantages which were to flow to Scotland from the colony. The company proceeded to build six ships in Holland, from 36 to 60 guns, and they engaged 1,200 men for the colony; among whom were younger sons of many of the noble and most ancient families of Scotland, and sixty officers who had been disbanded at the peace." The first colony sailed from Leith, July 26, 1698, and arrived safely at Darien in two months. They "fixed their station at Acta, calling it New St. Andrew, … and the country itself New Caledonia. … The first public act of the colony was to publish a declaration of freedom of trade and religion to all nations. This luminous idea originated with Paterson. {2877} But the Dutch East India company having pressed the King, in concurrence with his English subjects, to prevent the settlement of Darien, orders had been sent from England to the governors of the West Indian and American colonies, to issue proclamations against giving assistance, or even to hold correspondence with the colony; and these were more or less harshly expressed, according to the tempers of the different governors. The Scots, trusting to far different treatment, and to the supplies which they expected from those colonies, had not brought provisions enough with them; they fell into diseases, from bad food, and from want of food. … They lingered eight months, awaiting, but in vain, for assistance from Scotland, and almost all of them either died out or quitted the settlement. Paterson, who had been the first that entered the ship at Leith, was the last who went on board at Darien." To complete the destruction of the undertaking, the Spanish government, which had not moved in opposition before, now bestirred itself against the Scottish company, and entered formal complaints at London (May 3, 1699). "The Scots, ignorant of the misfortunes of their colony, but provoked at this memorial [of Spain], sent out another colony soon after of 1,300 men, to support an establishment which was now no more." This last colony, after gallant fighting and great suffering, was expelled from Darien by a Spanish expedition, and "not more than thirty, saved from war, shipwreck, or disease, ever saw their own country again. … While the second colony of the Scots were exposing themselves, far from their country, in the cause, mediately or immediately, of all who spoke the English language, the house of lords of England were a second time addressing the King at home against the settlement itself. … He answered the address of the lords, on the 12th of February 1699, in the following words: 'His Majesty does apprehend that difficulties may too often arise, with respect to the different interests of trade between his two kingdoms, unless some way he found out to unite them more nearly and completely; and therefore his Majesty takes this opportunity of putting the house of peers in mind of what he recommended to his parliament soon after his accession to the throne, that they would consider of an union between the two kingdoms.'"

Sir J. Dalrymple, Memorials of Great Britain, part 3, book 6 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of the Reign of Queen Anne, chapter 4 (volume l).

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter. 24 (volume 5).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704. Hostility to England. The Act of Security. The Scottish Plot.

"This Parliament of 1703 was not in a temper of conciliation towards England. Glencoe and Darien were still watchwords of strife. The failure of the negotiations for Union necessarily produced exasperation. Whilst Marlborough was fighting the battles of the Allies, the Scottish Parliament manifested a decided inclination to the interests of France, by removing restrictions on the importation of French wines. The 'Act for the Security of the Kingdom' was a more open declaration not only of the independence of Scotland, but of her disposition to separate wholly from England—to abrogate, on the first opportunity, that union of the crowns which had endured for a century. The Act of Settlement, by which the crown of England was to pass in the Protestant line to the electress Sophia and her descendants, was not to be accepted; but, on the demise of queen Anne without issue, the Estates of Scotland were to name a successor from the Protestant descendants of the Stuart line, and that successor was to be under conditions to secure 'the religious freedom and trade of the nation from English or any foreign influence.' For four months this matter was vehemently debated in the Scottish Parliament. The Act of Security was carried, but the Lord High Commissioner refused his assent. Following this legislative commotion came what was called in England the Scottish plot—a most complicated affair of intrigue and official treachery, with some real treason at the bottom of it. [This Scottish Plot, otherwise called the Queensberry Plot, was a scheme to raise the Highland clans for the Pretender, abortively planned by one Simon Fraser.] The House of Lords in England took cognizance of the matter, which provoked the highest wrath in Scotland, that another nation should interfere with her affairs. … When the Scottish Estates reassembled in 1704 they denounced the proceedings of the House of Lords, as an interference with the prerogative of the queen of Scotland; and they again passed the Security Act. The royal assent was not now withheld; whether from fear or from policy on the part of the English ministry is not very clear. The Parliament of England then adopted a somewhat strong measure of retaliation. The queen was addressed, requesting her to put Carlisle, Newcastle, Tynemouth, and Hull in a state of defence, and to send forces to the border. A Statute was passed which in the first place provided for a treaty of Union; and then enacted that until the Scottish Parliament should settle the succession to the crown in the same line as that of the English Act of Settlement, no native of Scotland, except those domiciled in England, or in the navy or army, should acquire the privileges of a natural-born Englishman; and prohibiting all importations of coals, cattle, sheep, or linen from Scotland. It was evident that there must be Union or War."

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 5, chapter 21.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of the Reign of Queen Anne, chapters 4 and 7 (volume 1).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707. The Union with England.

To avert war between Scotland and England by a complete political Union of the two kingdoms in one became now the greatest object of the solicitude of the wiser statesmen on both sides. They used their influence to so good an effect that, in the spring of 1706, thirty-one Commissioners on the part of each kingdom were appointed to negotiate the terms of Union. The Commissioners held their first meeting on the 16th of April, and were in session until the 22d of July, when the Articles of Union agreed upon by them received the signature of twenty-seven of the English and twenty-six of the Scots. On the 16th of the following January (1707) these Articles were ratified with amendments by the Scottish Parliament. The English Parliament adopted them as amended a month later, and on the 6th of March the Union was perfected by the royal assent, given solemnly by the Queen, in presence of the Lords and Commons of England. "It was agreed that Great Britain should be the designation of the united island; the name of Scotland to be merged in the name of North Britain. It was agreed that the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew should be conjoined in the flag of the united kingdom. {2878} It was agreed that the arms of the two countries—the three lions passant and guardant Or, and the lion rampant Or, within a double tressure flory and counterflory, Gules—should be quartered with all heraldic honours. It was agreed that the united kingdom should have a new Great Seal. As regards the House of Commons, the English party proposed that Scotland should be represented by 38 members. Even Scottish writers have observed that if taxation be taken as the measure of representation, and if it be remembered that the Scots of that time had asked and been allowed to limit their share of the Land-tax to one-fortieth of the share of England, it would follow that, as an addition to the 513 members of Parliament returned by England, Scotland was entitled to demand no more than 13. But even 38 seemed by no means adequate to the claims on other grounds of that ancient and renowned kingdom. The Scottish Commissioners stood out for an increase, and the English Commissioners finally conceded 45. The Peers of England were at this juncture 185 and the Peers of Scotland 154. It was intended that the latter should send representatives to the former, and the proportion was settled according to the precedent that was just decided. The 45 members from Scotland when added to the 513 from England would make one-twelfth of the whole; and 16 Peers from Scotland when added to the 185 from England would also make about one-twelfth of the whole. Sixteen was therefore the number adopted; and the mode of election both of Commoners and Peers was left to be determined by the Parliament of Scotland, before the day appointed for the Union, that is the first of May 1707. By this treaty Scotland was to retain her heritable jurisdiction, her Court of Session and her entire system of law. The Presbyterian Church as by law established was to continue unaltered, having been indeed excluded from debate by the express terms of the Commission."

Earl Stanhope, History of England: Reign of Queen Anne, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of the Reign of Queen Anne, chapter 7 (volume 1).

Sir W. Scott, Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland, series 2, chapters 12.

H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, chapter 17 (volume 3).

The text of the Act of Union may be found in the _Parliamentary History, volume 6, appendix 2._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708. Hostility to the Union. Spread of Jacobitism.

"In Scotland it [the Union] was regarded with an almost universal feeling of discontent and dishonour. The Jacobite party, who had entertained great hopes of eluding the act for settling the kingdom upon the family of Hanover, beheld them entirely blighted; the Whigs, or Presbyterians, found themselves forming part of a nation in which Prelacy was an institution of the state; the Country party, who had nourished a vain but honourable idea of maintaining the independence of Scotland, now saw it, with all its symbols of ancient sovereignty, sunk and merged under the government of England. All the different professions and classes of men saw each something in the obnoxious treaty which affected their own interest. … There was, therefore, nothing save discontent and lamentation to be heard throughout Scotland, and men of every class vented their complaints against the Union the more loudly, because their sense of personal grievances might be concealed, and yet indulged under popular declamations concerning the dishonour done to the country. … Almost all the dissenting and Cameronian ministers were anti-unionists, and some of the more enthusiastic were so peculiarly vehement, that long after the controversy had fallen asleep, I have heard my grandfather say (for your grandfather, Mr. Hugh Littlejohn, had a grandfather in his time), that he had heard an old clergyman confess he could never bring his sermon, upon whatever subject, to a conclusion, without having what he called a 'blaud,' that is a slap, at the Union. … The detestation of the treaty being for the present the ruling passion of the times, all other distinctions of party, and even of religious opinions in Scotland, were laid aside, and a singular coalition took place, in which Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Cavaliers, and many friends of the revolution, drowned all former hostility in the predominant aversion to the Union. … For a time almost all the inhabitants of Scotland were disposed to join unanimously in the Restoration, as it was called, of James the Second's son to the throne of his fathers; and had his ally, the King of France, been hearty in his cause, or his Scottish partisans more united among themselves, or any leader amongst them possessed of distinguished talent, the Stewart family might have repossessed themselves of their ancient domain of Scotland, and perhaps of England also." Early in 1708 an attempt was made to take advantage of this feeling in Scotland, on behalf of the Pretender, by a naval and military expedition from France, fitted out by the French king. It was vulgarly frustrated by an attack of measles, which prostrated the Stuart adventurer (the Chevalier de St. George) at Dunkirk, until the English government had warning enough to be too well prepared.

Sir W. Scott, Tales of a Grandfather: Scotland, series 3, chapters 1-2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715. The Jacobite rising.

In 1715 "there were Jacobite risings both in Scotland and in England. Early in September John Erskine, Earl of Mar—who some years before had been a Whig and helped to bring about the Union—raised the standard of rebellion in Braemar, and in a short time found himself in command of a large Highland army. But Mar was very slow in his movements, and lingered for six weeks in Perth. The Duke of Argyle, famous as both a warrior and a statesman, was sent from London to deal with this danger; and, going to Stirling, used the time which Mar was wasting in gathering round him soldiers and loyal Low-landers. While things stood thus in the far north a few hundred Jacobites took up arms in Northumberland under Mr. Forster and Lord Derwentwater. Joining with some Southern Scots raised by Lord Kenmure, and some Highlanders whom Mar had sent to their aid, they marched to Preston, in Lancashire. The fate of the two risings was settled on the same day. At Preston the English Jacobites and their Scottish allies had to give themselves up to a small body of soldiers under General Carpenter. At Sheriffmuir, about eight miles north of Stirling, the Highlanders, whom Mar had put in motion at last, met Argyle's little army in battle, and, though not utterly beaten, were forced to fall back to Perth. There Mar's army soon dwindled to a mere handful of men. Just when things seemed at the worst the Pretender himself landed in Scotland. {2879} But he altogether lacked the daring and high spirit needful to the cause at the time; and his presence at Perth did not even delay the end, which was now sure. Late in January 1716 Argyle's troops started from Stirling northwards; and the small Highland force broke up from Perth and went to Montrose. Thence James Edward and Mar slipped away unnoticed, and sailed to France; and the Highlanders scampered off to their several homes. Of the rebels that were taken prisoners about forty were tried and put to death; and many were sent beyond the seas. Derwentwater and Kenmure were beheaded; the other leaders of rank either were forgiven or escaped from prison."

J. Rowley, The Settlement of the Constitution, book 3, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. McCarthy, History of the Four Georges, volume 1, chapter 7.

J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Pretenders, volume 1, chapters 3-4.

Earl Stanhope, History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 5-6 (volume l).

Mrs. K. Thomson, Memoirs of the Jacobites, volumes 1-2.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1736. The Porteous Riot.

See EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746. The Young Pretender's invasion. The last rising of the Jacobites.

"As early as 1744 Charles Edward [known as 'the Young Pretender'], the grandson of James II., was placed by the French government at the head of a formidable armament. But his plan of a descent on Scotland was defeated by a storm which wrecked his fleet, and by the march of the French troops which had sailed in it to the war in Flanders. In 1745, however, the young adventurer again embarked with but seven friends in a small vessel and landed on a little island of the Hebrides. For three weeks he stood almost alone; but on the 29th of August the clans rallied to his standard in Glenfinnan. … His force swelled to an army as he marched through Blair Athol on Perth, entered Edinburgh in triumph, and proclaimed 'James the Eighth' at the Town Cross: and two thousand English troops who marched against him under Sir John Cope were broken and cut to pieces on the 21st of September by a single charge of the clansmen at Preston Pans. Victory at once doubled the forces of the conqueror. The Prince was now at the head of 6,000 men; but all were still Highlanders. … After skilfully evading an army gathered at Newcastle, he marched through Lancashire, and pushed on the 4th of December as far as Derby. But here all hope of success came to an end. Hardly a man had risen in his support as he passed through the districts where Jacobitism boasted of its strength. … Catholics and Tories abounded in Lancashire, but only a single squire took up arms. … The policy of Walpole had in fact secured England for the House of Hanover. The long peace, the prosperity of the country, and the clemency of the Government, had done their work. … Even in the Highlands the Macleods rose in arms for King George, while the Gordons refused to stir, though roused by a small French force which landed at Montrose. To advance further south was impossible, and Charles fell rapidly back on Glasgow; but the reinforcements which he found there raised his army to 9,000 men, and on the 23rd January, 1746, he boldly attacked an English army under General Hawley, which had followed his retreat and had encamped near Falkirk. Again the wild charge of his Highlanders won victory for the Prince, but victory was as fatal as defeat. The bulk of his forces dispersed with their booty to the mountains, and Charles fell sullenly back to the north before the Duke of Cumberland. On the 16th of April the armies faced one another on Culloden Moor, a few miles eastward of Inverness. The Highlanders still numbered 6,000 men, but they were starving and dispirited. … In a few moments all was over, and the Stuart force was a mass of hunted fugitives. Charles himself after strange adventures escaped [in the disguise of a female servant, attending the famous Flora Macdonald] to France. In England fifty of his followers were hanged; three Scotch lords, Lovat, Balmerino, and Kilmarnock, brought to the block; and forty persons of rank attainted by Act of Parliament. More extensive measures of repression were needful in the Highlands. The feudal tenures were abolished. The hereditary jurisdictions of the chiefs were bought up and transferred to the Crown. The tartan, or garb of the Highlanders, was forbidden by law. These measures, followed by a general Act of Indemnity, proved effective for their purpose."

J. R. Green, Short History of the English People, chapter 10, section 1.

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 26-29 (volume 3).

_R. Chambers, History of the Rebellion of 1745._

Mrs. K. Thomson, Memoirs of the Jacobites, volumes 2-3.

_Chevalier de Johnstone, Memoirs of the Rebellion of 1745._

_J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Pretenders._

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1779. No-Popery Riots.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1832. Representation in Parliament increased by the Reform Bill.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843. The Disruption of the Church. Formation of the Free Church.

"Lay patronage was … inconsistent with the conception and the fundamental principles of the Presbyterian Church, and she opposed and rejected it, and fought against it. It was abolished shortly after the Revolution of 1688, but again restored by the British Parliament in 1712, contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to all conceptions of a wise policy toward the Scottish nation. … An internal struggle arose between the party who held firmly to these sentiments and the new party—called 'the Moderate party.' … In the middle of the 18th century the opposite views of the popular and the moderate parties had become distinct. The chief point of polity in dispute was the settlement of ministers in parishes against the wishes of the congregations. Cases of this character were constantly coming before the presbyteries and general assemblies; and in 1733 it was on matters arising from such cases that a secession took place. … In 1773 there were upwards of two hundred dissenting congregations, besides Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. … As an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the popular party proposed, in the assembly of 1833, that when a majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented by the patron, the presbytery should not proceed with the settlement. … It was on this reasonable regulation [passed into an act, called the Veto Act, by the Assembly of 1834] that the struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought, although there were other principles involved in the conflict." {2880} In 1839, a case arising in the parish church of Auchterarder, in Perthshire, led to a decision in the Court of Session against the legality of the Veto Act, and this decision, on appeal, was affirmed by the House of Lords. "For several years the country rang with the clamour and talk of non-intrusion and spiritual independence, and the excitement was intense. Pamphlets, speeches and ballads were circulated through the kingdom in hundreds of thousands. The engrossing subject attracted the attention of every household, and many a family became divided in religious sentiments." Finally, in 1843, finding no prospect of legislation from Parliament to free the Church of Scotland from the odious fetters of patronage, the popular party resolved upon a general secession from it. This occurred in a memorable scene at the opening of the Assembly, in Edinburgh, on the 18th of May, 1843. The Moderator of the body, Dr. Welsh, read a protest against further proceedings in the Assembly, because of certain acts, sanctioned by the Government of the country, which had infringed on the liberties of the constitution of the Church. He then left the chair and walked out of the church. "Instantly Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Gordon, and the whole of those in the left side of the Church, rose and followed him. Upwards of two hundred ministers walked out, and they were joined outside by three hundred clergymen and other adherents. Dr. Welsh wore his Moderator's dress, and when he appeared on the street, and the people saw that principle had risen above interest, shouts of triumph rent the air such as had not been heard in Edinburgh since the days of the Covenant. They walked through Hanover Street to Canonmills, where a large hall was erected for the reception of the disestablished assembly. They elected Dr. Chalmers Moderator, and formed the first General Assembly of 'The Free Church of Scotland.' Four hundred and seventy-four ministers left the Establishment in 1843; they were also joined by two hundred probationers, nearly one hundred theological students of the University of Edinburgh, three fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of those in Aberdeen. The Disruption was an accomplished fact."

J. Mackintosh, Scotland, chapter 19.

"It is not every nation, it is not every age, which can produce the spectacle of nearly 500 men leaving their homes, abandoning their incomes, for the sake of opinion. It is literally true that disruption was frequently a sentence of poverty, and occasionally of death, to the ministers of the Church. Well, then, might a great Scotchman of that time [Lord Jeffrey] say that he was proud of his country, proud of the heroism and self-denial of which her pastors proved capable. But well also might a Scotchman of the present time say that he was proud of the success which Voluntaryism achieved. It was the good fortune of the Church that in the hour of her trial she had a worthy leader. Years before, while ministering to a poor congregation in Glasgow, Chalmers had insisted on the cardinal doctrine that the poor should be made to help themselves. He applied the same principle to the Scotch Church. He … called on his friends around him to 'organise, organise, organise.' It is not, however, the Church alone which deserves commendation. The nation supported the Church. … In the four years which succeeded the disruption, the Free Church raised £1,254,000, and built 654 churches. Her ministrations were extended to every district and almost every parish in the land."

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 21 (volume 4).

"In 1874 the Patronage Act of 1712 was repealed, but it was too late to be of much use, and Scottish Presbyterianism remains split up into different camps. Some of the older secessions were in 1847 joined together to form the United Presbyterian Church, mostly distinguished from the Free Church by its upholding as a theory the 'Voluntary Principle.'"

T. F. Tout, History of England from 1689, page 238.

ALSO IN: _T. Brown, Annals of the Disruption._

_R. Buchanan, The Ten Years' Conflict._

W. Hanna, Memoirs of Thomas Chalmers, volume 3, chapter 18 and volume 4, chapters 6-25.

P. Bayne, Life and Letters of Hugh Miller, book 5 (volume 2).

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1868. Parliamentary Reform.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

SCOTLAND: A. D. 1884. Enlargement of the Suffrage. Representation of the People Act.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.

----------SCOTLAND: End--------

SCOTS, Deliverance of Roman Britain by Theodosius from the.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 367-370.

SCOTT, Dred, The case of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

SCOTT, General Winfield. In the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

SCOTT, General Winfield. The Mexican campaign of.

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

SCOTT, General Winfield. Defeat in Presidential Election.

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

SCOTT, General Winfield Retirement from military service.

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

SCOTTI. SCOTS.

See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

SCOTTISH PLOT, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SCOURGE OF GOD, The.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

SCREW PROPELLER, Invention of the.

See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

SCRIBES, The.

"The Scribes or 'Lawyers,' that is, the learned in the Pentateuch. … It is evident that in the Scribes, rather than in any of the other functionaries of the Jewish Church, is the nearest original of the clergy of later times."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, lecture 44.

"The learned men after Ezra were called 'Sopherim' (singular 'Sopher'), Scribes; because to be a skilled writer was the first criterion of a man of learning. To transcribe the authenticated Law as deposited in the temple was one of the Scribe's occupations. His next occupations were to read, expound and teach it. The text was without vowel points, without divisions of words, verses and chapters; hence it was nearly hieroglyphic, so that the correct reading thereof was traditional, and had to be communicated from master to disciple. As the Great Synod legislated by expounding and extending the Law, these additions also had to be taught orally."

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

SCROOBY, The Separatist Church at.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617.

SCRUPULA.

See As.

{2881}

SCRUTIN DE LISTE.

A term applied in France to the mode of electing deputies by a general ticket in each department—that is, in groups—instead of singly, in separate districts.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

SCUTAGE.

The origin of this tax is implied in its title; it was derived from the 'service of the shield' (scutum)—one of the distinguishing marks of feudal tenure—whereby the holder of a certain quantity of land was bound to furnish to his lord the services of a fully-armed horseman for forty days in the year. The portion of land charged with this service constituted a 'knight's fee,' and was usually reckoned at the extent of five hides, or the value of twenty pounds annually."

K. Norgate, England Under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: W. Stubbs, The Early Plantagenets, page 54.

SCUTARI: A. D. 1473-1479. Stubborn resistance and final surrender to the Turks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

SCUTUM.

A long wooden shield, covered with leather, having the form of a cylinder cut in half, which the Romans are said to have adopted from the Samnites.

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

SCYRI, The.

The Scyri were a tribe known to the Greeks as early as the second century B. C. They were then on the shores of the Black Sea. In the fifth century of the Christian era, after the breaking up of the Hunnish empire of Attila, they appeared among the people occupying the region embraced in modern Austria,—on the Hungarian borders. They seem to have spoken the Gothic language.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 3, chapter 8 (volume 2).

SCYRIS, The dynasty of the.

See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL KINGDOM.

SCYTALISM AT ARGOS, The.

The city of Argos was the scene of a terrible outbreak of mob violence (B. C. 370) consequent on the discovery of an oligarchical conspiracy to overturn the democratic constitution. The furious multitude, armed with clubs, slew twelve hundred of the more prominent citizens, including the democratic leaders who tried to restrain them. "This was the rebellion at Argos known under the name of the Scytalism (cudgelling): an event hitherto unparalleled in Greek history,—so unprecedented, that even abroad it was looked upon as an awful sign of the times, and that the Athenians instituted a purification of their city, being of opinion that the whole Hellenic people was polluted by these horrors."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 78.

SCYTHIANS, The.

"Their name, unnoticed by Homer, occurs for the first time in the Hesiodic poems. When the Homeric Zeus in the Iliad turns his eye away from Troy towards Thrace, he sees, besides the Thracians and Mysians, other tribes, whose names cannot be made out, but whom the poet knows as milk-eaters and mare-milkers. The same characteristic attributes, coupled with that of 'having waggons for their dwelling-houses,' appear in Hesiod connected with the name of the Scythians. … Herodotus, who personally visited the town of Olbia, together with the inland regions adjoining to it, and probably other Grecian settlements in the Euxine (at a time which we may presume to have been about 450-440 B. C.)—and who conversed with both Scythians and Greeks competent to give him information—has left us far more valuable statements respecting the Scythian people, dominion, and manners, as they stood in his day. His conception of the Scythians, as well as that of Hippokrates, is precise and well-defined—very different from that of the later authors, who use the word almost indiscriminately to denote all barbarous Nomads. His territory called Scythia is a square area, twenty days' journey or 4,000 stadia (somewhat less than 500 English miles) in each direction—bounded by the Danube (the course of which river he conceives in a direction from Northwest to Southeast), the Euxine, and the Palus Mæotis with the river Tanais, on three sides respectively—and on the fourth or north side by the nations called Agathyrsi, Neuri, Androphagi and Melanchlæni. … The whole area was either occupied by or subject to the Scythians. And this name comprised tribes differing materially in habits and civilization. The great mass of the people who bore it, strictly Nomadic in their habits—neither sowing nor planting, but living only on food derived from animals, especially mare's-milk and cheese—moved from place to place, carrying their families in waggons covered with wicker and leather, themselves always on horseback with their flocks and herds, between the Borysthenes [the Dnieper] and the Palus Mæotis [sea of Azov]. … It is the purely Nomadic Scythians whom he [Herodotus] depicts, the earliest specimens of the Mongolian race (so it seems probable) known to history, and prototypes of the Huns and Bulgarians of later centuries."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 17.

"The Scythians Proper of Herodotus and Hippocrates extended from the Danube and the Carpathians on the one side, to the Tanais or Don upon the other. The Sauromatæ, a race at least half-Scythic, then succeeded, and held the country from the Tanais to the Wolga. Beyond this were the Massagetæ, Scythian in dress and customs, reaching down to the Jaxartes on the east side of the Caspian. In the same neighbourhood were the Asiatic Scyths or Sacæ, who seem to have bordered upon the Bactrians."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Assyria, chapter 9, footnote.

For an account of the Scythian expedition of Darius, B. C. 508.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

SCYTHIANS, OR SCYTHÆ, of Athens.

"The Athenian State also possessed slaves of its own. Such slaves were, first of all, the so-called Scythæ or archers, a corps at first of 300, then of 600 or even 1,200 men, who were also called Speusinii, after a certain Speusinus, who first (at what time is uncertain) effected the raising of the corps. They served as gendarmes or armed police, and their guard-house was at first in the market, afterwards in the Areopagus. They were also used in war, and the corps of Hippotoxotæ or mounted archers 200 strong, which is named in the same connection with them, likewise without doubt consisted of slaves."

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

ALSO IN: A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens: The State, book 2, chapter 11.

SEARCH, The Right of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; and 1812.

SEBASTE.

See SAMARIA: REBUILDING OF THE CITY BY HEROD.

{2882}

SEBASTIAN, King of Portugal, A. D. 1557-1578.

SEBASTOPOL: The Name.

"The Greeks translated the name of Augustus into Sebastos …, in consequence of which a colony founded by Augustus on the shores of the Black Sea was called Sebastopolis."

H. N. Humphreys, History of the Art of Printing, page 68.

SEBASTOPOL: A. D. 1854-1855. Siege and capture by the English, French, and Sardinians.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER); and 1854-1856.

SECESH.

See Boys IN BLUE.

SECESSION, AMERICAN WAR OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.

During the prolonged struggle of the plebeians of Rome to extort civil and political rights from the originally governing order, the patricians, they gained their end on several occasions by marching out in a body from the city, refusing military service and threatening to found a new city. The first of these secessions was about 494 B. C. when they wrung from the patricians the extraordinary concession of the Tribunate.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

The second was B. C. 449, when the tyranny of the Decemvirs was overthrown. The third was four years later, on the demand for the Canuleian Law. The last was B. C. 286, and resulted in the securing of the Hortensian Laws.

See ROME: B. C. 445-400; and 286.

SECOFFEE INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

SECOND EMPIRE (French), The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852, to 1870 (SEPTEMBER).

SECOND REPUBLIC (French), The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, to 1851-1852.

SECULAR CLERGY.

The secular clergy of the monastic ages "was so called because it lived in the world, in the 'siècle.' It was composed of all the ecclesiastics who were not under vows in a religious community. The ecclesiastical members of communities, or inhabitants of convents, composed the 'regular clergy.'"

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, epoch 2, book 1, chapter 6, foot-note.

See, also, BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

SECULAR GAMES AT ROME, The.

The Ludi Sæculares, or secular games, at Rome, were supposed to celebrate points of time which marked the successive ages of the city. According to tradition, the first age was determined by the death of the last survivor of those who were born in the year of the founding of Rome. Afterwards, the period became a fixed one; but whether it was 100 or 110 years is a debated question. At all events, during the period of the empire, the secular games were celebrated five times (by Augustus, Claudius, Domitian, Severus and Philip) with irregularity, as suited the caprice of the emperors. The last celebration was in the year A. U. 1000—A. D. 247.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 35, with footnote.

ALSO IN: E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 7.

SECURITY, The Act of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

SEDAN, The French Catastrophe at.

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

SEDAN: The Sovereign Principality and its extinction.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

SEDGEMOOR, Battle of.

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

SEFAVEAN DYNASTY, The.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

SEGESVAR, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

SEGNI, The.

The Segni were a tribe in ancient Gaul who occupied a region on the Rhine supposed to be indicated by the name of the modern small town of Sinei or Segnei, a small town in the territory of Namur on the Meuse above Liège.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 8.

SEGONTIACI, The.

A tribe of ancient Britons living near the Thames.

SEGONTIUM.

"One of the most important Roman towns in Wales, the walls of which are still visible at Caer Seiont, near Caernarvon, on the coast of the Irish Sea."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

SEGUSIAVI, The.

One of the tribes of Gaul which occupied the ancient Forez (departments of the Rhone and the Loire) and extended to the left bank of the Saone.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, foot-note.

SEISACHTHEIA OF SOLON, The.

See DEBT, LAWS CONCERNING: ANCIENT GREEK.

SEJANUS, The malign influence of.

See ROME: A. D. 14-37.

SELAH.

The city in the rocks—Petra—of the Edomites, Idumeans, or Nabatheans.

See NABATHEANS.

SELDJUKS, OR SELJUKS, The.

See TURKS: THE SELJUKS.

SELECTMEN.

In 1665 the General Court or Town Meeting of Plymouth Colony enacted that "'in every Towne of this Jurisdiction there be three or five Celectmen chosen by the Townsmen out of the freemen such as shal be approved by the Court; for the better managing of the afaires of the respective Townships; and that the Celect men in every Towne or the major parte of them are heerby Impowered to heare and determine all debtes and differences arising between pson and pson within theire respective Townships not exceeding forty shillings,' &c. … The origin of the title 'Selectmen' it is difficult to determine. It may possibly be referred to the tun-gerefa of the old Anglo-Saxon township, who, with 'the four best men,' was the legal representative of the community, or to the 'probi homines' of more ancient times. The prefix 'select' would seem to indicate the best, the most approved, but, as in the Massachusetts Colony, they were called, as early as 1642. 'selected townsmen,' it is probable that without reference to any historic type they were merely the men appointed, chosen, selected from the townsmen, to have charge of town affairs."

W. T. Davis, Ancient Landmarks of Plymouth, pages 84-85.

See, also, TOWNSHIP AND TOWN-MEETING.

SELEUCIA.

Seleucia, about forty-five miles from Babylon, on the Tigris, was one of the capitals founded by Seleucus Nicator. "Many ages after the fall of [the Macedonian or Seleucid Empire in Asia] … Seleucia retained the genuine characters of a Grecian colony—arts, military virtue, and the love of freedom. {2883} The independent republic was governed by a senate of three hundred nobles; the people consisted of 600,000 citizens; the walls were strong, and, as long as concord prevailed among the several orders of the State, they viewed with contempt the power of the Parthian; but the madness of faction was sometimes provoked to implore the dangerous aid of the common enemy, who was posted almost at the gates of the colony." The Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, grew up at a distance of only three miles from Seleucia. "Under the reign of Marcus, the Roman generals penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia. They were received as friends by the Greek colony; they attacked as enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both cities experienced the same treatment. The sack and conflagration of Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the inhabitants, tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 8.

See, also, CTESIPHON; SELEUCIDÆ; and MEDAIN.

----------SELEUCIDÆ: Start--------

SELEUCIDÆ, The Empire of the.

The struggle for power which broke out after his death among the successors of Alexander the Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280) may be regarded as having been brought to a close by the battle of Ipsus. "The period of fermentation was then concluded, and something like a settled condition of things brought about. A quadripartite division of Alexander's dominions was recognised, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Syria (or south-western Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct political entities. … Of the four powers thus established, the most important … was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called), or that ruled for 247 years by the Seleucidæ. Seleucus Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander's officers, but served without much distinction through the various campaigns by which the conquest of the East was effected. At the first distribution of provinces (B. C. 323) among Alexander's generals after his death, he received no share; and it was not until B. C. 320, when upon the death of Perdiccas a fresh distribution was made at Triparadisus, that his merits were recognised, and he was given the satrapy of Babylon. … Seleucus led the flower of the eastern provinces to the field of Ipsus (B. C. 301), and contributed largely to the victory, thus winning himself a position among the foremost potentates of the day. By the terms of the agreement made after Ipsus, Seleucus was recognised as monarch of an the Greek conquests in Asia, with the sole exceptions of Lower Syria and Asia Minor. The monarchy thus established extended from the Holy Land and the Mediterranean on the west, to the Indus valley and the Bolor mountain-chain upon the east, and from the Caspian and Jaxartes towards the north, to the Persian gulf and Indian Ocean towards the south. It comprised Upper Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Cappadocia and Phrygia, Armenia, Assyria, Media, Babylonia, Susiana, Persia, Carmania, Sagartia, Hyrcania, Parthia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria, Zarangia, Arachosia, Sacastana, Gedrosia, and probably some part of India."

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

The original capital of the great Empire of Seleucus was Babylon; but not satisfied with it he founded and built the city of Seleucia, about forty miles from Babylon, on the Tigris. Even there he was not content, and, after the battle of Ipsus, he created, within a few years, the magnificent city of Antioch, in the valley of the Orontes, and made it his royal residence. This removal of the capital from the center of his dominions to the Syrian border is thought to have been among the causes which led to the disintegration of the kingdom. First Bactria, then Parthia, fell away, and the latter, in time, absorbed most of the Seleucid empire.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapters 58-60 (volumes 7-8).

ALSO IN: _J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire._

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, volume 3.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 281-224. Wars with the Ptolemies and civil wars. Decay of the empire.

"Antiochus Soter, the son of Seleucus, who had succeeded to his father [murdered B. C. 281—see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280] at the age of 40, received the surname of Soter [Saviour] from his complete victory [time and place unknown] over the Gauls at the time when they had crossed the Bosporus [see GALATIA]. … He reigned little more (?) than twenty years. At the beginning of his reign, Antiochus carried on wars with Antigonus and Ptolemy Ceraunus [see MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244], which, however, were soon brought to a close. The war with Antigonus had commenced as early as the time of Demetrius; it was a maritime war, in which nothing sufficiently important was done; both parties felt that it was only a useless waste of strength, and soon concluded peace. Antiochus was wise enough altogether to abstain from interfering in the affairs of Europe. In Asia he apparently enlarged the dominion of his father, and his magnificent empire extended from the mountains of Candahar as far as the Hellespont; but many parts of it, which his father had left him in a state of submission, asserted their independence, as e. g., Cappadocia and Pontus under Ariarathes, and so also Armenia and several other countries in the midst of his empire; and he was obliged to be satisfied with maintaining a nominal supremacy in those parts. There can be no doubt that in his reign Bactria also became independent under a Macedonian king. Even Seleucus had no longer ruled over the Indian states, which, having separated from the empire, returned to their own national institutions. With Ptolemy Philadelphus [Egypt] he at first concluded peace, and was on good terms with him; but during the latter years of his reign he was again involved in war with him, although Ptolemy undoubtedly was far more powerful; and this war was protracted until the reign of his son Antiochus. … The Egyptians carried on the war on the offensive against Asia Minor, where they already possessed a few places, and principally at sea. The Syrians conquered Damascus, though otherwise the war was unfavourable to them; they did not carry it on with energy, and the Egyptians at that time conquered Ephesus, the coast of Ionia, Caria, Pamphylia, and probably Cilicia also; the Cyclades likewise fell into their hands about that period. … On the death of Antiochus Soter (Olymp. 129, 3) [B. C. 252] the government passed into the hands of his surviving son, … Antiochus Theos, one of the most detestable Asiatic despots." Peace with Egypt was brought about by the marriage of Antiochus Theos to Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus; but in order to marry her he was obliged to divorce and send away his wife Laudice, or Laodice. {2884} After Ptolemy Philadelphus died, however (B. C. 248), Laodice returned, "recovered her whole influence, and Berenice, with her child, was sent to Antioch"—the royal residence of Antiochus then being at Ephesus. The next year Antiochus, who had been ill for a long time—"in a perpetual state of intoxication"—died, perhaps of poison. Laodice "caused a waxen image of him to be placed in a bed, and thus deceived the courtiers, who were obliged to stand at a respectful distance," while she, "with her sons, took possession of the government, and adopted measures to rid herself of Berenice. But the citizens of Antioch sided with Berenice, and … she for a time remained in possession of Antioch. … But she was betrayed by the nobles …; her child was dragged from her arms and murdered before her eyes; she then fled into the temple at Daphne, and was herself murdered there in the asylum. The two brothers, Seleucus Callinicus and Antiochus Hierax, then assumed the crown; but they seem to have divided the empire, and Antiochus obtained Asia Minor. … Ptolemy Euergetes, the third among the Ptolemies, and the last in the series that deserves praise, now rose in just indignation at the fate of his unhappy sister (Olymp. 133, 3) [B. C. 246]. He marched out with all the forces of his empire, and wherever he went the nations declared in his favour. … 'All the Ionian, Cilician, and other towns, which were already in arms to support Berenice,' joined Euergetes, and he traversed the whole of the Syrian empire. … He himself proceeded as far as Babylon. Media, Persia, and the upper satrapies, southern Chorassan and Sistan as far as Cabul, all of which belonged to Syria, submitted to him. He was equally successful in Asia Minor: the acropolis of Sardes, a part of Lydia, and Phrygia Major, alone maintained themselves. Even the countries on the coast of Thrace … were conquered by the Egyptians. … Seleucus Callinicus, in the meantime, probably maintained himself in the mountainous districts of Armenia, in Aderbidjan. 'His brother, Antiochus, deserted him, and negotiated with Ptolemy.' In the conquered countries, Ptolemy everywhere exercised the rights of a conqueror in the harsh Egyptian manner. … While he was thus levying contributions abroad, an insurrection broke out in Egypt, which obliged him to return." He, thereupon, divided his conquests, "retaining for himself Syria as far as the Euphrates, and the coast districts of Asia Minor and Thrace, so that he had a complete maritime empire. The remaining territories he divided into two states: the country beyond the Euphrates was given, according to St. Jerome on Daniel (xi. 7 foll.), to one Xanthippus, who is otherwise unknown, and western Asia was left to Antiochus Hierax. It would seem that after this he never visited those countries again. After he had withdrawn, a party hostile to him came forward to oppose him. … The confederates formed a fleet, with the assistance of which, and supported by a general insurrection of the Asiatics, who were exasperated against the Egyptians on account of their rapacity, Seleucus Callinicus rallied again. He recovered the whole of upper Asia, and for a time he was united with his brother Antiochus Hierax. … Ptolemy being pressed on all sides concluded a truce of ten years with Seleucus on the basis 'uti possidetis.' Both parties seem to have retained the places which they possessed at the time, so that all the disadvantage was on the side of the Seleucidae, for the fortified town of Seleucia, e. g., remained in the hands of the Egyptians, whereby the capital was placed in a dangerous position. 'A part of Cilicia, the whole of Caria, the Ionian cities, the Thracian Chersonesus, and several Macedonian towns likewise continued to belong to Egypt.' During this period, a war broke out between the brothers Seleucus and Antiochus. … The war between the two brothers lasted for years: its seat was Asia Minor. … 'Seleucus established himself in upper Asia, where the Parthians, who during the war between the brothers had subdued Sistan and lower Chorassan, were in the possession of Media, Babylonia and Persia.'" In the end, Antiochus was overcome, and fled into Thrace. "But there he was taken prisoner by a general of Euergetes, 'and orders were sent from Alexandria to keep him in safe custody'; for in the mean time a peace had been concluded between Seleucus and Ptolemy, by which the Egyptian empire in its immense extent was strengthened again." Antiochus Hierax then escaped and took refuge among the Gauls, but was murdered for the jewels that he carried with him. "Notwithstanding its successful enterprises, Egypt had been shaken by the war to its foundations and had lost its strength. … The empire was already in a state of internal decay, and even more so than that of Syria. The death of Euergetes [B. C. 221] decided its downfall. 'But in Syria too the long wars had loosened the connection among the provinces more than ever, and those of Asia Minor, the jewels of the Syrian crown, were separated from the rest. For while Seleucus was in Upper Asia, Achaeus, his uncle, availed himself of the opportunity of making himself an independent satrap in western Asia.' Seleucus did not reign long after this. He was succeeded by his son Seleucus Ceraunus (Olymp. 138, 2) [B. C. 227] who marched against the younger Achaeus, but was murdered by a Gaul named Apaturius, at the instigation of the same Achaeus (Olymp. 130, 1) [B. C. 224]. He had reigned only three years, and resided in western Asia. He was succeeded by his younger brother Antiochus, surnamed the Great. … Under Antiochus the Syrian empire revived again and acquired a great extent, especially in the south. Although he was not a great man, his courtiers, not without reason, gave him the surname of the Great, because he restored the empire. This happened at the time when Antigonus Doson [king of Macedonia] died. Achaeus, in Asia Minor, was in a state of insurrection; the satrap of Media was likewise revolting, and the Syrian empire was confined to Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. During this confusion, new sovereigns ascended the thrones everywhere. In Macedonia, Philip succeeded; in Egypt, Ptolemy Philopator; in Media, Molon; and in Bactria a consolidated Macedonian dynasty had already established itself."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, lectures 103-104 (volume 3).

{2885}

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 224-187. The reign of Antiochus the Great. His early successes. His disastrous war with the Romans. His diminished kingdom. His death.

Antiochus the Great first proved his military talents in the war against the rebellious brothers Molo and Alexander, the satraps of Media and Persia (B. C. 220). "He next renewed the old contest with Egypt for the possession of Cœle-Syria and Palestine, and was forced to cede those provinces to Ptolemy Philopator, as the result of his decisive defeat at Raphia, near Gaza, in the same year in which the battle of the Trasimene lake (between Hannibal and the Romans] was fought (B. C. 217). Meanwhile, Achæus, the governor of Asia Minor, had raised the standard of independence; but after an obstinate resistance he was defeated and taken at Sardis, and put to death by Antiochus (B. C. 214). This success in the West encouraged Antiochus, like his father, to attempt the reconquest of the East, and with greater appearance at least of success. But a seven years' war (B. C. 212-205) only resulted in his acknowledgment of the independence of the Parthian monarchy (B. C. 205). The same year witnessed not only the crisis of the Hannibalic War, but the death of Ptolemy Philopator; and the opportunity offered by the latter event effectually withdrew Antiochus from direct participation in the great conflict. The league which he made with Philip [Philip V., king of Macedonia, who had then just concluded a peace with the Romans, ending the 'First Macedonian War'—see GREECE: B. C. 214-146], instead of being a well-concerted plan for the exclusion of the Romans from Asia, was only intended to leave him at liberty to pursue his designs against Egypt, while Philip bore the brunt of the war with Attalus [king of Pergamus, or Pergamum] and the Romans. During the crisis of the Macedonian War, he prosecuted a vigorous attack upon Cilicia, Cœle-Syria, and Palestine, while the Romans hesitated to engage in a new contest to protect the dominions of their youthful ward [Ptolemy V. Epiphanes, the infant king of Egypt, whose guardians had placed him under the protection of the Roman senate]. At length a decisive victory over the Egyptians at Panium, the hill whence the Jordan rises, was followed by a peace which gave the coveted provinces to Antiochus [see JEWS: B. C. 332-167], while the youthful Ptolemy was betrothed to Cleopatra, the daughter of the Syrian king (B. C. 198). It must not be forgotten that, the transference of these provinces from Egypt, which had constantly pursued a tolerant policy towards the Jews, led afterwards to the furious persecution of that people by Antiochus Epiphanes, and their successful revolt under the Maccabees [see JEWS: B. C. 166-40]. The time seemed now arrived for Antiochus to fly to the aid of Philip, before he should be crushed by the Romans; but the Syrian king still clung to the nearer and dearer object of extending his power over the whole of Asia Minor. … He collected a great army at Sardis, while his fleet advanced along the southern shores of Asia Minor, so that he was brought into collision both with Attalus and the Rhodians, the allies of Rome. … Though the Rhodians succeeded in protecting the chief cities of Caria, and Antiochus was repelled from some important places by the resistance of the inhabitants, he became master of several others, and among the rest of Abydos on the Hellespont. Even the conquest of his ally Philip was in the first instance favourable to his progress; for the hesitating policy of the Romans suffered him to occupy the places vacated by the Macedonian garrisons." It was not until 191 B. C. that the fatuity of the Syrian monarch brought him into collision with the legions of Rome. He had formed an alliance with the Ætolians in Greece, and he had received into his camp the fugitive Carthaginian, Hannibal; but petty jealousies forbade his profiting by the genius of the great unfortunate soldier. He entered Greece with a small force in 192 B. C., occupied the pass of Thermopylæ, and entrenched himself there, waiting reinforcements which did not come to him. Even the Macedonians were arrayed against him. Early in the following year he was attacked in this strong position by the Roman consul Manius Acilius Glabrio, Despite the immense advantages of the position he was defeated overwhelmingly and his army almost totally destroyed (B. C. 191). He fled to Chalcis and from Chalcis to Asia; but he had not escaped the long arm of wrathful Rome, now roused against him. For the first time, a Roman army crossed the Hellespont and entered the Asiatic world, under the command of the powerful Scipios, Africanus and his brother. At the same time a Roman fleet, in co-operation with the navy of Rhodes, swept the coasts of Asia Minor. After some minor naval engagements, a great battle was fought off the promontory of Myonnesus, near Ephesus, in which the Syrians lost half their fleet (B. C. 190). … On land Antiochus fared no better. A vast and motley host which he gathered for the defense of his dominions was assailed by L. Scipio at Magnesia, under Mount Sipylus (B. C. 190), and easily destroyed, some 50,000 of its dead being left on the field. This ended the war and stripped Antiochus of all his former conquests in Asia Minor. Much of the territory taken from him was handed over to the king of Pergamum, faithful ally and friend of Rome; some to the republic of Rhodes, and some was left undisturbed in its political state, as organized in the minor states of Cappadocia, Bithynia and the rest. "As the battle of Magnesia was the last, in ancient history, of those unequal conflicts, in which oriental armies yielded like unsubstantial shows to the might of disciplined freedom, so it sealed the fate of the last of the great oriental empires; for the kingdom left to the heirs of Seleucus was only strong enough to indulge them in the luxuries of Antioch and the malignant satisfaction of persecuting the Jews. All resistance ceased in Asia Minor; that great peninsula was ceded as far as the Taurus and the Halys, with whatever remained nominally to Antiochus in Thrace; and, with characteristic levity, he thanked the Romans for relieving him of the government of too large a kingdom. … Never, perhaps, did a great power fall so rapidly, so thoroughly, and so ignominiously as the kingdom of the Seleucidæ under this Antiochus the Great. He himself was soon afterwards slain by the indignant inhabitants of Elymaïs at the head of the Persian Gulf, on occasion of the plundering of a temple of Bel, with the treasures of which he had sought to replenish his empty coffers (B. C. 187), … The petty princes of Phrygia soon submitted to the power and exactions of the new lords of Western Asia; but the powerful Celtic tribes of Galatia made a stand in the fastnesses of Mount Olympus." They were overcome, however, and the survivors driven beyond the Halys. "That river, fixed by the treaty with Antiochus as the eastern limit of Roman power, in Asia, was respected as the present terminus of their conquests, without putting a bound to their influence." {2886} Eumenes, king of Pergamus, "was justly rewarded for his sufferings and services by the apportionment of the greater part of the territories ceded by Antiochus to the aggrandizement of his kingdom. Pergamus became the most powerful state of Western Asia, including nearly the whole of Asia Minor up to the Halys and the Taurus, except Bithynia and Galatia on the one side, and on the other Lycia and the greater part of Caria, which went to recompense the fidelity of the Rhodians; and to these Asiatic possessions were added, in Europe, the Thracian Chersonese and the city of Lysimachia."

P. Smith, History of the World: Ancient, chapter 27 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire, chapters 24 and 28.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 2.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 65.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 150. Conquest by the Parthians of Media, Persia, Susiana, Babylonia and Assyria.

See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

SELEUCIDÆ:B. C. 64. Pompeius in the East. Syria absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

In 64, B. C. having finished the Mithridatic War, driving the Pontic king across the Euxine into the Crimea, Pompeius Magnus marched into Syria to settle affairs in that disordered region.

See ROME: B. C. 69-63.

He had received from the Roman senate and people, under the Manilian Law, an extraordinary commission, with supreme powers in Asia, and by virtue of this authority he assumed to dispose of the eastern kingdoms at will. The last of the Seleucid kings of Syria was deprived of his throne at Pompey's command, and Syria was added to the dominions of Rome. He then turned his attention to Judæa.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapters 9-10.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

----------SELEUCIDÆ: End--------

SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

SELGOVÆ, The.

A tribe which, in Roman times, occupied the modern county of Dumfries, Scotland.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

SELIM I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1512-1520.

Selim II., Turkish Sultan, 1566-1574.

Selim III., Turkish Sultan, 1789-1807.

SELINUS, Destruction of (B. C. 409).

See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

SELJUKS.

See TURKS (SELJUKS).

SELLA CURULIS.

See CURULE CHAIR.

SELLASIA, Battle of.

The last and decisive battle in what was called the Kleomenic War—fought B. C. 221. The war had its origin in the resistance of Sparta, under the influence of its last heroic king, Kleomenes, to the growing power of the Achaian League, revived and extended by Aratos. In the end, the League, to defeat Kleomenes, was persuaded by Aratos to call in Antigonus Doson, king of Macedonia, and practically to surrender itself, as an instrument in his hands, for the subjugation of Sparta and all Peloponnesus. The deed was accomplished on the field of Sellasia. Kleomenes fled to Egypt; "Sparta now, for the first time since the return of the Hêrakleids, opened her gates to a foreign conqueror."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 7, section 4.

ALSO IN: _Plutarch, Kleomenes._

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

SELLI, The.

See HELLAS.

SEMINARA, Battle of (1503).

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

SEMINOLES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SEMINOLES, and MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY; also, FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818, 1835-1843.

----------SEMITES: Start--------

SEMITES, The

"The 'Semitic Race' owes its name to a confusion of ethnology with philology. A certain family of speech, composed of languages closely related to one another and presupposing a common mother-tongue, received the title of 'Semitic' from the German scholar Eichhorn. There was some justification for such a name. The family of speech consists of Hebrew and Phoenician, of Aramaic, of Assyrian and Babylonian, of Arabian, of South Arabian and of Ethiopic or Ge'ez. Eber, Aram, and Asshur were all sons of Shem, and the South Arabian tribes claimed descent from Joktan. In default of a better title, therefore, 'Semitic' was introduced and accepted in order to denote the group of languages of which Hebrew and Aramaic form part. But whatever justification there may have been for speaking of a Semitic family of languages there was none for speaking of a Semitic race. To do so was to confound language and race, and to perpetuate the old error which failed to distinguish between the two. Unfortunately, however, when scholars began to realise the distinction between language and race, the mischief was already done. 'The Semitic race' had become, as it were, a household term of ethnological science. It was too late to try to displace it; all we can do is to define it accurately and distinguish it carefully from the philological term, 'the Semitic family of speech.' … There are members of the Semitic race who do not speak Semitic languages, and speakers of Semitic languages who do not belong to the Semitic race. … It is questionable whether the Phoenicians or Canaanites were of purely Semitic ancestry, and yet it was from them that the Israelites learned the language which we call Hebrew. … Northern Arabia was the early home of the Semitic stock, and it is in Northern Arabia that we still meet with it but little changed. … The Bedawin of Northern Arabia, and to a lesser extent the settled population of the Hijaz, may therefore be regarded as presenting us with the purest examples of the Semitic type. But even the Bedawin are not free from admixture."

A. H. Sayce, The Races of the Old Testament, chapter 4.

"The following is a scheme of the divisions of the Semitic race. It is based partly upon the evidence afforded by linguistic affinity, and partly upon geographical and historical distribution:

A. Northern Semites. I. Babylonian: a. Old Babylonian b. Assyrian c. Chaldæan

II. Aramæan: a. Mesopotamian b. Syrian.

III. Canaanitic a. Canaanites b. Phœnicians

IV. Hebraic a. Hebrews b. Moabites c. Ammonites d. Edomites

B. Southern Semites. I. Sabæans

II. Ethiopians

III. Arabs.

{2887}

It should be said with regard to the foregoing classification, that it has been made as general as possible, since it is a matter of great difficulty to make clear-cut divisions on an exact ethnological basis. If a linguistic classification were attempted, a scheme largely different would have to be exhibited. … Again it should be observed that the mixture of races which was continually going on in the Semitic world is not and cannot be indicated by our classification. The Babylonians, for example, received a constant accession from Aramæans encamped on their borders, and even beyond the Tigris; but these, as well as non-Semitic elements from the mountains and plains to the east, they assimilated in speech and customs. The same general remark applies to the Aramæans of Northern Mesopotamia and Syria, while the peoples of Southern and Eastern Palestine, and in fact all the communities that bordered on the Great Desert, from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, were continually absorbing individuals or tribes of Arabian stock. Finally, it must be remarked that in some sub-divisions it is necessary to use a geographical instead of a properly racial distinction; and that is, of course, to be limited chronologically. Thus, for instance, it is impossible to devise a single strictly ethnological term for the two great divisions of the Aramæans. It is now pretty generally admitted that the home of the Semitic race, before its separation into the historical divisions, was Northern Arabia. … The historical distribution of the several families is thus best accounted for. … While among the Southern Semites the various Arab tribes remained for the most part in their desert home for thousands of years as obscure Bedawin, and the Sabæans cultivated the rich soil of the southwest and the southern coast of Arabia, and there developed cities and a flourishing commerce, and the nearly related Ethiopians, migrating across the Red Sea, slowly built up in Abyssinia an isolated civilization of their own, those branches of the race with which we are immediately concerned, after a lengthened residence in common camping grounds, moved northward and westward to engage in more important enterprises. The Babylonians, occupying the region which the Bible makes known to us as the scene of man's creation, and which historical research indicates to have been the seat of the earliest civilization, made their home on the lands of the Lower Euphrates and Tigris, converting them through canalization and irrigation into rich and powerful kingdoms finally united under the rule of Babylon. Before the union was effected, emigrants from among these Babylonians settled along the Middle Tigris, founded the city of Asshur, and later still the group of cities known to history as Nineveh. The Assyrians then, after long struggles, rose to pre-eminence in Western Asia, till after centuries of stern dominion they yielded to the new Babylonian regime founded by the Chaldæans from the shores of the Persian Gulf. The Canaanites, debarred from the riches of the East, turned northwestward at an unknown early date, and while some of them occupied and cultivated the valleys of Palestine, others seized the maritime plain and the western slope of Lebanon. On the coast of the latter region they took advantage of the natural harbours wanting in the former, and tried the resources and possibilities of the sea. As Phœnicians of Sidon and Tyre, they became the great navigators and maritime traders for the nations, and sent forth colonies over the Mediterranean. …

See PHŒNICIA.

Meanwhile the pasture lands between the Tigris and the Euphrates and between the southern desert and the northern mountains were gradually being occupied by the Aramæans, who advanced with flocks and herds along the Euphrates. … While the bulk of the Aramæans adhered to the old pastoral life among the good grazing districts in the confines of the desert, a large number, favoured by their intermediate position between urban and nomadic settlements, addicted themselves to the carrying trade between the East and the West. … This remarkable people, however, never attained to political autonomy on a large scale in their Mesopotamian home, to which for long ages they were confined. After the decline of the Hettite principalities west of the Euphrates [see HITTITES], to which they themselves largely contributed, they rapidly spread in that quarter also. They mingled with the non-Semitic Hettite inhabitants of Carchemish and Hamath, formed settlements along the slopes of Amanus and Anti-Lebanon, and created on the northeast corner of Palestine a powerful state with Damascus as the centre, which was long a rival of Israel, and even stood out against the might of Assyria. Thus the Aramæans really acted a more prominent political part to the west than they did to the east of the Euphrates, and accordingly they have been popularly most closely associated with the name 'Syria.' At the same time they did not abandon their old settlements between the Rivers. … As the latest of the historical divisions of the race to form an independent community, the Hebraic family made their permanent settlement in and about Palestine.

See JEWS.

Their common ancestors of the family of Terah emigrated from Southern Babylonia more than two thousand years before the Christian era. It is highly probable that they were of Aramæan stock."

J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, book 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

"The Hebrews … divided the country of Aram [between the [Mediterranean and the Euphrates] into several regions;

1st Aram Naharaim, or 'Aram of the two rivers,' that is, the Mesopotamia of the Greeks, between the Euphrates and the Tigris;

2d Aram properly so called, that is, Syria, whose most ancient and important city was Damascus; and

3d Aram Zobah, or the region in which in later times was formed the kingdom of Palmyra."

F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier, Manual of the Ancient History of the East, book 1, chapter 4.

"The Semitic home is distinguished by its central position in geography—between Asia and Africa, and between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, which is Europe; and the rôle in history of the Semitic race has been also intermediary. The Semites have been the great middlemen of the world. Not second-rate in war, they have risen to the first rank in commerce and religion. They have been the carriers between East and West, they have stood between the great ancient civilizations and those which go to make up the modern world; while by a higher gift, for which their conditions neither in place nor in time fully account, they have been mediary between God and man, and proved the religious teachers of the world, through whom have come its three highest faiths, its only universal religions."

George Adam Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, page 5.

{2888}

"If we ask what the Semitic peoples have contributed to this organic and living whole which is called civilization, we shall find, in the first place, that, in polity, we owe them nothing at all. Political life is perhaps the most peculiar and native characteristic of the Indo-European nations. These nations are the only ones that have known liberty, that have reconciled the State with the independence of the individual. … In art and poetry what do we owe to them? In art nothing. These tribes have but little of the artist; our art comes entirely from Greece. In poetry, nevertheless, without being their tributaries, we have with them more than one bond of union. The Psalms have become in some respects one of our sources of poetry. Hebrew poetry has taken a place with us beside Greek poetry, not as having furnished a distinct order of poetry, but as constituting a poetic ideal, a sort of Olympus where in consequence of an accepted prestige everything is suffused with a halo of light. … Here again, however, all the shades of expression, all the delicacy, all the depth is our work. The thing essentially poetic is the destiny of man; his melancholy moods, his restless search after causes, his just complaint to heaven. There was no necessity of going to strangers to learn this. The eternal school here is each man's soul. In science and philosophy we are exclusively Greek. The investigation of causes, knowledge for knowledge's own sake, is a thing of which there is no trace previous to Greece, a thing that we have learned from her alone. Babylon possessed a science, but it had not that pre-eminently scientific principle, the absolute fixedness of natural law. … We owe to the Semitic race neither political life, art, poetry, philosophy, nor science. What then do we owe to them? We owe to them religion. The whole world, if we except India, China, Japan, and tribes altogether savage, has adopted the Semitic religions. The civilized world comprises only Jews, Christians, and Mussulmans. The Indo-European race in particular, excepting the Brahmanic family and the feeble relics of the Parsees, has gone over completely to the Semitic faiths. What has been the cause of this strange phenomenon? How happens it that the nations who hold the supremacy of the world have renounced their own creed to adopt that of the people they have conquered? The primitive worship of the Indo-European race … was charming and profound, like the imagination of the nations themselves. It was like an echo of nature, a sort of naturalistic hymn, in which the idea of one sole cause appears but occasionally and uncertainly. It was a child's religion, full of artlessness and poetry, but destined to crumble at the first demand of thought. Persia first effected its reform (that which is associated with the name of Zoroaster) under influences and at an epoch unknown to us. Greece, in the time of Pisistratus, was already dissatisfied with her religion, and was turning towards the East. In the Roman period, the old pagan worship had become utterly insufficient. It no longer addressed the imagination; it spoke feebly to the moral sense. The old myths on the forces of nature had become changed into fables, not unfrequently amusing and ingenious; but destitute of all religious value. It is precisely at this epoch that the civilized world finds itself face to face with the Jewish faith. Based upon the clear and simple dogma of the divine unity, discarding naturalism and pantheism by the marvellously terse phrase: 'In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth,' possessing a law, a book, the depository of grand moral precepts and of an elevated religious poetry, Judaism had an incontestable superiority, and it might have been foreseen then that some day the world would become Jewish, that is to say would forsake the old mythology for Monotheism."

E. Renan, Studies of Religious History and Criticism, pages 154-160.

SEMITES: Primitive Babylonia.

"The Babylonians were … the first of the Semites to enter the arena of history, and they did so by virtue of the civilization to which they attained in and through their settlements on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris. … The unrivalled fertility of the soil of Babylonia was the result not only of the quality of the soil, but of the superadded benefits of the colossal system of drainage and canalization which was begun by the ingenuity of the first civilized inhabitants. Of the natural elements of fertility, the Euphrates contributed by far the larger share. … The … formations of clay, mud, and gypsum, comprising elements of the richest soil, are found in such profusion in Babylonia that in the days of ancient civilization it was the most fruitful portion of the whole earth with the possible exception of the valley of the Nile. It was roughly reckoned by Herodotus to equal in productiveness half the rest of Asia. … The rise of the Semites in Babylonia, like all other origins, is involved in obscurity. The earliest authentic records, drawn as they are from their own monuments, reveal this gifted race as already in possession of a high degree of civilization, with completed systems of national religion, a language already long past its formative period, and a stage of advancement in art that testifies to the existence of a wealthy class of taste and leisure, to whom their nomadic ancestry must have been little more than a vague tradition. The same records also show this Semitic people to have extended their sway in Western Asia as far as the Mediterranean coastland many centuries before Phœnicians or Hebrews or Hettites came before the world in any national or corporate form. Questions of deep interest arise in connection with such facts as these. It is asked: Did the Babylonian Semites develop the elements of their civilization alone, or did they inherit that of another race? … In the absence of direct evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to assume that the same race who in historical times gave proof of high mental endowments reached their unique level of intellectual attainment by a process of self-education. A contrary opinion is held by many scholars of high rank. I refer to the well-known theory that the Semitic Babylonians acquired their civilization from another people who preceded them in the occupation and cultivation of the country.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

{2889}

This hypothetical race is named Sumerian from the term Sumer, generally, but erroneously, supposed to be the designation of Southern Babylonia. With this in the Inscriptions is coupled the name of Akkad, another geographical term properly connoting Northern Babylonia. This appellation has given rise to the name 'Akkadian;' used by most of these modern authorities to designate a supposed subdivision of the same people, speaking a dialect of the main Sumerian language. … The Sumerian theory has played a great role in linguistic and ethnological research during the last twenty years. The general aspect of the supposed language led at once to its being classed with the agglutinative families of speech, and the inevitable 'Turanian' conveniently opened its hospitable doors. … While we are … obliged, until further light shall have been cast upon the subject, to assume that the earliest type of Babylonian culture was mainly of Semitic origin, it would be rash to assert that people of that race were the sole occupants of the lower River country in prehistoric times, or that they received no important contributions to their development from any outside races. … It … remains for us to assume it to be possible that an antecedent or contemporanous people bore a small share with the Semites in the early development of the country, and that, as a result of their contact with the stronger race, they bequeathed to it some of the elements of the surviving religion, mythology, and popular superstition."

J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"As to the ancient history of Babylon, it is well to learn to be patient and to wait. The progress of discovery and decipherment is so rapid, that what is true this year is shown to be wrong next year. … This is no discredit to the valiant pioneers in this glorious campaign. On the contrary it speaks well for their perseverance and for their sense of truth. I shall only give you one instance to show what I mean by calling the ancient periods of Babylonian history also constructive rather than authentic. My friend Professor Sayce claims 4000 B. C. as the beginning of Babylonian literature. Nabonidus, he tells us (Hibbert Lectures, page 21), in 550 B. C. explored the great temple of the Sun god at Sippara. This temple was believed to have been founded by Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. Nabonidus, however, lighted upon the actual foundation-stone—a stone, we are told, which had not been seen by any of his predecessors for 3,200 years. On the strength of this the date of 3,200 + 550 years, that is, 3750 B. C., is assigned to Naram Sin, the son of Sargon. These two kings, however, are said to be quite modern, and to have been preceded by a number of so-called Proto-Chaldæan kings, who spoke a Proto-Chaldæan language, long before the Semitic population had entered the land. It is concluded, further, from some old inscriptions on diorite, brought from the Peninsula of Sinai to Chaldæa, that the quarries of Sinai, which were worked by the Egyptians at the time of their third dynasty, say six thousand years ago, may have been visited about the same time by these Proto-Chaldæans. 4000 B. C., we are told, would therefore be a very moderate initial epoch for Babylonian and Egyptian literature. I am the very last person to deny the ingeniousness of these arguments, or to doubt the real antiquity of the early civilization of Babylon or Egypt. All I wish to point out is, that we should always keep before our eyes the constructive character of this ancient history and chronology. To use a foundation-stone, on its own authority, as a stepping-stone over a gap of 3,200 years, is purely constructive chronology, and as such is to be carefully distinguished from what historians mean by authentic history, as when Herodotus or Thucydides tells us what happened during their own lives or before their own eyes."

_F. Max Müller, On the "Enormous Antiquity" of the East (Nineteenth Century, 1891)._

"Dr. Tiele rejects the name 'Accadian,' which has been adopted by so many Assyriologists, and is strongly indisposed to admit Turanian affinities. Yet he is so_far from accepting the alternative theory of Halévy and Guyard, that this so-called Accadian, or Sumerian, is only another way of writing Assyrian, that he can scarcely comprehend how a man of learning and penetration can maintain such a strange position. He seems to consider a positive decision in the present stage of the inquiry premature; but pronounces the hypothesis which lies at the basis of the Accadian theory, namely, that the peculiarities of the cuneiform writing are explicable only by the assumption that it was originally intended for another language than the Assyrian, to be by far the most probable. He calls this language, which may or may not have been non-Semitic, 'Old Chaldee,' because what was later on called Chaldaea 'was certainly its starting-point in Mesopotamia.' The superiority of this name to 'Accadian' or 'Sumerian' is not very obvious, as the name 'Chaldee' is not found before the ninth century B. C., while the oldest title of the Babylonian kings is 'king of Sumir and Accad.' In the interesting account of the provinces and cities of Babylonia and Assyria, … two identifications which have found much favour with Assyriologists are mentioned in a very sceptical way. The 'Ur' of Abraham is generally believed, with Schrader, to be the 'El Mughair' of the Arabs. Dr. Tiele coldly observes that this identification, though not impossible, is not proved. Again, the tower of Babel is identified by Schrader either with Babil on the left side of the river, or with Birs Nimrud (Borsippa) on the right side. Dr. Tiele considers the latter site impossible, because Borsippa is always spoken of as a distinct place, and was too distant from Babylon for the supposed outer wall of the great city to enclose it. He also rejects Schrader's theory that the name Nineveh in later times included Dur Sargon (Khorsabad), Resen, and Calah, as well as Nineveh proper. The history is divided into four periods:

1. The old Babylonian period, from the earliest days down to the time when Assyria was sufficiently strong and independent to contend with Babylon on equal terms.

2. The first Assyrian period down to the accession of Tiglath-pileser II. in 745 B. C.

3. The Second Assyrian Period, from 745 B. C. to the Fall of Nineveh.

4. The New Babylonian Empire.

In treating of the first period, Dr. Tiele makes no attempt to deal with the Deluge Tablets as a source of historical knowledge, putting them on one side apparently as purely mythical. He despairs of tracing Babylonian culture to its earliest home. The belief that it originated on the shores of the Persian Gulf seems to him uncertain, but he is not able to fill the gap with any other satisfactory hypothesis. Babylonian history begins for him with Sargon I., whom he regards as most probably either of Semitic descent or a representative of Semitic sovereignty. He is sceptical about the early date assigned to this king by Nabunahid, the thirty-eighth century B. C., and is disposed to regard the quaint story of his concealment when an infant in a basket of reeds as a solar myth; but he is compelled to admit as solid fact the amazing statements of the inscriptions about his mighty empire 'extending from Elam to the coast of the Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt, nay, even to Cyprus.' So early as 1850 B. C., he thinks, the supremacy of Babylon had been established for centuries."

Review of Dr. Tiele's History of Babylonia and Assyria (Academy, January 1, 1887).

ALSO IN: _The Earliest History of Babylonia (Quarterly Review, October, 1894, reviewing "Découvertes en Chaldée, par Ernest de Sarsec)._

{2890}

SEMITES: The First Babylonian Empire.

"It is with the reign of Hammurabi that the importance of Babylonia—the country owning Babel as its capital—begins. … Hammurabi (circ. 2250 B. C.) is the sixth on the Babylonian list [i. e. a list of kings found among the inscriptions recovered from the mounds of ruined cities in Mesopotamia]. The great majority of the inscriptions of his long reign of fifty-five years refer to peaceful works." As, for example, "the famous canal inscription: 'I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, king of Ka-dingirra (Babylon), the king whom the regions obey, the winner of victory for his lord Merodach, the shepherd, who rejoices his heart. When the gods Anu and Bel granted me to rule the people of Sumer and Akkad, and gave the sceptre into my hand, I dug the canal called "Hammurabi, the blessing of the people," which carries with it the overflow of the water for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I allotted both its shores for food. Measures of corn I poured forth. A lasting water supply I made for the people of Sumer and Akkad. I brought together the numerous troops of the people of Sumer and Akkad, food and drink I made for them; with blessing and abundance I gifted them. In convenient abodes I caused them to dwell. Thenceforward I am Hammurabi, the mighty king, the favourite of the great gods. With the might accorded me by Merodach I built a tall tower with great entrances, whose summits are high like … at the head of the canal "Hammurabi, the blessing of the people." I named the tower Sinmuballit tower, after the name of my father, my begetter. The statue of Sinmuballit, my father, my begetter, I set up at the four quarters of heaven.' … Rings bearing the legend 'Palace of Hammurabi' have been found in the neighbourhood of Bagdad, and presumably indicate the existence of a royal residence there."

E. J. Simcox, Primitive Civilizations, volume 1, pages 282-283.

"The canal to which this king boasts of having given his name, the 'Nahar-Hammourabi,' was called in later days the royal canal, 'Nahar Malcha.' Herodotus saw and admired it, its good condition was an object of care to the king himself, and we know that it was considerably repaired by Nebuchadnezzar. When civilization makes up its mind to re-enter upon that country, nothing more will be needed for the re-awakening in it of life and reproductive energy, than the restoration of the great works undertaken by the contemporaries of Abraham and Jacob."

G. Perrot and C. Chipiez, History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria, volume 1, page 40.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us