IV. Of Provincial and Communal Institutions (part 1 of 3)

IV. Of Provincial and Communal Institutions (part 1 of 3)

Article 108. Provincial and communal institutions are regulated by the laws. These laws sanction the application of the following principles:

1. Direct election, with the exceptions which the law may establish in regard to the chiefs of communal administration and the government commissioners to the provincial councils;

2. The assigning to provincial and communal councils of all which is of provincial and communal interest without prejudice to the approval of their acts in the cases and according to the proceedings which law determines;

3. The publicity of the sittings of the provincial and communal councils within the limits established by law;

4. The publicity of budgets and accounts;

5. The intervention of the King' or of the legislative power to prevent the provincial and communal councils from going beyond their powers and injuring the general welfare.

Article 109. The drawing up of certificates of birth, marriage and death, and the keeping of the registers, are the exclusive prerogatives of communal authorities.

Title IV. Of the Finances.

Article 110. No tax for the profit of the State can be imposed otherwise than by a law. No charge or provincial assessment can be imposed without the consent of the provincial council. No charge or communal assessment can be imposed, without the consent of the communal council. The law must determine those exceptions of which experience will show the necessity in the matter of provincial and communal impositions.

Article 111. Taxes for the profit of the State are voted annually. The laws which impose them are valid for one year only, unless renewed.

Article 112. There can be no creation of privilege in the matter of taxes. No exemption from nor diminution of taxes can be established otherwise than by a law.

Article 113. Beyond the cases expressly excepted by law, no payment can be exacted from citizens, otherwise than in taxes levied for the profit of the State, of the province, or of the commune. No innovation is made on the actually existing system of the polders and the wateringen, which remain subject to the ordinary legislation.

Article 114. No pension, nor gratuity at the expense of the public treasury can be granted without authority of law.

Article 115. Each year, the Chambers determine the law of accounts and vote the budget. All the receipts and expenditures of the State must be entered in the budget and in the accounts.

Article 116. The members of the court of accounts are appointed by the Chamber of Representatives and for the term fixed by law. That court is intrusted with the examination and the settlement of the accounts of the general administration and of all the accountants for the public treasury. It sees that no article of the expenses of the budget has been exceeded and that no transfer has taken place. It determines the accounts of the different administrations of the State and is required for that purpose to gather all information, and all documents that may be necessary. The general account of the State is submitted to the Chambers with the observations of the court of accounts. This court is organized by law.

Article 117. The salaries and pensions of the ministers of religion are paid by the State; the sums required to meet these expenses are entered annually in the budget.

Title V. Of the Army.

Article 118. The mode of recruiting the army is determined by law. The law also regulates promotions, and the rights and obligations of the military.

Article 119. The contingent of the army is voted annually. The law that fixes it is of force for one year only, unless renewed.

Article 120. The organization and the powers of the gendarmerie are the subject of a law.

Article 121. No foreign troops can be admitted to the service of the State, nor to occupy or pass through its territory, except by provision of law.

Article 122. There is a civic guard; its organization is regulated by law. The officers of all ranks, up to that of captain at least, are appointed by the guards with exceptions judged necessary for the accountants.

Article 123. The mobilization of the civic guard can occur only by direction of law.

{3732}

Article 124. Military men can be deprived of their grades, honors, and pensions only in the manner determined by law.

Title VI. General Provisions.

Article 125. The Belgian nation adopts the colors red, yellow and black, and for the arms of the kingdom the Belgic lion with the motto: "L'Union fait la Force" ["Union is Strength"].

Article 126. The city of Brussels is the capital of Belgium and the scat of its government.

Article 127. No oath can be imposed except by law. The law also determines its formula.

Article 128. Any foreigner who is within the territory of Belgium enjoys the protection accorded to persons and goods, with the exceptions defined by law.

Article 129. No law, decree, or administrative regulation, general, provincial, or communal, is obligatory until it has been published in the form prescribed by law.

Article 130. The Constitution cannot be suspended, either wholly or in part.

Title VII. Of the Revision of the Constitution.

Article 131. The legislative power has the right to declare that there is occasion for revising such constitutional provision as it designates. After such declaration, the two Chambers are dissolved. Two new Chambers shall then be convoked, in conformity with Article 71. These Chambers act, in concurrence with the King, on the points submitted for revision. In such case, the Chambers cannot deliberate unless two-thirds at least of the members composing each one of them are present, and no change which does not receive at least two-thirds of the votes in its favor shall be adopted.

Title VIII.—Temporary Provisions.

Article 132. For the first choice of the chief of the State, the first stipulation of Article 80 may be departed from.

Article 133. Foreigners who settled in Belgium before the 1st of January 1814, and who have continued to reside in the country, are considered as Belgians by birth, on condition that they declare their intention to enjoy the benefit of this provision. The declaration must be made within six months, dating from the day when the present Constitution becomes obligatory, if they are of age, and in the year following their majority if they are under age. The declaration must be made before the provincial authority within whose jurisdiction they reside. It must be made in person or through a representative bearing a special and authentic power of attorney.

Article 134. Until otherwise provided for by a law, the Chamber of Representatives shall have a discretionary power to accuse a minister, and the Court of Cassation to judge him, characterizing the offense and determining the penalty. Nevertheless the penalty cannot exceed that of imprisonment, without prejudice to the cases expressly provided for by penal laws.

Article 135. The staff of courts and tribunals is maintained as it actually exists, until it shall have been provided for by law. Such law shall be enacted during the first legislative session.

Article 136. A law enacted in the same session shall determine the mode of the first appointment of members of the Court of Cassation.

Article 137. The fundamental law of the 24th of August 1815, is hereby repealed, as well as the provincial and local statutes; but the provincial and local authorities will exercise their powers until the law shall have otherwise provided.

Article 138. From the day on which this Constitution goes into effect, all laws, decrees, decisions, regulations, and other acts that are in conflict with it are abrogated.

Supplementary Provisions.

Article 139. The National Congress declares that it is necessary to provide by separate laws and with the least possible delay for the following objects: 1. The Press; 2. The organization of the jury; 3. The finances; 4. Provincial and communal organization; 5. The responsibility of ministers and other agents of authority; 6. The organization of the judiciary; 7. The revision of the pension list; 8. Proper measures for preventing the abuse of plurality of offices; 9. Revision of the laws of bankruptcy and suspension; 10. The organization of the army, the rights of promotion and retirement, and the military penal code; 11. Revision of the codes. The executive power is charged with the execution of the present decree.

----------CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM: End--------

----------CONSTITUTION OF ITALY: Start--------

The kingdom of Italy is still governed under the constitution which was granted in 1848, by Charles Albert, to his Sardinian subjects. It remains unchanged in form, but in practice has been modified by legislation. The following translation of the instrument, made by S. M. Lindsay, Ph. D., and L. S. Howe, Ph. D., University of Pennsylvania, is borrowed, under permission, from the:

"Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science," November, 1894, Supplement.

In their historical introduction to the instrument, the translators say: "The extension of this constitution to the various parts of the present Kingdom of Italy was effected by a series of Plebiscites:

Lombardy, December 7, 1859; Emilia by decree of March 18, 1860, and law of April 15, 1860; Neapolitan Provinces, December 17, 1860; Tuscany, decree March 22, and law April 15, 1860; Sicily, Marches and Umbria, December 17, 1860; Province of Venice, decree July 28, 1866; Roman Provinces, decree October 9 and law December 31, 1870. … Although no provision is to be found in this constitution for amendment, most Italian constitutional jurists have held that Parliament, with the approval of the King, has the power to make laws amending the constitution, for an immutable constitution is sure in time to hamper the development of a progressive people. It is hardly necessary to add that such an instrument is contrary to the true conception of an organic law. {3733} As a matter of fact several provisions have been either abrogated or rendered null and void through change of conditions. Thus the second clause of Article 28, requiring the previous consent of the bishop for the printing of Bibles, prayer books and catechisms, has been rendered of no effect through subsequent laws regulating the relations of Church and State. Article 76, which provides for the establishment of a communal militia, has been abrogated by the military law of June 14, 1874. The fact that no French-speaking provinces now form part of the kingdom has made Article 62 a dead-letter. So also Articles 53 and 55 are no longer strictly adhered to. At all events their observance has been suspended for the time being."

The translated text of the Constitution is as follows:

(Charles Albert, by the Grace of God, King of Sardinia, Cyprus and Jerusalem, Duke of Savoy, Genoa, Monferrato, Aosta, of the Chiablese, Genovese and of Piacenza; Prince of Piedmont and Oneglia; Marquis of Italy, Saluzzo, Ivrea, Susa, Ceva, of the Maro, of Oristano, of Cesana and Savona; Count of Moriana, Geneva, Nice, Trenda, Romonte, Asti, Alexandria, Goceano, Novara, Tortona, Vigevano and of Bobbio; Baron of Vaud and Faucigny; Lord of Vercelli, Pinerolo, Tarantasia, of the Lomellina and of the Valley of Sesia, etc., etc., etc.) With the fidelity of a king and the affection of a father, we are about to-day to fulfill all that we promised our most beloved subjects in our proclamation of the eighth of last February, whereby we desired to show, in the midst of the extraordinary events then transpiring throughout the country, how much our confidence in our subjects increased with the gravity of the situation, and how, consulting only the impulse of our heart, we had fully determined to make their condition conform to the spirit of the times and to the interests and dignity of the nation. We, believing that the broad and permanent representative institutions established by this fundamental statute are the surest means of cementing the bonds of indissoluble affection that bind to our crown a people that has so often given us ample proof of their faithfulness, obedience and love, have determined to sanction and promulgate this statute. We believe, further, that God will bless our good intentions, and that this free, strong and happy nation will ever show itself more deserving of its ancient fame and thus merit a glorious future. Therefore, we, with our full knowledge and royal authority and with the advice of our Council, have ordained and do hereby ordain and declare in force the fundamental perpetual and irrevocable statute and law of the monarchy as follows:

Article 1. The Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion is the only religion of the State.

See Law of the Papal Guarantees, under PAPACY: A. D. 1870 (page 2478)].

Other cults now existing are tolerated conformably to the law.

Article 2. The State is governed by a representative monarchical government, and the throne is hereditary according to the Salic law.

Article 3. The legislative power shall be exercised collectively by the King and the two Chambers, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

Article 4. The person of the King is sacred and inviolable.

Article 5. To the King alone belongs the executive power. He is the supreme head of the State; commands all land and naval forces; declares war; makes treaties of peace, alliance, commerce and other treaties, communicating them to the Chambers as soon as the interest and security of the State permits, accompanying such notice with opportune explanations; provided that treaties involving financial obligations or change of State territory shall not take effect until they have received the consent of the Chambers.

Article 6. The King appoints to all the offices of the State and makes the necessary decrees and regulations for the execution of the laws, provided that such decrees do not suspend or modify their observance.

Article 7. The King alone sanctions and promulgates the laws.

Article 8. The King may grant pardons and commute sentences.

Article 9. The King convokes the two Chambers each year. He may prorogue their sessions and dissolve the Chamber of Deputies, in which case he shall convoke a new Chamber within a period of four months.

Article 10. The initiative in legislation belongs both to the King and the two Houses. All bills, however, imposing taxes or relating to the budget shall first be presented to the Chamber of Deputies.

Article 11. The King shall attain his majority upon completion of his eighteenth year.

Article 12. During the King's minority, the Prince who is his nearest relative in the order of succession to the throne, shall be regent of the realm, provided he be twenty-one years of age.

Article 13. Should the Prince upon whom the regency devolves be still in his minority and this duty pass to a more distant relative, the regent who actually takes office shall continue in the same until the King becomes of age.

Article 14. In the absence of male relatives, the regency devolves upon the Queen-Mother.

Article 15. In the event of the prior decease of the Queen-Mother, the regent shall be elected by the legislative Chambers, convoked within ten days by the Ministers of the Crown.

Article 16. The preceding provisions in reference to the regency are also applicable in case the King has attained his majority, but is physically incapable of reigning. Under such circumstances, if the heir presumptive to the throne be eighteen years of age, be shall be regent of full right.

Article 17. The Queen-Mother has charge of the education of the King until he has completed his seventh year; from this time on his guardianship passes into the hands of the regent.

Article 18. All rights pertaining to the civil power in matters of ecclesiastical benefices and in the execution of all regulations whatsoever coming from foreign countries shall be exercised by the King.

Article 19. The civil list of the Crown shall remain, during the present reign, at an amount equal to the average of the same for the past ten years. The King shall continue to have the use of the royal palaces, villas, gardens and their appurtenances, and also of all chattels intended for the use of the Crown, of which a speedy inventory shall be made by a responsible ministerial department. In the future the prescribed dotation of the Crown shall be fixed for the duration of each reign by the first Legislature subsequent to the King s accession to the throne.

{3734}

Article 20. The property that the King possesses in his own right, shall form his private patrimony, together with that to which he may acquire title either for a consideration or gratuitously in the course of his reign. The King may dispose of his private patrimony either by deed or will exempt from the provisions of the civil law as to the amount thus disposable. In all other cases, the King's patrimony is subject to the laws that govern other property.

Article 21. The law shall provide an annual civil list for the heir apparent to the throne when he has attained his majority, and also earlier on occasion of his marriage; for the allowances of the Princes of the royal family and royal blood within the specified conditions; for the dowries of the Princesses and for the dowries of the Queens.

Article 22. Upon ascending the throne, the King shall take an oath in the presence of the two Chambers to observe faithfully the present constitution.

Article 23. The regent, before entering on the duties of that office, shall swear fidelity to the King and faithful observance of this constitution and of the laws of the State.

Article 24. All the inhabitants of the Kingdom, whatever their rank or title, shall enjoy equality before the law. All shall equally enjoy civil and political rights and be eligible to civil and military office, except as otherwise provided by law.

Article 25. All shall contribute without discrimination to the burdens of the State, in proportion to their possessions.

Article 26. Individual liberty is guaranteed. No one shall be arrested or brought to trial except in cases provided for and according to the forms prescribed by law.

Article 27. The domicile shall be inviolable. No house search shall take place except in the enforcement of law and in the manner prescribed by law.

Article 28. The press shall be free, but the law may suppress abuses of this freedom. Nevertheless, Bibles, catechisms, liturgical and prayer books shall not be printed without the previous consent of the bishop.

Article 29. Property of all kinds whatsoever shall be inviolable. In all cases, however, where the public welfare, legally ascertained, demands it, property may be condemned and transferred in whole or in part after a just indemnity has been paid according to law.

Article 30. No tax shall be levied or collected without the consent of the Chambers and the sanction of the King.

Article 31. The public debt is guaranteed. All obligations between the State and its creditors shall be inviolable.

Article 32. The right to peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized, subject, however, to the laws that may regulate the exercise of this privilege in the interest of the public welfare. This privilege is not applicable, however, to meetings in public places or places open to the public, which shall remain entirely subject to police law and regulation.

Article 33. The Senate shall be composed of members, having attained the age of forty years, appointed for life by the King, without limit of numbers. They shall be selected from the following categories of citizens: 1. Archbishops and Bishops of the State. 2. The President of the Chamber of Deputies. 3. Deputies after having served in three Legislatures, or after six years of membership in the Chamber of Deputies. 4. Ministers of State. 5. Secretaries to Ministers of State. 6. Ambassadors. 7. Envoys Extraordinary after three years of such service. 8. The First Presidents of the Courts of Cassation and of the Chamber of Accounts. 9. The First Presidents of the Courts of Appeal. 10. The Attorney-General of the Courts of Cassation and the Prosecutor-General, after five years of service. 11. The Presidents of the Chambers of the Courts of Appeal after three years of service. 12. The Councillors of the Courts of Cassation and of the Chamber of Accounts after five years of service. 13. The Advocates-General and Fiscals-General of the Courts of Appeal after five years of service. 14. All military officers of the land and naval forces with title of general. Major-generals and rear-admirals after five years of active service in this capacity. 15. The Councillors of State after live years of service. 16. The members of the Councils of Division after three elections to their presidency. 17. The Provincial Governors (Intendenti generali) after seven years of service. 18. Members of the Royal Academy of Science of seven years standing. 19. Ordinary members of the Superior Council of Public Instruction after seven years of service. 20. Those who by their services or eminent merit have done honor to their country. 21. Persons who, for at least three years, have paid direct property or occupation taxes to the amount of 3,000 lire.

Article 34. The Princes of the Royal Family shall be members of the Senate. They shall take rank immediately after the President. They shall enter the Senate at the age of twenty-one and have a vote at twenty-five.

Article 35. The President and Vice-Presidents of the Senate shall be appointed by the King, but the Senate chooses from among its own members its secretaries.

Article 36. The Senate may be constituted a High Court of Justice by decree of the King for judging crimes of high treason and attempts upon the safety of the State, also for trying Ministers placed in accusation by the Chamber of Deputies. When acting in this capacity, the Senate is not a political body. It shall not then occupy itself with any other judicial matters than those for which it was convened; any other action is null and void.

Article 37. No Senator shall be arrested except by virtue of an order of the Senate, unless in cases of flagrant commission of crime. The Senate shall be the sole judge of the imputed misdemeanors of its members.

Article 38. Legal documents as to births, marriages and deaths in the Royal Family shall be presented to the Senate and deposited by that body among its archives.

Article 39. The elective Chamber is composed of deputies chosen by the electoral colleges as provided by law.

{3735}

["The election law long in force was that of December 17, 1860, which was subsequently modified in July, 1875, and in May, 1877. In January, 1882, a comprehensive electoral reform was inaugurated by which the electoral age qualification was reduced from twenty-five to twenty-one years, and the tax qualification to an annual payment of nineteen lire eighty centesimi as a minimum of direct taxes. This law introduced a new provision requiring of electors a knowledge of reading and writing. It is an elaborate law of 107 articles. The provisions relating to the elections by general ticket were further revised by law of May and decree of June, 1882, and the text of the whole law was co-ordinated with the preceding laws by Royal Decree of September 24, 1882. It was again modified May 5th, 1891, by the abolition of elections on general tickets and the creation of a Commission for the territorial division of the country into electoral colleges. The number of electoral colleges is at present fixed at 508, each electing one Deputy. Twelve articles of this law of 1882, as thus amended, have been again amended by a law dated June 28, 1892, prescribing further reforms in the control and supervision of elections, and by law of July 11, 1894, on the revision of electoral and registration lists."—Foot-note.]

Article 40. No person shall be a member of the Chamber who is not a subject of the King, thirty years of age, possessing all civil and political rights and the other qualifications required by law.

Article 41. Deputies shall represent the nation at large and not the several Provinces from which they are chosen. No binding instructions may therefore be given by the electors.

Article 42. Deputies shall be elected for a term of five years; their power ceases ipso jure at the expiration of this period.

Article 43. The President, Vice-presidents and Secretaries of the Chamber of Deputies shall be chosen from among its own members at the beginning of each session for the entire session.

Article 44. If a Deputy ceases for any reason whatsoever to perform his duties, the electoral college that chose him shall be convened at once to proceed with a new election.

Article 45. Deputies shall be privileged from arrest during the sessions, except in cases of flagrant commission of crime; but no Deputy may be brought to trial in criminal matters without the previous consent of the Chamber.

Article 46. No warrant of arrest for debts may be executed against a Deputy during the sessions of the Chamber, nor within a period of three weeks preceding or following the same.

["This article has been practically abolished by the Mancini law of December 6, 1877, doing away with personal arrest for debts."—Footnote.]

Article 47. The Chamber of Deputies shall have power to impeach Ministers of the Crown and to bring them to trial before the High Court of Justice.

Article 48: The sessions of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies shall begin and end at the same time, and every meeting of one Chamber, at a time when the other, is not in session, is illegal and its acts wholly null and void.

Article 49. Senators and Deputies before entering upon the duties of their office shall take an oath of fidelity to the King and swear to observe faithfully the Constitution and laws of the State and to perform their duties with the joint welfare of King and country as the sole end in view.

Article 50. The office of Senator or Deputy does not entitle to any compensation or remuneration.

Article 51. Senators and Deputies shall not be held responsible in any other place for opinions expressed or votes given in the Chambers.

Article 52. The sessions of the Chambers shall be public. Upon the written request of ten members secret sessions may be held.

Article 53. No session or vote of either Chamber shall be legal or valid unless an absolute majority of its members is present.

[This article is not observed in actual parliamentary practice.—Foot-note.]

Article 54. The action of either Chamber on any question shall be determined by a majority of the votes cast.

Article 55. All bills shall be submitted to committees elected by each House for preliminary examination. Any proposition discussed and approved by one Chamber shall be transmitted to the other for its consideration and approval; after passing both Chambers it shall be presented to the King for his sanction. Bills shall be discussed article by article.

Article 56. Any bill rejected by one of the three legislative powers cannot again be introduced during the same session.

Article 57. Every person who shall have attained his majority has the right to send petitions to the Chambers, which in turn must order them to be examined by a committee; on report of the committee each House shall decide whether they are to be taken into consideration, and if voted in the affirmative, they shall be referred to the competent Minister or shall be deposited with a Government Department for proper action.

Article 58. No petition may be presented in person to either Chamber. No persons except the constituted authorities shall have the right to submit petitions in their collective capacity.

Article 59. The Chambers shall not receive any deputation, nor give hearing to other than their own members and the Ministers and Commissioners of the Government.

Article 60. Each Chamber shall be sole judge of the qualifications and elections of its own members.

Article 61. The Senate as well as the Chamber of Deputies shall make its own rules and regulations respecting its methods of procedure in the performance of its respective duties.

Article 62. Italian shall be the official language of the Chambers. The use of French shall, however, be permitted to those members coming from French-speaking districts and to other members in replying to the same.

Article 63. Votes shall be taken by rising, by division, and by secret ballot. The latter method, however, shall always be employed for the final vote on a law and in all cases of a personal nature.

Article 64. No one shall hold the office of Senator and Deputy at the same time.

Article 65. The King appoints and dismisses his ministers.

Article 66. The Ministers shall have no vote in either Chamber unless they are members thereof. They shall have entrance to both Chambers and must be heard upon request.

Article 67. The Ministers shall be responsible. Laws and decrees of the government shall not take effect until they shall have received the signature of a Minister.

{3736}

Article 68. Justice emanates from the King and shall be administered in his name by the judges he appoints.

Article 69. Judges appointed by the King, except Cantonal or District judges (di mandamento), shall not be removed after three years of service.

Article 70. Courts, tribunals and judges are retained as at present existing. No modification shall be introduced except by law.

Article 71. No one shall be taken from his ordinary legal jurisdiction. It is therefore not lawful to create extraordinary tribunals or commissions.

Article 72. The proceedings of tribunals in civil cases and the hearings in criminal cases shall be public as provided by law.

Article 73. The interpretation of the laws, in the form obligatory upon all citizens, belongs exclusively to the legislative power.

Article 74. Communal and provincial institutions and the boundaries of the communes and provinces shall be regulated by law.

Article 75. The military conscriptions shall be regulated by law.

Article 76. A communal militia shall be established on a basis fixed by law.

Article 77. The State retains its flag, and the blue cockade is the only national one.

Article 78. The knightly orders now in existence shall be maintained with their endowments, which shall not be used for other purposes than those specified in the acts by which they were established. The King may create other orders and prescribe their constitutions.

Article 79. Titles of the nobility are guaranteed to those who have a right to them. The King may confer new titles.

Article 80. No one may receive orders, titles or pensions from a foreign power without the King's consent.

Article 81. All laws contrary to the provisions of the present constitution are hereby abrogated.

Given at Turin on the fourth day of March, in the year of Our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty-eight, and of Our Reign the eighteenth.

Transitory Provisions.

Article 82. This statue shall go into effect on the day of the first meeting of the Chambers, which shall take place immediately after the elections. Until that time urgent public service shall be provided for by royal ordinances according to the mode and form now in vogue, excepting, however, the ratifications and registrations in the courts which are from now on abolished.

Article 83. In the execution of this statute the King reserves to himself the right to make the laws for the press, elections, communal militia and organization of the Council of State. Until the publication of the laws for the press, the regulations now in force on this subject remain valid.

Article 84. The Ministers are entrusted with, and are responsible for the execution and full observance of these transitory provisions.

----------CONSTITUTION OF ITALY: End--------

CONSTITUTION OF NEW YORK STATE, and its Revisions.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1777, 1821, 1846, 1867-1882, and 1894 (page 2339, and after).

CONSTITUTION OF RHODE ISLAND.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1888 (page 2646).

CONTRACT TABLETS, BABYLONIAN.

See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

COOKE AND WHEATSTONE, Telegraphic Inventions of.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1825-1874 (page 773).

CO-OPERATION.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D). 1816-1886, 1840-1848, 1848-1883 (pages 2938, 2942, 2946).

COPYRIGHT.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1499; and EQUITY: A. D. 1875 (pages 1965 and 1994).

COREA. The war between Japan and China.

"The peninsula which projects between the Japanese and Yellow Seas southwards in the direction of the southern islands of Nippon is completely limited landwards. Like Italy, with which it may be compared in extent, and even to some degree in its orographic configuration, it is separated from the mainland by the Alpine Taipeishan or 'Great White Mountains,' of Manchuria. It has also its Apennines stretching north and south, and forming the backbone of the peninsula. … Like most regions of the extreme East, Korea is known to foreigners by a name which has little currency in the country itself. This term, belonging formerly to the petty state of Korié, has been extended by the Chinese and Japanese to the whole peninsula, under the forms of Kaokiuli, Korai, Kaoli. When all the principalities were fused in one monarchy, towards the close of the 14th century, the country, at that time subject to China, took the official title of Chaosien (Tsiosen)—that is, 'Serenity of the Morning'—in allusion to its geographical position east of the empire. Thus it is now designated by a poetical expression which exactly indicates its position between China and Japan. While for the people of the continent Japan is the land of the Rising Sun, Korea is the 'Serene' land, illumined by the morning rays. Although washed by two much-frequented seas, and yearly sighted by thousands of seafarers, Korea is one of the least known Asiatic regions. … From its very position between China and Japan, Korea could not fail to have been a subject of contention for its powerful neighbours. Before its fusion in one state it comprised several distinct principalities, whose limits were subject to frequent changes. These were, in the north, Kaokiuli (Kaoli), or Korea proper; in the centre, Chaosien and the 78 so-called 'kingdoms' of Chinese foundation, usually known as the San Kan (San Han), or 'Three Han'; in the south, Petsi, or Hiaksaï (Kudara), the Sinlo of the Chinese, or Siragi of the Japanese; beside the petty state of Kara, Zinna, or Mimana, in the south-east, round about the Bay of Tsiosan. The northern regions naturally gravitated towards China, whose rulers repeatedly interfered in the internal affairs of the country. But the inhabitants of the south, known in history by the Japanese name of Kmaso, or 'Herd of Bears,' were long subject to Japan, while at other times they made frequent incursions into Kiu-siu and Hondo, and even formed settlements on those islands. The first conquest of the country was made by the forces of the Queen Regent Zingu in the 3d century. {3737} Towards the end of the 16th the celebrated Japanese dictator and usurper Taïkosama, having conceived the project of conquering China, began with that of Korea, under the pretext of old Japanese rights over the country of the Kmaso. After wasting the land he compelled the King to become his tributary, and left a permanent garrison in the peninsula. A fresh expedition, although interrupted by the death of Taïkosama, was equally successful. Tsu-sima remained in the hands of the Japanese, and from that time till the middle of the present century Korea continued in a state of vassalage, sending every year presents and tribute to Nippon. … Thanks to the aid sent by the Ming dynasty to Korea, in its victorious struggle with the other petty states of the peninsula, and in its resistance to Japan, its relations with China continued to be of the most friendly character. Admirers of Chinese culture, the native rulers felt honoured by the investiture granted them by the 'Son of Heaven.' But after the Manchu conquest of the Middle Kingdom, Korea remaining faithful to the cause of the Mings, the new masters of the empire invaded the peninsula, and in 1637 dictated a treaty, imposing on the Koreans a yearly tribute. … But although since that time the native ruler takes the title of 'Subject,' China exercises no real sovereign rights in Korea."

E. Reclus, The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia, volume 2, chapter 6.

"Since the conclusion of that treaty [of 1637], Corea has been at peace with both her neighbours and able, till within the last twenty years, to maintain the seclusion she so much desired. Until the beginning of the present century—when the doctrine preached by Roman missionaries in China began to filter across the frontier, and to provoke a fitful and uncertain intercourse between them and the few Coreans who had been attracted by the new religion—the only fresh glimpse we obtain of the interior of the country and its inhabitants is afforded by the well-known story of Henry Hamel, who was wrecked off the Corean coast in 1653, and detained there twelve years as a prisoner at large. … We come now to events nearer our own time, in which the propaganda of Rome and the proceedings of its emissaries begin to play a prominent and interesting part. In the year 1784, a young Corean named Le, who had come to Peking in the suite of the tribute-bearing embassy, applied to the Roman Catholic Mission for books and instruction in the science of mathematics, of which he was naturally fond. The missionaries profited by the occasion to lend him books on religion, which awakened his interest and led to his eventual conversion. As usual in such cases, the neophyte set himself, directly on his return, to propagate the new creed he had learned, among his relations and friends; and with so much success that, in less than five years, he had, according to Mgr. Govéa, gained 4,000 adherents. As may be imagined, however, the doctrine acquired from a convert who had had only a few months' instruction, and disseminated again at second-hand by men who had caught the crude idea from his conversation, was of a somewhat obscure description. … Neither letter nor news was received from the Corean Christians for more than two years; but two converts made their way to Peking, at the close of 1793, with news of a severe persecution which had occurred in the interval. … No sooner had the persecution … subsided, than a priest was successfully introduced across the frontier, to instruct and impart new life to the converts. Nor, it is affirmed, has the flock ever since been left unguarded. Persecution has followed persecution; but from Jacques Velloz, the first missionary to cross the frontier, who suffered martyrdom in 1800, to Mgr. Ridel, who has returned to Europe with health shattered by the anxieties and hardships undergone during the latest outbreak, there have always been some priests alternately tolerated or hiding in the country, and the spark lighted by the young Corean attache has never been quite extinguished. … On July 7th, 1866, a Roman Catholic missionary arrived in a Corean boat at Chefoo, with a tale of dire persecution. Two bishops, nine priests, and a number of Christians of both sexes had been massacred, many of them after judicial tortures of atrocious cruelty. Three members of the mission only survived, and M. Ridel had been chosen to carry the news to China, and endeavour to procure assistance. It was to the French authorities, naturally, that he addressed himself; and both Admiral Roze, the Commandant of the French fleet in Chinese waters, and M. de Bellonet, then charge-d'affaires at Peking, lent a sympathetic ear to his protest. … An expedition was accordingly resolved on. … Admiral Roze started from Chefoo with the expeditionary force on October 11th, arrived off Kang-hwa on the 14th, and occupied it, after a merely nominal resistance, two days later. The Coreans were apparently taken by surprise, having perhaps thought that the danger had passed. … The forts along the banks of the river were found ungarrisoned, and Kang-hwa itself, a considerable fortress containing large stores of munitions of war, was practically undefended. A letter was received, a few days later, inviting Admiral Roze to come or send delegates to Söul, to talk over matters in a friendly spirit; but he replied that, if the Corean authorities wished to treat, they had better come to Kang-hwa. This attitude was meant, no doubt, to be impressive, but the event proved it to be slightly premature. So far all had gone well; but the expedition was about to collapse with a suddenness contrasting remarkably with the expectations raised by M. de Bellonet's denunciations and Admiral Roze's hauteur. … The disastrous termination of … two movements appears to have persuaded Admiral Roze that the force at his disposal was insufficient to prosecute the enterprise to a successful issue, in face of Corean hostility. It was no longer a question whether he should go to Söul or the Coreans come to him: the expedition was at a deadlock. He had rejected the first overtures, and was not strong enough to impose terms. A retreat was accordingly decided on. The city of Kang-hwa was burned, with its public offices and royal palace."

R. S. Gundry, China and her Neighbours, chapter 9.

In 1866, when the French threatened Corea, the latter sought help from Japan and received none. Two years later, after the Japanese revolution which restored the Mikado to his full sovereignty, the Coreans declined to acknowledge his suzerainty, and bitterly hostile feelings grew up between the two peoples. The Japanese were restrained from war with difficulty by their more conservative statesmen. {3738} Without war, they obtained from Corea, in 1876, an important treaty, which contained in the first article "the remarkable statement that 'Chosen, being an independent State, enjoys the same sovereign rights as does Japan'—an admission which was foolishly winked at by China from the mistaken notion that, by disavowing her connection with Korea, she should escape the unpleasantness of being called to account for the delinquencies of her vassal. This preliminary advantage was more than doubled in value to Japan when, after the revolution in Söul in 1884, by which her diplomatic representative was compelled to flee for the second time from the Korean capital, she sent troops to avenge the insult and declined to remove them until China had made a similar concession with regard to the Chinese garrison, which had been maintained since the previous outbreak in 1882 in that city. By the Convention of Tientsin, which was negotiated in 1885 by Count Ito with the Viceroy Li Hung Chang, both parties agreed to withdraw their troops and not to send an armed force to Korea at any future date to suppress rebellion or disturbance without giving previous intimation to the other. This document was a second diplomatic triumph for Japan. … It is, in my judgment, greatly to be regretted that in the present summer [1894] her Government, anxious to escape from domestic tangles by a spirited foreign policy, has abandoned this statesmanlike attitude, and has embarked upon a headlong course of aggression in Korea, for which there appears to have been no sufficient provocation, and the ulterior consequences of which it is impossible to forecast. … Taking advantage of recent disturbances in the peninsula, which demonstrated with renewed clearness the impotence of the native Government to provide either a decent administration for its own subjects, or adequate protection to the interests of foreigners, and ingeniously profiting by the loophole left for future interference in the Tientsin Agreement of 1885, Japan … (in July 1894) landed a large military force, estimated at 10,000 men, in Korea, and is in armed occupation of the capital. Li Hung Chang … responded by the despatch of the Chinese fleet and of an expeditionary force, marching overland into the northern provinces."

G. N. Curzon, Problems of the Far East, chapter 7.

"The ostensible starting-point of the trouble that resulted in hostilities was a local insurrection which broke out in May in one of the southern provinces of Corea. The cause of the insurrection was primarily the misrule of the authorities, with possibly some influence by the quarreling court factions at the capital. The Corean king applied at once to China as his suzerain for assistance in subduing the insurgents, and a Chinese force was sent. Japan, thereupon, claiming that Corea was an independent state and that China had no exclusive right to interfere, promptly began to pour large forces into Corea, to protect Japanese interests. By the middle of June a whole Japanese army corps was at Seoul, the Corean capital, and the Japanese minister soon formulated a radical scheme of administrative reforms which he demanded as indispensable to the permanent maintenance of order in the country. This scheme was rejected by the conservative faction which was in power at court, whereupon, on July 23, the Japanese forces attacked the palace, captured the king and held him as hostage for the carrying out of the reforms. The Chinese were meanwhile putting forth great efforts to make up for the advantage that their rivals had gained in the race for control of Corea, and to strengthen their forces in that kingdom. On the 25th a Chinese fleet carrying troops to Corea became engaged in hostilities with some Japanese war vessels, and one of the transports was sunk. On August 1 the Emperor of Japan made a formal declaration of war on China, basing his action on the false claim of the latter to suzerainty over Corea, and on the course of China in opposing and thwarting the plan of reforms which were necessary to the progress of Corea and to the security of Japanese interests there. The counter-proclamation of the Chinese Emperor denounced the Japanese as wanton invaders of China's tributary state, and as aiming at the enslaving of Corea. On August 26 a treaty of offensive and defensive alliance against China was made between Japan and Corea. … A severe engagement at Ping-Yang, September 16, resulted in the rout of the Chinese and the loss of their last stronghold in Corea. A few days later the hostile fleets had a pitched battle off the mouth of the Yalu River, with the result that the Japanese were left in full control of the adjacent waters. On the 26th of October the Japanese land forces brushed aside with slight resistance the Chinese on the Yalu, which is the boundary between Corea and China, and began their advance through the Chinese province of Manchuria, apparently aiming at Pekin."

_Political Science Quarterly, December, 1894._

On the 3d of November, Port Arthur being then invested by the Japanese land and naval forces, while Marshal Yamagata, the Japanese commander, continued his victorious advance through Manchuria, Prince Kung made a formal appeal to the representatives of all the Powers for their intervention, acknowledging the inability of China to cope with the Japanese. On the 21st of November, Port Arthur, called the strongest fortress in China, was taken, after hard fighting from noon of the previous day. In retaliation for the murder and mutilation of some prisoners by the Chinese, the Japanese gave no quarter, and are accused of great atrocities. To the advance of the Japanese armies in the field, the Chinese opposed comparatively slight resistance, in several engagements of a minor character, until the 19th of December, when a battle of decided obstinacy was fought at Kungwasai, near Hai-tcheng. The Japanese were again the victors. Overtures for peace made by the Chinese government proved unavailing; the Japanese authorities declined to receive the envoys sent, for the reason that they were not commissioned with adequate powers. Nothing came of an earlier proffer of the good offices of the Government of the United States. Obstinate fighting occurred at Kai-phing, which was captured by the Japanese on the 10th of January, 1895. On the 26th of January the Japanese began, both by land and sea, an attack on the stronghold of Wei-hai-wei, which was surrendered, with the Chinese fleet in its harbor on the 12th of February. Shortly afterwards, China made another effort to obtain peace, commissioning her able Statesman, Li-Hung-Chang, as a special envoy to Japan, with full power to negotiate terms. At the time of this writing, the result has not appeared.

{3739}

CORNELL UNIVERSITY, The founding of.

See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 735).

CORONER AND CORONER'S JURY.

See LAW, CRIMINAL LAW: A. D. 1215, and 1276 (page 1982).

CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS, The English Act to prevent.

See England: A. D. 1883 (page 972).

CORTEREALS, Voyages of the.

See (in this Supplement) AMERICA.

COTTON-GIN, Whitney's, and its effect.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793 (page 3306).

COURTS, Origin of the English Criminal.

See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1066-1272 (page 1981).

COURTS OF OYER AND TERMINER.

See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285 (page 1982).

COXEY MOVEMENT, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894 (page 2956).

CRIMINAL LAW.

See LAW, CRIMINAL (page 1981).

CRUSADES: The initial movements.

"The pious legend according to which Peter the Hermit is supposed to have been miraculously chosen by God Himself to call Christendom to arms for the purpose of freeing the Holy Sepulchre has long since been proved unhistorical by scientific investigators. That account of the matter may have given suitable expression to the religious enthusiasm which the crusades called forth in those circles that were especially strongly influenced by the church; but it is entirely without any actual foundation in fact, nay, more; the religious element altogether did not play nearly so important a part in the origin of the crusades as it would seem to have done to judge by the later character of the great movement. For if in those days church influences and the religious impulses on which they were based made a mighty impression and in many ways produced an almost overwhelming effect; nevertheless the reason for all this lay essentially herein that the whole age, more than any other, was in a condition, through crying agricultural, social and political needs, to give itself up without reserve to the influence of similar impelling forces, and that just for this reason it took up with such enthusiasm the impulse furnished by the church. In its most general form the thought which lies at the base of the crusades springs from the idea of the calling of Christendom to have and to hold the rule of the world. The desire to practically carry out this idea was especially active whenever the Christian ideal of world-rule, incorporated as it was in a double form in the empire and in the papacy, seemed near to realization; then it was that its inherent magic unfolded most irresistibly its animating and at the same time ensnaring power. Thus did Otto II, already, plan a great undertaking for the protection of Christendom against the Arabs. Thus did the fantastic mind of his immature son busy itself with plans for a great crusade. Neither one nor the other carried out his intention. But, little more than two generations later, the commanding position which the empire had at that time held, passed into the holding of the hierarchical papacy. The creator of this hierarchical papacy, who was beyond a doubt a reformer of genius, but revolutionary in his means and hostile to the state as regarded his final ends, was far from contenting himself with the spiritual power which belongs uncontestedly to the church, but strove for an actual, secular rule of the world. He thought to bring into his own hands the complete political guidance of Christendom as well as the command over its war-forces. … Plans for widening his political and ecclesiastical sphere of power formed the pith of Gregory VIIth's crusading plans. … Already the victorious course had come to a stand-still in which the Arabs up to the beginning of the eleventh century had threatened to flood southwestern Europe. It was to rid themselves of their troublesome enemies and their deeds of violence, but not, however for the sake of the Faith, that those who were threatened had determined to help themselves. This led to the rapid rise of the naval power of Pisa and Genoa, which soon won brilliant victories on the north coast of Africa, and at the same time the brave Normans struggled with growing success against the Arabs for the possession of fair Sicily. There and not in Rome was the thought of a holy war against the power of the Crescent first taken hold of; it sprang from the knightly zeal for action and the political genius of Robert Guiscard. … About the same time, moreover, the Christians of the Pyrenean peninsula had energetically roused themselves to a new attack against the Mohammedans. Along the whole line therefore, in southwestern Europe, the Christian arms were already victoriously pressing forward against the followers of the prophet when the call from Rome to the crusades first sounded out. Regarded as a whole, therefore, the crusades cannot simply be looked upon as the exclusive work of the church. The movement was already in full progress and had, independently of the church, most successful results to show, when that church's head undertook through a skillful act to concentrate the separate movements and to unite and organize them under his own guidance. This policy was cleverly carried out by Urban. The church succeeded effectually in bringing under her own undivided direction the undertakings which different peoples of the Occident had separately begun against their Mohammedan adversaries. For on the one hand the empire, to which even then the opinion of the world ascribed the first right of leadership in such a struggle, lay prostrate in abject weakness and degradation; it was incapable of fulfilling its calling. The whole age on the other hand was so thoroughly roused to its depths and so exhausted through the mighty spiritual struggles by which church-life especially was shaken to its very foundation that it submitted without opposition and even willingly to a churchly right of guidance emphatically asserted; the more so as this new guide promised to show the individual the way to inward rest and peace of soul. The deeply sunken church had been reformed by Cluny ideas; in place of the worldly doings and sensual pleasures which had formerly engrossed her servants and dignitaries, stern asceticism and saintly enthusiasm ruled the day. Although it was among the clergy of the eleventh century that the effect of this was primarily to be seen, yet it was not without influence on the great body of laymen. {3740} Not seldom do princes and nobles emulate each other in strict ecclesiasticism, in monkish practices and pilgrimages. An age without a parallel began of founding monasteries and churches. Was it to be wondered at that the people also, otherwise bound fast by the barren monotony of toilsome existence, turned their thoughts often in the same direction? The more frequent coming forward of popular saints and popular preachers, the overwhelmingly rapid increase in the worship of relics, which assumed a hitherto unheard-of significance for the catholic system of religious observance, and the astonishing renewal of life which came about in the matter of pilgrimages and sacred undertakings customary though they had been of old: all these show clearly how the enthusiastic frame of mind which had been aroused by Cluny won for itself wider and wider circles even beyond the pale of the clergy. And in an age like this, so deeply excited about church matters, fell now the world-rousing struggle between the papacy and the empire. It appeared to annihilate the foundations on which church and state had hitherto been reared. With bitterness men saw those powers in conflict with each other on whose concord they had believed the peace and happiness of the world to depend. … Most impressively of all, as far as the uneducated masses were concerned, was the wretchedness of the age betokened by the outward evils and ravagings which the termination of the reign of Henry IV brought about: by the vanishing of discipline and order, the utter prostration of law, the loosing even of the holy ties of family. The vassal broke faith with the feudal lord, the subject warred with the authorities, the son rose up against the father. Heavily did the chastening hand of God rest upon land and people. Everywhere did men suffer from feuds, robbery and violence; everywhere did the common man find himself in a position which he felt that he could no longer endure. In France the rural population was utterly prostrated under the galling oppressions of the nobles who were their landlords. In Germany, to add to similar evils, came the loosing of all bonds of order through the civil war which had sprung from the conflict concerning the investiture. … In short, wherever in the Occident one turns his gaze, everywhere did dissatisfaction and an impulse towards improvement, or at least towards change, rule the day; everywhere an eager desire with one stroke to break free from the uncomfortable, indeed in many cases unbearable, present! The dissatisfied and revolutionary mood which possessed high and low in almost all parts of occidental Christendom is one of the essential reasons why the call to the crusade at once set hundreds of thousands in motion and called forth a very wandering of the nations. … Hierarchical ideas and asceticism ruled the spirit of the age; in mind and in mood they had prepared Europe for the crusades. Most emphatically was this made evident by the fact that the crusaders marched out under the banner of the hierarchical papacy—that same red cross which Erlembald Cotta, the 'knight of the church' had borne on his white standard during the religious civil war in Lombardy, and which in 1066 had been bestowed by the pope on the conqueror of England. But on the other hand the political, social and agricultural needs, which were not to be put off and which kept calling for speedy change, were no less effective agents in the same direction. Not religious enthusiasm alone was it that ever anew, at the end of the eleventh century, impelled hundreds of thousands towards the Orient; how many would have staid at home quietly if they had had enough to eat and had otherwise rejoiced in an existence fit for a human being. But for years one bad harvest had succeeded another; almost everywhere there was want almost bordering on famine; to eke out their scanty existence countless of those of the lower classes had had to squander their possessions. They stood there now utterly without means; they were forced to emigrate if they would not starve at home. From all such oppressions, however, he was released who obeyed the call to the crusade. Brilliant gains seemed assured to him so soon as he allowed the red cross to be affixed to his garment. The serf became free, the debtor shook off his creditor or at any rate needed to pay him no interest. The monk escaped from the strict discipline of the monastery, he who had been under the ban was received again into the communion of the church. What wonder then if countless numbers hastened to join the adventurous expedition to the East which promised them such blessings; and to the outward advantages that allured the crusaders, to the expectation of the toilless acquisition of land and subjects, of money and possessions, must be added still the rich spiritual blessings and ecclesiastical rewards which were solemnly assured to the warriors of Christ. … Human nature at that time would have had to be actually raised out of itself, to have become to a certain extent untrue to itself if, in contrast to the misery at home, the alluring prospects which began to show themselves in the unknown distance had not worked an irresistible charm on the great masses of the people. Nor did the church have any scruples in putting in motion exactly these incentives to action; she declared that the prevailing misery arose from the thickness of the population in an impoverished land; she unchained the popular greed by representing what riches would be captured from the infidels, and even roused the sensual passions by the seductive praise of Greek female beauty. That such language should fairly carry away the great masses may easily be imagined. For we may surely not regard the people as of better moral fibre, and therefore more susceptible to ideal motives, than the princes and commanders who led the crusading armies. Of these, however, only the hot-blooded nobles of southern France can primarily pass for representatives of that churchly enthusiasm with which, according to the tradition well-tinged with legend, the crusaders as a whole are said to have been seized. And it is well known that their churchly narrow-mindedness brought the people of southern France, under Raymond of Toulouse, soon enough into direct opposition to the other participants in the first crusade. For the majority of the princes who had taken the cross were by no means willing to work for the sole advantage of the church, but wished to further their own worldly interests at least as much as they did those of the pope. Indeed the Norman princes whose race had been the first to take up the idea of a holy war against the infidels had joined the crusade without religious enthusiasm, after sober consideration and entirely following out their own selfish, world]y plans. And it was exactly into their hands that the leadership of the great undertaking primarily came: the more completely therefore did the worldly, political and dynastic points of view weigh down the churchly intentions of the pious fanatics who, under the influence of asceticism, wished only to serve the hierarchy."

Hans Prutz, Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzüge, (translated from the German) pages 12-17.

See, also, CRUSADES, page 626.

{3741}

CUMBERLAND ROAD, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1812 (page 3335).

CURIA REGIS.

See LAW (page 1957).

CY PRES DOCTRINE.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1601 (page 1991).

CYRUS, King, and the Jews.

See JEWS: B. C. 604-536, and 537 (pages 1908-1910).

D.

D'ALBUQUERQUE, Afonso, and the domination of the Portuguese in the East.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

DARNLEY, Lord, The murder of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568 (page 2857).

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE, The.

"Dartmouth College … was originally a charity school for the instruction of Indians in the Christian religion, founded by the Rev. Eleazer Wheelock, D. D., about the year 1754, at Lebanon, in Connecticut. Its success led Dr. Wheelock to solicit private subscriptions in England, for the purpose of enlarging it, and of extending its benefits to English colonists. Funds having been obtained for this purpose from various contributors, among whom the Earl of Dartmouth, Secretary for the Colonies, was a large donor, Dr. Wheelock constituted that nobleman and other persons trustees, with authority to fix the site of the college. The place selected was on the Connecticut River, at what is now the town of Hanover, in New Hampshire, where large donations of land were made by the neighboring proprietors. A charter for the college was obtained from the crown, in 1769, creating it a perpetual corporation. The charter recognized Dr. Wheelock as founder, appointed him to be the president, and empowered him to name his successor, subject to the approval of the trustees; to whom was also imparted the power of filling vacancies in their own body, and of making laws and ordinances for the government of the college, not repugnant to the laws of Great Britain or of the province, and not excluding any person on account of his religious belief. Under this charter, Dartmouth College had always existed, unquestioned and undisturbed in its rights as a corporation, down to the Revolution, and subsequently until the year 1815. Whether from political or personal motives springing up outside of the board of trustees of that period, or from some collisions arising within the body itself, it appears that … legislative interference with the chartered rights of this college was threatened. … In the following year (1816), the difficulties, which had become mixed with political interests, culminated in a direct interference by the Legislature. In that year an act was passed, changing the corporate name from 'The Trustees of Dartmouth College' to 'The Trustees of Dartmouth University;' enlarging the number of trustees, vesting the appointment of some of them in the political bodies of the State, and otherwise modifying the ancient rights of the corporation as they existed under its charter derived from the crown of England. A majority of the existing trustees refused to accept or to be bound by this act, and brought an action of trover in the Supreme Court of the State, in the name of the old corporation, against a gentleman, Mr. W. H. Woodward, who was in possession of the college seal and other effects, and who claimed to hold them as one of the officers of the newly-created 'university.' The argument in this case was made in the State court, for the college, by Mr. Mason and Mr. Jeremiah Smith, assisted by Mr. Webster. The decision was against the claim of the college. It was then determined to remove the cause, by writ of error, to the Supreme Court of the United States, under the provisions of the Federal Constitution and laws creating in that tribunal an appellate jurisdiction in cases which, although originating in a State court, involved the construction and operation of the Federal Constitution. This was supposed to be such a case, because it was claimed by the college that the act of the Legislature, modifying its charter, impaired the obligation of a contract; an exercise of power which the Constitution of the United States prohibits to the Legislature of a State. As soon as it was known in New Hampshire that this very interesting cause was to come before the Supreme Court of the United States, the friends of the college, including their other counsel in the State court, unanimously desired to have it committed to the hands of Mr. Webster. He consented to take charge of it in the autumn of 1817; but the cause was not argued at Washington until February, 1818. … Before the case of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward occurred, there had been no judicial decisions respecting the meaning and scope of the restraint in regard to contracts, excepting that it had more than once been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States that a grant of lands made by a State is a contract within the protection of this provision, and is, therefore, irrevocable. These decisions, however, could go but little way toward the solution of the questions involved in the case of the college. … Was the State of New Hampshire—a sovereign in all respects after the Revolution, and remaining one after the Federal Constitution, excepting in those respects in which it had subjected its sovereignty to the restraints of that instrument—bound by the contracts of the English crown? Is the grant of a charter of incorporation a contract between the sovereign power and those on whom the charter is bestowed? If an act of incorporation is a contract, is it so in any case but that of a private corporation? Was this college, which was an institution of learning, established for the promotion of education, a private corporation, or was it one of those instruments of government which are at all times under the control and subject to the direction of the legislative power? All these questions were involved in the inquiry whether the legislative power of the State had been so restrained by the Constitution of the United States that it could not alter the charter of this institution, against the will of the trustees, without impairing the obligation of a contract. … {3742} On the conclusion of the argument, the Chief Justice intimated that a decision was not to be expected until the next term. It was made in February, 1819, fully confirming the grounds on which Mr. Webster had placed the cause. From this decision, the principle in our constitutional jurisprudence, which regards a charter of a private corporation as a contract, and places it under the protection of the Constitution of the United States, takes its date."

G. T. Curtis, Life of Daniel Webster, volume 1, chapter 8.

See, also, LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1819 (page 1976).

DAVY, Sir Humphrey, and the discovery of the electric arc light.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY: A. D. 1810-1890 (page 772).

DENMARK: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

DENMARK: Schools.

See EDUCATION (page 710).

DESCARTES, and modern physiological Science.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2134).

DIPHTHERIA, Appearance of.

See PLAGUE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2543).

DISCIPLES OF CHRIST.

"This body, often called also Christians, was one of the results of the great revival movement which began in Tennessee and Kentucky in the early part of the present century. Rev. Barton W. Stone, a Presbyterian minister who was prominent in the revival movement, withdrew from the Presbyterian Church, and in 1804 organized a church with no other creed than the Bible and with no name but that of Christian. One of his objects was to find a basis for the union of all Christian believers. A little later Thomas and Alexander Campbell, father and son, who came from Ireland, where the former had been a Presbyterian minister, organized union societies in Pennsylvania. Changing their views as to baptism, they joined the Redstone Association of Baptists. Shortly after, when Alexander Campbell was charged with not being in harmony with the creed, he followed the Burch Run Church, of which he was pastor, into the Mahoning Baptist Association, which, leavened with his teachings, soon ceased to be known as a Baptist association. In 1827, after some correspondence with Rev. B. W. Stone and his followers of the Christian Connection, there was a union with a large number of congregations in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and the organization variously known as 'Disciples of Christ' and 'Christians' [also, popularly designated 'Campbellites'] is the result."

H. K. Carroll, Religious Forces of the United States, chapter 18.

DUNKARDS, The.

"The Dunkards, or German Baptists, or Brethren, are of German origin, and trace their beginning back to Alexander Mack, of Schwartzenau, Germany. Early in the 18th century Mack and several others formed a habit of meeting together for the study of the New Testament. They were convinced that its doctrines and principles of church order were not being faithfully followed, either by the Lutheran or the Reformed Church. They therefore resolved to form a society of their own. Alexander Mack was chosen as their pastor. Persecution soon arose, and they were scattered. In 1719 most of them got together and came to the United States, settling in Pennsylvania, where their first church was organized about 1723."

H. K. Carroll, Religious Forces of the United States, chapter 19.

DUTCH, Commerce of the.

See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, and MODERN.

DYNAMO-ELECTRIC MACHINES, The invention of.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1831-1872 (page 774).

E.

EBENEZER AND AMANA COMMUNITIES.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: 1843-1874 (page 2945).

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

See LAW, ECCLESIASTICAL (page 1986).

EDISON, Electrical Inventions of.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1841-1880, and 1876-1892 (pages 775-776).

EDMUNDS ACT, The.

See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893 (page 3591).

EDUCATION.

See (in addition to pages 673-748), VERMONT UNIVERSITY (page 3619), VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY (page 3639), WISCONSIN UNIVERSITY (page 3655); and, (in this Supplement) BOWDOIN COLLEGE, BROWN UNIVERSITY, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE, HAMILTON COLLEGE, MINNESOTA UNIVERSITY, OBERLIN COLLEGE, OHIO UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON COLLEGE, RUTGERS COLLEGE, TULANE UNIVERSITY, UNION COLLEGE.

EGIBI AND COMPANY, The House of.

See MONEY AND BANKING: ANCIENT EGYPT AND BABYLONIA (page 2199).

EGYPT, ANCIENT: Chronology.

Modern reckoning of Egyptian Chronology is by two modes: "(1) that by 'dead reckoning,' or adding the dynasties up one on another: (2) by certain fixed astronomical data, into the interpretation and calculation of which various uncertainties may enter. The more apart these modes can be kept the better, as then they serve to check each other. The fundamental fact on which all of our astronomically fixed points depend is the imperfection of the Egyptian calendar. Using a year of 365 days, it followed that the nominal beginning of each year was a quarter of a day too soon: just as if we were to neglect the 29th of February in leap years, and go on always from 28th February direct to 1st March. Thus every four years a day was slipped, and the nominal months of the year were begun a day too soon. In 4 x 7 = 28 they began, then, a week too soon. In 4 x 30 = 120 years they began & month too soon; and after twelve months and five days thus slipped, or in 1,460 years, they began a year too soon, and so had rotated the nominal months through all the seasons. … This loss of the day in four years was … soon known to the Egyptians, and used by them as a mode of constructing a great cycle, which in Ptolemaic times became very prominent, and entered into all their fanciful adjustments of history and myths. {3743} Some mode of noting the absolute months, as related to the seasonal periods, became a necessity; and, of course, the place of the sun among the stars most truly shows the exact length of the year. But how to observe both sun and stars, when without any mode of time-dividing,—such as clepsydra or clock,—was an essential difficulty. This was got over by noting on what day a particular star could be first seen, at its emerging from the glow of the sunlight. In actual practice they observed Sirius (or Sothis), the dog-star; and as the stars all rise and set earlier and earlier every night, they observed what was the first night in the year on which Sirius could just be seen emerging from the glow of sunlight at dawn, and this was entitled the heliacal rising. Hence, from using Sothis for this observation, the whole period during which the months rotated in the seasons was called the Sothic period of 1,460 years. We have some definite statements as to this in Roman times. Censorinus, writing in 239 A. D., states that the Egyptian New Year's day, 1st of Thoth, fell on the 25th of June; and a hundred years before, in 139 A. D., it fell on the 21st July, 'on which day Sirius regularly rises in Egypt.' Hence the beginning of a Sothic period of 1,460 years, or the New Year's day falling on the 21st of July at the heliacal rising of Sirius, took place in 139 A. D.; likewise in 1322 B. C., in 2784 B. C., and in 4242 B. C., or thereabouts. From this it is plain, that, as the nominal months rotated round all the seasons once In each of these cycles, therefore, if we only know the day of the nominal month in which any seasonal event happened,—such as the rising of Sirius, or the inundation,—we can find on what part of the cycle of 1,460 years such a coincidence can have fallen. It is from data such as this that Mahler has lately calculated, by the rising of Sirius, and also the new moons, that Tahutmes III. reigned from 20th March 1503 B. C., to 14th February 1449. … Merenptah celebrated in the second year of his reign a festival of the rising of Sirius on the 29th of the month Thoth. Mahler has fixed the rising of Sirius, recorded on 28th Epiphi under Tahutmes III., as in 1470 B. C. From 28th Epiphi to 29th Thoth is 66 days, which the heliacal rising would change to in the course of 4 x 66 years, or 264 years. This, from 1470, gives 1206 B. C. for the second year of Merenptah, or 1208 B. C. for his accession, which is just the date we have reached by the approximate summing of the reigns. Another datum on the other side is the calendar of the Ebers papyrus, which records the rising of Sirius on the 9th of Epiphi in the ninth year of Amenhotep I. The reading of the king's name has been much debated; but this is the last, and probable, conclusion. Now, from the 28th to the 9th of Epiphi is 19 days, which Sirius would change through in 76 years; so that the rising on the 9th of Epiphi took place in 1470+76 = 1546 B. C.; and the first year of Amenhotep I. would be thus fixed in 1555 B. C. The date before reached is 1562 B. C., equal to a difference of less than 2 days in the time of Sirius' rising. This, at least, shows that there is no great discrepancy. Thus there are three data for the rising of Sirius, which agree within a few years, though at considerably different epochs. … We … have as a starting-point for our backward reckoning the accession of the XVIIIth dynasty about 1587 B. C. From this we can reckon in the dynastic data given by Manetho; following this account rather than the totals of reigns, as he appears to have omitted periods when dynasties were contemporary, as in the 43 years for the XIth after the close of the Xth. Thus, from the above starting-point of 1587 B. C., we reach the following results, solely by using material which has been discussed and settled in this history on its own merits alone, and without any ulterior reckoning in total periods.

Dynasty Years. B. C. I. 263 4777 II. 302 4514 III. 214 4212 IV. 277 3998 V. 218 3721 VI. 181 (T. P.) 3503 VII. 70 3322 VIII. 146 3252 IX. 100 3106 X. 185 3006 XI. 43 2821 XII. 213 (T. P.) 2778 XIII. 453 2565 XIV. 184 2112 XVI. 190 1928 XVII. 151 1738 XVIII. 260 1587 XIX. 1327

… In the present rough state of the astronomical data, and the doubts as to the MS. authorities, we have reached quite as close an equivalence as we may hope for; and at least there is enough to show us that we may trust to the nearest century with fair grounds of belief. These dates then, are what I have provisionally adopted in this history; and though they are stated to the nearest year, for the sake of intercomparison, it must always be remembered that they only profess to go within a century in the earlier parts of the scale."

W. M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the XVIth Dynasty, chapter 11.

EGYPT. Commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE: THE EARLIEST RECORDS, and EGYPT.

EGYPT. Medical Science, Ancient.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE (page 2120).

EGYPT. Money and banking.

See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2199).

EJECTMENT, Action of.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1499 (page 1966).

ELDON, Lord, and the rules of Equity.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1801-1827 (page 1993).

ELECTOR, The Great.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1700; also page 309.

ELECTORS, Rise of the German College of.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1175-1272.

EMIGRES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-OCTOBER), and 1781-1791 (pages 1264, 1265, and 1268).

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1837 (page 1977).

ENGLAND: Outline sketch of general history.

See EUROPE (page 1014, and after).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1622. First printed newspaper publication.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702 (page 2593).

{3744}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702. First daily newspaper publication.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1622-1702 (page 2594).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1844. The Bank Charter Act.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1844 (page 2216).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1881-1882. The Irish Coercion Bill and Land Act. Arrest of Irish leaders. Alleged Kilmainham Treaty and release of Mr. Parnell and others.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882 (page 1797).

ENGLAND: Commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, and MODERN.

ENGLAND: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2014).

ENGLAND: Possessions in Africa.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

ENGLAND, Bank of.

See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2209).

EQUITY.

See LAW, EQUITY (page 1988).

ERITREA, The Italian colony of.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1890-1801.

ESSENES, The.

"Apart from the great high road of Jewish life, there lived in Palestine in the time of Christ a religious community which, though it grew up on Jewish soil, differed essentially in many points from traditional Judaism, and which, though it exercised no powerful influence upon the development of the people, deserves our attention as a peculiar problem in the history of religion. This community, the Essenes or Essaeans, is generally, after the precedent of Josephus, placed beside the Pharisees and Sadducees as the third Jewish sect. But it scarcely needs the remark, that we have here to deal with a phenomenon of an entirely different kind. While the Pharisees and Sadducees were large political and religious parties, the Essenes might far rather be compared to a monastic order. There is indeed much that is enigmatical in them as to particulars. Even their name is obscure. … The origin of the Essenes is as obscure as their name. Josephus first mentions them in the time of Jonathan the Maccabee, about 150 B. C., and speaks expressly of one Judas an Essene in the time of Aristobulus I. (105-104 B. C.). According to this, the origin of the order would have to be placed in the second century before Christ. But it is questionable whether they proceeded simply from Judaism, or whether foreign and especially Hellenistic elements had not also an influence in their organization. … Philo and Josephus agree in estimating the number of the Essenes in their time at above 4,000. As far as is known, they lived only in Palestine, at least there are no certain traces of their occurrence out of Palestine. … For the sake of living as a community, they had special houses of the order in which they dwelt together. Their whole community was most strictly organized as a single body. … The strongest tie by which the members were united was absolute community of goods. 'The community among them is wonderful [says Josephus], one does not find that one possesses more than another. For it is the law, that those who enter deliver up their property to the order, so that there is nowhere to be seen, either the humiliation of poverty or the superfluity of wealth, but on the contrary one property for all as brethren, formed by the collection of the possessions of individuals.' 'They neither buy nor sell among each other; but while one gives to another what he wants, he receives in return what is useful to himself, and without anything in return they receive freely whatever they want.' … 'There is but one purse for all, and common expenses, common clothes and common food in common meals. For community of dwelling, of life and of meals is nowhere so firmly established and so developed as with them. And this is intelligible. For what they receive daily as wages for their labour, they do not keep for themselves, but put it together, and thus make the profits of their work common for those who desire to make use of it. And the sick are without anxiety on account of their inability to earn, because the common purse is in readiness for the care of them, and they may with all certainty meet their expenses from abundant stores.' … The daily labour of the Essenes was under strict regulation. It began with prayer, after which the members were dismissed to their work by the presidents. They reassembled for purifying ablutions, which were followed by the common meal. After this they again went to work, to assemble again for their evening meal. The chief employment of members of the order was agriculture. They likewise carried on, however, crafts of every kind. On the other hand, trading was forbidden as leading to covetousness, and also the making of weapons or of any kind of utensils that might injure men. … The Essenes are described by both Philo and Josephus as very connoisseurs in morality. … Their life was abstemious, simple and unpretending. 'They condemn sensual desires as sinful, and esteem moderation and freedom from passion as of the nature of virtue.' They only take food and drink till they have had enough; abstaining from passionate excitement, they are 'just dispensers of wrath.' At their meals they are 'contented with the same dish day by day, loving sufficiency and rejecting great expense as harmful to mind and body.' … There is not a slave among them, but all are free, mutually working for each other. All that they say is more certain than an oath. They forbid swearing, because it is worse than perjury. … Before every meal they bathe in cold water. They do the same after performing the functions of nature. … They esteem it seemly to wear white raiment at all times. … They entirely condemned marriage. Josephus indeed knew of a branch of the Essenes who permitted marriage. But these must at all events have formed a small minority. … A chief peculiarity of the Essenes was their common meals, which bore the character of sacrificial feasts. The food was prepared by priests, with the observance probably of certain rites of purification; for an Essene was not permitted to partake of any other food than this. … In their worship, as well as in that of other Jews, the Holy Scriptures were read and explained; and Philo remarks, that they specially delighted in allegorical interpretation. They were extraordinarily strict in the celebration of the Sabbath. They did not venture on that day to move a vessel from its place, nor even to perform the functions of nature. In other respects too they showed themselves to be Jews. Though they were excluded from the temple they sent gifts of incense there. … Concerning their doctrine of the soul and of its immortality, Josephus expresses himself most fully. {3745} If we may trust his account, they taught that bodies are perishable, but souls immortal, and that the latter dwelt originally in the subtlest aether, but being debased by sensual pleasures united themselves with bodies as with prisons; but when they are freed from the fetters of sense they will joyfully soar on high, as if delivered from long bondage. To the good (souls) is appointed a life beyond the ocean. … But to the bad (souls) is appointed a dark cold region full of unceasing torment."

E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, volume 2, pages 190-205.

EXEMPTION LAWS.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1836 (page 1977).

EXPLORATION, African and Arctic.

For a complete chronological record.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA; and ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

F.

FAMILISTÈRE OF M. GODIN, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

FAURE, François Felix. Election to the Presidency of the French Republic.

See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895.

FEDERALIST SECESSION MOVEMENT.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803-1804 (page 3329).

FEUDAL AIDS.

"In theory the duty of the noble vassal towards his lord was a purely personal one and to commute it for a money payment was a degradation of the whole feudal relation. The payment of money, especially if it were a fixed and regular payment, carried with it a certain ignoble idea against which, in the form of state taxation, the feudal spirit rebelled to the last. When the vassal agreed to pay something to his lord, he called it, not a tax, but an 'aid' (auxilium), and made it generally payable, not regularly, like the tax-bill of the citizen, but only upon certain occasions—a present, as it were, coming out of his good-will and not from compulsion; e. g., whenever a fief was newly granted, when it changed its lord, and sometimes when it changed its vassal, it was from the beginning customary to acknowledge the investiture by a small gift to the lord, primarily as a symbol of the grant; then, as the institution grew and manners became more luxurious, the gift increased in value and was thought of as an actual price for the investiture, until finally, at the close of our period, it suffered the fate of all similar contributions and was changed into a definite money payment, still retaining, however, its early name of 'relief.' … The occasions for levying the aids were various but always, in theory, of an exceptional sort. The journey of a lord to the court of his suzerain, or to Rome, or to join a crusade, the knighting of his eldest son, the marriage of his eldest daughter and his ransom from imprisonment are among the most frequent of the feudal 'aids.' The right of the lord to be entertained and provisioned, together with all his following, was one of the most burdensome and, at the same time, most difficult to regulate. Its conversion into a money-tax was, perhaps for this reason, earlier than that of many other of the feudal contributions."

E. Emerton, Mediaeval Europe, chapter 14.

FEUDAL SYSTEM: Origin.

"The 'benefice,' … emerges from the struggles of the eighth century as a form of grant originated by the ruling house and remaining at its disposal. It was a form of grant which was at all times revocable and which would thus necessarily prompt the grantee to avoid any act which could displease the sovereign. It entailed the reversion of the benefice at the death of the grantee as well as of the person granting. The benefice … was now chiefly made use of by the Carolingians of the 8th century to win the military aid of the nobles against internal and external enemies and especially against the Saracens. Army commanders and counts or other important officials would receive wide stretches of ecclesiastical or royal land. They would organize these into 'manors,' would collect a large 'following,' and would call in free tenants to do service in their armies in return for their protection. Thus they themselves became the stays and props of the new form of government. As the reorganization of the military forces went on this process was repeated more and more often, and as a matter of course the same vital principles which these holders had carried through with regard to those under them came to be applied to their own position as regarded their military duties to the king: namely that they should become vassals. This accordingly happened. The vassal system and the benefice system blended together into a new form of actual and personal union of the nobles with the crown. In receiving a benefice they swore to the king the special oath of fidelity of the 'following'; this fidelity on the other hand seemed assured through the power of the king to revoke the benefice. Quickly enough did this connection of the vassal system and the benefice system, which is commonly called vassalism, become so common that it began to extend downwards also. It had already become usual for rich landholders no longer, in the old Germanic manner, to provide for all their vassals at their own court, but to provide sustenance for them in various other ways—notably by granting them estates. Now, after the royal model, it came to be the custom to grant benefices and thus to found personal responsibilities. The results of this development were extraordinary. If on the one hand, in spite of all Charles the Great's measures to the contrary, the old army organization based on the service of all freemen fell into decay and the contingents from the land holders began to constitute the great mass of the army: on the other hand the bond of vassalism with its different variations became of prime importance for the administration of the land. No longer did the king by virtue of his royal ban or jurisdiction issue his commands to all freemen in common. He issued his commands to the nobles and they by virtue of their feudal prerogatives commanded the vassals who were subject to them. The evenly distributed mass of freemen subject to military duty had vanished; a high-towering structure of those bound in vassalage had taken its place. The military organization had assumed its position under the banner of the feudal state. The administration, too, was soon to be undermined by the system of vassalage and to change its structure from the very foundation."

Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte, volume 2, pages 104-105.

{3746}

"The latest investigations of Brunner … have established the proof that feudalism originated in consequence of the introduction of cavalry service into the military system of the Frankish kingdom and that it retained its original character until well on towards the close of the Middle Ages. The Franks like the Lombards learned the use of cavalry from the Moors or Saracens. Charles Martel was led by his experiences after the battle of Poictiers to the conclusion that only with the help of mounted armies could these enemies be opposed with lasting success. It was between 732 and 758 that the introduction of cavalry service into the Frankish army took place; it had hitherto consisted mainly of infantry. The attempt was first made, and with marked success, in Aquitaine and Septimania; almost contemporaneously also among the Lombards. In order to place the secular nobles in condition to fit out larger masses of cavalry a forced loan from the church was carried through by Charles Martel and his sons, it being under the latter that the matter was first placed upon a legal footing. The nobles received ecclesiastical benefices from the crown and regranted them in the way of sub-loans. The custom of having a 'following' and the old existing relationships of a vassal to his lord furnished a model for the responsibilities of those receiving benefices at first and at second hand. The secular nobles became thus at once vassals of the crown and lords (seigneurs) of those to whom they themselves in turn made grants. The duty of the vassals to do cavalry service was based on the 'commendation': their fief was not the condition of their doing service but their reward for it. Hence the custom of denominating the fief (Lehn) as a 'fee' (feudum)—a designation which was first applied in southern France, and which in Germany, occasionally in the eleventh and ever more frequently in the twelfth century, is used side by side with the older term 'benefice,' until in the course of the first half of the 13th century it completely displaces it. With the further development of cavalry service that of the feudal system kept regular pace. Already in the later Carolingian period Lorraine and Burgundy followed southern France and Italy in becoming feudalized states. To the east of the Rhine on the contrary the most flourishing time of cavalry service and of the feudal system falls in the time of the Hohenstaufens, having undoubtedly been furthered by the crusades. Here even as late as the middle of the twelfth century the horsemen preferred dismounting and fighting with the sword because they could not yet manage their steeds and the regular cavalry weapons, the shield and the spear, like their western neighbors. But never in Germany did feudalism make its way into daily life as far as it did in France where the maxim held true: 'nulle terre sans seigneur.' There never was here a lack of considerable allodial possessions, although occasionally, out of respect for the feudal theory, these were put down as 'fiefs of the sun.' The principle, too, was firmly maintained that a fief granted from one's own property was no true fief; for so thoroughly was feudal law the law governing the realm that a true fief could only be founded on the fief above it, in such manner that the king was always the highest feudal lord. That was the reason why a fief without homage, that is, without the relationship of vassalage and the need of doing military service for the state, could not be looked upon as a true fief. The knight's fee only (feudum militare) was such, and only a man of knightly character, who united a knightly manner of living with knightly pedigree, was 'perfect in feudal law,'—in possession, namely, of full feudal rights or of the 'Heerschild.' Whether or not he had been personally dubbed knight made no difference; the fief of a man who was still a squire was also a true fief. … The object of the feudal grant could be anything which assured a regular emolument,—especially land, tithes, rents and other sources of income, tolls and jurisdictions, churches and monasteries;_ above all, offices of state. In course of time the earlier distinction between the office and the fief which was meant to go with the office ceased to be made. … The formal course of procedure when granting was a combination, exactly on the old plan, of the act of commendation, now called Hulde, which was the basis of vassalage, and the act of conferring (investiture) which established the real right of the man to the fief. … The Hulde consisted in giving the hand (=the performing of mannschaft, homagium, hominium, Hulde) often combined with the giving of a kiss and the taking of an oath (the swearing of fidelitas or Hulde) by which the man swore to be 'true, loyal and willing' as regarded his lord. The custom earlier connected with commendation of presenting a weapon had lost its former significance and had become merged in the ceremony of investiture: the weapon had become a symbol of investiture. … These symbols of investiture were in part the same as in territorial law: the glove, the hat, the cape, the staff, the twig; occasionally probably also a ring, but quite especially the sword or spear. As regarded the principalities it had quite early become the custom to fasten a banner on the end of the spear in token of the royal rights of supremacy that were to be conferred. Thus the banner became the sole symbol of investiture in the granting of secular principalities and the latter themselves came to be called 'banner fiefs.' The installation of the ecclesiastical princes by the king took place originally without any distinction being made between the office and the appanage of the office. It was done by conferring the pastoral staff (ferula, virga pastoralis) of the former bishop or abbot; in the case of bishops since the time of Henry III by handing the ring and crosier. In the course of the struggle concerning the ecclesiastical investitures both sides came to the conviction that a distinction could be made between the appanaging of the church with secular estates and jurisdictions on the one hand, and the office itself and the immediate appurtenances of the church—the so-called 'sacred objects' on the other. A union was arrived at in the Concordat of Worms which provided that for the granting of the former (the so-called Regalia) the secular symbol of the sceptre might replace the purely ecclesiastical symbols. As this custom was retained even after the incorporation of the ecclesiastical principalities in the feudalized state-system the ecclesiastical principalities, as opposed to the secular banner-fiefs, were distinguished as 'sceptre-fiefs.'"

Schröder, Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (1889), pages 381-388.

{3747}

"By the time at which we have arrived (the Hohenstaufen Period) the knights themselves, 'ordo equestris major:' had come to form a class so distinct and so exclusive that no outsiders could enter it except in the course of three generations or by special decree of the king. Only to those whose fathers and grandfathers were of knightly origin could fiefs now be granted; only such could engage in judicial combat, in knightly sports and, above all, in the tournament or joust. … Feudalism did much to awaken a moral sentiment: fidelity, truth and sincerity were the suppositions upon which the whole system rested, and a great solidarity of interests came to exist between the lord and his vassals. The latter might bring no public charges against their master in matters affecting his life, limb or honor; on three grand occasions, in case of captivity, the knighting of his son, the marriage of his daughter, they were obliged to furnish him with pecuniary aid. Knightly honor and knightly graces come in the twelfth century to be a matter of fashion and custom; a new and important element, too, the adoration of woman, is introduced. A whole literature arises that has to do almost exclusively with knightly prowess and with knightly love. Altogether we see the dawn of a new social life."

E. F. Henderson, A History of Germany in the Middle Ages, page 424-425.

See, also, FEUDALISM (page 1117); and EUROPE (pages 1019-1020).

FIELD, Cyrus, and the ocean telegraph.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1854-1866 (page 776).

FINNISH POPULAR POETRY.

See KALEVALA (page 1935).

John Martin Crawford, Kalevala, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5186 One of several versions.

FLEMINGS, Commerce of the.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

FLORENTINE BANKERS AND MONEY CHANGERS.

See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2205 and 2206).

FORMOSA.

"Formosa, or Taiwan, as it is called by the Chinese, is about 400 miles south of the mouth of the Yang-tse, and 100 from the mainland of China. It lies between 25° 20' and 21° 50' north latitude, is nearly 240 miles long, by an average of 75 miles wide, and has an area of about 12,000 square miles. It is remarkable for its beauty and fertility, and also for the variety of its products. It was formerly attached to the province of Fohkien, and governed by a resident commissioner; but since the Franco-Chinese War, during which the French, under Admiral Courbet, were foiled in their efforts to take possession of it, it has been erected into an independent province by imperial decree, and is now [1887] governed by Liu Ming-Ch'uan, an able and progressive man, with the title and almost unlimited authority of governor-general. The island was once in the possession of the Spaniards, who called it Formosa (beautiful), but did not colonize it. It then passed into the hands of the Dutch, who built Fort Zealandia, and established a trading-post on the southwest coast, near the present city of Taiwan-fu, and another known as the Red Fort, at Tamsui, on the northwest coast. But the Dutch in turn abandoned the island about the year 1660, immediately after which it was occupied and colonized by the Chinese from Amoy and other points on the coast of Fohkien. The population is now estimated by the governor-general at 4,000,000 Chinese and 60,000 savages, but the first figures are doubtless much too large. The savages are a fine race of men of the Malay or Polynesian type, who hold nearly all the east coast and the mountain region, covering over one half the island. They live mostly by hunting and fishing, or upon the natural products of the forest, and cultivate but little land. They wear scarcely any clothing, use bows, arrows, and knives, together with a few old-fashioned matchlocks, and yet withal they have up to the present time successfully resisted all efforts to subjugate them or to take possession of their fastnesses. They are brave, fierce, and active, but have made scarcely any progress in the arts of civilization. They are naturally kind and hospitable to Europeans, but look upon the Chinese as their deadly enemies."

J. H. Wilson, China, chapter 18.

In 1874, in order to obtain redress for a murder of Japanese sailors by savages on the eastern coast of Formosa, the Japanese Government undertook to take possession of the southern part of Formosa, "asserting that it did not belong to China because she either would not or could not govern its savage inhabitants. … The expedition was called a High Commission, accompanied by a force sufficient for its protection, sent to aboriginal Formosa to inquire into the murder of fifty-four Japanese subjects, and take steps to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities. A proclamation was issued April 17, 1874, and another May 19th, stating that General Saigo was directed to call to an account the persons guilty of outrages on Japanese subjects. As he knew that China was not prepared to resist his landing at Liang-kiao, his chief business was to provide means to house and feed the soldiers under his command. The Japanese authorities do not appear very creditably in this affair. No sooner did they discover the wild and barren nature of this unknown region than they seemed fain to beat an incontinent and hasty retreat, nor did the troops landed there stand upon the order of their going. … The aborigines having fled south after the first rencontre, the Japanese leader employed his men as best he could in opening roads through the jungle and erecting houses. Meanwhile the Peking authorities were making preparations for the coming struggle, and though they moved slowly they were much in earnest to protect their territory. General Shin Pao-chin having been invested with full powers to direct operations against the Japanese forces, began at once to draw together men and vessels in Fuhchau and Amoy. The Japanese consuls at Amoy and Shanghai were allowed to remain at their posts; and during the year two envoys arrived at Pelting to treat with the Court. … The probabilities were strong against any settlement, when the parties were induced to arrange their quarrel by the intervention and wise counsel of Sir T. F. Wade, the British minister. The Japanese accepted 500,000 taels for their outlays in Formosa for roads, houses, and defences; agreeing thereupon to retire and leave the further punishment of the aborigines to the Chinese authorities. The two envoys left Peking, and this attempt at war was happily frustrated. … The civilization of all parts of Formosa has since rapidly advanced by the extension of tea and sugar culture, the establishment of Christian missions, and the better treatment of the native tribes."

S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, chapter 26 (volume 2).

FOURIER AND FOURIERISM.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1832-1847, and 1841-1847 (pages 2939 and 2943).

{3748}

----------FRANCE: Start--------

FRANCE: Outline Sketch of general history.

See EUROPE (page 1015. and after).

FRANCE: 1ST-5TH CENTURIES. The early routes and marts of trade.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

FRANCE: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES. Rise of the Privileged Bourgeoisies and the Communes. The double movement of Urban Emancipation.

"The 12th and 13th centuries saw the production of that marvelous movement of emancipation which gave liberty to serfs, created privileged bourgeoisies and independent communes, caused new cities and fortresses to issue from the earth, freed the corporations of merchants and artisans, in a word placed at the first stroke, beside royalty, feudality and the church, a fourth social force destined to absorb one day the three others. While the cultivator of the soil passed by enfranchisement from the category of things sold or given away into that of the free people (the only ambition permitted to the defenseless unfortunates who inhabited isolated farms or unwalled villages), the population grouped in the urban centers tried to limit or at least to regulate the intolerable exploitation of which it was the object. The bourgeois, that is to say the inhabitants of walled cities, born under the shelter of a donjon or au abbey, and the citoyens of the ancient episcopal cities, rivaled each other in efforts to obtain from the seigneurial power a condition more endurable in point of taxation, and the suppression of the most embarrassing hindrances to their commerce and manufactures. These inhabitants of towns and cities constituted, if only by being grouped together, a force with which feudality was very soon obliged to reckon. Divided, besides, into merchants' societies and companies of workmen they found within themselves the germ of organization which permitted collective resistance. The seigneur, intimidated, won by an offer of money, or decided by the thought that his domination would be more lucrative if the city became more prosperous, made the concessions which were asked of him. Thanks to a favorable concurrence of circumstances, charters of franchises were multiplied in all parts of France. At the end of the 12th century, the national territory, in the north as well as the south, was covered with these privileged cities or bourgeoisies, which, while remaining administered, judicially and politically, by seigneurial officers, had acquired, in matters financial, commercial and industrial, the liberties necessary to their free development. Feudality very soon found such an advantage in regulating thus the exploitation of the bourgeois, that it took the initiative itself in creating, in the uninhabited parts of its domains, privileged cities, complete in all their parts, designed to become so many centers of attraction for foreigners. It is the innumerable bourgeoisies and 'villes neuves' which represent the normal form of urban emancipation. Certain centers of population obtained at the first stroke the most extensive civil and financial liberties; but, in the majority of cases, the bourgeois could win their franchises only bit by bit, at the price of heavy pecuniary sacrifices, or as the result of an admirable perseverance in watching for opportunities and seizing them. The history of the privileged cities, whose principal virtue was a long patience, offers nothing moving or dramatic. … But the spectacle of these laborious masses persisting, in obscurity and silence, in the demand for their right to security and well-being, does not the less merit all our attention. What forces itself upon the meditations of the historian, in the domain of municipal institutions, is just the progress slow and obscure, but certain, of the dependent bourgeoisie. … The development of the seigneurial cities offers such a variety of aspects, their progressive and regular conquests were so important in the constitution of our rights public and private, that too much care and effort cannot be devoted to retracing minutely their course. This history is more than any other that of the origin of our third estate. It was in the privileged cities, to which the great majority of the urban population belonged, that it began its political education. The city charters constituted the durable lower stratum of its first liberties. In other words the third estate did not issue suddenly from the more or less revolutionary movement which gave birth to the independent communes: it owes its formation and its progress above all to this double pacific evolution: the possessors of fiefs enfranchising their bourgeoisie and the latter passing little by little entirely from the seigneurial government under that of royalty. This was not the opinion which prevailed at the time when the founder of the science of municipal institutions, Augustin Thierry, published in the 'Courrier Français' his admirable 'Lettres ' on the revolutions of the communes. The commune, a city dowered with judicial and political privileges, which conferred upon it a certain independence, administered by its elected magistrates, proud of its fortified inclosure, of its belfry, of its militia,—the commune passed at that time as the pre-eminent type of the free city of the middle ages. That great movement of urban and rural emancipation which stirred the France of the 12th century to its very depths was personified in it. So the commune concentrated historical interest upon itself, leaving in the shade all other forms of popular evolution. Guizot, who had the sense of truth rather than that of the picturesque, tried to combat this exclusive tendency. In the brilliant lessons that he gave at the Sorbonne on the history of the origins of the third estate, he showed, with his customary clearness, that the development of the bourgeois class was not accomplished by any single method; that the progress realized in the cities where the communal regime had never succeeded in establishing itself must also be taken into account. The impression left by the highly colored and dramatic recitals of Augustin Thierry remained for a long time the stronger. … Contemporary science has not only assigned to itself the mission of completing the work of the historians of the Restoration: it has desired also to improve it by rectifying, upon many points, the exaggerated opinions and false judgments of which the history of our urban institutions was at first the victim. It has been perceived that the communal movement properly so called did not have, upon the destinies of the popular class, the decisive, preponderant influence which was attributed to it 'a priori.' The commune, a brilliant but ephemeral form of the emancipation of the bourgeoisie, has been set back little by little into its true place. {3749} It is now no longer regarded as an essential manifestation of our first democratic aspirations. One might be tempted to see on the contrary, in that collective seigneury, often hostile to the other social elements, impregnated with the spirit of 'particularisme,' made for war and agitated without cessation by warlike passions, an original but tardy product of the feudal principle. … We must be resigned to a fact in regard to which nothing can be done: the absence of documents relative to the municipal constitution of cities and towns during four hundred years, from the 7th century to the 11th. From all appearances, this enormous hiatus will never be overcome. … Facts being lacking, scholars have had recourse to conjecture. Some among them have supposed that the principal characteristics of the Gallo-Roman municipalities were perpetuated during this period. At bottom, their hypothesis rests principally upon analogies of names. … From the point of view of positive science, the Germanic origin of the communes is not more easy of demonstration. … It is even doubtful whether the essential element of the communal institution, the confederation formed by the inhabitants, under the guaranty of the mutual oath, belongs exclusively to the customs of the Germans. The theory of Augustin Thierry, which made of the commune a special application of the Scandinavian gilde, has been judged too narrow by contemporary scholars. They have reproached him with reason for having localized an institution which belongs entirely to the Germanic race. But the principle of association, applied in the cities, is not a fact purely German. … Association is a fact which is neither Germanic nor Roman; it is universal, and is produced spontaneously among all peoples, in all social classes, when circumstances exact and favor its appearance. The communal revolution then is a national event. The commune was born, like other forms of popular emancipation, from the need which the inhabitants of the cities had of substituting a limited and regulated exploitation for the arbitrary exploitation of which they were the victims. Such is the point of departure of the institution. We must always return to the definition of it given by Guibert de Nogent. It is true as a basis, although it does not embrace all the characteristics of the object defined: 'Commune! new name, detestable name! By it the censitaires are freed from all service in consideration of a simple annual tax; by it they are condemned, for the infraction of the law, only to a penalty legally determined; by it, they cease to be subjected to the other pecuniary charges by which the serfs are overwhelmed.' At certain points, this limitation of the seigneurial power was made amicably, by pacific transaction between the seigneur and his bourgeois. Elsewhere, an insurrection, more or less prolonged, was necessary in order to establish it. When this popular movement had as a result, not only the assuring to the people the most necessary liberties which were demanded, but besides that of abating to their advantage the political position of the master, by taking from him a part of his seigneurial prerogatives, there arose not only a free city, but a commune, a bourgeois seigneury, invested with a certain political and judicial power. This definition of the commune implies that originally it was not possible to establish it otherwise than by a pressure exerted, more or less violently, upon the seigneurial authority. We have the direct proof of it for some of our free municipalities, but it is presumable that many other communes whose primitive history we do not know have owed equally to force the winning of their first liberties. … We do not mean that, in the first period of the history of urban emancipation, all the communes, without exception, were obliged to pass through the phase of insurrection or of open resistance. There were some which profited (as the cities of the Flemish region in 1127) by a combination of exceptional circumstances to attain political liberty without striking a blow. Among these circumstances must be mentioned in the first rank the prolonged vacancy of an episcopal see and the disappearance of a laic lord, dead without direct heir, leaving a succession disputed by numerous competitors. But, ordinarily, the accession of the bourgeoisie to the rank of political power did not take place pacifically. Either the seigneur struggled against his rebellious subjects, or he feared the struggle and bent before the accomplished fact. In all cases it was necessary that the people were conscious of their power and imposed their will. This is proven by the dramatic episodes which the narrations of Augustin Thierry have forever rendered celebrated. … Later, in the decline of the 12th century, it must be recognized that the opinion of the dominant class ceased to be as hostile to the communes. When the conviction had been acquired that the popular movement was irresistible, it was tolerated; the best means even were sought to derive advantage from it. The Church always remained upon the defensive; but the king and the great feudal lords perceived that in certain respects the commune might be a useful instrument. They accepted then the communal organization, and they even came to create it where it was not spontaneously established. But it is easy to convince one's self that the communes of this category, those which owe their creation to the connivance or even to the initiative of the seigneur, did not possess the same degree of independence as the communes of the primitive epoch, founded by insurrection. On the whole, the communal revolution was only one of the aspects of the vast movement of political and social reaction which the excesses of the feudal regime engendered everywhere from the 11th to the 14th century. … One would like to possess the text of one of those oaths by which the bourgeois of the northern communes bound themselves together, for the first time, with or without the consent of their seigneur, in the most ancient period of the communal evolution. It would be of the highest interest for the historian to know how they set about it, what words were pronounced to form what the contemporary writers called a 'conjuration,' a 'conspiration,' a 'confederation.' No document of this nature and of that primitive epoch has come down to us. … The sum total of the sworn bourgeois constituted the commune. The commune was most often called 'communia,' but also, with varying termination, 'communa,' 'communio,' 'communitas.' {3750} Properly speaking and especially with reference to the origin, the name commune was given not to the city, but to the association of the inhabitants who had taken oath. For this reason also the expression 'commune jurée' was used. Later the acceptation of the word was enlarged; it designated the city itself, considered as a geographical unit. … The members of the commune, those who formed part of the sworn association, were properly called 'the sworn of the commune,' 'jurati communie,' or, by abridgment, 'the sworn,' 'jurati.' They were designated also by the expression: 'the men of the commune,' or, 'those who belong to the commune,' 'qui sunt de communia.' They were also entitled 'bourgeois,' 'burgenses,' more rarely 'bourgeois jurés'; sometimes also 'voisins,' 'vicini,' or even 'friends,' 'amici.' … We are far from having complete light on the question as to what conditions were exacted from those who entered the communal association, and to what classes of persons the access to the bourgeoisie was open or interdicted. The variety of local usages, and above all the impossibility of finding texts which apply to the most ancient period of urban emancipation, will always embarrass the historian. To find upon these matters clear documents, developed and precise, we must come down, generally, to the end of the 18th century or even to the century following, that is to say to the epoch of the decadence of the communal regime. … The bourgeois could not be diseased, that is to say, undoubtedly, tainted with an incurable malady and especially a contagious malady, as leprosy. … The communal law excluded also bastards. On this point it was in accord with the customary law of a very great number of French regions. … They refused also to receive into their number inhabitants encumbered with debts. The condition of debtor constituted in effect a kind of servitude. He no longer belonged to himself; his goods might become the property of the creditor, and he could be imprisoned. … With still more reason does it appear inadmissible that the serf should be called to benefit by the commune. The question of urban serfdom, in its relations with the communal institution, is extremely obscure, delicate and complex. There are however two facts in regard to which affirmation is allowable. It cannot be doubted that at the epoch of the formation of the communes, at the opening of the 12th century, there were no longer any serfs in many of the urban centers. It may be held also as certain that the desire to bring about the disappearance of this serfdom was one of the principal motives which urged the inhabitants to claim their independence. … The inhabitant who united all the conditions legally required for admission to the bourgeoisie was besides obliged to pay a town-due, ('droit d'entrée'). … If it was not always easy to enter a communal body, neither could one leave it as easily as might have been desired. The 'issue de commune' exacted the performance of a certain number of troublesome formalities. … So, it was necessary to pay to become a communist, and to pay yet more in order to cease to be one. The bourgeois was riveted to his bourgeoisie. … Up to this point we have examined only half the problem of the formation of the commune, approaching it on its general side. There remains the question whether all the popular element which existed in the city formed part of the body of bourgeoisie, and whether the privileged class, that of the nobles and clergy, was not excluded from it. … We shall have to admit as a general rule, that the nobles and the clergy while taking oath to the commune, did not in reality enter it. What must be rejected, is the sort of absolute, inviolable rule which has been formed on this opinion. In the middle ages especially there was no rule without exception. … The commune was an institution rather ephemeral. As a really independent seigneury, it scarcely endured more than two centuries. The excesses of the communists, their bad financial administration, their intestine divisions, the hostility of the Church, the onerous patronage of the 'haut suzerain,' and especially of the king: such were the immediate causes of this rapid decadence. The communes perished victims of their own faults, but also of the hate of the numerous enemies interested in their downfall. … The principal cause of the premature downfall of the communal regime is without any doubt the considerable development of the monarchical power in France at the end of the 18th century. The same force which annihilated feudality, to the profit of the national unit, was also that which caused the prompt disappearance of the independence of the bourgeois seigneuries. With its privileges and its autonomy, the commune impeded the action of the Capetains. Those quarrelsome and restless republics had no reason for existence, In the midst of the peaceful and obedient bourgeoisie upon which royalty had laid its hand. The commune then was sacrificed to the monarchical interest. In Italy and in Germany, the free cities enjoyed their independence much longer, by reason of the absence of the central power or of its weakness."

Achille Luchaire, Les Communes Francaises a l'époque des Capétiens directs (translated from the French), pages 1-16, 45-56, 65, and 288-290.

FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270. The reign of Saint Louis. The monarchy in his time and its kingdom.

"The fundamental institution upon which all the social edifice rested, in the time of Saint Louis, was royalty. But this royalty, from the double point of view of theory and practice, was very different from what it had been originally. In principle it was the divine right, that is, it was an emanation from the Most High, and the king held of no other seigneur. This is what the feudal maxim expressed after its fashion; 'The king holds only of God and his sword.' … Royalty was transmitted by heredity, from father to son, and by primogeniture. However, this heredity, which had formerly needed a sort of election to confirm It, or at least popular acclamation, needed now to be hallowed by the unction of the church. Consecration, joined to the privilege of being the eldest of the royal race, made the king. … It must not be thought however that the ideas of the time attributed to the hereditary principle a force absolute and superior to all interests. Theologians could say to kings that the son should succeed the father if he imitated his probity; that power was transferred into other hands in punishment of injustice. … Christian tradition was, in fact, greatly opposed to what was then called tyranny. … Not only must royalty not be tyranny, but it must admit the representatives of the nation, in a certain measure, to a participation in the government. …

{3751}

In practice, without doubt, these salutary principles were often disregarded; but it is still much that they were professed, and this fact alone constitutes an enormous difference between the middle ages and the later centuries. The royal power, besides, had not yet a material force sufficiently great to dominate everywhere as absolute master. Under the two first lines, it was exercised in the same degree over all points of the territory; from the accession of the third, on the contrary, it was only a power of two degrees, having a very unequal action according to the territory and the locality. A part of France composed the royal domain; it was the patrimony of the Capetian house, increased by conquest or successive acquisitions. There, the king exercised an authority almost without limit; he was on his own ground. All the rest formed duchies, counties, or seigneuries of different sorts, possessed hereditarily by great vassals, more or less independent originally. Here the king was only the suzerain; he had scarcely any rights excepting to homage, to military service, to pecuniary assistance in certain stated cases, and to some privileges called royal, as that of coining money. The entire royal policy, from Philip Augustus to Louis XI., consisted in skilfully increasing the first of these parts by absorbing little by little the second. … The kingdom of France, in the time of Saint Louis, was still very nearly as the treaty of Verdun had established it. On the north and east, it was bounded by the Empire of Germany. The frontier line passed a little beyond the cities of Ghent, Audenarde, Tournai, Douai, Guise, Mézières, Grandpré, Vitry, Joinville, Fay, Mirabeau; then it followed the course of the Saône and the Rhône, from which it diverged only in two places in order to attribute to the Empire the, at least, nominal possession of part of Lyonnais and Vivarais. On the south, the Pyrenees formed, as originally, the natural limit; but from the treaty of Corbeil (1258) Roussillon remained with the king of Aragon, in exchange for his right over the county of Foix, the territory of Sault, Fenouilhedès and Narbonnais. On the other hand, the vast duchy of Guienne, comprising Bearn and the county of Bigorre, came … under the suzerainty of the king of France only by virtue of the treaty of Paris (1259). On the west the kingdom was bounded only by the ocean, Brittany also having rendered homage to the crown from the time of Philip Augustus. Thus Saint Louis and his son left it, on the whole, more extensive than it was before them, and if it was more limited than the France of the present, on the east, it reached, on the contrary, farther to the north. The royal domain embraced in 1226 only the half of this immense perimeter. It was composed of the primitive nucleus of the Capetian possessions: that is, of the Isle of France and of Orleannais; then of French Vexin. Gâtinais and the viscounty of Bourges, brought by Philip I.; of the county of Corbeil and the seigneury of Monthléry, acquired by Louis VI.; of Artois, Vermandois (with the county of Amiens), Valois, Norman Vexin, of the counties of Evreux, Meulan, Alençon, Perché, Beaumont sur Oise, acquired by Philip Augustus and Louis VIII.; finally the territory obtained by the former from John Lackland by war or by confiscation, that is, all Normandy, Touraine, Perigord, Limousin, and the viscounty of Turenne. Anjou, Maine, Poitou, Auvergne, Angoumois, included in the same conquest, had since been detached from the crown to form princely appanages. The profitable domain of Perigord of Limousin and of the viscounty of Turenne, was reconveyed, in 1259, to the king of England, … in order to bring all the region of the southwest within the pale of the royal suzerainty. But Saint Louis compensated for this diminution by acquiring successively the two great seneschalates of Nîmes and of Carcassonne, the counties of Clermont, of Mortain, of Macon, and Philip the Bold did more than redeem it, by realizing the annexation, so skilfully prepared by Blanche of Castile, of the last domains of the count of Toulouse, which had become those of Alphonse of Poitiers, that is, of nearly all Languedoc. The possessions of the crown thus formed two or three separate groups, cut up in the most fantastic fashion, and connected only as the result of long effort. All the rest of the kingdom was composed of great fiefs escaping the direct action of royalty, and themselves subdivided into lesser fiefs, which complicated infinitely the hierarchy of persons and lands. The principal were the counties of Flanders, Boulogne, Saint Pol, Ponthieu, Aumale, Eu, Soissons, Dreux, Montford-l'Amaury; the bishoprics of Tournai, Beauvais, Noyon, Laon, Lisieux, Reims, Langres, Chalons, the titularies of which were at the same time counts or seigneurs; the vast county of Champagne, uniting those of Réthel, Grandpré, Roucy, Brienne, Joigny and the county Porcien; the duchy of Burgundy, so powerful and so extensive; the counties of Nevers, Tonnerre, Auxerre, Beaujeu, Forez, Auvergne; the seigneury of Bourbon; the counties of Blois and of Chartres; the county or duchy of Brittany; Guienne, and, before 1271, the county of Toulouse; the bishoprics of Albi, Cahors, Mende, Lodève, Agde, Maguelonne, belonging temporally as well as spiritually to their respective bishops; finally the seigneury of Montpellier, holding of the last of these bishoprics. To which must yet be added the appanages given by Louis VIII. to his younger sons, that is, the counties of Artois, Anjou, Poitiers, with their dependencies. … So when the government of the kingdom at this epoch is spoken of, it must be understood to mean that of only the least considerable part of the territory,—that is, of the part which was directly submitted to the authority of the king. In this part the sovereign himself exercised the power, assisted, as ordained by the theories examined above, by auxiliaries taken from the nation. There were neither ministers nor a deliberative corps, properly speaking; however there was very nearly the equivalent. On one side, the great officers of the crown and the royal council, on the other the parliament and the chamber of accounts (exchequer), or at least their primitive nucleus, constituted the principal machinery of the central government, and had, each, its special powers. The great officers, of whom there had at first been five, were only four from the reign of Philip Augustus, who had suppressed the seneschal owing to the possibility of his becoming dangerous by reason of the progressive extension of his jurisdiction; they were the bouteiller, who had become the administrator of the royal expenditure; the chambrier, elevated to the care of the treasury; the connétable, a kind of military superintendent; and the chancelier, who had the disposition of the royal seal. {3752} These four personages represented in a certain degree, secretaries of state. The two latter had a preponderant influence, one in time of peace, the other in time of war. To the chancellor belonged the drawing up and the proper execution (legalization) of the royal diplomas; this power alone made him the arbiter of the interests of all private individuals. As to the constable he had the chief direction of the army, and all those who composed it, barons, knights, paid troops, owed him obedience. The king, in person, had the supreme command; but he frequently allowed the constable to exercise it, and, in order not to impose too heavy a burden upon him, or rather to prevent his taking a too exclusive authority, he had appointed as coadjutors two 'maréchaux de France' who were second in command. … The king's council had not yet a very fixed form. Saint Louis submitted important questions to the persons about him, clerics, knights or men of the people; but he chose these advisers according to the nature of the questions, having temporary counsellors rather than a permanent council. Among these counsellors some were more especially occupied with justice, others with finance, others with political affairs. These three categories are the germ of the parliament, of the exchequer, and of the council of state; but they then formed an indistinct ensemble, called simply the king's court. They were not completely separated so as to form independent institutions until the time of Philippe le Bel. The first, that which later constituted the parliament, belongs especially to the judicial department. … The second, while not yet elevated into a distinct and permanent body, is already delegated to special duties, being charged with examining the accounts of the baillis and seneschals. The 'gentlemen of the accounts' ('gentes quae ad nostros computos deputantur') began under Saint Louis to meet periodically in the Temple, at Paris, and to exercise a regular control over the public finances; so that this new creation, which was, later, to render services so important, was an outcome of the scrupulous probity with which the royal conscience was filled. … The superior jurisdiction is represented by the parliament. The organization of this famous body was begun in the lifetime of Philip Augustus. Under the reign of this prince [Saint Louis] and notably as a result of his absence, the 'cour du roi' had begun to render more and more frequent decisions. The section which was occupied with judicial affairs, appears to have taken on, in the time of Saint Louis, an individual and independent existence. Instead of following the sovereign and meeting when he thought it expedient, it became sedentary. … The date at which the series of the famous registers of the parliament, known under the name of Olim begins may be considered that of the definitive creation of this great institution. It will be remarked that it coincides with the general reform of the administration of the kingdom undertaken by the good king on his return from Syria. … From its birth the parliament tended to become, in the hands of royalty, a means of domination over the great vassals. Not only were the seigneurs insensibly eliminated from it, to the advantage of the clergy, the lawyers, and the officers of the crown, but by a series of skilful victories, its action was extended little by little over all the fiefs situated outside the royal domain, that is over all France. It is again Saint Louis who caused this great and decisive advance toward the authority of the suzerain. He brought it about especially by the abolition of the judicial duel and by the multiplication of appeals to the parliament. … As for the appeals the interdiction of 'fausser jugement' (refusal to submit to the sentence pronounced) was not the only cause of their multiplication. Many of the great vassals were led to bring their affairs before the king's court, either on account of the confidence inspired by the well known equity of Saint Louis, or by the skill of the royal agents, who neglected no opportunity to cause the acceptance of the arbitration of the crown; and those who did not resign themselves to it were sometimes compelled to do so. The appeals of their subjects naturally took the same route; however they continued to employ the medium of the seneschal's court or that of the bailli, while those of the barons and the princes of the blood went directly to Paris. No general law was promulgated in regard to the matter. Royalty was content to recover little by little, by partial measures, the superior jurisdiction formerly usurped by the feudality. … Above and outside of the parliament justice was rendered by the king in person. … Saint Louis, always thoughtful of the interests of the lowly, had a liking for this expeditious manner of terminating suits. Nearly every morning, he sent two or three members of his council to inquire, at the palace gate, if there were not some private individuals there wishing to discuss their affairs before him; from this came the name 'plaids de la porte' given to this kind of audience. If his counsellors could not bring the parties to an agreement, he called the latter into his own room, examined their case with his scrupulous impartiality, and rendered the final sentence himself on the spot. Joinville, who took part more than once in these summary judgments, thus describes to us their very simple mechanism. 'The king had his work regulated in such a way, that monseigneur de Nesle and the good count de Soissons, and the rest of us who were about him, who had heard our masses, went to hear the 'plaids de la porte,' which are now called 'requêtes' (petitions). And when he returned from the monastery, he sent for us, seated himself at the foot of his bed, made us all sit around him, and asked us if there were any cases to despatch which could not be disposed of without him; and we named them to him, and he sent for the parties and asked them: Why do you not take what our people offer you? And they said: Sire, because they offer us little. Then he said to them: You should take what they are willing to give you. And the saintly man labored in this way, with all his might to set them in a just and reasonable path.' Here the great peace-maker is clearly seen; private individuals as well as princes, he desired to reconcile all, make all agree. These patriarchal audiences often had for theater the garden of the palace or the wood of Vincennes. The legendary oak which sheltered the modern Solomon remains in all memoirs as the symbol of his kindly justice and of his popularity, well acquired."

A. Lecoy de la Marche, La France sous Saint Louis et sous Philippe le Hardi, liv. 1, chapter 2, and liv. 2, chapters 1 and 3.

François Guizot, Great Christians of France: Saint Louis and Calvin, https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62518.

{3753}

FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429. The family and circumstances of Jeanne d' Arc.

"What were the worldly circumstances, what was the social position, of the parents of Jeanne d'Arc? Questioned on these points, the people of the country, called to testify at the public inquiry, in the course of the rehabilitation proceedings, all made the same reply; they said that the father and mother of the maid were unassuming husbandmen and possessed with their cottage only a moderate patrimony. According to a memorandum, made out with the assistance of papers and family traditions, a memorandum transmitted by the abbé Mandre, curé of Damvillers (Meuse), who died about 1820, to his nephew Mr. Villiaumé, father of the historian of Jeanne d' Arc and of the Revolution, the real estate belonging to Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée represented about twenty hectares, of which twelve were cultivated, four were meadow and four woodland, and in the latter the 'bois Chesnu'; they had beside their house, their furniture and a reserve of two or three hundred francs which they kept carefully in view of the possibility of a flight before some invasion, such as they had been obliged to take to Neufchâteau. By cultivating, themselves, what they possessed, they could obtain from it an annual revenue equivalent to four or five thousand francs of our money, which permitted them to distribute alms to the poor, notwithstanding their moderate patrimony, and to give hospitality to the mendicant friars as well as to the travelers who often passed through that country. If these valuations are not rigorously exact, they appear to us at least quite reasonable, though we are ignorant of the data upon which they rest. In a parochial register of Domremy, transcribed in 1490, we read that Jacob d'Arc and Ysabellot, his wife, had established an annual income of two gros [gros of Lorraine, coin worth 1/8 oz. of silver] in favor of the curé of Domremy from a 'fauchée' and a half [day and a half's mowing] of field situated in the 'ban' of Domremy, above the bridge, between the heirs Janvrel and the heirs Girardin, on condition of the celebration of two masses each year during the week of the Fontaines for anniversary services for the dead. The property of these honest people constituted, if we may judge by the different replies of the Maid compared with one another, what was called then in the Barrois a 'gagnage' or little farm; now, what distinguished the gagnage from the simple 'conduit,' was that the first always employed for the needs of cultivation a certain number of horses. The usage was at that time, in that region, to attach three or four mares to the plough, and they even had, at least in the great gagnages, a special horse to drag the harrow. Besides this property situated at Domremy, it may be supposed that Jacques d'Arc possessed in right of his wife some pieces of land at Vouthon, for we see by a register of the writs of court of the provostship of Gondrecourt that the eldest of his sons named Jacquemin made his residence from 1425 in this village of the Barrois holding where he cultivated undoubtedly the little patrimony of Isabelle Romée. Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle de Vouthon had three sons, Jacquemin, Jean and Pierre, and two daughters, the elder named Catherine, the younger Jeanne or rather Jeannette, she who was by her heroism to immortalize her line. Two documents … prove with evidence that Jacques d'Arc figured in the first rank of the notables of Domremy. In the first of these, dated Maxey-sur-Meuse, October 7, 1423, he is styled 'doyen' of that village and by this title comes immediately after the mayor and alderman. 'In general,' says M. Edward Bonvalot, speaking of the villages in the region of the Meuse governed by the famous charter of Beaumont in Argonne, 'there is but one doyen or sergeant in each village, who convokes the bourgeois to the electoral assemblies and to the sittings of the court; it is he also who convokes the mayor, aldermen and the men of the commune to their reunions either periodical or special; it is he who cries the municipal resolutions and ordinances; it is he who commands the day and night watch; it is he who has charge of prisoners. Among the privileges which he enjoys must be cited the exemption from the taxes (deniers) of the bourgeoisie. At Linger, he has the same territorial advantages as the clerk of the commune.' It is seen by various documents that the doyens were also charged with the collection of the 'tailles,' 'rentes' and 'redevances,' and that they were appointed to supervise bread, wine and other commodities as well as to test weights and measures. In the second document, drawn up at Vaucouleurs March 31, 1427, Jacques d'Arc appears as the agent of the inhabitants of Domremy in a suit of great importance which they then had to sustain before Robert de Baudricourt, captain of Vaucouleurs. … The situation of Domremy was privileged, and, thanks to this situation, humble peasants who had few needs found even in the soil which they cultivated nearly everything which was necessary for their subsistence. The heights crowned with beeches and venerable oaks, which shut in on the west the valley where the village lies, furnished fire-wood in abundance; the acorns permitted the fattening of droves of hogs; the beautiful vineyard of Greux, exposed to the east and climbing the slopes of these heights since the 14th century, produced that light wine, excessively acid, which is not the less agreeable to the somewhat harsh palate of the children of the Meuse; the fields lying at the foot of these slopes and contiguous to the houses were reserved for the cultivation of the cereals, of wheat, of rye and of oats; finally, between these cultivated fields and the course of the Meuse, over a breadth of more than a kilometer stretched those verdant meadows whose fertility equals their beauty and from which is still taken the best and most renowned hay of all France. The principal wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy was the cattle which they pastured in these meadows, where each, after the hay-harvest, had the right to pasture a number of heads of cattle proportioned to that of the 'fauchées de pré' [days mowings of field] that he possessed. This is what was called the 'ban de Domremy' the care of which was confided, by turns, to a person taken from each 'conduit' or household. It may be seen by certain replies of Jeanne to her judges at Rouen that she had been more than once appointed to this charge, when the turn of her parents came, and her enemies had not failed to seize upon this circumstance to pretend to see in her only a shepherdess by profession. … {3754} Most of the historians of Jeanne d'Arc have made a great mistake when they have imagined Domremy an out-of-the-way corner and isolated, so to speak, from the rest of the world; on the contrary, a road much frequented toward the end of the middle ages crossed this village. This was the old Roman road from Langres to Verdun which passed through Neufchâteau, Domremy, Vaucouleurs, Void, Commercy and Saint-Mihiel; it had acquired yet more importance since the marriage of Philip the Bold and Margaret, daughter of Louis de Male, had brought into the same hand Flanders, Artois and Burgundy. This marriage had had the effect of giving increased activity to the exchanges between the extreme possessions of the Burgundian princes. … It may be seen by what precedes that, like the legendary beech of her native village, the childhood of the virgin of Domremy sprang out of a soil full of vigor and was in the main haunted by beneficent fairies. Born in a fertile and smiling corner of the earth, the issue of an honest family, whose laborious mediocrity was elevated enough to touch nobility when ennobling itself by alms-giving, and humble enough to remain in contact with all the poor; endowed by nature with a robust body, a sound intelligence and an energetic spirit, the little Jeannette d'Arc became under these gentle influences all goodness and all love. Certain facts which are related of her early years show her religiously enamored of country life. She gave some wool from her sheep to the bell-ringer of Domremy to render him more zealous in fulfilling his office, so much did the silvery chiming of his church bell, sounding suddenly in the quiet of the valley, enchant her ear. And the inspiring virtue of the cool shadows, of the 'frigus opacum' of Virgil, who had better felt it than she who replied to her judges at Rouen: 'If I were in the midst of the woods, I should hear my voices better.' … One of the consequences of the treaty of Troyes was the occupation of Champagne by the [English] invaders.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1417-1422 (page 1175).

It is certain, notwithstanding the assertions to the contrary of many historians of Jeanne, that from this date the English were rendered absolutely masters of the bailiwick of Chaumont. The principal fortresses of Bassigny, notably Nogent-le-Roi and Montigny-le-Roi, received garrisons of the enemy. The 'registres du Trésor des Chartes,' preserved in our National Archives, where the acts emanating from the English government [chancellorship] during this period are registered, are full of letters of pardon or of remission granted in the name of Henry V. and Henry VI. to different inhabitants of this bailiwick, and nothing proves better to what degree the authority of the king of England was at that time received and accepted in this region. Some of these letters were given on account of offenses committed in the provostship of Andelot, of which the châtellenie of Vaucouleurs held, as is known. This châtellenie was, in truth, the last fragment of French soil that Charles VII. had kept at the eastern extremity of his kingdom, as he had succeeded in keeping Mont-Saint-Michel at the western extremity. Pressed upon by the Anglo-Burgundians on the south, by the restless and violent Robert of Saarbruck, seigneur of Commercy, on the north, hemmed in, on the east and west, between the possessions of the dukes of Bar and of Lorraine, who were unceasingly at war with their neighbors, this little corner of the earth was a sort of arena where all parties came into collision; and during the four or five years which immediately preceded the first apparition of the archangel Michael to the Maid, toward the middle of 1425, ten or twelve leaders of bands may be counted who emulated each other, as it were, in ravaging it in all directions. During the first half of the 15th century, the men at arms of the marches of Lorraine had the reputation of being, with the Bretons, the greatest pillagers in the world. … We know now in all its details a curious episode which particularly concerns the native village of Jeanne. This episode had remained completely unknown up to the present day, and it was a fortunate accident which, in the beginning of our researches, commenced in 1878, caused us to discover in the National Archives, in the 'registres du Trésor des Chartes,' the document in which the relation of it is found. There is question in this document of a remission of penalty granted by King Charles VII. to a certain Burthélemy de Clefmont for the murder of an Anglo-Burgundian band-leader who had carried away the cattle from two villages of the châtellenie of Vaucouleurs; now, these two villages are precisely Greux and Domremy. … Different circumstances of the narrative, compared with several documents relative to the leader killed by Barthélemy de Clefmont, do not permit us to place the incident at any other date than 1425. … The principal, not to say the only wealth of the inhabitants of Domremy, was the cattle which they pastured in the meadows of the Meuse. The configuration of the soil permits the cultivation only of some fields situated along the border of these meadows, at the foot of the wooded hill against which the village is set; so, the little grain that was harvested there would not have sufficed to feed the population. … We understand then the important injury done to these unfortunate peasants by taking from them at one stroke all the communal flock; they were completely ruined; they were stripped between one day and another of the most precious of their possessions; they were almost condemned to die of poverty with very brief delay. Such a disaster would have cast down a spirit of ordinary temper; it had no other effect than to exalt the profound faith and to awaken the already extraordinary energies of the little Jeannette d'Arc. Endowed, notwithstanding her tender years, with that almost superhuman moral force of which we read that it transports mountains, she called Heaven confidently to the assistance of her people, and our readers already know that Heaven heard her voice. Jeanne de Joinville, lady of Ogéviller, the good châtelaine of Domremy, must have been keenly touched by the unfortunate situation caused to her people, and she had besides the greatest interest in making the brigands in the pay of Henri d'Orly disgorge, in order to assure the payment of her taxes. This is why she complained to her cousin Antoine de Lorraine, count of Vaudemont, who had in his immediate tenure the château of Doulevant, occupied by the chief of these brigands. The count hastened to give satisfaction to the demands of his relative; he sent Barthélemy de Clefmont, one of his men at arms, in pursuit of the marauders. {3755} The expedition was a complete success. Though the cattle had already been taken as far as Dommartin-le-Franc, twenty leagues distant from the shores of the Meuse, they were recovered. Antoine de Lorraine then caused them to be restored to the lady of Ogéviller whose people, those of Greux as well as of Domremy, thus came again into possession of the precious booty which had been stolen from them and which they believed irreparably lost. What a signal favor of Providence, a miracle, these poor people in general and Jeannette d'Arc in particular must have seen in a restitution so unhoped for! In the meantime,—we may reasonably suppose this, if not affirm it with certainty,—the news of a great defeat inflicted on the English before Mont-Saint-Michel, toward the end of June 1425, by sea as well as by land, must have arrived at Domremy. Almost at the same time, that is in the last days of the following August, they learned that these same English had just invaded Barrois and that they had burned dwellings at Revigny as well as in the ban of Chaumont, near Bar-le-Duc. Never had Jeanne felt more sorrowfully 'the pity it was for the kingdom of France,' and never also had she had a more entire faith in God to assure the salvation of her country. The theft, then the restitution of the cattle of Greux and Domremy, the victory won by the defenders of Mont-Saint-Michel, the invasion of Barrois by the English, here are the three principal occurrences which immediately preceded and which explain, at least in a certain degree, the first apparition of the archangel Michael to the little Jeannette d'Arc."

S. Luce, Jeanne d'Arc a Domremy (translated from the French), chapters 2-3.

FRANCE: A. D. 1582. Footing secured at the mouth of the Senegal.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1582.

FRANCE: A. D. 1631. First printed newspaper publication.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1631 (page 2594).

FRANCE: A. D. 1648-1715. Relations with Germany and Austria.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715.

FRANCE: A. D. 1682-1693. Contest of the King and the Gallican Church with the Papacy.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1682-1693 (page 2462).

FRANCE: A. D. 1715-1770. The fatal policy in Europe which lost to the French their opportunity for colonial aggrandizement.

"Louis XIV. had made France odious to her neighbors and suspected by all Europe. Those who succeeded him required much prudence and wisdom to diminish the feelings of fear and jealousy which this long reign of wars and conquests had inspired. They were fortunate in that the moderation demanded of them was for France the most skilful and advantageous policy. France kept Alsace, Franche-Comte, Flanders, Roussillon, and beyond this enlarged frontier she was no longer menaced by the same enemies. The treaty of Utrecht had modified the entire balance of power. There is henceforward no house of Austria excepting in Germany. It is too often forgotten, in speaking of this house and its rivalry with that of France, that the most ardent center of hatred was in Spain. It was Spain which cherished that violent rancor which, for lack of words as much as of ideas, is placed to the account of Austria alone. Spain is no longer to be feared; she is weakened, she is becoming dependent. A cadet of France, a Bourbon, reigns at Madrid, and the roles, in that direction, are exchanged. As to Austria even, she has increased undoubtedly: she has taken the Low Countries, Milan, Naples, very soon she adds Sicily to them; but she is scattered. In multiplying her outposts, she presents so many points of aggression to her adversaries. France has the Low Countries under her hand: Savoy threatens Milan: and, in Germany, Prussia, which is growing, groups the opponents of the Empire. France completes her work by the annexation of Lorraine. The house of Lorraine is transported to Tuscany, and by the effect of the same treaty, that of Vienna in 1738, Naples and Sicily pass to the Spaniards. It seems that henceforward France has only to conserve on the continent. She presents to it the most compact power. Her principal enemy in it is greatly reduced. She is surrounded by states, weaker than she, who defer to her and fear her; she can resume that fine role of moderator and guardian of the peace of Europe which Richelieu had prepared for her, and bear elsewhere, into the other hemisphere, the superabundance of her forces and that excess of vigor which in great nations is precisely the condition of health. The future of her grandeur is henceforward in the colonies. There she will encounter England. Upon this new stage their rivalry will be revived, more ardent than in the days of the hundred years war. To maintain this struggle which extends over the entire world, France will not be too strong with all her resources. When she is engaged in Canada and the Indies at the same time, she will not need to carry her armies across the Rhine. Peace on the continent is the condition necessary to the magnificent fortune which awaits her in America and Asia. If she wishes to obtain it she must renounce continental ambitions. She can do it; her defense is formidable. No one about her would dare to fire a gun without her permission. But, alas! she is far removed from this wisdom, and, in attempting to establish colonies, and make changes in the kingdoms of Europe at the same time, she will compromise her power in both worlds at once. The French desire colonial conquests, but they can not abstain from European conquests, and England profits by it. Austria becomes her natural ally against France. These powerful diversions keep the French on the ground. However, they can yet curb Austria; they have Prussia, Savoy, Poland and Turkey if necessary. Diplomacy is sufficient for this game; but this game is not sufficient for the French politicians. The hatred of the house of Austria survives the causes of rivalry. This house seems always 'the monster' of which Balzac speaks. One is not satisfied to have chained it; one can cease only after having annihilated it. 'There is always,' writes Argenson, 'for politicians a fundamental rule of reducing this power to the point where the Emperor will not be a greater landholder than the richest elector.' Charles VI. dies in 1740; he leaves only a daughter; the opportunity seems favorable, and noisily sounding the death-cry (l'hallali) they take the field at the head of all the hunters by inheritance.

See AUSTRIA: A. D.1740, and after (pages 212-220).

{3756}

They go 'to make an emperor, to conquer kingdoms!' The Bavarian whom they crown is a stage emperor, and, as for conquests, they are considered only too fortunate that Maurice of Saxe preserves to France those of Louis XIV. The coalition has no other result than to enlarge Prussia. Meanwhile France is beaten on the sea and abandons solely to the resources of his genius Dupleix, who with a handful of men was founding an empire. There was besides another small matter; after having exposed Canada in order to conquer Silesia for the king of Prussia, it was lost in order to have the pleasure of giving back that province to the queen of Hungary. France had played the game of England in the war of the succession of Austria, she played that of Austria in the seven years war.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after (pages 1495-1502).

Frederic was the most equivocal of allies. In 1755, he deserted cynically and passed over to the English, who had just recommenced war against France. England having Prussia, it was important in order to maintain the equilibrium, that France have Austria. Maria Theresa offered her alliance and France accepted it. Thus was concluded the famous treaty of May 1, 1756. The object of this alliance was entirely defensive. This is what France did not understand, and she did not cease to be a dupe for having changed partners. Louis XV. made himself the defender of Austria with the same blindness as he had made himself her adversary. The continental war which was only the accessory became the principal. From a ruling power, France fell to the rank of a subordinate. She did not even attain the indirect result to which she sacrificed her most precious interests. Frederic kept Silesia, France lost Canada and abandoned Louisiana; the empire of the Indies passed to the English. Louis XV. had thus directed a policy the sole reason for which was the defeat of England, in such a way as to assure the triumph of that country. 'Above all,' wrote Bernis to Choiseul, then ambassador at Vienna, 'arrange matters in such a way that the king will not remain in servile dependence on his allies. That state would be the worst of all.' It was the state of France during the last years of the reign of Louis XV. The alliance of 1756 which had been at its beginning and under its first form, a skilful expedient, became a political system, and the most disastrous of all. Without gaining anything in territory, France lost her consideration in Europe. She had formerly grouped around her all those who were disturbed by the power of Austria; forced to choose between them and Austria, she allowed the Austrians to do as they chose. To crown the humiliation, immediately after a war in which she had lost everything to serve the hatred of Maria Theresa for Frederic, she saw those unreconcilable Germans draw together without her knowledge, come to an understanding at her expense and, in concert with Russia, divide the spoil of one of the oldest clients of the French monarchy, Poland. There remained to France but one ally, Spain. They were united in 1761 by the Family Pact, the only beneficial work which had been accomplished in these years of disaster. … To the anger of having felt herself made use of during the war, to the rancor of having seen herself duped during the peace, was joined the fear of being despoiled one day by an ally so greedy and so little scrupulous. 'I foresee,' wrote Mably some years later, 'that the Emperor will demand of us again Lorraine, Alsace and everything which may please him.'—'Who can guaranty France, if she should experience a complicated and unfortunate war,' said one of the ministers of Louis XVI., 'that the Emperor would not reclaim Alsace and even other provinces?' It was in this way that the abuse made by Austria of the alliance revived all the traditions of rivalry. Add that Maria Theresa was devout, that she was known to be a friend of the Jesuits, an enemy of the philosophers, and that at the King's court, the favorites were accounted as acquired from Austria: everything thus contributed to render odious to public opinion the alliance which, in itself, already seemed detestable. At the time when they were beginning to style the partisans of new ideas 'patriots,' they were in the habit of confounding all the adversaries of these ideas with the 'Austrian party.' … The marriage of Marie Antoinette with the Dauphin was destined to seal forever the alliance of 1756. The unfortunate princess accumulated on her head the hatreds and prejudices heaped up by three centuries of rivalry and excessively stimulated by the still smarting impression of recent wrongs. Even the cause of her coming to France rendered her suspected by the French; they imputed to her as a crime her attachment to the alliance, which was, notwithstanding, the very reason of her marriage. To understand the prodigious unpopularity which pursued her in France, it is necessary to measure the violence of the passions raised up against her mother and her country; it was summed up, long before the Revolution, in that word which became for Marie Antoinette a decree of forfeiture and of death: the Austrian."

A. Sorel, L'Europe et la Révolution française (translated from the French), part 1, pages 288-297.

FRANCE: A. D. 1776-1778. Disposition to aid the revolt of the English colonies in America. The American embassy. Dealings of Beaumarchais and Silas Deane.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778 (pages 3241, 3244).

FRANCE: A. D. 1777. The first daily newspaper.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1777 (page 2600).

FRANCE: A. D. 1788-1789. Paris in the Revolution. The part of the Nobodies.

"The history of the revolution can no more be understood without understanding the part played in it by Paris, than one can conceive of the tragedy of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out; and to understand the part played by Paris in the revolution is equally impossible. … Let us commence at the bottom with the nobodies. They are no specialty of Paris. There are many of them in every city, but the larger the city the greater the percentage. Paris, therefore, has the highest. They are isolated particles. In the ushering in of the new era they have no part. The regulations concerning the elections to the States-General contain no provision in regard to them. … It was simply a matter of course, that these nobodies went for nothing in the question at hand. Whether they were likely to continue to be nothing in it, nobody seems to have asked. … The existence of this class was partly due to natural causes, the working of which the wit of man can to a degree mitigate, but never prevent.

{3757}

In the 'ancien régime,' however, the wit of man had altogether been bent upon stimulating it. The privilege-bane had also been extended over the domain of labor. When, in 1776, Turgot broke down the guilds, the Parliament of Paris strenuously opposed the government, declaring: all Frenchmen are divided into established corporations, forming one continuous chain from the throne down to the lowest handicraft, indispensable to the existence of the state, and not to be abolished, lest the whole social order break asunder. That was but too true. Since the days of Henry III. (1574-1589) the forcing of all industrial pursuits into the strait-jacket of guildships had been carried to the extreme of utter absurdity. Here, too, the chronic financial distress had been the principal cause. At first the handicrafts, which everybody had been at liberty to practice, were withdrawn from free competition and sold as a privilege, and then, when nothing was left to be sold, the old guilds were split up into a number of guildlets, merely to have again something to put on the counter. And it was not only left pretty much to the masters whom they would admit to the freedom of the guild, but besides the charges for it were so high that it was often absolutely out of the reach even of the most skillful journeyman. Even a blood-aristocracy was not lacking. In a number of guilds only the sons of masters and the second husbands of masters' widows could become masters. Thus an immense proletariat was gradually formed, which to a great extent was a proletariat only because the law irresistibly forced it into this position. And the city proletariat proper received constant and ever-increasing additions from the country. There such distress prevailed, that the paupers flocked in crowds to the cities. … In 1791, long before the inauguration of the Reign of Terror, there were in a population of 650,000, 118,000 paupers (indigents). Under the 'ancien régime' the immigrant proletariat from the country was by the law barred out from all ways of earning a livelihood except as common day-laborers, and the wages of these were in 1788, on an average, 26 cents for men and 15 for women, while the price of bread was higher than in our times. What a gigantic heap of ferment!"

H. von Holst, The French Revolution, lecture 2.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1792. Effects of the Revolution in Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1789-1792.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1794. Myths of the Revolution.

"The rapid growth and the considerable number of these myths are one of the most curious features of the Revolution, while their persistent vitality is a standing warning for historical students. I claim to show that Cazotte's vision was invented by Laharpe, that Sombreuil's daughter did not purchase his liberty by quaffing blood, that the locksmith Gamain was not poisoned, that Labussière did not save hundreds of prisoners by destroying the documents incriminating them, that the Girondins had no last supper, that some famous ejaculations have been fabricated or distorted, that no attempt was made to save the last batch of victims, that the boys Barra and Viala were not heroes, that no leather was made of human skins, that no Englishmen plied the September assassins with drink, that the 'Vengeur' crew did not perish rather than surrender, that the ice-bound Dutch fleet was not captured, that Robespierre's wound was not the work of Merda, but was self-inflicted, and that Thomas Paine had no miraculous escape."

J. G. Alger, Glimpses of the French Revolution, preface.

FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1796. The Assignats of the Revolution.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1789-1796 (page 2212).

FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1807. Napoleon and Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.

FRANCE: A. D. 1855-1895. Acquisitions in Africa.

(See in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1855, 1864, 1876-1880, and after.

FRANCE: A. D. 1858-1886. Conquest of Tonkin and Cochin China.

See TONKIN (page 3114).

FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1892. Advance in the policy of Protection.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1871-1892 (page 3082).

FRANCE: A. D. 1894-1895. Assassination of President Carnot. Election and resignation of M. Casimir-Périer. Election of M. Faure to the Presidency.

"The most startling of all the deeds in the recent revival of anarchistic activity was the assassination of M. Carnot, President of the French Republic, on the 24th of June. While driving through the streets of Lyons, where he was taking part in the opening ceremonies of an exposition, he was mortally stabbed by an Italian Anarchist named Santo Caserio. The assassin was immediately captured, and was executed August 16. His trial did not reveal any accomplices, though there was evidence tending to show that the deed was resolved upon by a band of Anarchists. Caserio boasted of his identification with the sect. … According to the constitutional prescription, a joint convention of the two chambers of the legislature was immediately summoned for a presidential election. The convention met at Versailles, June 27, M. Challemel-Lacour, president of the Senate, in the chair, and on the first ballot chose M. Casimir-Périer by 451 out of a total of 851 votes, M. Brisson, the Radical candidate, stood second, with 195, and M. Dupuy third, with 97."

_Political Science Quarterly, December, 1894._

On the 15th of January, 1895, M. Casimir-Périer astonished the world and threw France into consternation, almost, by suddenly and peremptorily resigning the Presidency. The reason given was the intolerable powerlessness and practical inutility of the President under the existing constitution. The exciting crisis which this resignation produced was passed through without disorder, and on the 17th the National Assembly elected M. François Felix Faure to the office of President.

FRANCE: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES (page 2010).

FRANCE, Bank of.

See MONEY (page 2212).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin, and the first subscription library.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2017).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin: Electrical discovery.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1745-1747 (page 770).

FRANKLIN, Benjamin: Examination before Parliament.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766 (pages 3192-3201).

FRANKLIN, Sir john. Northern explorations and voyages of. Loss and search for.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1822, and after.

{3758}

FREDERICK BARBAROSSA, in Italy.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1154-1190, and 1162-1177; also, pages 1811-1813.

FREE CITIES OF GERMANY, The.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: 13-15th CENTURIES; also, page 473.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.

See below: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS.

FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, The first.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1793 (page 3305).

The Second.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (pages 3388-3391).

GALEN, and the development of anatomy and physiology.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 2d CENTURY (page 2128).

GALVANI'S ELECTRICAL DISCOVERIES.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1786-1800 (page 771).

GAUL: Ancient commerce.

See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

GENOA: The Bank of St. George.

See MONEY AND BANKING (page 2207).

GENOA: Mediæval Commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

GEORGE III.: Conversation with Governor Hutchinson on affairs in the colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (pages 3210-3213).

His absolute notions of Kingship.

See England: A. D. 1760-1763 (page 927).

GEORGE, Henry, and the Single Tax movement.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880 (page 2955).

GERM THEORY OF DISEASE, Origin and development of the.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES, and 19TH CENTURY (pages 2138, 2144, and after).

----------GERMANY:Start--------

GERMANY: Outline sketch of general history.

See EUROPE (page 1015, and after).

GERMANY: A. D. 962. Otto I. and the Restoration of the Empire.

"And now it came about that out of the midst of the Germanic nations a new monarchy arose which wrested itself free from the immediate influence of the papacy and its antiquated pretensions and broke a new path for the idea of the empire, an idea that seemed to have been fully crushed. This was the empire of Otto the Great. It was not to be compared with the old Roman empire, it did not at all come up to what the Carolingian had been. But it did give strong and irrevocable expression to the idea of a highest authority in Germany, an authority bound up with religion, yet independent in itself. … The foundation of the Germanic empire, that is of an organization which, resting on the internal development of the German nations had won a universal position through the extension of the power of the Ottos over Italy, forms the event of world-wide importance of the tenth century. … This Germanic empire had no genealogical origin that was entirely indisputable, but it did in so far have an advantage over the Carolingian empire that the right of heredity in the German monarchy decided of itself the question of succession to the empire. Besides this it had a sort of overlordship over its neighbors to maintain which was different from that earlier one: the attempts at Christianizing and at the same time reducing to submission took in other regions extending far beyond the limits of the former ones. It was a resuscitation of the idea of the old Roman empire but by no means of its form. On the contrary, through constant struggles new constitutional forms had developed themselves of which the old world had as yet no conception. Not that it is the proper place here to enter more deeply into the question of the feudal system which gave to public life an altogether changed aspect. But, in a word or two at least, we must characterize this transformation. Its essence is that an attempt was made to adjust the conception of obedience and military service to the needs of the life of the individual. All the arrangements of life changed their character so soon as it became the custom to grant land to local overlords who, in turn, provided with possessions according to their own several grades, could only be sure of being able to hold these possessions in so far as they kept faith and troth with the lord-in-chief of the land. It was through and through a living organization, which took in the entire monarchy and bound it together into a many-membered whole; for the counts and dukes for their own part entered into a similar relationship with their own sub-tenants. Therewith the possession of land entered into an indissoluble connection with the theory of the empire, a connection which extended also to those border nations which were in contact with and subordinate to the monarchy. That an empire so constituted could not reckon on such unconditional obedience as had been paid to the old Roman empire is clear as day. Nevertheless the whole order of things in the world depended on the system of adjusted relationships, the keystone or rather commanding central point of which was formed by this same empire. It could scarcely claim any longer to be universal but it did nevertheless hold the chief place in the general state-system of Europe, and it proved a powerful upholder of the independence of the secular power. It was just this idea of universal power, and altogether of ascendancy over the Christian world, that was indelibly implanted in the German empire. But could this idea be actually realized, was Germany strong enough to carry it through? Otto the Great originated it, but by no means carried it to its completion. He passed his life amid constant internal and external struggles; no lasting form of constitution was he able to leave behind. That is, one might almost say, what is most characteristic of great natures: they can originate, indeed, but they cannot complete."

L. von Ranke, Weltgeschichte, (translated from the German), volume 7, pages. 5-7.

{3759}

"For what else did he (Otto I) wish to found but a world-monarchy like that of the Caesars? Emperor of the Romans and Augustus did he call himself and at Rome he had received his imperial crown. And was not for him the most sacred spot in the universe the grave of St. Peter at Rome? Was not this Saxon in armor an equally eager apostle of the Roman church with that Anglo-Saxon monk who as servant of the pope had planted Christianity in North German lands? While Otto was determined to extend the power of his empire as far as to the most distant peoples of the still unexplored north and east, he at the same time purposed to bear to the end of the world Christianity in the form in which Rome had given it him. The bones of the Roman martyrs he carried over the Alps and through faith in them he worked wonders; woods were cleared, marshes dried, cities built, victories won over the most dangerous enemies. Not only did the language of Rome sound forth from the altars of Saxony: it became at the same time the language of affairs in the emperor's chancery, and in it the commands of the all-powerful Augustus were issued to the whole world. Thus did Otto, although through and through a Saxon warrior of the old stamp, live wholly at the same time in those Roman ideas against which, in times gone by, his forefathers had struggled. The mightiest contradictions which have affected the course of the world's history met together in his personality in full force, and reconciled themselves there just as they did in the great onward course of events. … In all the movements of the time Otto took part with force and with success; the imperial title was now no empty name as it had been in the last years of the Carolingian period. But not through laws, not through an artificial state system, not through a great army of officials did Otto rule Western Europe, but more than all through the wealth of military resources which his victories had placed in his hands. Through the great army of his German vassals who were well versed in war he overthrew the Slavonians, kept the Danes in check, compelled the Hungarians to relinquish their nomadic life of plunder and to seek settled dwelling places in the plains of the Danube; so that now the gates of the East through which up till then masses of peoples threatening everything with destruction had always anew broken in upon the West were closed forever. The fame of his victories and his feudal supremacy, extending itself further and further, made him also protector of the Burgundian and French kingdoms, and finally lord of Lombardy and of the City of Rome. With the military resources of Germany he holds in subjection the surrounding peoples; but through the power thus won, on the other hand, he himself gains a proud ascendancy over the multitude of his own vassals. Only for the reason that he wins for himself a truly royal position in Germany is he enabled to gain the imperial crown; but this again it is which first really secures and confirms his own and his family's rule in the German lands. On this rests chiefly his preeminent position, that he is the first and mightiest lord of Western Christendom, that as such he is able at any moment to bring together a numerous military force with which no people, no prince can any longer cope. But not on this alone. For the Catholic clergy also, spreading far and wide over the whole west, serves him as it were like a new crowd of vassals in stole and cassock. He nominates the archbishops and bishops in his German and Italian kingdoms as well as in the newly converted lands of the North and East; he rules the successor of St. Peter and through him exercises a decisive influence on church progress even in the western lands where he does not himself install the dignitaries of the church. Different as this German empire was from the Frankish, faulty as was its organization, its resources seemed nevertheless sufficient in the hand of a competent ruler to maintain a far-reaching and effectual rule in the West; the more so as it was upheld by public opinion and supported by the authority of the church. But one must not be led into error; these resources were only sufficient in the hands of a so powerful and active prince as Otto. From the Elbe marshes he hastened to the Abruzzian Mountains; from the banks of the Rhine now to the shores of the Adriatic, now to the sand-dunes of the Baltic. Ceaselessly is he in motion, continually under arms—first against the Wends and Hungarians, then against the Greeks and Lombards. No county in his wide realm, no bishopric in Catholic Christendom but what he fixed his eye upon and vigilantly watched. And wherever he may tarry and whatever he may undertake his every act is full of fire, force and vigor and always hits the mark. With such a representative the empire is not only the highest power in the Western world but one which on all its affairs has a deep and active influence—a power as much venerated as it was dreaded."

W. von Giesebrecht, Deutsche Kaiserzeit (translated from the German). volume 1, pages 476-484.

"He (Otto) now permanently united the Roman empire to the German nation and this powerful and intelligent people undertook the illustrious but thankless task of being the Atlas of universal history. And soon enough did the connection of Germany with Italy result in the reform of the church and the revival of the various sciences, while in Italy itself it was essentially the Germanic element which brought into being the glorious civic republics. Through a historical necessity, doubtless, Germany and Italy, the purest representatives of the antique and the Teutonic types and the fairest provinces in the kingdom of human thought, were brought into this long-lasting connection. From this point of view posterity has no right to complain that the Roman empire was laid like a visitation of Fate on our Fatherland and compelled it for centuries to pour out its life-blood in Italy in order to construct those foundations of general European culture for which modern humanity has essentially Germany to thank."

Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom (translated from the German), volume 3, page 334.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 936-973 (pages 1439-1441).

GERMANY: 11-12th Centuries. The question of the Investitures.

See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 11-12TH CENTURIES.

{3760}

GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1272(?). The Rise of the College of Electors.

"At the election of Rudolph [1272 or 1273?] we meet for the first time the fully developed college of electors as a single electoral body; the secondary matter of a doubt regarding what individuals composed it was definitely settled before Rudolph's reign had come to an end. How did the college of electors develop itself? … The problem is made more difficult at the outset from the fact that, in the older form of government in Germany there can be no question at all of a simple electoral right in a modern sense. The electoral right was amalgamated with a hereditary right of that family which had happened to come to the throne: it was only a right of selection from among the heirs available within this family. Inasmuch now as such selection could,—as well from the whole character of German kingship as in consequence of its amalgamation with the empire—take place already during the lifetime of the ruling member of the family, it is easy to understand that in ages in which the ruling race did not die out during many generations, the right came to be at last almost a mere form. Usually the king, with the consent of those who had the right of election, would, already during his lifetime, designate as his successor one of his heirs,—if possible his oldest son. Such was the rule in the time of the Ottos and of the Salian emperors. It was a rule which could not be adhered to in the first half of the 12th century after the extinction of the Salian line, when free elections, not determined beforehand by designation, took place in the years 1125, 1138 and 1152. Necessarily the clement of election now predominated. But had any fixed order of procedure at elections been handed down from the past? The very principle of election having been disregarded in the natural course of events for centuries, was it any wonder that the order of procedure should also come to be half forgotten? And had not in the meantime social readjustments in the electoral body so disturbed this order of procedure, or such part of it as had been important enough to be preserved, as necessarily to make it seem entirely antiquated? With these questions the electoral assemblies of the year 1125 as well as of the year 1138 were brought face to face and they found that practically only those precedents could be taken from what seemed to have been the former customary mode of elections which provided that the archbishop of Mainz as chancellor of the empire should first solemnly announce the name of the person elected and the electors present should do homage to the new king. This was at the end of the whole election, after the choice had to all intents and purposes been already made. For the material part of the election, on the other hand, the part that preceded this announcement, they found an apparently new expedient. A committee was to draw up an agreement as to the person to be chosen; in the two cases in question the manner of constituting this committee differed. Something essential had now been done towards establishing a mode of procedure at elections which should accord with the changed circumstances. One case however had not been provided for in these still so informal and uncertain regulations; the case, namely, that those taking part in the election could come to no agreement at all with regard to the person whose choice was to be solemnly announced by the archbishop of Mainz. And how could men have foreseen such a case in the first half of the 12th century? Up till then double elections had absolutely never taken place. Anti-kings there had been, indeed, but never two opposing kings elected at the same time. In the year 1198, however, this contingency arose; Philip of Suabia and Otto IV were contemporaneously elected and the final unanimity of choice that in 1152 had still been counted on as a matter of course did not come about. As a consequence questions with regard to the order of procedure now came up which had hardly ever been touched upon before. First and foremost this one: can a better right of one of the elected kings be founded on a majority of the votes obtained? And in connection with it this other: who on the whole has a right to cast an electoral vote? Even though men were inclined now to answer the first question in the affirmative, the second, the presupposition for the practical application of the principle that had been laid down in the first, offered all the greater difficulties. Should one, after the elections of the years 1125 and 1152 and after the development since 1180 of a more circumscribed class of princes of the realm, accept the existence of a narrower electoral committee? Did this have a right to elect exclusively, or did it only have a simple right of priority in the matter of casting votes, or perhaps only a certain precedence when the election was being discussed? And how were the limits to be fixed for the larger circle of electors below this electoral committee? These are questions which the German electors put to themselves less soon and less clearly than did the pope, Innocent III, whom they had called upon to investigate the double election of the year 1198. … He speaks repeatedly of a narrower electoral body with which rests chiefly the election of the king, and he knows only princes as the members of this body. And beyond a doubt the repeated expressions of opinion of the pope, as well as this whole matter of having two kings, at the beginning of the 13th century, gave men in Germany cause for reflection with regard to these weighty questions concerning the constitutional forms of the empire. One of the most important results of this reflection on the subject is to be found in the solution given by the Sachsenspiegel which was compiled about 1230. Eike von Repgow knows in his law-book only of a precedence at elections of a smaller committee of princes, but mentions as belonging to this committee certain particular princes: the three Rhenish archbishops, the count Palatine of the Rhine, the duke of Saxony, the margrave of Brandenburg and,—his right being questionable indeed—the king of Bohemia. … So far, at all events, did the question with regard to the limitation of the electors seem to have advanced towards its solution by the year 1230 that an especial electoral college of particular persons was looked upon as the nucleus of those electing. But side by side with this view the old theory still held its own, that certainly all princes at least had an equal right in the election. Under Emperor Frederick II, for instance, it was still energetically upheld. A decision one way or the other could only be reached according to the way in which the next elections should actually be carried out. Henry Raspe was elected in the year 1246 almost exclusively by ecclesiastical princes, among them the three Rhenish archbishops. He was the first 'priest-king' (Pfaffenkönig). The second 'priest-king' was William of Holland. He was chosen by eleven princes, among whom was only one layman, the duke of Brabant. The others were bishops; among them, in full force, the archbishops of the Rhine. {3761} Present were also many counts. But William caused himself still to be subsequently elected by the duke of Saxony and the margrave of Brandenburg, while the king of Bohemia was also not behindhand in acknowledging him—that, too, with special emphasis. What transpired at the double election of Alphonse and Richard in the year 1257 has not been handed down with perfect trustworthiness. Richard claimed later to have been elected by Mainz, Cologne, the Palatinate and Bohemia; Alphonse by Treves, Saxony, Brandenburg and Bohemia. But in addition to the princes of these lands, other German princes also took part,—according to the popular view by assenting, according to their own view, in part at least, by actually electing. All the same the lesson taught by all these elections is clear enough. The general right of election of the princes disappears almost altogether; a definite electoral college, which was looked upon as possessing almost exclusively the sole right of electing, comes into prominence, and the component parts which made it up correspond in substance to the theory of the Sachsenspiegel. And whatever in the year 1257 is not established firmly and completely and in all directions, stands there as incontrovertible at the election of Rudolph. The electors, and they only, now elect; all share of others in the election is done away with. Although in place of Ottocar of Bohemia who was at war with Rudolph Bavaria seems to have been given the electoral vote, yet before Rudolph's reign is out, in the year 1290, Bohemia at last attains to the dignity which the Sachsenspiegel, even if with some hesitation, had assigned to it. One of the most important revolutions in the German form of government was herewith accomplished. From among the aristocratic class of the princes an oligarchy had raised itself up, a representation of the princely provincial powers as opposed to the king. Unconsciously, as it were, had it come into being, not exactly desired by anyone as a whole, nor yet the result of a fixed purpose even as regarded its separate parts. It must clearly have corresponded to a deep and elementary and gradually developing need of the time. Undoubtedly from a national point of view it denotes progress; henceforward at elections the danger of 'many heads many minds' was avoided; the era of double elections was practically at an end."

K. Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte (translated from the German), volume 4, pages 23-28.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152 (page 1444).

GERMANY:A. D. 1154-1190. Frederick Barbarossa in Italy.

See (in this Supplement) ITALY: A. D. 1154-1190.

GERMANY:A. D. 1162-1177. The Emperor and the Pope.

See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1177.

GERMANY:12th-17th Centuries. Causes of the Disintegration of the Empire.

"The whole difference between French and German constitutional history can be summed up in a word: to the ducal power, after its fall, the crown fell heir in France; the lesser powers, which had been its own allies, in Germany. The event was the same, the results were different: in France centralization, in Germany disintegration. The fall of the power of the stem-duchies is usually traced to the subjugation of the mightiest of the dukes, Henry the Lion, who refused military service to the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa just when the latter most needed him in the struggle against the Lombards.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183 (page 2813).

… The emperor not only banned the duke, he not only took away his duchy to bestow it elsewhere, but he entirely did away with this whole form of rule. The western part, Westphalia, went to the archbishops of Cologne; in the East the different margraves were completely freed from the last remnants of dependence that might have continued to exist. In the intervening space the little ecclesiastical and secular lords came to be directly under the emperor without a trace of an intermediate power and with the title of bishop or abbot, imperial count, or prince. If one of these lords, Bernard of Ascanium, received the title of Saxon duke, that title no longer betokened the head of a stem or nation but simply an honorary distinction above other counts and lords. What happened here had already begun to take place in the other duchy of the Guelphs, in Bavaria, through the detachment from it of Austria; sooner or later the same process came about in all parts of the empire. With the fall of the old stem-duchies those lesser powers which had been under their shadow or subject to them gained every where an increase of power: partly by this acquiring the ducal title as an honorary distinction by the ruler of a smaller district, partly by joining rights of the intermediate powers that had just been removed to their own jurisdictions and thus coming into direct dependence on the empire. … Such was the origin of the idea of territorial supremacy. The 'dominus terrae' comes to feel himself no longer as a person commissioned by the emperor but as lord in his own land. … As to the cities, behind their walls remnants of old Germanic liberty had been preserved. Especially in the residences of the bishops had artisans and merchants thriven and these classes had gradually thrown off their bondage, forming, both together, the new civic community. … The burghers could find no better way to show their independence of the princes than that the community itself should exercise the rights of a territorial lord over its members. Thus did the cities as well as the principalities come to form separate territories, only that the latter had a monarchical, the former a republican form of government. … It is a natural question to ask, on the whole, when this new formation of territories was completed. … The question ought really only to be put in a general way: at what period in German history is it an established fact that there are in the empire and under the empire separate territorial powers (principalities and cities)? As such a period we can designate approximately the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th centuries. From that time on the double nature of imperial power and of territorial power is an established fact and the mutual relations of these two make up the whole internal history of later times. … The last ruler who had spread abroad the glory of the imperial name had been Frederick II. For a long time after him no one had worn the imperial crown at all, and of those kings who reigned during a whole quarter of a century not one succeeded in making himself generally recognized. There came a time when the duties of the state, if they were fulfilled at all, were fulfilled by the territorial powers. {3762} Those are the years which pass by the name of the interregnum. … Rudolph of Hapsburgh and his successors, chosen from the most different houses and pursuing the most different policies, have quite the same position in two regards: on the one hand the crown, in the weak state in which it had emerged from the interregnum, saw itself compelled to make permanent concessions to the territorial powers in order to maintain itself from one moment to another; on the other hand it finds no refuge for itself but in the constant striving to found its own power on just such privileged territories. When the kings strive to make the princes and cities more powerful by giving them numerous privileges, and at the same time by bringing together a dynastic appanage to gain for themselves an influential position: this is no policy that wavers between conceding and maintaining. … The crown can only keep its place above the territories by first recognizing the territorial powers and then, through just such a recognized territorial power by creating for itself the means of upholding its rights. … The next great step in the onward progress of the territorial power was the codification of the privileges which the chief princes had obtained. Of the law called the 'Golden Bull' only the one provision is generally known, that the seven electors shall choose the emperor; yet so completely does the document in question draw the affairs of the whole empire into the range of its provisions that for centuries it could pass for that empire's fundamental law. It is true that, for the most part it did not create a new system of legislation but only sanctioned what already existed. But for the position of all the princes it was significant enough that the seven most considerable among them were granted an independence which comprised sovereign rights, and this not by way of a privilege but as a part of the law of the land. A sharply defined goal, and herein lies the deepest significance, was thus set up at which the lesser territories could aim and which, after three centuries, they were to attain. … This movement was greatly furthered when on the threshold of modern times the burning question of church reform, after waiting in vain to be taken up by the emperor, was taken up by the lower classes, but with revolutionary excesses. … The mightiest intellectual movement of German history found at last its only political mainstay in the territories. … This whole development, finally, found its political and legal completion through the Thirty Years War and the treaty of peace which concluded it. The new law which the Peace of Westphalia now gave to the empire proclaimed expressly that all territories should retain their rights, especially the right of making alliances among themselves and with foreigners so long as it could be done without violating the oath of allegiance to the emperor and the empire. Herewith the territories were proclaimed to be what they had really been for a long time—states under the empire."

I. Jastrow, Geschichte der deutschen Einheitstraum und seiner Erfüllung (translated from the German). pages 30-37.

GERMANY: 13th-15th Centuries. The rise of the Free Cities and their Leagues.

"Under cities we are to understand fortified places in the enjoyment of market-jurisdiction (marktrecht), immunity and corporate self-government. The German as well as the French cities are a creation of the Middle Ages. They were unknown to the Frankish as well as to the old Germanic public law; there was no organic connection with the Roman town-system. … All cities were in the first place markets; only in market-jurisdiction are we to seek the starting point for civic jurisdiction. The market-cross, the same emblem which already in the Frankish period signified the market-peace imposed under penalty of the king's ban, became in the Middle Ages the emblem of the cities. … After the 12th century we find it to be the custom in most German and many French cities to erect a monumental town-cross in the market-place or at different points on the city boundary. Since the 14th century the place of this was often taken in North-German cities by the so-called Roland-images. … All those market-places gradually became cities in which, in addition to yearly markets, weekly markets and finally daily markets were held. Here there was need of coins and of scales, of permanent fortifications for the protection of the market-peace and the objects of value which were collected together; here merchants settled permanently in growing numbers, the Jews among them especially forming an important element. Corporative associations of the merchants resulted, and especially were civic and market tribunals established. … From the beginning such a thing as free cities, which were entirely their own masters, had not existed. Each city had its lord; who he was depended on to whom the land belonged on which they stood. If it belonged to the empire or was under the administration (vogtei) of the empire the city was a royal or imperial one. The oldest of these were the Pfalz-cities (Pfalzstädte) which had developed from the king's places of residence (Königspfälze). … Beginning with the 12th century and in course of the 13th century all cities came to have such an organ [i. e. a body of representatives] called the Stadtrath (consilium, consules) with one or more burgomasters (magistri civium) at their head. Herewith did the city first become a public corporation, a city in the legal sense. … Of the royal cities many since the time of Frederick II had lost their direct dependence on the empire (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) and had become territorial or provincial cities, through having been sold or pledged by the imperial government. As soon as the view had gained ground that the king had no right to make such dispositions and thus to disregard the privileges that had been granted to the cities, people spoke no longer of royal cities but of cities of the empire. These had, all of them, in course of time, even where the chief jurisdiction remained in the hand of an imperial official, attained a degree of independence approximating to the territorial supremacy of the princes. They had their special courts as corporations before the king. Since the second half of the 13th century they rejoiced in an autonomy modified only by the laws of the realm; they had the disposal of their own armed contingents and the sole right of placing garrisons in their fortresses. They had accordingly also the right of making leagues and carrying on feuds, the right to lordless lands (Heimfallsrecht) … and other prerogatives. The cities of the empire often ruled at the same time over extensive territories. … {3763} Among the cities of the empire were comprised after the 14th century also various cities of bishoprics which had been able to protect themselves from subjection to the territorial power of the bishop, and which only stood to it in a more or less loose degree of subordination. … For the majority of the cities of bishoprics which later became cities of the empire the denomination 'Free Cities' came up in the 14th century (not till later 'Free Cities of the Empire'). … Among the leagues of cities, which especially contributed to raise their prestige and paved the way to their becoming Estates of the Empire or of the principalities, the great Rhenish civic confederation (1254-1256) lasted too short a time to have an enduring effect. The Swabian civic league was for purely political purposes—the maintenance of the direct dependence on the empire (Reichsunmittelbarkeit) against the claims of territorial sovereignty of the princes, and its unfortunate ending served rather to deteriorate than to improve the condition of the cities. It was different with the Hansa. This name, which signified nothing else than gild or brotherhood, was first applied to the gild of the German merchants in the 'stahlhof' in London. This gild, having originated from the amalgamation of various national Houses of German merchants in England, had finally, under the name of 'Hansa of Germany' or 'Gildhall of the Germans in England,' come to comprise all Germans who carried on trade with England. Similar associations of the German merchants were the 'German House' in Venice, the 'German Counting-house' in Bruges and the German Hansas in Wisby on Gotland, in Schonen, Bergen, Riga and Novgorod. The chief purpose of these Hansas was the procuring of a 'House' as a shelter for persons and for wares, the maintaining of peace among, the Hansa brothers, legal protection, the acquisition of commercial privileges, etc. The Hansas were gilds with several elected aldermen at their heads who represented them in external matters and who administered the property. … Quarrels among the brothers might not, under penalty, be brought before external tribunals; they were to be brought before the Hansa committee as a gild-tribunal. This committee had also an extended penal jurisdiction over the members; under certain circumstances they had even the power of life and death in their hands. An especially effective punishment was the Hansa Bann, which occasioned, besides expulsion from the Hansa, a complete boycott on the part of the Hansa brothers. … The community of interests thus founded among these cities led repeatedly, already as early as the second half of the 13th century, to common steps on their part; so that in Hansa affairs a tacit league existed, even although it had not been expressly sanctioned. After this had become more clearly apparent in the troubles with Flanders (1356-1358) the name Hansa was also applied to this league-relationship, so that henceforward besides the Hansa of the German merchants there existed a Hansa of the German cities. The Hanseatic League received a firm organization through the Greifswald and Cologne confederations of 1361 and 1367, both of which were at first only entered into for a single warlike undertaking (against Waldemar of Denmark), but which were then repeatedly renewed and finally looked upon as a permanent league. The Hanseatic League … came forward in external matters, even in international relationships, as an independent legal entity. It carried on war and entered into treaties with foreign nations; it had a league army at its disposal and a league fleet; it acquired whole territorial districts and saw to the building of fortresses. In itself it was not a defensive and offensive league; it did not concern itself with the feuds of single cities with outsiders. The sphere of activity of the league was essentially confined to the province of commerce: protection of commerce, … the closing of commercial treaties, etc. … The head of the League was and continued to be Lubeck. Its kernel, as it were, was formed by the Wendish (i. e. Mecklenburg and Pomeranian) cities which were united under Lubeck. Originally any city of Lower Germany which asked to be taken in was received into the League. … Hansa cities which did not fulfil their federal obligations came under the penalty of the Hansa bann and the general commercial ostracism consequent upon it. … The federal power was exercised by civic diets, which were assemblies of delegates from the members of the council [Rath] of the individual cities. The summons was sent by Lubeck. The decrees were passed in the form of 'recesses.' … Within the League again were narrower leagues with their own common affairs and their own civic diets. After numerous changes the four 'quarters' were recognized as such: the Wendish under Lubeck as its head, the Saxon under Brunswick, the Cologne under Cologne, the Prussian-Livonian under Danzig.

R. Schröder, Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (translated from the German), pages 588-609.

See, also, HANSA TOWNS (page 1624), and CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE (page 473).

GERMANY: 15th-17th Centuries. The decay of the Hansa.

"The complete ruin of the empire in the course of the 15th century necessarily entailed at last the ruin also of its members. Nowhere did this elementary truth make itself felt in a more terrible manner than in northeastern Germany, in those colonial districts which in consequence of the extraordinary development of the Hansa had risen in importance to the extent of having an influence on the whole east and northeast of Europe. Here the year 1370 had denoted for the Hansa a climax without a parallel. After a glorious war it had closed with the Danish king, Waldemar Atterdag, a peace which seemed about to keep the northern kingdoms, for a long time to come, under the power of its will. But, soon after, the Lubeck-Hanseatic policy began to degenerate. … The Hansa had looked on without interfering at the struggle which began between the Teutonic Order and Poland. This freed it from the threatening maritime supremacy of the Order; besides this it had just become involved, itself, in conflicts in the North. … A long and tedious war ensued … which ended to the disadvantage of the Hansa. … Within the Hansa, during the struggle, the divergency of interests between the Wendish, Prussian and Livonian cities had for the first time become so pronounced as to amount to complete disunion, and already in 1431 in Hanseatic circles the fear could be expressed … 'that the noble confederation of our Hansa will be dissolved and destroyed.' Such being the case it soon became evident that the struggle with King Erich had actually cost the Hansa the 'Dominium maris Baltici.' {3764} For one thing the English and the Dutch, more and more unopposed, began to carry on in the East a commerce which was hostile to the Hansa. … While the Western enemies of the Hansa thus appeared in districts on the Baltic, which had hitherto been reserved for the Hanseatic merchant, the influence on the North Sea of the Baltic Hansa cities diminished also more and more. It was possible indeed, for some time to come, still to hold on to Norway. But further to the southwest the Hansa ships, in the war which England in union with Burgundy had been waging with France since the year 1415, saw themselves attacked on all sides in spite of the neutral flag. It was well-known that the empire would not protect the German flag. It was worse still that in England a more and more violent opposition arose against the Hanseatic privileges, for the progress of this movement laid bare once and for all the fundamental contrast between the commercial interests in England of the Rhenish Hansa cities and those of the 'Osterlings' [Eastern cities]. If the English were prepared perhaps to further extend the rights of the Hansa in their land in return for the simultaneous free entry of their flag in the Baltic, that was a condition which pleased the German western cities as much as it seemed unacceptable to the Osterlings, Lubeck at their head. The English had succeeded in carrying discord into the enemy's camp. Affairs in Flanders were on a footing equally dangerous to the continued existence of the Hansa as a whole. … Lubeck, in a diet of the year 1466, recommended the members of the Hansa to consider the merchants of Cologne as not belonging to the Hansa when in the lands of the Duke of Burgundy. A complete breach could not now fail to come. It occurred, very unfortunately for Cologne and the western cities, on English territory. In 1468 English ships were plundered in the 'Sund,' at the bidding, as was claimed, of the Hansa. The result was that King Edward IV took prisoner all German merchants who happened to be in England and forbade commercial intercourse with Germany. From this restriction, however, the Cologners were able to free themselves through separate negotiations with the king. It was an inconsiderate step thus to separate themselves from the rest of the Hansa, and that, too, in such a question as this. Cologne stood there fully isolated now even from the western cities. Lubeck at once profited by the occasion to have Cologne placed under the Hansa bann and soon after the Hansa, almost entirely united now except for Cologne, began the war against England. In the year 1472 a great fleet sailed out against the island-kingdom; it had complete success. The peace of Utrecht of February 18th 1474 restored once more the old Hanseatic privileges in England and opened up the prospect of damages amounting to £10,000. Cologne had to submit; in 1478 it returned to the Hansa. But all the same there was no complete restoration of the old unity. The mercantile differences between the west and the east cities not only continued but increased, and a dominion over the Baltic, not to mention the North Sea, was, in spite of the momentary success in England, no longer to be thought of. … After about 1490 the interests also of the Wendish cities including, say, Bremen, Hamburg and Lüneburg, became divided. … Thus towards the end of the 15th century the Hansa bore the stamp of decline in all directions, … the political-mercantile preponderance on land, as well as the 'Dominium maris Baltici,' was broken and the league itself was torn by internal dissensions. In the years from 1476 to 1494 only one common Hansa diet was held; complete ruin was now only a question of time. The 16th century and a part still of the 17th century comprise the period of the slow wasting away of the Hansa. While at the beginning of this period the South German merchant-princes developed a German world-commerce, the satiated mercantile houses of the North showed themselves incapable of progressing even on purely commercial paths. They remained in the ruts of old-fashioned commerce." In England "less and less regard was paid to the warnings and plaints of this antiquated piece of retrogression, until Queen Elisabeth made use of the incautious promulgation of an imperial edict forbidding English merchants to settle in the Hansa cities to simply abrogate the Hanseatic privileges in England. It was the key-stone on the tomb of the Hanseatic relations with England, once so close and full of import."

K. Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte (translated from the German), volume 4, pages 468-484.

"The unmerciful fate which had overtaken the German nation [the 30 years war], like a storm wind descending upon the land, gave also the death-blow to that proud communal system which when in its prime showed better than any other institution the greatness of the German power in the Middle Ages. He who does not know the history of the Hansa does not know how to estimate the true significance of our people. He does not know that no goal was too distant for it, no task too great; that at the same time it could belong to the first commercial nations of the world and intellectually absorb and work over the idea of humanism, could offer defiance to the kings of the Danes and challenge the pope for usurping the rule of the world. How did things still look on the Thames when in Dantzig, day after day, four or five hundred ships were running in and out, when the merchants of Soest, Dortmund and Osnabrück were opening their counting-houses in the Warangian city of Novgorod? It is in truth nothing new if the German nation today again begins to reckon itself among the naval powers. … In those days it was also the baneful religious schism which hindered the great commercial centres on the German northern coast from making use of the favoring constellations which presented themselves. The evangelical burghers of Lubeck and Rostock could not make up their minds for the sake of advantageous trade connections with Spain to become bailiffs of their brothers of the faith in Holland; they could put no trust in the brilliant promises with which the emperor's Jesuits tried to turn them away from the cause of Denmark and Sweden, and herewith probably the last opportunity was missed of breathing new life in the already aging commercial league. The attempt made in 1641 to renew the league by ten cities remained ineffectual. Lubeck which already in 1629 had lost 96 ships could no longer keep itself from ruin; its great commercial houses became bankrupt and drew down the smaller ones with them in their fall; Dantzig, which still in 1619 had been able to show an export of grain to the amount of 102,981 tons, exported in 1655 only 11,361, and in 1659 not more than 542 tons."

Zwideneck-Sü-denhorst, Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740 (translated from the German), volume 1, page 50.

{3765}

GERMANY: 16th Century. At the beginning of the Reformation Movement.

"An increase in pilgrimages first begins to mark a new phase of religious life which was encouraged by the admonitions of preachers of repentance like Capistrano. Like an avalanche did the numbers grow of the pilgrims who streamed together from all parts of Upper and Central Germany, from the foot of the Alps to the Harz Mountains. Thirty, even seventy thousand might have been counted of those who assembled at Niklashausen to hear the words of the prophet (Boeheim) who was already reverenced as a saint. … This 'saint' was burned with an Ave Maria upon his lips. … It might have been supposed that the sad outcome of these movements would have frightened men away, but no; one can boldly maintain on the contrary that never, save during the crusades, were so many pilgrimages made as in the last 60 or 70 years before the reformation. … If that way of striving after righteousness before God, vain and mistaken as it seems to us, may be looked upon as religion, then the last fifty or sixty years before the reformation show an exceptionally high degree of religious feeling, or at least of religions need; a feeling ever increasing through lack of means to satisfy it. With regard to the clergy, indeed, things looked dark enough, especially in North and Central Germany. One does not know which was greater, their lack of knowledge or their lack of morality. … The most incredible facts were brought to light by the later visitations. … The result might have been a complete return to heathenism had such a clergy, which could show, especially in the larger South German cities, but few redeeming exceptions, had the whole spiritual guidance of the people in its hands. But it did not; and the doings of the secular clergy by no means affected the religious life of the community as they would have done to-day. The exponents and fosterers of this religious life at that time in Germany were the mendicant friars: Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinian friars. … Many things in the outer world, especially at the end of the century, came to aid the church's efforts: the needs of an age in which so much was unstable; the anger of Heaven which, as the monks so drastically preached and the multitude piously believed, so evidently threatened to vent itself. That period of history, indeed, might be called a prosperous one by anyone regarding merely superficially the condition of social and political affairs. It is well known how German commerce prospered at that time, extending to all parts of the world and ever having new paths opened up for it by the new discoveries. Frenchmen and Italians, astounded at the riches and princely splendor which the commercial magnates in the South German trade-centres were able to display, sang the praises of the prosperity and culture of the land. Industry and commerce were on the increase and art, realizing its highest aims, found an abiding-place and self-sacrificing patrons in the houses of the citizens. With every year the number of high and low-grade schools on the Rhine and in South Germany increased in number, and were still scarcely able to do justice to the pressing educational needs. An undercurrent of fresh and joyous creative impulse, full of promise for the future, can be traced among the burghers. But if one regards the age as a whole one sees everywhere not only a threatening, but actually a present decline. The abundant popular literature, more even than the writings of scholars, gives a clear insight into these matters. … Since the days of antiquity, on the eve of the French Revolution alone do we find the opposing principles so sharply contrasted with each other as they were at the end of the Middle Ages. In the rich commercial cities themselves there was already an immense proletariat as opposed to the excessive wealth; and there is reason to believe that never, even counting the present day, have there been so many beggars as in those decades. It must be borne in mind that, both practically and theoretically, beggary was furthered by the church. Much from her rich table fell into the lap of the poor man, and actually not only was it no shame to beg but beggary was a vocation like any other. The man who ate the bread of beggary stood morally higher than he who toiled to gain a living. … Men did, on the other hand, have the consciousness that the great accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals furthered poverty as it always does. The complaints are general against 'selfishness'; the pauper, the town artisan, the noble and the scholar are remarkably in accord on this one point, that deception, usury and cheating are the only explanation of the prosperity of the merchant. When the knight attacked the goods-waggons of the traders he believed that he was only taking what rightfully belonged to himself. The merchants and the rich prelates were responsible to his mind for the deterioration of his own class or estate which can no longer hold its own against the rich civilians. All the more does he oppress his own serfs. Only seldom among the higher classes do we hear a word of pity for the poor man, a word of blame against the fleecing and harrassing of the peasants; much oftener bitter scorn and mockery, which nevertheless is founded on fear; for men know well enough in their inmost souls that the peasant is only waiting for a suitable moment in which to strike out and take bloody vengeance, and anxiously do they await the future. Even among the citizens themselves those who were without possessions were filled with hatred against the rich and against those of high degree. The introduction of Roman law, unintelligible to the burgher and peasant, made the feeling of being without law a common one. The more firmly did men pin their faith on that future in which the Last Judgment of God was to come and annihilate priests and lords. Such impressions, which were kept vivid by an ever spreading popular literature, by word of mouth and by pictorial representations, could only be heightened by the state of political affairs in the last decades of the 15th century and the first years of the 16th. Well known are the many struggles for the firmer organization of the empire, for the carrying through of the reform-plans of a Berthold of Mainz. The publicists of the time, and to no small degree the Emperor Maximilian himself, who, if he wanted to carry through any measure addressed himself directly to the people, cast broadside among the populace numerous pamphlets containing the most unintelligible ideas and promises. {3766} And what a host of plans and ideas did this much loved, knightly emperor not have! How beautifully could he talk of old German might and glory and draw pictures of a rosy future. With intense interest did men follow the transactions of the diets which promised to better affairs. One plan of taxation followed on the heels of another. What project was left undiscussed for the better carrying out of the Peace of the Land! In the end everything remained as it had been save the want and general discomfort which increased from year to year. Bad harvests and consequent rise in prices, famine, severe sicknesses and plagues are once more the stock chapters in the chronicles. Frightful indeed were the ravages caused by the first, almost epidemic, appearance of the Syphilis; with regard to which, during the whole period of the reformation, the moral judgment wavered. … It is a wondrous, gloomy time, torn by contradictions, a time in which all is in a ferment, everything seems to totter. Everything but one institution, the firmly welded edifice of the Roman church. To Germany also came the news of the horrible vices with which the popes just at this time disgraced the Holy See: people knew that no deed was too black for them when it was a question of satisfying their greed of power and their lust. But nevertheless they remained the successors of Peter and the representatives of Christ, and so little can one speak of a process of dissolution in the church, that the latter appears on the contrary the only stable power and the religious-ecclesiastical idea is rather the one that rules all things. Although men to a great extent scorn and mock her servants and long often with burning hatred for their annihilation, yet it continues always to be the church that holds the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and that can avert the wrath of God; the church, to which the anxious soul turns as the last anchor of hope and tries to outdo itself in her service. It is not indeed pious reverence for a God who is holy and yet gracious that draws the sinners to their knees, but the dread of the tortures of purgatory and of the wrath of Him who sits above the world to judge it. This causes the soul, restless, dissatisfied, to be ceaseless in its endeavors to conciliate the Angry One through sacrificial service—the whole religious activity being one half-despairing 'Miserere' called forth by fear. Such was the spirit of the age in which Martin Luther was born and in which he passed his youth."

Kolde, Martin Luther (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 5-27.

See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513, to 1517-1521 (pages 2441-2450).

GERMANY: 16th Century. The Catholic Reaction.

"Altogether about the year 1570 the spread of protestantism in Germany and the lands under its influence had reached its zenith. It had been accepted by the great majority of the nation—already in 1558 about seven tenths; the gaining over of the rest also seemed only a question of the near future. Yet beyond a doubt its lasting success was only legally assured in places where it had won over the governing power and could stand on the generally recognized basis of the religious peace. This was the case in the secular principalities of the protestant dynasties, but not in the Wittelsbach and Hapsburgh lands, where its lawful existence depended only on the personal concessions of the existing ruler, and still less in the ecclesiastical territories. … To give it here the secure legal basis which it lacked was the most important problem, as regarded internal German affairs, of the protestant policy. … The only way to attain this was to secure the recognition on the part of the empire of the free right of choosing a confession in the bishoprics; in other words the renunciation of the 'Ecclesiastical reservation.' … This goal could only be attained if the protestants advanced in a solid phalanx. This is, however, just what they could not do. For they themselves were torn by bitter contentions with regard to the faith. … From this point of view it was no boon that Calvinism, the specifically French form of protestantism, found entrance also into Germany. … Under its influence, to begin with, the Saxon-Thuringian church became divided in its interpretation of the teachings concerning justification and the Lord's Supper. … The complications were still further increased when Frederick III of the Palatinate, elector since 1559, disgusted at the quarrelsomeness of the Lutheran theologians, dismissed the zealot Tilemann in August 1560, and in 1563 gave over the recognized church of the Palatinate to Calvinism. Herewith he completely estranged the Lutherans who did not regard the Calvinists as holding the same faith. … Germany could no longer count itself among the great powers and at home the discord was ever increasing. The motion of the Palatinate in the electoral diet of October 1575 to incorporate in the religious peace the so-called 'Declaration of King Ferdinand' with regard to it, and thus to secure the local option with regard to a creed in the bishoprics, was opposed not only by the ecclesiastical members of the electoral college but also by the electorate of Saxony. In consequence of the same party strife a similar motion of the Palatinate, made in the diet of Regensburg, was lost. … On the one hand hostilities grew more bitter among the German protestants, on the other the Roman church, supported by the power of the Spanish world-monarchy, advanced everywhere, within and without the German empire, to a well-planned attack. … She had won her first victory in the empire with the refusal in 1576 to grant the local option of creed, for this was almost equivalent to a recognition on the protestant side of the 'Ecclesiastical Reservation.' The more eagerly did Rome, by demanding the oath drawn up in the council of Trent, strive to chain fast her bishops to her, to remove those who made opposition even if it had to happen by disregarding the law of the land and the religious treaties, to bring zealous catholic men into the episcopal sees—everywhere to set the reaction in motion. The manner of proceeding was always the same: the protestant pastors and teachers were banished; the catholic liturgy, in which the utmost splendor was unfolded, was reintroduced into the churches, and competent catholic clergy were put in office. The members of the community, left without a leader, had now only the choice allowed to them of joining the catholic church or of emigrating; the protestant officials were replaced by catholic ones; new institutions of learning, conducted by Jesuits, were founded for the purpose of winning the rising generation, inwardly also, for Catholicism. {3767} Beyond a doubt this whole work of restoration put an end in many cases to a confused and untenable state of affairs, but at least as often it crushed down by force a healthy, natural development and wrought havoc in the moral life of the people. Thus did the reaction gain the ascendancy in most of the ecclesiastical principalities of the South; in the North the scale still hung in the balance. … And in this condition of affairs the discord among the protestants grew worse year by year! 'Their war is our peace' was the exultant cry of the Catholics when they looked upon this schism. In order to preserve pure Lutheranism from any deviation, the electoral court of Saxony caused the 'Formula of Concord' to be drawn up by three prominent theologians in the monastery of Bergen near Madgeburg (20 May 1577), and compelled all pastors and teachers of the land to accept them under pain of dismissal from office. As this necessarily accentuated the differences with the Calvinists, John Casimir of the Palatinate endeavored, in the Convention of Frankfort on the Main in 1577, to unite the protestants of all denominations and all lands … in a common effort at defence; but his appeal and the embassy which he sent to the evangelical princes met with no very favorable reception. On the contrary in course of time 86 estates of the empire accepted the Formula of Concord which was now published in Dresden, together with the names of those who had signed it, on the 25th of June 1580, the 50th anniversary of handing in the Augsburg Confession. What a pass had matters come to since that great epoch! … At any rate the unity of the German protestants was completely at an end, and especially any joint action between Saxony and the Palatinate had been rendered impossible. … In 1582 the Roman party opened a well-planned campaign for the purpose of putting itself in full possession of the power in the empire. The emperor belonged as it was to their confession, so all depended on the manner in which the diet should be made up; and this again depended on who should be members of the college of princes: for in the college of electors the votes of the protestants and catholics were equal inasmuch as the Bohemian vote was 'dormant,' and of the imperial cities only a few were still catholic. In the electoral college, then, the protestants possessed the majority so long as the 'administrators' [of the bishoprics] maintained as hitherto their seat and their vote. In the first place the catholics succeeded in the diet of 1582 in persuading Magdeburg for the nonce to renounce in favor of Salzburg its presidency in the assembly of the princes; herewith, however, a precedent was given, not only for this ecclesiastical foundation but for all the evangelical administrators, that permitted of the most fateful conclusions being drawn to the disadvantage of the protestants. Scarcely had this happened when the Roman party gave a decisive turn to affairs on the Lower Rhine. Archbishop Gebhard of Cologne prepared to follow the example of his predecessor Hermann of Wied, chiefly induced, it must be said, by the wish to gain the hand of the fair countess Agnes of Mansfeld. Relying on the Cologne protestants and the Counts of the Wetterau and reckoning on help from the Netherlands he formally went over to the protestant church on the 19th of December 1582, proclaimed the local option of a creed for his diocese on the 16th of January 1583, and married the Countess Agnes a few weeks later in Bonn. While on the one hand, now, the diet of the duchy of Westphalia declared for him and the local option was here put through, the Cologne diet, on the other, called together by the cathedral chapter, declared against him, under pressure as it was from both Spain and Rome. Pope Gregory XIII deposed him … and on the 23rd of May the pupil of the Jesuits, Ernest of Bavaria, who already since 1566 had been bishop of Freisingen, since 1573 of Hildesheim, since 1581 also of Liege, was placed in the see of Cologne. The war began. On the one side Spanish and Bavarian troops marched into the land, on the other forces from the Netherlands and the Palatinate, led by John Casimir in person under the approval of Louis VI. … The fortunes of war soon turned completely against him [Gebhard], … he himself was beaten and compelled to flee to the Netherlands, and Westphalia was then conquered. This victory was decisive not only for Northern Germany, but for the fate of the bishoprics altogether—indeed for the whole form which the administration of the empire was to take. Had Gebhard held his own, the majority in the electoral college would have become protestant; the bishoprics in the northwest which had not yet taken a decisive stand, and probably others also, would have followed the example of Cologne and would never have allowed their seats in the assembly of princes to be taken from them; the Lower Rhenish-Westphalian provinces would then have been gained for protestantism. The opposite of all this now happened. In the first place Archbishop Ernest restored the Roman church by the most oppressive means in Westphalia; he called the Jesuits to Bonn, Neuss, Emmerich and Hildesheim. His election as bishop of Munster (May 1585) decided the victory in that bishopric also. … The Roman party succeeded now, actually, in driving the administrators from the diet. In order not to cause the violent dissolution of the diet which met in April 1594 for the purpose of granting a tax which was pressingly needed for the Turkish war, Magdeburg renounced once more Its presidency in the college of princes; and when, in December 1597, the diet was again called for the same purpose, the catholic estates, in spite of all protests to the contrary, regarded the matter as having been settled by the precedents of the last two diets. Herewith the administrators lost their seats in the diet, and in the college of princes the majority was in the hands of the catholics. Inasmuch also as the evangelical members of the college of electors did not hold together, the total majority of the diet was at the disposal of the catholics. … On the 27th of April 1608 the Palatinate, together with Brandenburg and nine lesser protestant estates, but without the electorate of Saxony [Luther's state!], declared to Duke Ferdinand of Styria, the emperor's representative, that they would leave the diet but would maintain the possession of the ecclesiastical estates by force if necessary. The schism with the church had already paralyzed the judicial system of the empire; it now paralyzed also its highest political corporation."

Käemmel, Deutsche Geschichte (translated from the German), pages 701-715.

See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563 (page 2458).

{3768}

GERMANY: A. D. 1615. First newspaper publications.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650 (page 2592).

GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1700. The rise of Prussia.

"King Frederick [the Great] has good reason for it when he says in his memoirs: 'Just as a river first becomes valuable when it gets to be navigable, so the history of Brandenburg first gains more serious importance towards the beginning of the 17th century.' It was under the elector John Sigismund that three decisive occurrences took place which opened up a great future for the Marks—a totally different development from the growth of the other lands of the empire. These were the joining to Brandenburg of the secularized provinces of the Teutonic Order, the going over of the ruling house itself to the reformed church, finally the acquisition of the Lower Rhenish border lands. Other princes of the empire also, catholics as well as protestants, had enlarged their power by means of the lands of the old church. But in the matter of the territory of the Order the policy of the German protestants ventured its boldest move; by Luther's advice the Hohenzollern Albrecht snatched away from the Roman church the largest of all its clerical belongings. The whole territory of the new duchy of Prussia was alienated ecclesiastical land; the pope's anathema and the emperor's ban fell on the head of the renegade prince. Never was the Roman See willing to recognize such robbery. In uniting the ducal crown of their Prussian cousins with their own electoral hat the Hohenzollerns of the Mark broke forever with the Roman church. Their state stood and fell henceforward with the fortunes of Protestantism. At the same time John Sigismund adopted the reformed creed. … At the same time of thus gaining a firm footing on the Baltic John Sigismund acquired the duchy of Cleve together with the counties of Mark and Ravensberg,—a territory narrow in circumference but highly important for the internal development as well as for the European policy of the state. They were lands which were strongholds of old and proven peasant and civic freedom, richer and of higher capacities for culture than the needy colonies of the East, outposts of incalculable value on Germany's weakest frontier. In Vienna and Madrid it was felt as a severe defeat that a new evangelical power should establish itself there on the Lower Rhine where Spaniards and Netherlanders were struggling for the existence or non-existence of protestantism—right before the gates of Cologne which was the citadel of Romanism in the empire. … A power so situated could no longer have its horizon bounded by the narrow circle of purely territorial policy; it was a necessity for it to seek to round off its widely scattered provinces into a consistent whole; it was compelled to act for the empire and to strike for it, for every attack of strangers on German ground cut into its own flesh. … For the House of Brandenburg, too, tempting calls often sounded from afar, … but a blessed providence, which earnest thinkers should not regard as a mere chance, compelled the Hohenzollerns to remain in Germany. They did not need the foreign crowns, for they owed their independent position among other states to the possession of Prussia, a land that was German to the core, a land the very being of which was rooted in the mother-country, and yet at the same time one that did not belong to the political organization of the empire. Thus with one foot in the empire, the other planted outside of it, the Prussian state won for itself the right to carry on a European policy which could strive for none but German ends. It was able to care for Germany without troubling itself about the empire and its superannuated forms. … The state of the Hohenzollerns plunged once again headlong from the position of power which it had so recently attained; it was on the sure road to ruin so long as John Sigismund's successor looked sleepily into the world out of his languid eyes. This new attempt, too, at forming a German state seemed again about to end in the misery of petty-stateism as had been the case formerly with the political constellations of the Guelphs, the Wettiners, the Counts Palatine, which had arisen under immeasurably more favorable auspices. It was at this juncture that the elector Frederick William, the greatest German man of his day, entered the chaos of German life as a prince without land, armed only with club and sling, and put a new soul into the slumbering forces of his state by the power of his will. From that time on the impulse of the royal will, conscious of its goal, was never lost to the growing chief state of the Germans. One can imagine English history without William III, the history of France without Richelieu; the Prussian state is the work of its princes. … Already in the first years of the rule of the Great Elector the peculiar character of the new political creation shows out sharply and clearly. The nephew of Gustavus Adolphus who leads his army to battle with the old protestant cry of 'with God' resumes the church policy of his uncle. He it is who first among the strife of churches cries out the saving word and demands general and unconditional amnesty for all three creeds. This was the program of the Westphalian peace. And far beyond the provisions of this treaty of peace went the tolerance which the Hohenzollerns allowed to be exercised within their lands. … While Austria drives out its best Germans by force, the confines of Brandenburg are thrown open with unequalled hospitality to sufferers of every creed. How many thousand times has the song of praise of the Bohemian exiles sounded forth in the Marks! … When Louis XIV revokes the Edict of Nantes the little Brandenburg lord steps forth boldly against him as the spokesman of the protestant world, and offers through his Potsdam Edict shelter and protection to the sons of the martyred church. … Thus year after year an abundance of young life streamed over into the depopulated East Marks; the German blood that the Hapsburghs thrust from them fructified the land of their rivals, and at the death of Frederick II about a third of the inhabitants of the state consisted of the descendants of immigrants who had come there since the days of the Great Elector. … The particularism of all estates and of all territorial districts heard with horror how the Great Elector forced his subjects to live as 'members under one head,' how he subjected the multiplicity of rule in the diets to the commands of his own territorial jurisdiction and supported his throne on the two columns of monarchical absolutism: the miles perpetuus and permanent taxation. {3769} In the minds of the people troops and taxes still passed for an extraordinary state burden to be borne in days of need. But Frederick William raised the army into a permanent institution and weakened the power of the territorial estates by introducing two general taxes in all his provinces. On the country at large he imposed the general hide-tax (general-hufenschoss), on the cities the accise, which was a multiform system of low direct and indirect imposts calculated with full regard for the impoverished condition of agriculture and yet attacking the taxable resources at as many points as possible. In the empire there was but one voice of execration against these first beginnings of the modern army and finance system. Prussia remained from the beginning of its history the most hated of the German states; those imperial lands that fell to this princely dynasty entered, almost all of them, with loud complaints and violent opposition into this new political combination. All of them soon afterwards blessed their fate. … Frederick William's successor by acquiring the royal crown gained for his house a worthy place in the society of the European powers and for his people the common name of Prussians. Only dire need, only the hope of Prussia's military aid, induced the imperial court to grant its rival the new dignity. A spasm of terror went through the theocratic world: the electorate of Mainz entered a protest; the Teutonic Order demanded back again its old possession, which now gave the name to the heretical monarchy while the papal calendar of states, for nearly a hundred years to come, was to know only a 'margrave of Brandenburg.'"

H. von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 26-36.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618 (page 1466), and PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700 (page 2613).

GERMANY: A. D. 1648. The effects of the Thirty Years War.

"The national recollection holds fast to the great German war as a thirty years continuance of universal warlike ravagings. As a matter of fact, however, the separate parts of the empire were directly affected by it in very different degrees; some parts only seldom and to a small extent, many at frequent intervals or through long-enduring periods: no part however to such an extent that during the whole three decades it stood always under the immediate pressure of military events and of military burdens. Devastation and exhaustion worked their immediate results in all directions, but we must not leave out of consideration that the local differences were naturally very great. An incalculable number of details concerning the horrors of the war and concerning its destructive effects lies before us. … So undoubtedly well-founded as on the whole the majority of these details may be said to be, impressively as they are apt to be brought forward, they are none the less not such as to suffice to enable us to gain from them an exhaustive representation of the condition of things. We have hundreds who give testimony to all the ravagings and the misery of the time, and the voices of such witnesses are almost the only ones that are heard. It is natural that there are no equally eloquent reports concerning those periods of time and those places in which people found themselves in medium and comparatively bearable circumstances. For the most part only what was exceptional—although, indeed, that happened only too often—is depicted in the complaining reports. … It cannot be denied too that amid the fearful needs of that time the German language succumbed to a certain propensity for what is monstrous. In all the writings which speak of war and the ravages of war one sees an exuberance, which comes to be a fixed mannerism, of almost whiny tones of complaint. … The superlative of horror predominates almost exclusively; and with an exceedingly fertile faculty of invention men surpass themselves in ever new, ever more blood-curdling variations of the one theme of blood and arson, of wretchedness and famine. … The most severe of all evils, indeed, as a matter of fact, were those to which the peasant element was subjected. … The profits of all agricultural labor were most perceptibly diminished on account of the extraordinary highness of wages, which, a natural result of the lack of workmen, formed the subject for the chief complaints after the war, especially of those classes which possessed land. Everywhere we meet with the fact that those entirely without property, such as serving men and maids are really better off than the peasant who has land. They draw the highest wages in money and in natural products, they must be treated with the greatest consideration by their employers to prevent them from quitting their service, for everywhere they are sought after and easily do they find work. … If the evils hitherto touched upon concerned chiefly the peasant holdings, there was another and no less important one which concerned all property holders and especially the nobles, whether feudatory or directly under the empire. This was the general burden of debt on landed property. … The noble as well as the peasant had, from of old, mortgages resting upon his property; those who made the loans were chiefly the large and the small capitalists in the cities. … As a matter of fact, already during the war itself in large parts of the empire the landed property had been in a condition of insolvency."

B. Erdmannsdörffer, Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740 (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 100-109.

"How bitterly the decrease of population was felt in many regions is proved by a decree of the local diet [kreistag] in Franconia, transmitted to us by Hormayr, according to which any man might take two wives, priests (catholic) might marry and no man under 60 years of age might enter a monastery. Quite incalculable was the loss of domestic animals; we have but very incomplete statistics on the subject, but according to these few the assertion is not unjustifiable that at most one fifth of the number existing before the war remained. The lack of working people being so great it was therefore inevitable that famine should break out in very many regions. The memoranda in chronicles and diaries contain truly horrible, heart-breaking representations on the subject. J. J. Rayser's 'Historischer Schauplatz der Stadt Heidelberg' reports from the Palatinate: … 'Many rejoiced if they could only get oxhides, cowhides, the skins of horses, sheep and other animals, and eat them. Indeed cruel hunger drove them to other things too, towards which human nature is apt to feel horror and disgust. They ate dogs, cats, rats, mice, frogs and other animals in order to appease their bitter hunger. {3770} Nor did they refrain from such animals as had already lain for several weeks on the roads, or in pools and streams and which gave forth a horrible odor. … The starving people even killed each other and ate up the corpses; they ransacked the cemeteries, broke open graves, climbed up on the gallows and on the wheel and took the dead away to eat them.' … The reports of single cases of cannibalism from neighborhoods where otherwise the most friendly and contented people lived, are too disgusting to allow us to quote any further examples. … There is no other example of a destruction of civilization such as the Thirty Years War in Germany produced. There is no other case where a whole people in all parts of the land was uniformly exposed to such severe losses, so that in numbers it was reduced to one half; where, from riches, luxury and abundance such as had undoubtedly prevailed at the beginning of the century men had come to poverty and to the want of even the necessaries of life. … The dissolution of the numerous military organizations and the dismissal of the regiments had created an enormous number of tramps of the most dangerous sort and still continued to do much towards increasing vagabondage. The grade of intelligence among the people of the lowlands had decreased most alarmingly; while superstition was continually on the increase. Witch-trials flourished both in the city and in the country. Beggary had long ceased to be a cause for shame; the war, which had brought down to it in a short time even those who had been formerly the richest, caused even the most dishonorable trade to be held in honor. Whoever by daily labor could earn his daily bread might think himself fortunate. In the place of the horses which war had carried away, human beings took to dragging carts in the street. … With the ruin of the trade and of the art industry of Germany, which in the 16th century would for so many objects have probably needed to fear no rivalry and which was only surpassed by that of Italy, went hand in hand the rise and increase of French industry. This was due in no small part to the fact that an extensive market was opened up for it in Germany. From the great and small courts of the secular and ecclesiastical princes, from the estates of the nobles, where the plunder of the generals and colonels of all nations and confessions had at last indeed been unloaded, the money contributed by the subjects flowed into the strong-boxes of the Paris manufactories, which dictated the fashions for the whole continent. Thus did the industrial triumph of France supplement its political supremacy; thus did Germany's misfortune become the cause of enriching her western neighbor, France having known how to secure its existence as a state by itself three centuries earlier than the Germans had done."

H. von Zwiedineck-Südenhorst, Deutsche Geschichte, 1648-1740 (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 45-49.

"Through the complete destruction of its old civilization, through an unexampled devastation of its prosperity and ruin of its moral life the fatherland of the Reformation had saved for that part of the world the freedom of faith. Strangers played with the strongest people of Europe. That language which in Luther's and Hutten's time had gloried at once in the purity of its origin and in the terse power of its national plainness had become Gallicized and full of flourishes, a disgusting mixture of flatness and bombast, of artificiality and coarseness, so servile, so incapable of expressing in simple grandeur what was high and noble that in answer to the question what German writings of those times can we read to-day the honest reply must be, with the exception of some poems by Simon Dach, Logau and Paul Gerhard, solely the droll adventures of Simplicissimus and the merry sermons of Father Abraham a Santa Clara. The terror and need of the time, the rule of brute force and the intrusion of foreign customs, had jarred and disturbed the inner life of the nation to its very depths. Truth and fidelity had vanished, as well as the proud frankness and bright enjoyment of life of the older generation. A hideous greed of gold had taken hold of high and low; the boastful pride of luxurious extravagance continued in the midst of the general poverty."

Essay by Heinrich von Treitschke, quoted by Zwiedineck, page 52.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1648, to 1648-1780 (pages 1484-1489).

GERMANY: A. D. 1648-1715. Relations of Austria, Germany and France after the Thirty Years War.

"After 1648 it was the natural policy of the Hapsburgh emperors to maintain the status quo of the Westphalian treaties. … After the emperor had once lost the prospect of gaining for himself the undivided rule over Germany, all his endeavors were needed at least to hinder it from passing to another. The efforts of the separate territorial sovereigns to enlarge and round off their lands, their attempts to extend their power externally and at the same time to tighten their hold on their own subjects found henceforward a counterpoise in Austria."

L. Häusser, Deutsche Geschichte (translated from the German), volume 1, page 21.

"The whole shamefulness of this disintegration of Germany, showed itself in the defenceless state of the empire. … Right under the greedy hands of France lay the weakest, the most unguarded members of the empire. All along that priest-avenue the Rhine, from Munster and Osnabrück up to Constance, stretched a confused mass of tiny states, incapable of in any way seriously arming themselves, compelled to betray their country through the feeling of their own utter weakness. Almost all the Rhenish courts held pensions from Versailles. … Fully one-third of Germany served in the wars of the empire as a dead burden. … The weakness of Germany was to blame for the new growth of power in Austria and France; … the foreigners laughed at the 'querelles allemandes' and the 'misère allemande'; the Frenchman Bonhours mockingly asked the question if it was possible that a German could have intellect. … As the born antagonist of the old order of things in Europe the basis of which was Germany's weakness, Prussia stood in a world of enemies whose mutual jealousies formed her only safeguard. She was without any natural ally, for the German nation had not yet come to understand this budding power. … Just as the House of Savoy was able to tread its way through the superiority of the Hapsburghs on the one hand and of the Bourbons on the other, so did Prussia, although immeasurably harder pressed, have to find a path for herself between Austria and France, between Sweden and Poland, between the maritime powers and the inert mass of the German empire. {3771} She had to use every means of remorseless egoism, always ready to change front, always with two strings to her bow. The electorate of Brandenburg felt to the very marrow of its being how deeply foreign ideas had eaten into Germany. All the disorganized forces … which opposed the strong lead of the new monarchy placed their faith in foreign help. Dutch garrisons were stationed on the Lower Rhine and favored the struggle of the Cleve estates against their German lords. The diets of Magdeburg and of the electoral Mark counted on Austria. … Frederick William breaks down the barriers of the Netherlanders in the German Northwest; he drives their troops from Cleve and from East Friesland. … Then he calls out to the deaf nation his warning words, 'Remember that you are Germans,' and seeks to drive the Swedes from the soil of the empire. Twice did the ill-will of France and Austria succeed in robbing the Brandenburg prince of the reward of his victories, of the rule in Pomerania: the fame of the day at Fehrbellin they could not take from him.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688 (page 310).

… When the republic of the Netherlands threatened to fall before the attack of Louis XIV Brandenburg caught the raised arm of the conqueror.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1674-1678 (page 2289).

Frederick William carried on the only serious war that the empire ventured on for the recovery of Alsace.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714 (page 209)].

… With the rise of Prussia began the long bloody work of freeing Germany from foreign rule. … In this one state there awoke again, still half unconscious as if drunken with long sleep, the old hearty pride in the fatherland. … The House of Hapsburgh recognized earlier than the Hohenzollerns did themselves how hostile this modern North German state was to the old constitution of the Holy Empire. In Silesia, in Pomerania, in the Jülich-Cleve war of succession—everywhere Austria stood and looked with distrust on its dangerous rival. … Equally dangerous to Hapsburgh and to the German empire were the French and the Turks; how natural was it for Hapsburgh to seek support from Germany, to involve the empire in its wars, to use it as a bulwark towards the west or for diversions against France in case the Turks threatened the walls of Vienna. … Only it cannot be denied that in this common action the Austrian policy, under a more centralized guidance and backed by a firmer tradition, looked out for its own advantage better than did the German empire—loose, heavy, and without consistent leadership. When the might of Louis XIV began to oppress Germany the policy of the Hapsburghs was to remain for a long time luke-warm and inactive. This policy led Austria indeed even to make a league with France and, when she did at last decide to help the great elector of Brandenburg against the enemy of the empire, this happened so charily and equivocally as to give rise to the doubt whether the Austrian army was not placed there to keep watch over the Brandenburg forces or even to positively hinder their advance. An Austrian writer himself assures us that Montecuculi was in secret commanded only to make a show of using his weapons against the French. For a long time Austria stood by inactive while the Reannexations were going on.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1691 (page 1236).

… The whole war as conducted by Austria on the Rhine and in the West was languid and sleepy;

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714 (page 209);

the empire and individual warlike princes were left to protect themselves. What an entirely different display of power did Austria make when it was a question of fighting for its own dynastic interests!"

H. von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 21-33.

"As in the wars so in the diplomatic negotiations the separation of the Austrian dynastic interests from the advantage and needs of the German empire often enough came to light. It is only necessary to revert to the attitude which the emperor's diplomacy took at Nimeguen and Ryswick.

See NIMEGUEN (page 2362); and FRANCE: A. D. 1697 (page 1243)].

… When in the conferences at Gertruidenburg (1710) Louis XIV was reduced to being willing not only to give up the 'Reannexations' and Strassburg but even to restore Alsace and the fortress of Valenciennes, it was also not the interests of the empire but solely those of the House of Hapsburgh which led to the rejection of these offers and to the continuance of a war by which, as it turned out eventually, not one of these demands was gained. No wonder that in Germany, restricted though the imperial authority already was, men still did not feel secure so long as the emperor continued to have even the power of making peace independently of the empire."

L. Häusser, Deutsche Geschichte (translated from the German). volume 1, page 23.

"Louis XIV regarded himself not exactly as enemy of the German empire and of the imperial power of the House of Hapsburgh, but rather as a pretendant to the throne. As he explains it in the political directions meant for his son the empire of the West, the heritage of Charles the Great, belongs not of right to the Germans but to the kings who are crowned at Rheims. … The Germans have ruined the empire, only a ruler with the power of the French king can bring it again to honor. … If Louis XIV by means of the Rhine Confederation of 1658 saw himself bound in a close communion with German princes and electors, if his troops rushed in at the decisive moment before Erfurt and at Saint Gothard, if his omnipresent diplomacy sought to find starting-points everywhere, even in the Hofburg at Vienna: all this seemed to him activity in a field which he really felt belonged to himself. The rendering of the German princes dependent on the French court, the loosening of the bonds which held the empire together, the isolation of the Hapsburghs from the rest of the empire: these were tasks which presented themselves as a matter of course if taken in connection with those views of the right of the French to the empire. … Already in Richelieu's time the king's councillor, Jacques de Cassan, had brought forward the proof, in a writing dedicated to the cardinal, that the greater part of the existing European states, including Germany, were lands which had unjustly been estranged from the French crown. … This idea d'Auberry now carried further: as a matter of fact Germans and French were to be considered one people as they had been under the Merovingians and Carolingians; … the true ruler, in the sense of the original world-organization was not the emperor but the French king."

B. Erdmannsdörffer, Deutsche Geschichte (1648-1740) (translated from the German), volume 1, page 509.

{3772}

GERMANY: A. D. 1789-1792. Germany and the French Revolution.

"What enthusiasm prevailed when France proclaimed the equality of everything that bears human form, when the prophecies of Rousseau, who spoke as no other Frenchman could, to the hearts, to the courage, to the ideals of the German youth, seemed about to be realized! All the cravings of the time, the noble eagerness to recognize the dignity of man and the heaven-storming defiance of the sovereign ego, found themselves satisfied by the bold sophism of the Genevan philosopher who declared that, in a condition of absolute equality, everyone should obey himself only. The sins of the Revolution appeared to the harmless German spectators as hardly less seductive than its great deeds. The taste which had been educated on Plutarch's lives of heroes grew loyally excited over the broad Catonism of the new apostles of freedom: the unhistorical abstractions of their political creed were in keeping with the philosophical self-satisfaction of the age. The over-zealous youths in whose ears still sounded the stirring words of the robber Moor felt themselves drawn along by the rhetorical pathos of the French and unsuspectingly admired the republican virtue of the Girondists at the very time when this party with unhallowed frivolity was instigating a war against Germany. … In Hamburg and several other cities the festival of confraternity was celebrated and the liberty pole erected on the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille. … Even in Berlin women of rank were seen adorned with the tricolored ribbon and the rector of the Joachimsthal gymnasium, in a solemn official address held on the occasion of the king's birthday, praised the glorious Revolution to the lively applause of Minister Hertzberg. … But this enthusiasm of the German cultivated world for revolutionary France was and remained purely theoretical; … the German admirers of the Revolution never once laid before themselves the question how their feelings on the subject should take on flesh and blood. The wise man of Konigsberg [Kant] unconditionally and harshly rejected all right of resistance. Even Fichte, the most radical of his disciples, who even in the days of Robespierre still dared to defend French liberty, warned emphatically against the carrying out of his own ideas. He saw no bridge between the 'level high road of natural law' and the 'dark defile of a half-barbaric policy,' and he closed with the renunciatory declaration: 'Worthiness to attain liberty can only come upwards from below; freedom itself, if there is to be no disturbance, can only descend from above.' … When the struggle of parties continued to rage ever more fiercely and with more cruelty, when the fanatic zeal for equality took upon itself to annihilate even the last aristocracy of all, that of life itself, then the faithful and unchanging mind of the German found it impossible any longer to follow the unaccountable contortions of French passion. The German enthusiast turned weeping away from the barbarian who had defiled his sanctuary. … Only in the minor states, which lacked the sense of justice of a monarchy, did the sins of the old French regime find an echo. There in the Germany of the religious foundations (the Rhine bishoprics) there still flourished the catholic unity of faith and the pride of cathedral chapters which were recruited from nobles. In the cities of the empire the haughtiness and corruption of old civilian confraternity held sway, in the territories of the princes, counts and imperial knights, the arrogance of little corner tyrants. The whole existence of these ruined and ossified forms of government cried shame on the ideas of the century. Almost solely in these tiniest provinces did a slight popular ferment show itself when the glad news of the great peasant emancipation came from France. It chanced that the abbess of Frauenalbe was hunted from her lands by her subjects, that the oath of allegiance was refused to her sister-abbess in Elten. Small peasant revolts broke out here and there. … All this betokened little; in reality nowhere was the political slumber of the empire deeper than in these regions. … The weak and weaponless small states were entirely without power of resistance against foreign violence. … Neither was the emperor nor were the Prussian statesmen blind to the immeasurable dangers of a war in the condition in which things were. Leopold's cold-blooded, calculating nature remained long unmoved by the appeals for help written by his unhappy sister Marie Antoinette, who allowed herself to be carried to the very verge of betraying her country by her woman's passion and her princely pride. The Prussian cabinet was at first very well pleased with the steps taken by the constitutional parties; its envoy, von der Goltz, made no secret of acknowledging the righteousness of the cause of the revolution and showed that he had kept his eyes open to the accumulated acts of folly of the blinded court. The mad doings of the emigres were condemned with equal severity in Vienna and in Berlin. Not until the spring of 1791, not until King Louis had had to atone for his unsuccessful flight by unheard of personal humiliations, did the two courts begin to think seriously of protecting themselves against acts of revolutionary violence. … Frederick William's chivalrous soul was aglow with the thought of avenging with his sword the offended majesty of France. Single clever heads among the émigrés succeeded after all in gaining secret influence at court. … In his circular from Padua Leopold invited the European powers to enter the lists for his ill-used brother-in-law, to avenge by forcible means every insult to the dignity of the king, to recognize no constitution of France of which the crown should not voluntarily approve. Bischoffswerder, of his own accord and contrary to his instructions, then signed the Vienna treaty of the 25th of July by which both parties (Prussia and Austria) mutually guaranteed each other's possessions and promised each other help in case of internal disturbances. … Public opinion in Prussia greeted the Austrian alliance with deep mistrust, … but King Frederick William approved the arbitrary steps of his friend (Bischoffswerder). He met Leopold soon after in Pillnitz … and rejoiced in the thought that the league of the two chief powers in Germany would last eternally, to the weal of coming generations. In all of these mistaken acts there was no immediate threat against France. In Pillnitz those émigrés who urged war were sternly thrust aside and all that was obtained was the empty declaration of August 27; the two powers announced that they considered King Louis's cause a matter common to all sovereigns; in case all European powers should agree, there should be interference in France's internal affairs. {3773} This meant nothing whatever, for everyone knew that England would have nothing to do with armed intervention. And even these obscure conditions were abandoned in Vienna when King Louis, in the autumn, was reinstated in his dignities and voluntarily accepted the new constitution. The Revolution seemed to have come to a standstill, the emperor was completely pacified. … It was France and France alone that, in the face of this peaceable attitude of the German powers, forced the war upon them. … The antipathy of a great majority of the nation [France] to the republic was to be overcome by the glamor of military successes, by the old darling dream-project of natural boundaries. The financial needs of the state were to be remedied by a mighty plundering expedition. … While the war-like mood in the legislative assembly increased from day to day, in the negotiations with the emperor paltry disdain was shown; not even was a definite indemnity offered to the estates of the empire in Alsace. It was then that the House, carried away by the stirring speeches of the Gironde, demanded a solemn declaration from the emperor that he would give up the plan of a European league and would show his readiness to support France according to the old treaties of alliance with the Bourbons. The penalty of refusal was to be immediate war. Upon Leopold giving a dignified and temperate reply war was declared against Austria on April 20th 1792. … A doctrinary speech of Condorcet's announced to the world that the principles of republican liberty had risen up against despotism. The glove was thus thrown down to the whole of ancient Europe: for Prussia, moreover, the Vienna Treaty now became binding, having meanwhile been supplemented by a formal defensive league."

H. von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im 19ten Jahrhundert (translated from the German), volume 1, page 114-124.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (pages 1271-1275).

GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807. Germany and Napoleon.

"With the Italian campaign of 1796 began the second epoch of the revolutionary era, the more fruitful one for the world at large. The propaganda of the revolution now first began to take actual effect and in Central Europe a new order of things superseded the old division of lands, the traditional forma of state and society. It was through Bonaparte's victories that the weapons of France first acquired an indisputable ascendancy. … As was the case with her manner of making war, so did France's European policy take on a new character in the hands of the victor of Montenotte and Rivoli. … In the head of the great man without a home, to whom the soul-life of nations, the ideal world, ever remained an unknown quantity, the horrible conception of a new world-monarchy had already found a place. The images of the Cæsars and the Carolingians stood in dazzling splendor before his mind. The rich history of a thousand years was to be annihilated by a single grand adventure; the multiform culture of the West was to yield to the sway of one gigantic man. This new and altogether un-French policy of conquest rushed to its goals with a wonderful assurance and want of conscience. Bonaparte's perspicuity recognized at once by what means Austria, victorious in Germany but worsted in Italy, could be forced into a temporary peace: … he offered the imperial court the possession of Venice in return for Milan, Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine. … Under such conditions the Peace of Campo Formio was entered into on October 17th 1797. Once more the Holy Empire was to pay the penalty for Austria's defeats, and once more, with greater hypocrisy than ever before, there rang out in the diet those unctuous, imperially-paternal phrases with which the un-German imperial power was wont to bemantle its dynastic policy. Whereas among the conditions of the secret articles of Campo Formio were the mutilation of the German western boundary, the secularization of ecclesiastical territory, the compensation of foreign princes at the cost of the empire: the published version of the treaty spoke only of the unviolated integrity of the empire. … At last, however, the unhallowed secret had to come out. At Christmas-tide 1797 Mainz was vacated by the imperial troops. There came to light the whole hopelessly confused relationships of the two similarly-fortuned nations of central Europe when, at the same time, the French occupied the unconquered bulwark of the Rhine provinces and the conquered Austrians marched into the city of St. Mark. Soon afterwards the envoys of France at Rastadt openly came forward with the demand for the left bank of the Rhine. It was the first official forewarning of the annihilation of the Holy Empire. … So deep was the empire sunken when the dreaded 'Italicus,' on the occasion of a flying visit to Rastadt first cast a glance into German life. On the shallow intrigues of this fruitless congress did Bonaparte base his judgment of our fatherland. He saw through the absolute nullity of the imperial constitution and complacently came to the opinion that if such a constitution had not existed it would have been necessary to invent it in the interests of France. … It seemed to him high time to win the petty dynasts entirely for France by gratifying their greed of land, and thus to rob sundered Germany of its nationality (dépayser l'Allemagne). … On February 9th, 1801, the Peace of Luneville proclaimed openly and unequivocally that which the treaty of Campo Formio had only secretly and obscurely provided: that the Rhine was henceforward to be Germany's boundary. A district of nearly 1,150 square miles and containing nearly four million inhabitants was thus lost to Germany. … With uncanny cold-bloodedness the German nation accepted the fearful blow. Scarcely a sound of patriotic wrath was heard when Mainz and Cologne, Aachen and Treves, the broad, beautiful lands that had been the scene of our earliest history, passed into the hands of the stranger. How many bitter tears had the decrepit generation of the Thirty Years War once poured forth for the sake of Strassburg alone! … The first consul resumed the plan which Sièyes as ambassador in Berlin had sketched already ill 1798. He prepared a threefold division of Germany and, in order to bring the defenceless minor states wholly in his power, sought first to thrust back the two chief German powers as far as possible towards the east. … The great man-scorner now invented an infallible means of gaining sway over these south and west German provinces. {3774} Not in vain had he probed the German higher nobility at Rastadt into the inmost recesses of their hearts. He created our new intermediate states for the purpose, through them, of securing forever Germany's disintegration. The host of petty princes, counts and imperial knights, were burdensome to him because they belonged mostly to the Austrian party and were of no use in war. Among the electors and dukes, on the contrary, there was useful material enough for the formation of a crowd of French vassals; … they had almost all, during the recent wars, made separate treaties with the enemies of the empire. As rebels against that empire and its emperor they had abandoned the ground of legality and broken their bridges behind them. If the man who was omnipotent now took under his protection these political hermaphrodites who were fit neither to live nor die; if he satisfied their greed by throwing them some crumbs from the belongings of their lesser co-estates and tickled their vanity by means of pretentious titles and a show of independence; if he rolled together the hundreds of tiny territories into some dozens of new accidental states with a history of yesterday and entirely without a legal title, living solely from the favor of France; if he then led his satraps to audacious wars against their fatherland and hurried them on from one felony to another, rewarding new lackey-services by new booty—where was the wonder? They had sold their souls to him and he was able to reckon on it that they would rather kiss the boots of the stranger than ever submit to subordinate themselves to a German commonwealth. … Bonaparte, meanwhile, had long made up his mind to resume the war with his unassailable enemy [England]. Already in March 1803, long before the breach occurred between the two western powers, he sent his confidant Duroc to Berlin with the notice that he saw himself compelled to seize Hanover. … Therewith the last and sole pride of the Prussian policy, the neutrality of North Germany, was threatened with its death-blow. … And meanwhile the Holy Empire was made to drink the cup of shame to the very dregs. When Bonaparte caused the Duke of Enghien, seized within the limits of Baden, to be led to execution, only foreign powers like Russia, Sweden and England dared in Regensburg to demand satisfaction for the scandalous breach of the peace of the empire. Baden on the contrary, by Napoleon's command, begged most earnestly that the painful matter might not be followed up any further; while the rest of the plenipotentiaries took their holiday before the time and thus by their flight cut off all further negotiations. In May 1804 the Napoleonic empire was founded. … A hard, distrustful foreign rule weighed upon Germany even before its princes had formally made their submission to the emperor. … Thus prepared, Napoleon proceeded to realize in his own way the idea of a German triad with which Hardenberg had just been amusing himself. Not in bond with Austria and Prussia but independently and in opposition to them was France's old protegée, 'la troisième Allemagne,' to take political form and shape. … In the spring of 1806 the rumor spread at the German courts that a new and extensive mediatization was to take place. Once more, as had happened four years previously, the envoys of our high nobility hastened to Paris on behalf of their lords, to secure by flattery and bribery their share of the booty. … The Rhine confederation of Louis XIV was resuscitated in an incomparably more pronounced form. Sixteen German princes renounced the empire, declared that they themselves were sovereigns and that every law of the venerable old national commonwealth was null and void. They recognized Napoleon as their protector and placed at his disposal an army of 63,000 men to be used in any continental war in which France should engage. … German particularism entered into the bloom-time of its sins. … The anarchy of a new interregnum broke in upon Germany. Faustrecht held sway, exercised no longer by bandit nobles but by princely courts. Napoleon regarded with mistrust any and every expression of national feeling in the enslaved land. The interest of France, he wrote to his Talleyrand, demands that opinion in Germany remain divided. A certain Yelin of Ansbach published an anonymous pamphlet, 'Germany at its lowest Depth,' a well-meant writing, full of feeling, and one which, in an age of iron, had only the peaceful advice to give: 'Weep aloud, oh noble, honest German!' But even this pious ejaculation of a harmless petty citizen seemed to the emperor a matter for alarm and he caused the book-seller Palm, who is said to have aided in spreading the book, to be court-marshalled and shot. It was the first judicial murder of Napoleonism on German ground, and the clever people in Bavaria began to doubt whether the Rhine Confederation had, after all, really brought about the victory of freedom and enlightenment. … A new act of treason on the part of Napoleon led at last to the out-break of the inevitable war. Often and solemnly had Napoleon assured to his Prussian ally the possession of Hanover. It was now suddenly reported in Berlin that the emperor, who all through the summer had been carrying on peace-negotiations with England and Russia, had not scrupled to offer to deliver back to the Guelphs their hereditary lands. When this news reached him Frederick William at once (August 9) wrote to the Czar: 'If Napoleon treats with England concerning Hanover he will ruin me.' The king foresaw that in a short time the miserable condition in which things had been in February would recur again and that Prussia had only the choice left of once more in silence suffering herself to be shamefully plundered or of opposing by arms the ingress of the grand army. That was why the Prussian army was placed on a war-footing and made to assemble in Magdeburg's territory. With this step of justifiable self-defence the war was decided. … Nothing could have been more honest than the unsparingly upright defiance of the king to Napoleon; nothing more righteous than the three demands of the Prussian ultimatum of October: withdrawal of the French from Germany, recognition of the North German Confederation, a peaceful agreement as to the remaining questions at issue between the two powers. Even from the verbose, clumsy war-manifesto there breaks forth occasionally a tone of dignified national pride: the king takes up arms 'to free unhappy Germany from the yoke under which it is being crushed. Nations have certain rights independent of an treaties!' … Already on the 15th of October (1806) Napoleon laid a contribution on all the Prussian provinces this side the Weichsel of 159 million francs, declaring that the result of the battle of the former day (Jena) had been the conquest of all these lands. {3775} Never had the man of fortune boasted so outrageously, and yet, through a strange turn of fortune, the most unhallowed of his lies was to become literally true. Immediately after the defeat the court of Saxony carried out its long-planned desertion and went over to Napoleon. A week after the battle the Prussian territory to the left of the Elbe, and the possessions of the House of Orange and of the electors of Hesse, were provisionally incorporated in the French empire. … On July 7-9, 1807, the Peace of Tilsit was signed, the most cruel of all French treaties of peace, unprecedented in form as well as in contents. It ran, not that the lawful king of Prussia ceded certain lands to the victor, but that the conqueror, out of regard for the emperor of all the Russias, granted back to its sovereign the smaller half of the Prussian state. And this scandalous phrase, which contemporaries only looked upon as a freak of Napoleonic arrogance, expressed simply the naked truth. … Alexander did not wish the last narrow dam which separated the Russian empire from the lands of the vassals of France, to be torn away. … Prussia retained, outside of the 5,700 square miles which the state, exclusive of Hanover, had owned before the war, only about 2,800, … of 9¾ million inhabitants only 4½ million. The work of Frederick the Great seemed undone."

H. von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im 19 Jahrhundert (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 164-265.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER), and after (pages 1314-1349.)

GERMANY: A. D. 1815-1848. After the struggle. The Zollverein.

"In Austria, in the decades succeeding the wars of liberation, their reigned the most immovable quiet. The much-praised system of government consisted in unthinking inactivity. The Emperor Francis, a man with the nature of a subaltern official, hated anything that approached to a constitution and a saying of his was often quoted: 'Totus mundus stultizat et vult habere constitutiones novas.' Metternich's power rested on the 'dead motionlessness' of affairs. As far as his German policy was concerned his aim was to hold fast to the preponderating influence of Austria over the German states, but not to undertake any responsibilities towards them. … As for Prussia, in spite of the great sacrifices which she had made, she emerged from the diplomatic negotiations and intrigues of the Vienna Congress with the most unfavorable disposition of territory imaginable. To the five million inhabitants that had remained to her five and a half millions were added in districts that had belonged to more than a hundred different territories and had stood under the most varied laws. There began now for this state a time well filled with quiet work, the aim and object being to create a whole out of the various parts. … The founding of the Burschenschaft [student league] in Jena, the antagonistic attitude of the Weimar press, the Wartburg festival with its extemporized conflagration scene, excited scruples and fears in the ruling circles. The murder of Kotzebue and the attempt on Ibell's life showed the growing fanaticism and called forth stronger measures from the governments. … Metternich recognizes their usefulness for the carrying through of his reactionary measures. … At a meeting in Teplitz he succeeds in winning Frederick William III for his plans. In Carlsbad, over the heads of the members of the federal diet, the most decisive regulations were adopted which culminated in the appointment of the Mainz Central-Investigation-Committee … and confirmed Metternich's unhallowed rule in Germany as well as the reign of that most miserable reaction which called forth a burst of indignation even from the most moderate-minded patriots, and which laid the land open to the scorn of the foreigner."

Bruno-Gebhardt, Lehrbuch der deutschen Geschichte (translated from the German), volume 2, pages 501-504.

"The Congress of Vienna created in 1815 a form of government for Germany which was very unsatisfactory in character. It was, however, so constituted that a national development at some future time was not rendered an utter impossibility. The German confederation was rather, on the whole, provisional in its character; this fact comes out more and more plainly with each thorough analysis and illustration of its constitution and of its institutions. The main thing was that the German confederation preserved unimpaired the dualism in Germany. Technically the emperor of Austria had the honorary direction of the confederation; practically he possessed as emperor of Germany little r no power. In point of fact the German imperial title was only a decoration for the ruler over a variegated mixture of peoples, in the midst of which German nationality was hard pressed by the national strivings of the other races. In reality the strongest member of the German confederation was the kingdom of Prussia, although according to the federal laws it stood on a like footing with Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover and Würtemberg. … This German confederation was only capable of eking out its existence in a long period of freedom from European disasters. … Only gradually, in the various heads, did the opinion begin to form of the historical vocation of Prussia to take her place at the head of the German confederation or, possibly, of a new German empire. Gradually this opinion ripened into a firmer and firmer conviction and gained more and more supporters. The more evidently impossible an actual guidance of Germany by Austria became, the more conscious did men grow of the danger of the whole situation should the dualism be allowed to continue. In consequence of this the idea of the Prussian hegemony began to be viewed with constantly increasing favor. A great step forward in this direction was taken by the Prussian government when it called into being the Zollverein [or customs-union]. The Zollverein laid iron bands around the separate parts of the German nation. It was utterly impossible to think of forming a customs-union with Austria, for all economic interests were as widely different as possible; on purely material grounds the division between Austria and Prussia showed itself to be a necessity. On the other hand the economic bonds between Prussia and the rest of the German lands grew stronger from day to day. This material union was the prelude to the political one: the Zollverein was the best and most effectual preparation for the German federal state or for the German empire of later days."

W. Maurenbrecher, Gründung des Deutschen Reichs, pages 4-5.

{3776}

"Paul Pfizer wrote in 1831 his 'Correspondence of Two Germans,' the first writing in the German language in which liberation from Austria and union with Prussia was put down as the solution of the German question and in which faith in Prussia was made a part of such love to the German fatherland as should be no longer a mere dream. … 'So little as the dead shall rise again this side the grave, so little will Austria, which once held the heritage of German fame and German glory, ever again become for Germany what she has once been.'"

W. Oncken, Das Zeitalter des Kaisers Wilhelm (translated from the German), volume 1, pages 69-70.

The formation of the Zollverein "was the most important occurrence since the wars of liberation: a deed of peace of more far-reaching consequences and productive of more lasting results than many a battle won. The economic blessings of the Zollverein soon began to show themselves in the increasing sum total of the amount of commerce and in the regularly growing customs revenues of the individual states. These revenues for example increased between 1834 and 1842 from 12 to 21 million thalers. Foreign countries began to look with respect and in part also with envy on this commercial unity of Germany and on the results which could not fail to come. … A second event happened in Germany in 1834, less marked in its beginnings and yet scarcely less important in its results than the Zollverein. Between Leipzig and Dresden the first large railroad in Germany was started, the first mesh in that network of roads that was soon to branch out in all directions and spread itself over all Germany. … A direct political occurrence, independent of the Zollverein and the railroads, was, in the course of the thirties, to assist in awakening and strengthening the idea of unity in the German people by making evident and plain the lack of such unity and its disastrous consequences. This was the Hanoverian 'coup d'etat' of the year 1837. … In that year William IV of England died without direct successors. … Hanover came into the hands of the Duke of Cumberland, Ernest Augustus. … The new king, soon after his inauguration, refused to recognize the constitution that had been given to Hanover in 1833, on the ground that his ratification as next heir to the throne had not been asked at that time. … By persistent efforts Ernest Augustus … in 1840 brought about a constitution that suited him. Still more than this constitutional struggle itself did a single incident connected with it occupy and excite public opinion far and wide. Seven professors of the Gottingen university protested against the abrogation of the constitution of 1833. … Without more ado they were dismissed from their positions. … The brave deed of the Gottingen professors and the new act of violence committed against them caused intense excitement throughout all Germany. … A committee composed both of conservatives and liberals was formed in Leipzig and raised collections, in order by honorable gift to replace at least the material losses of the banished professors. … In the course of the forties the idea of nationality penetrated more and more all the pores of German opinion and gave to it more and more, by pressure from all sides, the direction of a great and common goal. At first there were only isolated attempts at reform … but soon the national needs outgrew such single expressions of good will. … A tendency began to show itself in the public opinion of Germany to accept the plan of a Prussian leadership of all un-Austrian Germany."

K. Biedermann, Dreissig Jahre Deutscher Geschichte. volume 1, pages 9-91.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820, to 1819-1847 (pages 1531-1533).

GERMANY: A. D. 1862-1890. The Bismarck policy. "Blood and iron" speech of the Prussian Premier.

On the question of the reorganization of the army, which was brought forward early by Prince William (afterwards King and Emperor) after he assumed the Regency in 1858, the Prussian Diet placed itself in determined opposition to the government. At a session of the Budget Commission of the House of Representatives, September 30, 1862, Deputy Forckenbeck offered the following resolution: "Whereas it is also feared that after the declaration of the royal state government made the 29th inst. the same would continue the expenditures for the organization of the army on its own responsibility which have already been rejected by the House for the year 1862 and the rejection of which is likewise to be expected for 1863, according to the acknowledgment of the government itself, and Whereas a direct insistence of the prerogatives of the people's representatives is urgently required, the House of Representatives declares as follows:

1. The royal government is requested to lay the estimates for 1863 before the House as speedily as possible for their constitutional consideration, so that the amount of the same may be constitutionally fixed before January 1st 1863.

2. It is unconstitutional for the royal government to direct expenditures which were by resolution of the House of Representatives definitely and expressly rejected."

The Minister of State, Herr von Bismarck, spoke on these resolutions as follows: "I would willingly accept the estimates for 1862, if I could do so without entering upon explanations which might prove prejudicial. Either side might abuse its constitutional rights and be met by a reaction in kind from the opposite side. The crown, for instance, might decree dissolution twelve times in succession without violating the letter of the constitution, yet would it be an abuse of power. It may refuse to accept a striking out of estimates without measure. Where will you draw the line? At 6 millions? at 16? or at 60? There are members of the National Verein [National Union]—an organization highly respected for the well known fairness of its demands,—very estimable members—who declare all standing armies as superfluous. Well then, if the House of Representatives should hold such view must not the government repudiate it? The 'cool headedness' of the Prussian people has been referred to. Well, it is a fact, the great self-assertion of individuality among us makes constitutional government very hard in Prussia; in France, where this individual self-assertion is wanting, it is otherwise. There a constitutional conflict was no disgrace, but all honor. We are perhaps too 'cultured' to tolerate a constitution; we are too critical; the ability to pass judgment on measures of the government or acts of the legislature is too universal; there is a large number of 'Catilinarian Characters' [existences in the original] in the land whose chief interest is in revolutions. All this may sound paradoxical; yet it proves how hard constitutional life is in Prussia. {3777} The people are too sensitive about the faults of the government; as if the whole did not suffer when this or that individual minister blunders. Public opinion is changeable, the press is not public opinion; everyone knows how the press originates; the representatives have the higher task of directing opinion, of being above it. To return once more to our people: our blood is too hot, we are fond of bearing an armor too large for our small body; now let us utilize it. Germany does not look at Prussia's liberalism but at its power. Let Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden indulge in liberalism, yet no one will assign to them the rule of Prussia; Prussia must consolidate its might and hold it together for the favorable moment, which has been allowed to pass unheeded several times. Prussia's boundaries, as determined by the Congress of Vienna, are not conducive to its wholesome existence as a sovereign state. Not by speeches and resolutions of majorities the mighty problems of the age are solved—that was the mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by Blood and Iron. Last year's grants have been made, no matter on what grounds; I am seeking sincerely for a road to harmony: the finding of it does not depend on me alone. It were better, the House of Representatives had not made an accomplished fact. When the appropriations are not passed, then the way is clear. The constitution affords no relief, for interpretation is opposed to interpretation, 'summum ius, summa iniuria' [the highest law, greatest injustice], 'the letter killeth.' I am glad that the chairman by certain turns of speech admits the possibility of an understanding, of a different vote of the house on a new proposition of the government; I am searching for the same bridge; when it will be found is uncertain. The establishment of a budget for this year is barely possible; the time is too short; our conditions are exceptional. The government concedes the principle of the earliest possible handing down of the estimates. But you say, this has been promised so often and has not been done. Well 'You must trust us for honest people.' I do not share in the interpretation that it was unconstitutional to make expenditures that have been denied, all three factors [i. e. Commons, Upper House and Crown] must agree upon an interpretation, before it stands."

Die Politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 2, pages 20, 28-30.

"Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen, born April 1, 1815, was a Junker [squire, aristocrat] from top to toe, but from the very first, as was the case with all the Junkers of Prussia, Pomerania and the Mark, his life had been thoroughly merged in that of the Prussian state. He had first called attention to himself in 1847 at the general diet (Vereinigter Landtag]. In 1849 he came forward in the chamber of deputies, in 1850 in the Union Parliament at Frankfort—always as the goad of the extreme right, and each time his appearance gave the signal for a violent conflict. Perfectly unsparing of all his opponents, very anti-liberal but very Prussian, very national-minded, in spite of being such a Junker, Bismarck flared up with especial violence against the democratic attacks on the army and the monarchy. … To Frankfort Bismarck came as the sworn defender of the policy of reaction. The Austrian party, thinking him to be a man of no consequence, greeted his coming with joy. He soon made himself unpleasant enough, especially to the Austrian presidents of the federal diet. … He refused to accept the servile role which Austria had apportioned to him; his objections in matters of form and on unimportant occasions prepared the great fundamental anti-Austrian uprising. A feeling of pain came over him at the sight of the Prussian submission to Austria, but at the same time he was seized with a thirst for vengeance. … In Frankfort, too, he learned thoroughly to know German affairs: the utter weakness of the Confederation and the misery of having so many petty states. … To his mind the goal of Prussian policy was to drive Austria out of Germany and then to bring about a subordination of the other German states to Prussia. … Nor did he make the least secret of his warlike attitude towards Austria. When an Austrian arch-duke, who was passing through, once asked him maliciously whether all the many decorations which he wore on his breast had been won by bravery in battle: 'All gained before the enemy, all gained here in Frankfort,' was the ready answer. In the year 1859 came the complications between Austria and Italy, the latter being joined by France. This Italian war between Austria and France thoroughly roused the German nation. … Many wanted to protect Austria, others showed a disinclination to enter the lists for Austria's rule over Italy. … Bismarck's advice at this time was that Prussia should side against Austria and should join Italy. In the spring of 1859, however, he was transferred from Frankfort on the Main to St. Petersburg: 'put on ice on the Neva,' as he said himself, 'like champagne for future use.' … In June 1859, in view of the Italian war, it had been decreed in Prussia that the army should be mobilized and kept in readiness to fight. … When, later, in the summer of this year, the probability of war had gone by, the Landwehr was not dismissed but, on the contrary, a beginning was made with a new formation of regiments which had already been planned and talked over. … On February 10, 1860, the question of the military reorganization was laid before the diet, where doubts and objections were raised against it. … On the 4th of May, at the same time when the law about civil marriages was rejected, the land-tax, by which the cost of the army-reorganization was to have been covered, was refused by the Upper House. The liberals were disappointed and angered. The ministry was soon in a bad dilemma: should it give way to the liberal opposition and dissolve the newly formed regiments? The expedient that was thought of seemed clever enough but it led in reality to a blind alley and was productive of the most baneful consequences. The ministry moved a single grant of 9,000,000 thalers for the purpose of completing the army and maintaining its efficiency on the former footing. The motion was carried on May 15, 1860, by a vote of 315 against two. … The new elections for the house of deputies in December 1861 produced a diet of an entirely different stamp from that of 1858. … The moderate majority was now to atone for the sin of not having come to any real arrangement with the ministry on the army question; for the new majority came to Berlin with the full intention of crushing the army-reform. … The chief task of the newly formed ministry of 1862 was to solve the military question, for the longer it had remained in abeyance the more complicated had the matter become. {3778} The newly-elected diet had been in session since the 19th of May. The majority was determined to draw the conclusion from the provisional nature of the army-reorganization grants that no such grants were any longer to be made. The battle cry of the majority of the diet was that all further demands of the government for the military reform were to be refused. … But how would this result? … The new officers had an actionable, legal claim to their salaries; who was to pay them? The budget for 1862 was already in great part expended. … Were the ministers themselves to pay the damages? Such seems to have been the idea of the fanatics in the parliament. … By September 1862 the belligerent and uncompromising attitude of the liberal majority had induced King William to lay aside his earlier distrust of Bismarck. He allowed him to be summoned and placed him at the head of the ministry. Most stirring was the first audience which Bismarck had with his king in the Park of Babelsberg on September 23. The king first of all laid before Bismarck the declaration of his abdication. Very much startled, Bismarck said: 'To that it should never be allowed to come!' The king replied that he had tried everything and knew no other alternative. His convictions, contrary to which he could not act, contrary to which he could not reign, forbade him to relinquish the army-reorganization. Thereupon Bismarck explained to the king his own different view of the matter and closed with the request that his Majesty might abandon all thoughts of abdication. The king then asked the minister if he would undertake to carry on the government without a majority and without a budget. Bismarck answered both questions in the affirmative and with the utmost decision. … The alliance between the king and his minister was closed and cemented on that 23rd of September in Babelsberg to endure for all time. … To this bond of allegiance which joined king and minister, Prussia and Germany owe all the glory that has fallen to their share. … In the summer of 1863 was originated the famous Austrian project of reform. … The proposals of Prussia that there should be one central head of Germany with popular representation from the whole nation was entirely thrust aside and, on the contrary, a federal directory was recommended with a parliament of delegates from the separate diets. … In spite of Prussia's absence the assembly of princes took place at Frankfort. King John of Saxony again travelled to Baden to urge King William to attend but the latter again declined. Not but that this refusal cost him a great struggle. … Bismarck had to threaten with his resignation before he could make the king remain firm; … he did not breathe freely again until the Saxon king had taken his leave. Then with his powerful hand he demolished a plate of glasses that stood before him; that cooled his anger and his excitement and he was once more the polished courtier. … Bismarck's policy now met with a great piece of good fortune. Through the death of the king of Denmark, namely, the Schleswig-Holstein question was forced to a final solution and this offered Bismarck an opportunity of trying his diplomatic skill, while at the same time it gave the Prussian army a brilliant occasion for showing what it could accomplish. In a series of bold moves Bismarck steered through the complications of the Schleswig-Holstein question; it is the first stage in his great career of victory. … But in spite of all the successes of the Danish war the diet continued in its opposition. A loan for the war was refused; any loan made without the consent of the diet was declared unconstitutional and not binding. … The subsequent grant for the costs of the war was refused. … Naturally the Prussian war-budget could not be made up, and the land continued to be governed without a budget. The details of the debates on these subjects are today only of minor interest. Much time was lost in mutual insults between Bismarck on the one hand and Virchow and Gneist on the other. Bismarck challenged Virchow to a duel, Virchow refused the challenge. … By April 1866 Bismarck had cleared the political field for his war against Austria; the necessity for that war had long been apparent to him. … That the German question could only be settled by the separation of Austria from Germany and that this separation could only be brought about by a war between Prussia and Austria had, in the course of years, become clear to all patriots who knew anything of history. With incomparable perspicuity the statesman who had led Prussia's policy since the autumn of 1862 had grasped the idea and had seen to carrying it out with the whole force of his iron will. Already in the autumn of 1863 he had drawn up the program of what he intended that the German Confederation should be. … The history of the world had not for centuries seen such a war as 1866. … It was then that King William and his minister, crowned with victories, asked the Prussian diet for indemnity: i. e. for an acknowledgment of their good purposes in spite of their illegal acts. … In point of fact the diet had been wrong and the king and his minister had acted wisely and well; in point of form they had broken the letter of the law. … In the years 1862-1866 Bismarck had held off Napoleon with incomparable political skill. He had always refused the French demands, but so that Napoleon in each case could cherish some hope and could venture again and again to approach Prussia with some new lure. Not until August 1866 did Napoleon receive a thorough and open repulse. Bismarck then answered every threat of the French with the counter-threat of a German war. The refusal of Bismarck and his king brought Napoleon into a very bad position as regarded the French people. In the minds of the latter a war against Germany was a foregone conclusion since 1866. … On the 8th of July (1870) the French envoy came to King William in Ems and demanded that he should forbid Prince Leopold to accept the crown of Spain. … It is a popular fiction that the king turned his back on Benedetti, or that he answered that he 'had nothing more to say to him,' or that he out and out refused him an audience. An extra of the German papers of July 14th did indeed read to that effect: Bismarck himself had drawn up the notice for the papers. He had made no false additions, but here and there he had erased and omitted some of the words spoken at Ems, thus rendering possible at least the whole false conception of the matter. Bismarck ventured on such a step, having clearly counted the costs; the result showed how closely he had made his calculations. … {3779} It was the war of 1870 that fundamentally changed the relations of the chancellor to the mass of the people. After 1871 he was immensely popular. … People believed that he could do anything, that he could make possible what was impossible for other men. … Bismarck was very soon surrounded with an almost mythical halo."

W. Maurenbrecher, Gründung des Deutschen Reichs (translated from the German), pages 13-258.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, and after (pages 1537-1548).

GERMANY: A. D. 1863. Formation of the first Socialist party by Lassalle.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864 (page 2949).

GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874. The "Kulturkampf" in its first stages. Speeches of Bismarck.

"For reasons relating to its own internal affairs the state, even though it took no special attitude to the dogma of infallibility in itself, could not avoid being drawn into the conflicts which that dogma was bound to call forth between its upholders and its opponents. It was the duty of the state to prevent the evil results to its citizens of the anathema which the bishops hurled at those who denied the infallibility; it was necessary for it to interfere and, by introducing civil marriages, to render marriage possible to those apostates who were not allowed to receive the sacraments; it was necessary for it to protect in the exercise of their office those of its public teachers who rejected the new dogma, even if their spiritual superiors should declare them unfit to hold such office. In cases, finally, where whole congregations, or majorities of them, remained true to the old teachings it was necessary for the state to protect them in the possession of their churches of which the bishops tried to deprive them. Already in November and December 1870 the first cases had occurred with regard to which the Prussian minister of education had been obliged to draw these conclusions. Professors of the Bonn and Breslau universities who, because they denied the infallibility, had been forbidden to lecture by Archbishop Melchers of Cologne and Prince-bishop Forster of Breslau, appealed to the protection of the minister. Certain pastors and teachers of gymnasiums, who had joined in a declaration drawn up at Nuremberg (August 25, 1870) against the new dogma, and who had in consequence been threatened with ecclesiastical punishments, did the same. Mühler had no other course than to declare that, so far as officials appointed by the state were concerned, the state must maintain its exclusive disciplinary power, and that he would continue in future to regard as catholics those whom he had so regarded before the decree of infallibility was passed, even if they saw fit to reject that dogma. Similar conflicts broke out in Bavaria where the minister, Lutz, upheld the pastor Renftle, of Mering near Augsburg, in the enjoyment of his benefices in the face of the bishop, and where the Munich professors, Döllinger, Friedrich, Huber and others courageously refused such assent to the dogma as the Archbishop Scherr, on October 20, 1870, demanded from them. Döllinger's written justification of himself, published on March 20, 1871, seemed to give a firm basis and a distinguished leader to the whole movement. … Twelve thousand signatures were collected in a few weeks for an address to the king of Bavaria and an appeal was made to the catholics of Germany, Austria and Switzerland in favor of common action. … Meanwhile the other party had been busy enough. Hundreds and hundreds of ecclesiastics protested against Döllinger's assertion that thousands of the clergy thought as he did. A lay assembly in Munich, held on April 23, which expressed itself in favor of infallibility, was the forerunner of countless similar ones. … Already some weeks earlier the archbishop of Munich had ventured to excommunicate Döllinger. … On August 27 Lutz sent a writing to Archbishop Scherr claiming the right to regulate afresh the relations with the church as the dogma of infallibility was something essentially new: at the same time he announced that the government would do its utmost to protect the upholders of the old teachings and to secure the independence of civil affairs from ecclesiastical right of compulsion. In Munich such decisive measures would probably not have been adopted had not matters in Prussia taken a similar turn. The conflict had been brought to a climax here by the demand of Bishops Krementz and Ermeland that two teachers in Braunsberg, Wollmann and Treibel, should be dismissed for denying the infallibility. This demand the minister had refused on March 18, 1871, and on June 29 had even given his approval to the regulation that scholars who should obey the orders of the bishop to absent themselves from the class in religious instruction of these teachers should be expelled from the gymnasium. The bishop had retaliated by excommunicating the two teachers in question, as well as Professor Michelis, one of the chief opponents of infallibility. In the dioceses of Cologne, Paderborn and Breslau also, the conflicts had become more fierce on account of excommunications imposed by the bishops. Still more important was it that the chancellor of the empire had now personally entered the lists. As his cool attitude already before the council had given reason to expect, the Vatican dogma did not much trouble him. All the more alarming seemed to him the agitation which the clergy were stirring up among the Polish nobles, and the league of Guelphism and Catholicism as illustrated by Windhorst's position in the Centre. … He [Bismarck] caused the announcement to be made in an article of the Kreuzzeitung that the government would not only continue on the defensive against the Centre, but in turn would proceed to attack it. The ultramontanes had better consider whether such a struggle could turn out to the advantage of the Roman Church. If, he concluded, three hundred years ago Teutonism in Germany was stronger than Romanism, how much stronger would it be now when Rome is no longer the capital of the world, but on the point of becoming the capital of Italy, and when the German imperial crown no longer rests on the head of a Spaniard but of a German prince. … In the Federal Council Lutz moved an amendment to the criminal code which should threaten any clergyman with imprisonment up to two years if he should misuse his office and discuss state affairs so as to disturb the peace. … This 'pulpit-paragraph' was accepted with 179 to 108 votes and became law December 14th 1871. … The Prussian diet was opened on November 27, 1871, with the announcement of four new laws which should regulate marriages, the registration of civil personal matters, the withdrawal from existing churches, and the supervision of schools. … {3780} The conservative party was in wild excitement over these measures and the Kreuzzeitung became the organ of decided opposition, especially against the school-supervision law which was chosen as the first object of attack. The conservatives collected petitions from all parts of the land to kill this law which they prophesied would make the schools a tool of atheism, a hot-bed of revolution, unnationality and immorality. They succeeded in getting together more than 300,000 signatures. … At the first reading in the House of Deputies the school-supervision law was passed, although by a majority of only 25 votes. … At the second reading the majority increased to 52. … The chief struggle was expected in the House of Lords. … The vote here was favorable beyond all hopes, resulting on March 8th in a majority in favor of the law almost as great as that in the House of Deputies. … By no means calm was the attitude of the pope towards the increasing complications, and when, a few weeks later, on June 24th, 1872, he received the German 'Leseverein' in Rome he complained bitterly of the prime minister of a powerful government who, after marvellous successes in war, should have placed himself at the head of a long-planned persecution of the church; a step which would undoubtedly tarnish the glory of his former triumphs. 'Who knows if the little stone shall not soon be loosened from above that shall destroy the foot of the Colossus!' The chief cause of this embitterment lay in the expulsion of the Jesuits which had meanwhile been decreed by the diet. … The more the national opposition to the Roman claims increased, the more passionate did the frame of mind of the ultramontanes become; and also, in no small degree, of the pope. An allocution addressed to the cardinals on December 22, 1872, surpassed in violence anything that had yet been heard. … Even Reichensperger found it advisable in excusing a vehemence that thus went beyond all bounds to call to mind that the Latinized style of the papal chancery was not to be taken too literally. The German government, after such a demonstration, had no other alternative than to recall the last representative of its embassy to the papal court. … Already in November Minister Falk had laid before the House a draft of a law concerning the limits of ecclesiastical punishments and disciplinary measures; on January 9, 1873, followed the drafts of three new laws. … Still more passionately than in the debate concerning the change in the Constitution did Bismarck come forward in the discussion of April 24-28. … Windhorst and Schorlemer-Alst answered him back in kind. … With violent attacks on Bismarck they prophesied that these Draconic laws would rebound against the passive opposition of the people; that dawn was glimmering in men's minds and that the victory of the Church was near. To the great majority of the German people, who had followed the political-ecclesiastical debates with the liveliest interest, such assurances seemed almost laughable. They felt sure of victory now that Bismarck himself had seized the standard with such decision. The 'May Laws' which the king signed on May 11, 1873, were considered a weapon sure to be effectual, and even the advanced-liberals, who had followed many of the steps of the Government with hesitation and doubt, declared in an appeal to their electors on March 23 that the conflict had assumed the proportions of a great struggle for enlightenment (Kulturkampf) in which all mankind were concerned, and that they themselves, in junction with the other liberal parties, would accordingly support the Government. … On August 7 (1873) Pius IX sent a letter to the emperor under pretext of having heard that the latter did not sympathize with the latest measures of his government. He declared that such measures seemed to aim at the annihilation of Catholicism and warned him that their final result would be to undermine the throne. He deduced his right to issue this warning from the fact that he was bound to tell the truth to all, even to non-catholics: for in one way or another—exactly how this was not the place to make clear—everyone who had received baptism belonged to the pope. The emperor answered on September 3rd in a most dignified tone. … 'We can not pass over in silence the remark that everyone who has been baptized belongs to the pope. The evangelical faith which I, as your Holiness must know, like my forefathers and together with the majority of my subjects, confess, does not allow us to accept any other Mediator in our relations with God save our Lord Jesus Christ.' … Among protestants this royal answer was greeted with jubilant acclamations and even in foreign lands it found a loud echo. The aged Earl Russell organized a great meeting in London on January 27, 1874. … Soon after the opening of the Prussian diet Falk could bring forward the draft of a law which handed over to state-officials [Standesbeamte] all matters referring to the celebration of marriages and the registration of civil personal matters. This draft was sure from the first of a good majority. … On March 9th 1874 the law could be proclaimed. In the same month still the deputies Hinschius and Völk made a motion in the diet to introduce civil marriages throughout the whole empire. … It furthermore seemed necessary to take stronger measures against bishops and priests unlawfully appointed and whom the state had either deposed or refused to recognize. The mildest measure was to remove them from their dioceses or parishes, to banish them to certain fixed places and, in the worst cases, to expel them altogether from the lands of the empire. … The draft of the law (to this effect) was warmly supported and at last, April 25, 1874, was accepted by a vote of 214 to 208. … On July 13th, 1874, as Prince Bismarck, who had gone to take the cure in Kissingen, was driving to the Saline the twenty-one year old cooper's-apprentice Kullmann, of Magdeburg, fired a pistol at him, and wounded him in his right hand which he had just raised for the purpose of saluting. At once arrested, Kullmann declared to the chancellor, who visited him an hour later in his prison, that he had wished to murder him on account of the laws against the church. … The reading of ultramontane papers and the violent discourses of the catholic clergy had driven him to the deed. He atoned for it with fourteen years in the House of Correction. Not alone did public opinion make ultramontanism accountable for the deed, but Bismarck himself laid very strong emphasis on the fact that the criminal had spoken of the Centre as 'his party.' 'You may try as hard as you please to rid yourselves of this murderer,' he cried out in the diet of December 4th, 'he none the less holds fast to your coat-tails!'"

C. Bulle, Geschichte der neuesten Zeit (translated from the German), volume 4, pages 20-41.

{3781}

At the Session of the Lower House of the Prussian Diet January 30, 1872, Deputy Windthorst spoke in opposition to the royal order for the abolition of the separate Roman Catholic section of the department of worship and public instruction and Prince Bismarck, in reply, said: "The party to which the gentleman belongs has contributed its share to the difficulty of obliterating the denominational standpoint in matters political. I have always considered it one of the most monstrous manifestations in politics, that a religious faction should convert itself into a political party. If all the other creeds were to adopt the same principle, it would bring theology into the parliamentary sessions and would make it a matter of public debate. … It has always been one of my fundamental principles that every creed ought to have full liberty of development, perfect liberty of conscience. But for all that I did not think it was a necessary corollary that a census of each denomination be taken merely for the purpose of giving each its proportional share in the Civil Service. … Where will you stop? You begin with a Cabinet; then you count the Chiefs of Division. I do not know what your ratio is—I think you claim four to seven—nor do I care to know. The subordinates in the Civil Service follow next. It is a fact, moreover, that the Evangelicals are by no means united in one denomination. The contrast is not merely between Protestants and Catholics. The United Prussian Established Church, the Lutheran Church, the Reformed Church, all have claims analogous to those of the Catholics. As soon as we cut up the state into denominational sections, giving each creed its proportional share, then the large Jewish population will come in for its part, a majority of which, distinguished by its special capacity, skill and intelligence, is peculiarly fitted for the business of the State. … We cannot admit the claim of the ecclesiastical authorities to a further share in the administration and in the interest of peace we are obliged to restrict the share they already have; so that we may have room beside each other and be obliged, as little as possible, to trouble ourselves about theology in this place."

Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 5, pages 231-240.

In the German Parliament, May 14, 1872, on the question of a grant of 19,350 thalers for the German embassy at the See of Rome, Prince Bismarck spoke as follows: "I can easily understand how in considering this item of the estimates, the opinion may be held that the expenditure for this embassy was superfluous, as it does no longer consider the protection of German citizens in foreign parts. Still I am glad that no motion for the striking out of this post was made, which would be unpleasant to the Government. The duties of an embassy consist not merely in affording protection to their countrymen, but also in keeping up the political relations of the Government which it represents with that to which it is accredited. Now there is no foreign sovereign, who, in the present state of our laws, might be called upon to exercise, in accordance with those laws, prerogatives in the German empire like those of His Holiness, approaching almost to sovereignty, limited by no constitutional responsibility. There is therefore great importance for the German empire in the character that is given to our diplomatic relations with the head of the Roman Church, wielding, as he does, an influence in this country unusually extensive for a foreign potentate. I scarcely believe, considering the spirit dominant at present in the leading circles of the Catholic Church, that any ambassador of the German empire could succeed, by the most skilful diplomacy, or by persuasion (comminatory attitudes conceivable between secular powers are out of the question here)—I say no one could succeed by persuasion in exerting an influence to bring about a modification of the position assumed by His Holiness the Pope towards things secular. The dogmas of the Catholic Church recently announced and publicly promulgated make it impossible for any secular power to come to an understanding with the church without its own effacement, which the German empire, at least, cannot accept. Have no fear; we shall not go to Canossa, either in body or in spirit. Nevertheless it cannot be concealed that the state of the German empire (it is not my task here to investigate the motives and determine how much blame attaches to one party or the other; I am only defending an item in the Budget)—that the feeling within the German empire in regard to religious peace, is one of disquietude. The governments of the German empire are seeking, with all the solicitude they owe to their Catholic as well as Lutheran subjects for the best way, the most acceptable means, of changing the present unpleasant state of affairs in matters of religion to a more agreeable one, without disturbing to any degree the creedal relations of the empire. This can only be done by way of legislation—of general imperial legislation—for which the governments have to rely upon the assistance of the Reichstag. That this legislation must not in the least infringe upon the liberty of conscience,—must proceed in the gentlest, most conciliatory manner; that the government must bend all its energies in order to prevent unnecessary retardation of its work, from incorrect recording or errors in form, you all will admit. That the governments must spare no efforts for the establishment of our internal peace, in a manner least offensive even to the religious sensitiveness of those whose creed we do not share, you will also admit. To this end, however, it is before all things needful that the Roman See be at all times well informed of the intentions of the German governments, much better than it has been hitherto. The reports made in the past to His Holiness, the Pope, on the state of affairs in Germany, and on the intentions of the German governments, I consider as one of the chief causes of the present disturbances of denominational relations; for those presentations were both incorrect and perverted, either by personal bias, or by baser motives. I had hoped that the choice of an ambassador, who had the full confidence of both parties, both on account of his love of truth and reliability, and on account of the nature of his views and his attitude—that the choice of such an ambassador as His Majesty had made in the person of a distinguished prince of the church [Cardinal Prince Hohenlohe] would be welcomed at Rome; that it would be taken as an earnest of our peaceable and conciliatory intentions; that it would be utilized as a means to our mutual understanding. {3782} I had hoped that it would afford the assurance that we would never ask anything of His Holiness, but what a prince of the church, sustaining the most intimate relations to the Pope, could present before him; that the forms with which one sacerdotal dignitary confers with another would continue to prevail and that all unnecessary friction in a matter so difficult in itself would be avoided. … All this we had hoped to attain. But alas! for reasons which have not yet been submitted to us, a curt refusal on the part of the Papal See frustrated the intentions of His Majesty. I dare say such an incident does not often occur. It is customary, when a sovereign has made choice of an ambassador, out of courtesy to make inquiry at the court to which the chosen ambassador is to be accredited, whether he be persona grata or not. The case of a negative reply, however, is extremely rare, bringing about, as it must, a revocation of the appointment made not provisionally, but definitely, before the inquiry. Such a negative reply is equal to a demand to annul what has been done, to a declaration: 'You have chosen unwisely.' I have now been Foreign Minister for ten years; have been busy in matters of higher diplomacy for twenty-one years; and I can positively assert that this is the first and only case in my experience of such an inquiry receiving a negative reply." Deputy Windthorst, in reply, criticised the procedure of the German Government in this affair, and justified the position taken by the papal court, saying: "I believe, gentlemen, for my part, that it was the duty of the Cardinal to ask the permission of his master, the Pope, before accepting the post. The Cardinal was the servant of the Pope, and as such, could not accept an office from another government without previous inquiry. … The case would be the same if His Holiness had appointed an adjutant general of His Majesty as papal nuncio, only more flagrant, for you will admit that a Cardinal is quite a different person from an adjutant general." Prince Bismarck replied: "I do not wish to discuss here the personal criticism which the gentleman made on His Eminence, the Cardinal, but I would say a word about the expression 'master' which was used. The gentleman is certainly well versed in history, especially ecclesiastical history, and I wish to ask him, who was the master of Cardinal Richelieu or Cardinal Mazarin. Both of these dignitaries were engaged in controversies and had to settle important differences with the See of Rome, in the service of their sovereign, the king of France; and yet they were Cardinals. … If it should please His Holiness to appoint an adjutant general of His Majesty as papal nuncio, I should unconditionally advise His Majesty to accept him. … I am an enemy to all conjectural politics and all prophesies. That will take care of itself. But I can assure the gentleman that we will maintain the full integral sovereignty of the law with all means at our disposal, against assumptions of individual subjects of His Majesty, the king of Prussia, be they priests or laymen, that there could be laws of the land not binding upon them; and we are sure of the entire support of a great majority of the members of all religious confessions. The sovereignty can and must be one and integral,—the sovereignty of the law; and he who declares the laws of his country as not binding upon himself, places himself outside the pale of the law."

Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 5, pages 337-344.

The following is from a speech of Prince Bismarck in the Upper House, March 10, 1873, during the discussion of the May Laws: "The gentleman who spoke before me has entered on the same path which the opponents of these bills followed in the other house by ascribing to them a confessional, I might say, an ecclesiastical character. The question we are considering is, according to my view, misconstrued, and the light in which we consider it, a false light if we look upon it as a confessional, a church question. It is essentially a political one; it is not, as our catholic fellow citizens are made to believe, a contest of an evangelical dynasty against the Catholic Church; it is not a struggle between faith and unbelief; it is the perennial contest, as old as the human race, between royalty and priestcraft, older than the appearance of our Savior on earth. This contest was carried on by Agamemnon at Aulis, which cost him his daughter and hindered the Grecian fleet from going to sea. This contest has filled the German history of the Middle Ages even to the disintegration of the German Empire. It is known as the struggles of the popes with the emperors, closing for the Middle Ages when the last representative of the noble Suabian imperial dynasty died on the block beneath the axe of the French conqueror, that French conqueror being in league with the then ruling pope. We were very near an analogous solution of this question, translated into the manners of our own time. Had the French war of conquest been successful, the outbreak of which coincided with the publication of the Vatican Decrees, I know not what would have been narrated in Church circles of Germany of 'gestis Dei per Francos' ['Gesta Dei per Francos,' 'Deeds of God by the French' is the title of a collection by Bongars, containing the sources of the history of the crusades.—Footnote]. … It is in my opinion a falsification of history and politics, this attitude of considering His Holiness, the Pope, exclusively as the high priest of a religious denomination, or the Catholic Church as the representative of Churchdom merely. The papacy has at all times been a political power, interfering in the most resolute manner and with the greatest success in the secular affairs of this world, which interference it contended for and made its program. These programs are well known. The aim which was constantly present in its mind's eye, the program which in the Middle Ages was near its realization, was the subjection of the secular powers to the Church, an eminently political aim, a striving as old as mankind itself. For there have always been either some wise men, or some real priests who set up the claim, that the will of God was better known to them than to their fellow beings and in consequence of this claim they had the right to rule over their fellowmen. And it cannot be denied that this proposition contains the basis of the papal claims for the exercise of sovereign rights. … {3783} The contention of priesthood against royalty, in our case, of the Pope against the German Emperor, … is to be judged like every other struggle; it has its alliances, its peace conventions, its pauses, its armistices. There have been peaceful popes, there have been popes militant, popes conquerors. There have been even peace-loving kings of France, though Louis XVI. was forced to carry on wars; so that even our French neighbors have had monarchs who preferred peace to war. Moreover in the struggles of the papal power it has not always been the call that Catholic powers have been exclusively the allies of the pope; nor have the priests always sided with the pope. We have had cardinals as ministers of great powers at a time when those great powers followed an antipapal policy even to acts of violence. We have found bishops in the military retinue of the German emperors, when moving against the popes. This contest for power therefore is subject to the same condition as every other political contest, and it is a misrepresentation of the issue, calculated to impress people without judgment of their own, when it is characterized as aiming at the oppression of the church. Its object is the defense of the State, to determine the limits of priestly rule, of royal power, and this limit must secure the existence of the State. For in the kingdom of this world the rule and the precedence is the State's. We in Prussia have not always been the pre-eminent object of this struggle. The papal court for a long time did not consider us as its principal opponent. Frederic the Great was at perfect peace with the Roman See while the contemporary emperor of Catholic Austria [Joseph II.] was engaged in the most violent contention with the Catholic Church. I wish to prove thereby that the question is entirely independent of creed. I will further add that at the Vienna Congress it was King Frederic William III., thoroughly and most strictly evangelical, nay, it might be said, anticatholic in his belief, that it was he who insisted upon and carried through the restoration of the secular rule of the pope; nevertheless he departed this world while engaged in a struggle with the Catholic Church. In the paragraphs of the constitution we have under consideration we found a 'modus vivendi,' an armistice, concluded at a time when the State was in need of help and thought to obtain this help or at least some support in the Catholic Church. This hope was based upon the fact that at the election for the national assembly of 1848 the districts in which the Catholic population preponderated elected, if not royalists, yet friends of order,—which was not the case in evangelical districts. Under this impression the compromise between the ecclesiastical and secular arms was concluded, though, as subsequent events proved, in miscalculation as to its practical effects. For it was not the support of the electors who had thus voted but the Brandenburg ministry and the royal army that restored order. In the end the State was obliged to help itself; the aid that might have been given by the different churches did not pull it through. But at that time originated the 'modus vivendi' under which we lived in peace for a number of years. To be sure, this peace was bought only by an uninterrupted yielding of the State, by placing its rights in regard to the Catholic Church, without reservation, in the hands of a magistracy which was originally intended to be the guardian of the royal Prussian prerogatives against the Catholic Church, but which in fact ultimately became a magistracy in the service of the pope, in order to guard the rights of the church against the encroachments of the Prussian State. Of course, I refer to the Catholic section in the Supreme Church Council [the Church Council is a Protestant body.—Foot-note]. I mean of the Ministry of worship. … When we were yet in Versailles I was somewhat surprised to learn, that Catholic members of parliamentary bodies were asked to declare whether they were ready to join a religious party, such as we have now in the Party of the Center, and whether they would agree to vote and agitate for the insertion of the paragraphs we are at present considering into the constitution of the Empire. I was not much alarmed then at that program; I was a lover of peace to such a degree. I knew from whom it emanated; partly from an eminent prince of the church [Bishop Ketteler of Mayence] whose chief task it was to do for the papal policy what he could. … I was completely deceived. … When I returned here I saw how strong was the organization of this party of the church militant, against the state. … What, was this program? Read it. There are pamphlets in everybody's hand, written with spirit, pleasant to read. Its object was the introduction of a state dualism in Prussia, the erection of a state within the state to bring it about that all Catholics should follow the guidance of this Party of the Center in their private as well as their political conduct, a dualism of the worst kind. Under different conditions a dualistic constitution might work well in an empire. Witness the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. But yonder it is no religious dualism. With us the construction of two denominational states is aimed at, to be engaged in a dualistic struggle, one of which was to have for its supreme ruler a foreign church potentate, whose seat is in Home, a potentate who by the latest changes in the constitution of the Catholic Church has become more powerful than ever before. If this program were carried out, we were to have instead of the one formerly integral state of Prussia, instead of the German Empire then at the point of realization—we were to have two state organizations, running side by side in parallel lines; one with the Party of the Center as its general staff, the other with its general staff in the guiding secular principle, in the government and the person of his Majesty the Emperor. This situation was absolutely unacceptable for the government whose very duty it was to defend the state against such a danger. It would have misunderstood and neglected this duty if it had looked on calmly at the astounding progress which a closer examination of the affair brought to light. … The Government was obliged to terminate the armistice, based upon the constitution of 1848, and create a new 'modus vivendi' between the secular and sacerdotal power. The State cannot allow this situation to continue without being driven into internal struggles that may endanger its very existence. The question is simply this: Are those paragraphs of the constitution [of 1848] dangerous to the State, as is contended for by the government of His Majesty, or are they not? {3784} If they are, then it is your duty as conservatives to vote against the retention of those paragraphs. If you think them entirely harmless then you hold a conviction which the government of His Majesty does not share, and as it is not able to assume the responsibility for the administration of the affairs of the State with these articles of the constitution in force, it must surrender it to those who consider them harmless. The Government, in its struggle for the defense of the State, applies to the Upper House for aid and assistance for the strengthening of the State and its defense against attacks and machinations that undermine its peace and endanger its future. We trust and believe that this assistance will not fail us with the majority of the Upper House."

Die politischen Reden des Fürsten Bismarck (translated from the German), volume 5, pages 384-391.

GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1873. Adoption of the gold standard.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1871-1873 (page 2220).

GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1895. The organization of the modern German Empire.

"The idea of the unity of the empire in its purest and most unadulterated form is most clearly typified by the German diet. This assembly, resulting from general elections of the whole people, shows all the clefts and schisms which partisanship and the spirit of faction have simultaneously brought about among the different classes of the people and among their representatives. But there is not one among all the prominent factions of the German diet which owes its formation to territorial differences. The changing majorities and minorities have assumed their form more curiously in our parliament than in any other in the world, but there never has been a single case where in taking a vote North Germans have come forward in a body against South Germans or vice versa, or where small and medium states have been pitted against the one large state. If the constitution of the empire reminds each deputy that he is a representative of the whole people, the best part of the provision is that it comes to be looked upon as a matter of course; it belongs to the very essence of a parliamentary assembly that it should see in a particular constellation of opposing factions only something exceptional. How indispensable a parliamentary organ which actually represents the unity of the people is to every state in a confederation is best shown by the energy with which the Prussian government again and again demanded a German parliament at the very time when it fairly despaired about coming to an understanding with its own body of representatives. In the middle between the head of the empire and such a diet as we have described is the place occupied by the Federal Council (Bundesrath): not until we have made this clear to ourselves can we fully understand the nature of this latter institution. Each of its members is the plenipotentiary of his sovereign just as were the old Regensburg and Frankfort envoys. It is a duty, for instance, for Bavaria's representative to investigate each measure proposed and to see whether it is advantageous or not for the land of Bavaria. The Federal Council is and is meant to be the speaking-tube by which the voice of the separate interests shall reach the ear of the legislator. But all the same, held together as it is by the firm stability of the seventeen votes which it holds itself and by the balancing power of the emperor and of the diet, it is the place where daily habit educates the representatives of the individual states to see that by furthering the welfare of the common fatherland they take the best means of furthering their own local interests. Taken each by himself the plenipotentiaries represent their own individual states; taken as a whole the assembly represents a conglomeration of all the German states. It is the upholder of the sovereignty of the empire. If, then, the federal council already represents the whole empire, still more is this true of the general body of officials, constituted through appointment by the emperor although with a considerable amount of co-operation on the part of the federal council. The imperial chancellor is the responsible minister of the emperor for the whole of the empire. At his side is the imperial chancery, a body of officials who, in turn, have to do in each department with the affairs of the whole empire. The imperial court, too, in spite of all its limitations, is none the less a court for the whole empire. Not less clearly is the territorial unity expressed in the unity of legislation. In the circumstances in which we left the old empire there could scarcely be any question any longer of real imperial legislation. Under the confederation beginnings were made, nor were they unsuccessful; but once again it was primarily the struggle against the strivings for unity that chiefly impelled the princes to united action. The 'Carlsbad decrees' placed limits to separate territorial legislation to an extent that even the imperial legislation of to-day would not venture upon in many ways. The empire of the year 1848 at once took up the idea of imperial legislation; a 'Reichsgesetzblatt' [imperial legislative gazette] was issued. In this the imperial ministry, after first passing them in the form of a decree, published among other things a set of rules regulating exchange. The plan was broached of drawing up a code of commercial law for all Germany for the benefit of that class of the population to which a uniform regulation of its legal relationships was an actual question of life and death. So firmly rooted was such legislation in the national needs that even the reaction of the fifties did not venture to undo what had been done. Indeed the idea of a universal code of commercial law was carried on by most of the governments with the best will in the world. A number of conferences were called and by the end of the decade a plan had been drawn up, thoroughly worked out and adopted. It has remained up to this very day the legal basis for commercial intercourse. It is true it was not the general decrees of these conferences that gave legal authority to this code, but rather its subsequent acceptance by the governments of the individual states. But the practical result nevertheless was that, in one important branch of law, the same code was in use in all German states. Never before, so long as Germany had had a history, had a codification of private law been introduced by means of legislation into the German states in common; for the first time princes and subjects learned by its fruits the blessing of united legislation. But a few years later they were ready enough to give over to the newly established empire all actual power of legislation: only, indeed, for such matters as were adapted for common regulation, but, so far as these were concerned, so fully and freely that no local territorial law can in any way interfere. {3785} What the lawgiver of the German empire announces as his will must be accepted from the foot of the Alps to the waves of the German Ocean. Thus after long national striving the view had made a way for itself that, without threatening the existence of the individual states, the soil of the empire nevertheless formed a united territorial whole. But not only the soil, its inhabitants also had to be welded together into one organization. The old empire had lost all touch with its subjects—a very much graver evil than the disintegration of its territory. So formidable an array of intermediate powers had thrust itself in between the emperor and his subjects that at last the citizen and the peasant never by any chance any more heard the voice of their imperial master. … In three ways the German emperor now found the way to his subjects. Already as king of Prussia the emperor of the future had been obeyed by 19 millions of the whole German population as his immediate subjects. By the entrance of a further 8 millions into the same relationship on the resignation of their own territorial lords by far the majority of all Germans became immediate subjects of the emperor. The German empire, secondly, in those branches of the administration which it created anew or at least reorganized, made it a rule to preserve from the very beginning the most immediate contact with its subjects: so in the army, so in the department of foreign affairs. The empire, finally, even where it left the administration to the individual states, exercised the wholesome pressure of a supreme national authoritative organization by setting up certain general rules to be observed. The empire, for instance, will not allow any distinctions to be made among its subjects which would interfere with national unity. If the Swabian comes to Hesse, the Hessian to Bavaria, the Bavarian to Oldenburg, his inborn right of citizenship gives him a claim to all the privileges of one born within those limits. For all Germany there is a common right of citizenship; and this common bond receives its true significance through numerous actual migrations from one state to another, the right of choosing a domicile being guaranteed. … It belongs in the nature of a federative state that it should not claim for itself all state-duties but should content itself with exercising only such functions as demand a centralized organization. In consequence we see the individual states unfolding great activity in the field of internal administration, in the furtherance of education, art and science, in the care of the poor: matters with which the empire as a whole has practically nothing to do. All those affairs of the states, on the other hand, which by their nature demand a centralized administration have been taken in hand by the empire, and the unity of public interests to which the activity of the empire gives utterance is shown in the most different ways. There are certain affairs administered by the empire which it has brought as much under a central organization as ever the Prussian state did the affairs of the amalgamated territories within its limits. With regard to others the empire has preserved for itself nothing more than the chief superintendence; with regard to others still it is content to set up principles which are to be generally followed and to exercise a right of supervision. It would be wrong, however, to imagine that the two last-mentioned prerogatives are only of secondary importance. The superintendence which the German emperor exercises over the affairs of the army, the chief part of which, indeed, is under his direction as king of Prussia, is sufficient in its workings to make the land-army, in time of war, as much of a unit as is the consolidated navy. … Customs' matters form a third category, with regard to which the empire possesses only the beginnings of an administrative apparatus: all the same we have seen in the last years how the right of general supervision was sufficient in this field to bring about a change in the direction of centralization, the importance of which is recognizable from the loud expressions of approval of its supporters and also in equal measure from the loud opposition of its antagonists. … In the field of finance the empire has advanced with caution and consideration and at the same time with vigor. In general the separate states have retained their systems of direct and indirect taxation. Only that amount of consolidation without which the unity of the empire as a whole would have been illusory was firmly decreed: 'Germany forms one customs and commercial unit bounded by common customs limits.' The internal inter-state customs were abolished. The finances that remained continued to belong to the individual states—the direct taxes in their entirety, the indirect to a great extent. The administration of the customs on the borders even remained in the hands of the local customs-officials, only that when collected they were placed to the general account. But the unconditional right of the empire to lay down the principles of customs legislation gave it more and more of an opportunity to create finances of its own and to become more and more independent of the scheduled contributions from the separate states. … Judicial matters are the affair of the individual state. With his complaints and with his accusations the citizen whose rights have been infringed turns to the court established by his territorial lord. But already it has been found possible to organize a common mode of procedure for this court throughout the whole empire; the rules of court, the forms for criminal as well as civil suits are everywhere the same. … The general German commercial code and the exchange regulations, which almost all the states had proclaimed law on the ground of the conferences under the confederation, were proclaimed again in the name of the empire and were supplemented in certain particulars. As to criminal law a general German criminal code has unified the more important matters and, with regard to those of less importance, has legally fixed the limits to be observed by the individual states. Work is constantly going on at a civil code which is to be drawn up much on the same lines. The German nation is busily engaged in creating a German legal system according to which the Prussian as well as the Bavarian, Saxon or Swabian judge is to render his decisions. Furthermore, a century-long development in our civilized states has brought it about that a supervision, itself in the form of legal decisions, should be exercised over the legality of judicial sentences. Here again it was in commercial matters that the jurisdiction of a supreme court first showed itself to be an unavoidable necessity. {3786} Then it was, however, that after a slumber of seventy years the old imperial court rose again from the dead, not entirely without limitations, but absolutely without the power to make exceptions. The imperial court at Leipzig is a court for the whole empire and for one and all of its subjects. If we turn to the internal administration it is chiefly matters concerning traffic and intercommunication which call by their very nature for regulation under one system. Although the management of local and to some extent also of provincial postal affairs is left as far as possible to the individual states themselves, the German post is nevertheless imperial, all the higher officials are appointed by the emperor, the imperial post office passes its rules and regulations and sees that they are carried out with reference to the whole empire. Just this branch of the administration indeed has had to halt at the Würtemberg and Bavarian frontiers, but in these two states also the legal foundations of the postal system have been adopted in all essential points. And if in the actual administration the differences likewise begin to vanish, the reason for this is more gratifying than is the fact itself: the extraordinary triumphs, namely, of our imperial post, which of themselves invite imitation and a breaking down of barriers. The introduction of the penny tariff has increased the amount of mail matter to four or five times what it was before. Postcards, invented by the director of our postal system, are already [1885], issued annually by the 150 million. The parcels-post, made cheaper and more convenient, has attained such importance that it has actually come to serve as a regulator of prices for the retail business of mercantile houses. Great differences of price in different parts of the empire become more and more an impossibility so soon as one only has to pay ten pfennigs per kilo (2 pounds) to procure the same goods in two or three days from the cheapest place, be it ever so far off. What is true of the post is true also of the telegraph which has come again to be one with it. Here, too, we can observe how the centralization in the empire has been of especial advantage to just those places which lie most out of the way. Chiefly in connection with existing or newly created post offices, the imperial post office, in the first five years after the direction of the telegraph came into its hands, opened more than four thousand telegraph counters—on an average two new counters a day! Through an extended system of treaties the German imperial post has regulated its relations to foreign lands and paved the way for the World-postal-association, the first such association in the history of the world to take in states from all four quarters of the globe. … Compared with the postal system the other branches of inter-communication and of internal administration seem to be only in the first stages of centralization; but here, too, much has been accomplished. The railroads stand under the direction or supervisory administration of the individual states, but unity with regard to time-tables, connections, fares and forwarding has been in so far preserved that differences which might interrupt traffic are avoided as far as possible. The governments of the confederated states are under obligations 'to allow the German railroads, in the interests of general communication, to be administered as one unbroken network.' A separate Imperial Railroad Bureau watches over the fulfillment of this agreement. Nothing, however, has given clearer expression to a unified system of intercommunication in Germany than the equalization of the coinage. In old times, when all or at least the chief territorial lords possessed the unrestricted right of coinage, each state did not, indeed, have its own standard, for how would it have been possible to invent several hundred standards of coinage? But when the territorial lord did make up his mind to adopt some existing system he usually chose one that was not in vogue in the state next to him, so that the boundaries of his own state might be the more clearly defined. That was how it came about that a map of the coinage standards of Germany looked almost as variegated as the map of its states. … Still worse than with regard to coined money—which, after all, always had a natural regulator in the actual market value of the silver or gold—did the want of unity show itself in the matter of paper money. Not only did the various states have different principles on which they issued it, and a different system of securities in funding it, but one and the same state would continue to use its old paper money even when issuing new on another principle. Hundreds of different bank-notes were in use, many which had long been called in continued still to circulate until some unfortunate last holder had to pay the costs. He who had thus learned a lesson at his own expense became very cautious and would refuse even the best paper money. The black Schwarzburg notes looked so grimy that the petty folk in their own land considered them out of date and preferred Prussian money. … In the matter of coins the empire found no general European model to go by. The mark, which was finally chosen as the unit of coinage, had the double advantage of facilitating a transition from the old thaler days and of inaugurating a firm relationship to the franc of the Romanic coinage system, the pound of the English world, the gulden of the Austrian empire (so soon as the latter power resumed metal coinage). The introduction of a gold basis gave the young coinage system a solid basis on the most precious metal. The mints remained in the hands of the separate states, but the coin was issued 'on account with the empire.' The coins accordingly bear on one side the image of the territorial lord who issues them, on the other, to give them general validity, the coat of arms of the empire. … Founded thus on a system of firm finances, on the uniform administration of justice in all lands, on an internal administration which, however varied, nevertheless fulfills the necessary demands of unity, the German empire shows a measure of consolidation the best outward expression to which is given by its army. Among the two million men on land and on sea who are ready to protect the Fatherland's boundaries there is not one who has not sworn fidelity to his imperial master: among the generals, not one who has not been appointed by the emperor. The most cherished of all duties binds the German to his German Fatherland. If, as regards the land-army, the princes still have a certain right of administration over their own contingents: on the man-of-war, where the sons of all the states that border on the sea come together, every possible distinction vanishes. The German navy knows no other flag, no other cockade, than the black-white-and-red."

I. Jastrow, Geschichte des deutschen Einheitstraumes und seiner Erfüllung (translated from the German), pages 285-303.

{3787}

GERMANY: A. D. 1883-1889. Bismarck's Sickness, Accident and Old-Age Insurance Laws.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1883-1889 (page 2955).

GERMANY: A. D. 1883-1894. Acquisitions in Africa.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1883, and after.

GERMANY: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2010).

----------GERMANY: End--------

GHENT, Treaty of (the text).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (pages 3355-3358).

GIRTON COLLEGE.

See EDUCATION (page 745).

GODIN, and his Social Palace at Guise.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

GODOY, The Ministry of.

See (in this Supplement) SPAIN: A. D. 1788-1808.

GOLD AND SILVER, Production of.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1848-1893 (page 2217).

GORTON, Samuel, in Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1641-1647 (page 2641).

GRANGERS, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875 (page 2951).

GRANT, General U. S.: Report on affairs in the South.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (page 3562).

GREAT SEAL, Lord Keeper of the.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1538 (page 1990).

GREECE: Outline Sketch of ancient history.

See EUROPE (pages 991-996).

GREECE: Commerce, ancient.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

GREECE: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2002.)

GREECE: Medical Science.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE, GREEK (page 2124).

GREECE: Money and Banking.

See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2201 and 2202).

GREELEY, Lieutenant, Polar expedition of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1881-1884.

GREGORY I., Pope (called the Great).

See PAPACY: A. D. 461-604 (page 2422).

GREGORY VII., Pope, and the Empire.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122 (page 2427); GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122 (page 1441); and CANOSSA (page 386).

GRINNELL EXPEDITIONS.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851, 1853-1855.

GRIPPE, La, Early appearances of.

See PLAGUE, ETC.; A. D. 1485-1593, and 18TH CENTURY (page 2542).

GUILDS, OR GILDS.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1720-1800 (page 2933).

GUNBOATS, Jefferson's.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805 (page 3332).

H.

HABEAS CORPUS, President Lincoln's suspension of the writ of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1863 (page 3447).

HAHNEMANN, and the system of Homœopathy.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES (page 2139).

HALL, Captain Charles F., Arctic explorations of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1862; 1864-1869; and 1871-1872.

HALLER, Albrecht von, The medical system of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2141).

HANSA, The.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL; and GERMANY: 13-15TH, and 15-17TH CENTURIES. Also, HANSA TOWNS (page 1624).

HAPSBURG, Early fortunes of the family of.

See (in this Supplement) AUSTRIA: A. D. 1273-1349.

HARMONY SOCIETY, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827 (page 2937).

HARVEY, and the discovery of the Circulation of the Blood.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2133).

HAYES, Dr. Isaac I., Arctic explorations of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1860-1861, and 1869.

HELMONT, John Baptist, The medical system of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 16TH CENTURY (page 2133).

HENRY, Professor Joseph, Invention of the electric telegraph.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1825-1874 (page 772).

For other work of Henry;

T. O'Conor Sloane The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

HERCULANEUM, Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT (page 2005).

HIGHER-LAW SPEECH, Seward's.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (page 3387).

HINDU MEDICAL SCIENCE.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE, HINDU (page 2123).

HIPPOCRATES. The Hippocratic Oath.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE, GREEK (page 2125).

HOFFMANN, Frederic, and Humoral Pathology.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17TH CENTURY (page 2136).

HOLLAND: Commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, and MODERN.

HOLLAND: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

HOLT, Lord, and the Law of Bailments.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1698-1710 (page 1971).

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, The.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 9)62; also, page 2652.

HOMŒOPATHY, Origin of the system of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 17-18TH CENTURIES (page 2139).

HUDSON, Henry, Northern voyages of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1607, and after.

HUNTER, Dr. John, The work of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2139).

HUTCHINSON, Governor Thomas. Conversation with King George.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (pages 3210-3213).

{3788}

I.

ICARIA.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1840-1883 (page 2943).

ICILIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C.456 (page 2665).

INDIA, Ancient Commerce.

See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS, The question of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807. and 1816-1817 (pages 3335 and 3360).

INTERNATIONAL, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1872, and 1872-1886 (pages 2950 and 2953).

INVESTITURES, The question of.

See (in this Supplement) PAPACY: 11-12TH CENTURIES; also page 2427.

----------ITALY: Start--------

ITALY: 11-15th Centuries. Commerce of the city republics.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

ITALY: A. D. 1154-1190. Invasions of Frederick Barbarossa.

"In November Frederick appeared in Lombardy and hung up his shield on a high post as a token that he was to hold a review of the army and a general court. The most of the complaints of the cities were directed against Milan, but on complaint of Pavia the emperor first attacked Tortona. … A horrible chastisement was inflicted on the city; … the inhabitants were driven away. … Now at length Frederick turned his attention to Rome. On June 18, 1155, he marched into the Leonine City and was at once crowned in St. Peter's. … The results of this first Italian expedition were nevertheless small. The emperor had not conquered Rome; William I of Naples was more independent than ever; in northern Italy after Frederick's departure Milan was pre-eminent. By her authority Tortona was built up again. The Milanese sent the city a brass trumpet with which to call her inhabitants together once more. … The emperor was determined to put an end forever to all this opposition. In July 1158 an immeasurably greater expedition started with the express purpose of restoring the authority of the empire in Italy. … The Milanese in addition (having after a short siege recognized the emperor's claims) paid a fine, gave 300 hostages, … and afterwards made their submission in the humblest manner: the nobles with drawn swords across their shoulders, the people with cords around their necks, fell down before the emperor and did him homage. … It was in pursuance of Frederick's intention, and of his desire to settle the matter once and for all, that to his purposed diet in the Roncaglian plains he also summoned some teachers of law from Bologna. … Enough, in the assembly at Roncaglia through a well authorized judicial sentence, those regalia [royal rights] which had gone over to the civic communes were adjudged to the emperor, save in cases where by special privilege they had been relinquished to special cities. The emperor was recognized as the highest legislative power. … Frederick had set himself the great problem of uniting together authority and freedom. In the best possible monarchical spirit he expressed it that he wished an empire resting on a legal foundation in order to maintain every man in his freedom. But it is none the less evident that he wished the centre of gravity to lie in his own authority. It was not the demand of the regalia alone that caused the trouble, but just this principle, and it comes to the fore in the clearest manner in his relations with Milan. The agreement on the occasion of the peace with Milan had been that the civic authorities should be freely elected but should be invested by the emperor. In Roncaglia on the other hand it was decreed that the emperor should nominate the authorities subject to the assent of the people. A slight change, but one which in reality betokened an immense difference. Thus at the diet of Roncaglia did the empire unfold once more its full glory. But in the carrying out of these decrees, and especially in the matter of nominating the authorities; immeasurable difficulties now showed themselves. … On this matter, then, it had to come to blows. At the very first attempt in Milan a popular tumult arose. Frederick instituted proceedings which ended with a new banning of the city. … Large as the city was a way was found of cutting off from it all supplies. Through extreme want it was at last compelled to surrender and to beg for mercy. … The city was actually made to cease to exist. It was to be divided into four different places. If every trace of it was not completely obliterated this was solely due to regard for certain churches. The Milanese were treated like a tributary people on conquered territory. … In November 1166 the emperor started out to drive Pope Alexander from Rome. But already under his eyes the Lombard cities were bestirring themselves against him. They were discontented on account of oppressions which they were obliged to suffer more through the violence of the imperial officials than from any fault of the laws. … The Lombards considered that if the pope were again to be beaten they should find no more help against the power which was holding them down. What especially goaded them on was the firmness of the imperial rule, its methodical and stern manner of proceeding against every one who opposed it. … It was after the imperial governors in consequence of the growing disaffection had claimed and received new hostages that the representatives of Cremona, Brescia, Ferrara and Mantua came together in Pontida (April 1167). … The decision of the Lombards was, not to consider due to the emperor any more than had been considered due to him at the death of Henry V and to oppose him by force should he demand more. They restored Milan, which joined them, compelled Lodi to go over to their side and captured, as they had once done before, the treasure of the emperor which was in Trezzo. … Frederick thought to crush all opposition in Upper Italy if he could only withdraw from it the help of the Greeks and of the pope. He therefore turned first against Ancona which the emperor Manuel had captured and compelled the city to give him hostages. … He then attacked Rome. … They (the Germans) conquered the Leonine City after a bloody fight. The emperor himself appeared, installed his own pope and caused his queen to be crowned (August 1, 1167). Alexander fled, the city of Rome consented to make peace. … Thus had the main point been gained and the emperor prepared to renew the struggle against the Lombards. {3789} It was then that his brilliant army, beyond a doubt the most efficient of its age, was struck down by the hand of fate. A plague broke out which ravaged the city as well as the army, but which almost annihilated the latter. … He could no longer strike an effective blow at the Lombards. But he did not on that account lose his head. In Pavia he pronounced the bann against the cities; they answered by now first strengthening their bonds of union on a large scale. The cities which had previously been allied with Venice, and all the others, entered into a league which all were to swear to uphold; at the head of it was Venice. They were to make common cause in war and peace and to perform no services other than the customary ones. … The emperor felt that he could not cope with this new development and left Pavia. Only after great perils did he escape. They strove quite openly to take his life. With only a few companions he rescued himself. … In March 1172 the emperor represented to the princes that the contagion of faithlessness with which Italy had contaminated herself was seeking to spread itself out over Greece and Sicily. The term for the imperial campaign nevertheless was only set for two years later. … In July 1174 the emperor with his army crossed the Alps over the Mt Cenis. At this very time the Italians had opposed to him a new bulwark—a new city which they called Allessandria in honor of the pope. The emperor first attacked this but met with an opposition similar to that which Archbishop Christian experienced before Ancona. … Many conferences took place between the imperial plenipotentiaries, the delegates of the cities and the papal legates. But these latter, standing as they did at the same time in league with the Greek emperor and the king of Sicily, felt themselves to be the stronger. … Everything depended on his [Frederick's] procuring new help. … The great all-deciding question was whether Frederick would have Henry the Lion on his side; not indeed exclusively on account of the actual help that he would render but because his name in itself would increase the prestige of the emperor. … The power of an emperor in its full development seemed unbearable to Henry the Lion, even as in earlier times it had been unbearable to the German princes. … Henry's defection gave courage to the Italian cities. … On May 29, 1176, a battle took place near Legnano. … Brave as the emperor was he nevertheless suffered a complete defeat. … The letter is extant which the Milanese wrote to the Bolognese concerning the battle. Countless, so they exclaim, are the slain, the drowned, the prisoners. We have the shield, the standard, the lance and the cross of the emperor. Incalculable is the booty. … It is the battle through which the freedom and the progress of Italian nationality were founded. … Here [in Venice] now, with the pope and the king of Sicily a peace, with the Lombards a truce of six years was brought about. Then took place that famous meeting of the pope and the emperor in Venice, on the 24th of July 1177. … With the cities the emperor closed the peace of Constance in the year 1183. He acknowledged therein the extension of their jurisdiction over the surrounding territory and sanctioned their league but retained for himself three things:

1. his regalia, of which however an estimate was to be made according to their value and which were to be compensated for by payment of a fixed sum from each city;

2. the investiture of the consuls; …

3. the right that appeals should be made within Italy to imperial representatives.

It does not appear that these reservations greatly interfered with the liberty of the cities. … In a word, the two opponents of the empire in Italy had achieved great victories. The emperor had abandoned the idea of maintaining the old supremacy of the empire over the church and of subjecting the cities to his administration; he did not however on that account break off his connection with them. In 1184 he again came to Italy; for a yearly sum of 300 lire he abandoned all the rights that he had hitherto claimed from the cities and allied himself with them. … Meanwhile the emperor succeeded in making the greatest possible acquisition in Lower Italy. For that Norman kingdom which the Germans had so often attacked in vain there was only an heiress left, Constance, aunt of the ruling king. Bitterly as the pope opposed it the emperor was nevertheless able to bring about a marriage between her and his son Henry VI. and thus to secure for him the sure prospect of succeeding to Naples and Sicily. … Without knowing it Frederick thus tied a new knot which was to be decisive for the fate of his house and, we might even say, of Germany itself."

L. von Ranke, Weltgeschichte (translated from the German). volume 8. pages 171-209.

ALSO IN: _K. Lamprecht, Deutsche Geschichte._

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183 (pages 1811-1813).

ITALY: A. D. 1644. First publication of gazettes, or newspapers.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1612-1650 (page 2592).

ITALY: A. D. 1870. Law of the Papal Guarantees.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1870 (page 2477).

ITALY: A. D. 1882-1895. Acquisitions in Abyssinia.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1882, 1885, 1889, 1889-1890, 1890-1891, 1894-1895.

ITALY: Constitution.

For a translation of the text, see (in this Supplement) CONSTITUTION OF ITALY.

ITALY: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, RENAISSANCE, and MODERN (page 2012).

----------ITALY: End--------

J.

JAPAN: A. D. 1894-1895. War with China.

See (in this Supplement) COREA.

JAPAN: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: JAPAN (page 2024).

JEANNE D'ARC, The family, the home and the circumstances of.

See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429; also, page 1175.

JEANNETTE, Polar voyage of the.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1882.

JEFFERSON'S GUNBOATS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1805 (page 3332).

JENNER, Dr. Edward, and the discovery of Vaccination.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18TH CENTURY (page 2140).

{3790}

JEWS: Ancient commerce. Connection with the Phœnicians.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

JEWS: Ancient money.

See MONEY AND BANKING: JEWS (page 2203).

JEWS: Medical Science.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE, JEWISH (page 2124).

JOAN OF ARC, The family, the home and the circumstances of.

See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1423-1429; also, page 1175.

JOSEPH II., Emperor: His character and his reforms.

See (in this Supplement) AUSTRIA: A. D. 1780-1790.

JUDICATURE ACTS, The.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1873 (page 1981).

JURY, Trial by.

See LAW, COMMON (page 1956, and after).

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1344 (page 1983).

JUSTICIARY, Chief: Disappearance of the office.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1265 (page 1962).

K.

KANE, Dr. Elisha Kent, Polar expeditions and adventures of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1851, and 1853-1855.

KARNATIC, The.

"Bishop Caldwell says: 'When the Muhammadans arrived in Southern India, they found that part of it with which they first became acquainted-the country above the Gháts, including Mysore and part of Telingána—called the Karnataka country. In course of time, by a misapplication of terms, they applied the same name Karnatak, or Carnatic, to designate the country below the Gháts, as well as that which was above. The English have carried the misapplication a step further, and restricted the name to the country below the Gháts, which never had any right to it whatever. Hence the Mysore country, which is properly the true Karnatic, is no longer called by that name; and what is now geographically termed "the Karnatic" is exclusively the country below the Gháts, on the Coromandel coast, including the whole of the Tamil country and the Telugu-speaking District of Nellore.'"

_W. W. Hunter, Imperial Gazetteer of India: Karnatic (volume 5)._

KASHGAR.

See TURKESTAN (page 3130), and YAKOOB BEG (page 3662).

KASSHITE, OR KASSITE, DYNASTY, The.

See SEMITES: THE FIRST BABYLONIAN EMPIRE (page 2890).

KENT, Chancellor, and American jurisprudence.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1814-1823 (page 19(3).

KILMAINHAM TREATY, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882 (page 1797).

KING'S LIBRARY, The.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2014).

KING'S PEACE, The.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 871-1066, 1100, 1135, and 1300 (pages 1956, 1958 and 1963).

KNIGHTS OF LABOR, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1869-1883 (page 2952).

KOCH, Dr. Robert, Bacteriological studies of.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19TH CENTURY (page 2146).

KOLDEWY, Captain, Polar expedition of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1869-1870.

KOREA.

See (in this Supplement) COREA.

KULTURKAMPF, The.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874.

L.

LAFAYETTE, General: Visit to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1825 (page 3365).

LAND, Ultimate property in.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1776 (page 1974).

LAND, Indian right of occupancy.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1823 (page 1976).

LAND ACT OF 1881, The Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1881-1882 (page 1797).

LAND REGISTRATION.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1630-1641 (page 1969).

LAND-TRANSFER REFORM.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1854-1882, and 1889 (pages 1980-1981).

LASSALLE, Ferdinand, and German Socialism.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864 (page 2949).

LATIN UNION, The.

See MONEY and BANKING: A. D. 1853-1874 (page 2218).

LAW, Roman.

See ROMAN LAW (page 2652).

LEE, Arthur, in France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778 (pages 3242-3244).

LEGAL TENDER NOTES.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878 (page 2219).

LEO THE GREAT, Pope.

See PAPACY: A. D. 42-461 (page 2421); and HUNS: A. D. 452 (page 1689).

L'ESTRANGE, Roger, and the early newspaper press in England.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1654-1694 (page 2596).

LEVANT, The.

A term applied to the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean, from the western part of Greece round to the western border of Egypt—more specifically to the coasts and islands of Asia Minor and Syria. The name—which signifies "rising" hence "the East"—was given to this region by the Italians.

LIBEL, The Criminal Law of.

See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1770, and 1843 (pages 1984 and 1986).

LIBERTY, Religious.

See in this Supplement: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS. (page 3807)

LINCOLN, Abraham: Debate with Douglas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1858 (page 3401).

First Inaugural Address.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3417).

First Message.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (pages 3421 and 3448).

First call for troops.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3423).

Proclamation of Blockade.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3427).

Suspensions of Habeas Corpus.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3447).

Message proposing compensated Emancipation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3453).

{3791}

Letter to Horace Greeley.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3476).

Preliminary Proclamation of Emancipation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3480).

Final Proclamation of Emancipation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3487).

Letter to General Hooker.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3489).

Letters to New York and Ohio Democrats.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3407).

Address at Gettysburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3514).

Proclamation of Amnesty and Message.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3515).

Plan of Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3518).

Re-election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3533).

Hampton Roads Peace Conference.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3546).

Second Inaugural Address.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3549).

Last Speech.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3551).

At Richmond.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3554).

Assassination.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 3(55).

LINE-OF-BATTLE SHIP.

See SHIP OF THE LINE (page 2901).

LISTER, and Antiseptic Surgery.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 10TH CENTURY (page 2145).

LIVINGSTONE, David, Explorations of.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1840, 1840, and after.

LOBENGULA, War of the English with.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965).

LOMBARD BANKERS AND MONEY-CHANGERS.

See MONEY AND BANKING (pages 2205 and 2206).

LORD KEEPER OF THE GREAT SEAL, The.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1538 (page 1000).

LOUIS IX., King of France (called St. Louis).

See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.

François Guizot, Great Christians of France: Saint Louis and Calvin. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62518

LOUIS XV., King of France, Fatal foreign policy of the reign of.

See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. p. 1715-1770.

McCLINTOCK, Captain, Franklin search expeditions of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1852-1854, and 1857-1859.

McCLURE, Captain, Franklin search expedition of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1850-1854.

McKINLEY TARIFF ACT, The.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1890 (page 3085).

MADAGASCAR.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

MANCHUS. MANCHURIA.

"The Manchus, from the earliest period of Chinese history, have occupied the country bounded on the east by the Japanese Sea, which is drained in its southern portion by the Tumun, by the right affluents of the Ya-lu-kiang, and by the upper portions of the left affluents of the Liau; and in its northern portion by the right affluents of the Upper Soongari, and the Lower Soongari, and Lower Amoor, with their affluents on both sides. This extent of country may be fitly called Manchuria Proper, to distinguish it from the present political Manchuria. This latter embraces not only the real Manchuria, but also a tract on the east side of the Liau, composed of the lower valleys of its left affluents, and of the Liau peninsula, and another on the west of the Liau, lying between its right bank and the Great Wall. Now these two tracts, known severally as Liau-tung or Liau East and Liau-se or Liau West, have, from the earliest historical periods, been occupied by a Chinese population, with the settled habits of their nation: agriculturists, artisans, and traders, dwellers in villages and cities. Hence, though situated beyond the Great Wall, it has always been a part, though a very exposed and often politically separated part, of China Proper. Manchuria Proper, as above defined, is a mountainous, well-watered tract, formerly altogether covered with forests, of which large portions still remain. The principal mountain range is the Chang-pih-shan, or Shan-a-lin, or Long White Mountains. … As the great arid plateau, the Shamo, has given to the Mongols their national characteristics, so the Long White Mountains, with their northerly spurs, separating the Upper Soongari, the Hurka, and the Usuri, have constituted the character-giving home and stronghold of the Manchus. These, unlike the Mongols, who have 'moved about after grass and water,' have always been a settled people, who in ancient times dwelt during the cold season in holes excavated in the sides of dry banks, or in pits in the earth, and during summer in huts formed of young trees and covered with bark or with long wild grass. They have, unlike the Mongols, from the earliest periods been somewhat of agriculturists; like them they have always reared domestic animals. … It has hitherto been the custom among Occidentals to speak of the Manchus as 'Tartars;' but if, as I believe, this name generally conveys the idea of a people of nomadic herdsmen, and usually large owners of camels, it will be seen from the foregoing sketch that it is altogether a misnomer as applied to the Manchus. … In the 11th century before Christ this nation appeared at the court of the Chow dynasty as Suh-chin, and presented tribute, a portion of which consisted of stone-headed arrows. In the 3d century after Christ they reappeared as Yih-low. … In the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries after Christ we find them under the names of Wuh-keihs, and Mo-hos, still described as rude barbarians, but politically organized as a confederation of seven large tribes or seven groups of tribes. At length, in the beginning of the 8th century, a family named Ta, belonging to the Suhmo-Mo-hos, that member of the confederation whose territory lay immediately on the north of Corea and north-east of Liau East, established themselves as rulers over the whole of Manchuria Proper, over Liau East, and over a large portion of Corea. In A. D. 712, the then Whang-ti, or Emperor of China, conferred the title of Prince of Po-hae on the head of the family; but the immediate successors of this prince shook off even the form of vassalage, and by their conquest of Northern Corea and Liau East, assumed a position of hostility to the Whang-ti. Po-hac, the name adopted by the new rulers, became the name of the Manchu Nation; which under it for the first time takes a place in history, as constituting a civilized State with a centralized administration. … It was overthrown by the Ketans. About these the Chinese accounts conflict as to whether they were a Manchu or a Mongol tribe: I consider them more of the former than of the latter. They took their rise in the valleys of the Hu-lan, a small northern branch of the Soongari, which falls into the latter about 100 miles below its junction with the Nonni. {3792} The Ketans had possessed themselves of Eastern Mongolia, and been engaged in successful war on China before they, in A. D. 926, attacked the Po-hae state, which they speedily overthrew, incorporating into their own dominions all Manchuria Proper and the East of the Liau. Before the middle of the 10th century, they had conquered nearly all Mongolia and Northern China. … They assumed for their dynasty the name of Liau, that of the river which flows past this port. Under the eighth of the line, their power had sunk so much that it fell easily before the attacks of A-kuh-ta, the chief of a purely Manchu tribe or commune, the Neu-chins, whose original seat was the country between the Upper Soongari and the Hurka. The Neu-chins rebelled against the Ketans or Liaus in A. D. 1113. Within 15 years, they had possessed themselves of the whole of Manchuria, Mongolia, and Northern China, driving the Chinese Whang-ti to the south of the Great River, and themselves establishing a rival line under the name of Kin, or Golden; adopted because their own country Manchuria 'was a gold-producing one.' The Neu-chins or Kins were in their turn overthrown by the Mongols, under Ghenghis Khan and his immediate successors. Manchuria came under their power about A. D. 1217, Northern China, about A. D. 1233, and Southern China, about A. D. 1280, when they established—it was the first time the thing had happened—a line of non-Chinese Whang-tis in undisputed possession of that dignity. … The Mongol dynasty maintained itself in China for about 90 years, when (in A. D. 1368) the last Whang-ti of the line was driven to the north of the Great Wall by the forces of a Chinese rebel, who established himself at Nanking as the first Whang-ti of the Ming dynasty."

T. T. Meadows (Quoted in A. Williamson's "Journeys in North China," volume 2, chapter 4).

In 1644 the Ming dynasty was overthrown by a domestic rebellion in China, and a Manchu prince, called in by one of the generals of the fallen government, established himself on the throne, where his descendants have reigned to this day.

See CHINA:A. D. 1294-1882 (page 420) and after.

MANSFIELD, Lord, and Commercial Law.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1756-1788, and 1783 (page 1973).

MARSHALL, John, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1801 (page 3326).

MARX, Karl, and the socialistic movements of his time.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894, 1843-1883, 1862-1872 (pages 2941, 2945, 2951).

MASAILAND, Exploration of.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1860-1861, 1871 and after.

MASHONALAND, English occupation of.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965); also (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

MASSACHUSETTS, Free Libraries in.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2021).

MASTER OF THE ROLLS.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1066 (page 1988).

MATABELELAND, English occupation of.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1885-1893 (page 2965); also (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1888.

MEDICAL PROFESSION, Women in the.

See WOMAN'S RIGHTS: A. D. 1842-1892 (page 3658).

MENNONITES, The.

"The Mennonites take their name from Menno Simons, born in Witmarsum, Holland, in 1492. He entered the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church, and in 1524 was appointed chaplain in Pingium. Two years later he began to read the Scriptures, which he had hitherto ignored. Becoming a close student of them, his views on various doctrines soon changed, and he was known as an evangelical preacher. … He renounced Catholicism early in 1536, and was baptized at Leeuwarden. In the course of the following year he was ordained a minister in what was then known as the Old Evangelical or Waldensian Church. From this time on to his death, in 1559, he was active in the cause of evangelical truth, traveling through northern Germany, and preaching everywhere. The churches which he organized as a result of his labors rejected infant baptism and held to the principle of non-resistance. A severe persecution began to make itself felt against his followers, the Mennonites; and, having heard accounts of the colony established in the New World by William Penn, they began to emigrate to Pennsylvania near the close of the 17th century. … Successive immigrations from Holland, Switzerland, Germany, and, in the last twenty-five years, from southern Russia, have resulted in placing the great majority of Mennonites in the world on American soil, in the United States and Canada."

H. K. Carroll, The Religious Forces of the United States, chapter 28.

MICHIGAN WILD CAT BANKS.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1837-1841 (page 2215).

MIDDLE AGES, Commerce of the.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL.

MILLS TARIFF BILL, The.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1884-1888 (page 3085).

MINNESOTA, University of.

"Two years after the organization of the territory, the Legislature petitioned Congress for a grant of 100,000 acres of land to endow a university, and on the very day of this petition two townships were set aside for that purpose. The Legislature went on to enact that the University of Minnesota should be established at or near the Falls of St. Anthony and should have the income from all land thereafter granted by the United States for University purposes. Under this grant the regents selected a large portion of the lands and erected a costly edifice, but they were soon obliged to mortgage both building and lands in order to meet the obligations incurred. Affairs were in this condition when Congress passed the act admitting Minnesota to the Union, by which two townships of land were granted for the use and support of a State university. … Efforts were at once made to open the university, but the financial crisis of 1857 and the Civil War checked further action and encumbered the university with debt. … The present organization of the university dates from 1868, when an act was passed 'to reorganize the University of Minnesota and to establish an agricultural college therein.' In the following year college classes were first organized. The act of 1868 provided that the university should have the income from the agricultural college grant. … From the university lands that have been sold something over $800,000 has been received, from which there is an annual income of about $37,000."

F. W. Blackmar, History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United States (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1890, no. 1), pages 295-297.

{3793}

MISSIONS, Christian, in Africa.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER: The question of navigation in dispute with Spain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784-1788 (page 3293).

MORMONS: Abandonment of Polygamy.

See UTAH: A. D. 1882-1893 (page 3591).

MORRISON TARIFF BILL, The.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1884-1888 (page 3083).

MORSE, SAMUEL F. B., Telegraphic inventions of.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1825-1874 (page 773).

T. O'Conor Sloane The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

MORTON, Dr., and the discovery of Anæsthetics.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 19th CENTURY (page 2144).

MOSQUITO COUNTRY.

See (in this Supplement) NICARAGUA.

N.

NANSEN, Dr., Arctic expeditions of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1888, and 1893.

NAPOLEON I., and Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1796-1807.

NARES, Captain, Polar voyage of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1875-1876.

NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1888-1893 (page 2956).

NETHERLANDS, Commerce of the.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, AND MODERN.

NEUTRALITY, The Queen of England's Proclamation of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (page 3428).

NEW CHURCH, The.

See (in this Supplement) SWEDENBORG.

NEW HARMONY COMMUNITY. The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824, and 1805-1827 (pages 2936-2937).

NEW JERSEY, College of.

See (in this Supplement) PRINCETON COLLEGE.

NEW LANARK, Robert Owen's experiment at.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824 (page 2935).

NEWNHAM HALL.

See EDUCATION (page 746).

NICARAGUA, AND THE MOSQUITO INDIANS.

The question of the sovereignty of Nicaragua over the Mosquito country was settled affirmatively by a convention concluded in November, 1894. Great Britain at the same time gave assurances to the United States that she asserts no rights of sovereignty or protection over the country in question.

NIHILISM.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1860-1870 (page 2948).

NILE, Exploration of the sources of the.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

NON-INTERCOURSE, The Jefferson policy of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809. and 1808-1810 (pages 3332 and 3338).

NORDENSKIÖLD, Professor (Baron), Achievement of the Northeast Passage by.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1878-1879.

NORTH AMERICA, The Bank of.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784 (page 2212).

NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST PASSAGE, Search for.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

NORWAY, Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

O.

OBERLIN COLLEGE.

"Oberlin is a development from the missionary and reform movements of the early quarter of our century. Its direct impulse was the new spirit of active benevolence which tested old doctrines by experience and by their fitness for organized philanthropy. Its foundations were laid 23 years after the organization of the American Foreign Missionary Association, 7 years after the first American temperance society, 15 years before the first public move to extend the rights of women, and in the same year with the American Anti-Slavery Society. All of these reform movements were more or less united in the Oberlin movement. The founders were themselves home missionaries in the West and among the Indians, and Oberlin has ever since been vital with the missionary spirit. From the first, alcoholic beverages have been excluded. Although not adopting the extreme doctrine of woman's rights, yet Oberlin was the first college in the world to admit young women to all its privileges on equal terms with young men; and as for its anti-slavery leanings, it had received colored students into its classes 28 years before emancipation. Such bold disregard of the old landmarks was not attractive to the power and wealth of the country, and so for 50 years Oberlin owed its life to the sacrifice and devotion of its founders and instructors. … In 1831 John J. Shipherd, under commission from the American Home Missionary Society, entered upon his work as pastor of the church at Elyria, Ohio. … In the summer of 1832 he was visited by Philo P. Stewart, an old school friend in the days when they both attended the academy at Pawlet, Vermont. Stewart, on account of the failing health of his wife, had returned from mission work among the Choctaws in Mississippi, but his heart was still burning with zeal for extending Christian work in the West. The two men, after long consultations and prayer, finally concluded that the needs of the new country could best be met by establishing a community of Christian families with a Christian school, … the school to be conducted on the manual labor system, and to be open to both young men and young women. {3794} It was not proposed to establish a college, but simply an academy for instruction in English and useful languages, and, if Providence should favor it, in 'practical theology.' In accordance with this plan the corporate name 'Oberlin Collegiate Institute' was chosen. Not until 1851 was a new and broader charter obtained, this time under the name of 'Oberlin College.' The name 'Oberlin' was chosen to signify the hope that the members of the new enterprise might be moved by the spirit of the self-sacrificing Swiss colporteur and pastor, John Friederich Oberlin."

_J. R Commons, Oberlin College (in Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1801, no. 5), pages 55-56._

OERSTED, and his discovery of the Electro-Magnet.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1820-1825 (page 772).

T. O'Conor Sloane The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

OHIO UNIVERSITY.

"Ohio University bears the double distinction of being the first college in the United States founded upon a land endowment from the national Government, and also of being the oldest college in the Northwest Territory. … The university owes its origin and endowment to the Ohio Company of Associates, who in 1787 purchased a large tract of land from the old board of treasury for the purpose of colonizing it with pioneers from New England. … The honor of obtaining this endowment belongs to Dr. [Manasseh] Cutler. … In 1795 the lands to be devoted to the support of the university were located. The townships selected were those now called Athens and Alexander, in Athens County. General Rufus Putnam, who was deeply interested in the proposed institution, used his influence to secure settlers for the college lands. … December 18, 1799, the Territorial legislature appointed Rufus Putnam, Benjamin Ives Gilman, and Jonathan Stone 'to lay off, in the most suitable place within the townships, a town plat, which should contain a square for the colleges; also lots suitable for house lots and gardens for a president, professors, tutors, etc., bordering on or encircled by spacious commons, and such a number of town lots adjoining the said commons and outlots as they shall think will be for the advantage of the university.' … In 1802 the legislature of the Northwest Territory passed an act establishing a university and giving to it in trust the land grant."

_G. W. Knight and J. R. Commons, History of Higher Education in Ohio (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1891, number 5)._

ONEIDA COMMUNITY, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848 (page 2946).

ONTARIO SCHOOL SYSTEM.

See EDUCATION, MODERN (page 733).

OTHO THE GREAT, and the restoration of the Empire.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 962.

OWEN, Robert, and his social experiments.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1800-1824, 1805-1827, and 1816-1886 (pages 2935, 2937, and 2938).

OYER AND TERMINER, Courts of.

See LAW, CRIMINAL: A. D. 1285 (page 1982).

P.

PAMIR, The.

The Pamir and Tibet, which converge north of India and east of the Oxus, form jointly the culminating land of the continent. Disposed at right angles, and parallel, the one to the equator, the other to the meridian, they constitute the so-called 'Roof,' or 'Crown of the World,' though this expression is more usually restricted to the Pamir alone. With its escarpments, rising above the Oxus and Tarim plains west and east, the Pamir occupies, in the heart of the continent, an estimated area of 30,000 square miles. With its counterforts projecting some 300 miles, it forms the western headland of all the plateaux and mountain systems skirting the Chinese Empire; it completely separates the two halves of Asia, and forms an almost impassable barrier to migration and war-like incursions. Yet notwithstanding its mean elevation of 13,000 feet above arable land, it has been frequently crossed by small caravans of traders or travellers, and by light columns of troops. The attempt could not fail to be frequently made to take the shortest route across the region separating the Oxus from Kashgaria, and Europe from China. Hence the Pamir has often been traversed by Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Italians, Chinese, some as traders, some as explorers, some inspired by religious zeal. But of these travellers very few have left any record of their journey, and all took the lowest routes across the plateau."

E. Reclus, The Earth and its Inhabitants: Asia, volume 1, chapter 3, section 2.

PANIC OF 1873, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1873 (page 3574).

----------PAPACY: Start--------

PAPACY: 11th Century. The Church and the first Crusading movement.

See (in this Supplement) CRUSADES.

PAPACY: 11-12th Centuries. The Question of the Investitures.

"By investiture in mediaeval church law is meant the act of bestowing a church office, with the use of symbols, on the clergyman who has been appointed to fill it. It is especially to signify the act by which secular princes conferred on the chosen candidates the offices of bishop and abbot that the word is used since the eleventh century. The struggle which the papacy and the church carried on in the last half of the 11th and on into the 12th century for the purpose of doing away with this same right of the princes to confer such offices is called in consequence the war of the investitures. That the nomination of the bishops was a right pertaining to the sovereign was a view of the matter which had gained ground already in the time of the Frankish monarchy. The German kings up to the eleventh century insisted all the more on this right from the fact that the bishoprics and imperial abbacies had in course of time lost their original character of church organizations. They had been appanaged with imperial and other lands, with political and public rights, with immunities, rights of coinage etc. … They had, in consequence, become transformed into political districts, on a par with those of the secular princes and obliged, like the latter, to bear the public burdens, especially that of providing war-contingents and supplies. It Is true that in the period in question, although for the most part the king openly and freely filled the bishoprics and abbacies of his own accord, some elections had been carried through by the cathedral chapter, the other secular canons, the nobles, vassals and ministeriales of the bishopric. This was usually on the ground of royal privileges, of special royal permission, or of a designation of the candidate by the king. {3795} However the person might have been elected he could only enter into possession of the bishopric or abbacy after the king had formally conferred the office upon him. The death of a bishop would be announced to the king by envoys from the episcopal residence who at the same time, handing over the episcopal crosier and ring, would beg that the king would see to the refilling of the vacant office. It need hardly be said that any new candidate who might in the meantime have been elected presented himself likewise at court. The king discussed the matter of the bestowal of the vacant bishopric or abbacy with his secular and ecclesiastical nobles and councillors. His next step was to confer the office on the candidate he had chosen by means of investiture, that is by handing him the episcopal crosier and ring. The candidate in return had to take the oath of fealty and to perform the act of homage, the so-called hominium. This is how an episcopal office, at that time regarded as a conglomeration of ecclesiastical and secular rights, was regularly filled. … After the middle of the 11th century there began to show itself within the reform-party, which at that time gave the tone at Rome, a tendency, ever growing stronger, in favor of achieving the complete liberation of the church from the secular influence. The German kingdom and empire were to be subordinated to the papacy as to the proper controlling power. Those who held these views declared that the investiture of the bishops and abbots by the king was simony because, as was the custom on the part of those receiving other feudal grants, certain presents were made in return. It was demanded that the episcopal symbols, the ring and the crosier, should no longer be disposed of at the hand of a layman. As a matter of fact there had frequently been carried on an unworthy traffic with the bishoprics in consequence of the manner of conferring them. The ecclesiastical legislators, besides passing general laws against simony, came forward at first cautiously enough with the regulation that the clergy should accept no churches from the hands of a layman. The direct clash with the German court came later, in 1068, where the king had conferred the bishopric of Milan as usual through investiture, while the people, under the influence of the papal reform-party, demanded a bishop elected canonically and with Rome's consent. The king did not give way and Gregory VII, in the Roman synod of 1074, increased the severity of the earlier laws against simony, opening the struggle in a synod of the following year by ordaining that the people should not be present at ecclesiastical functions performed by those clergy who had gained office through simony, the reference being to those bishops who adhered to the king. Furthermore the royal right of conferring bishoprics by investiture was now directly denied. With this attack on an old and customary prerogative of the German king, one to which in earlier times had even been expressly acknowledged by the pope, an attempt was made to thoroughly undermine the foundations of the German empire and to rob the royal power of one of its chief supports. The bishops and abbots were princes of the realm, possessing, besides a number of privileges, the large feudal and allodial holdings which went with their churches. They had, on behalf of their bishoprics, to sustain the largest share of the empire's burdens. The crown found in them the chief props and supports of its power, for the ecclesiastical principalities could be freely granted to devoted adherents without regard to the hereditary dynastic claims of families. The only legal bond by which these princes were bound to the crown was the investiture with its oath of fealty and homage. The prohibition of this, then, denoted the cessation of the relationship which assured the dependence of the ecclesiastical princes on the king and on the empire and the performance of their duties to that empire. It delivered over the considerable material wealth and power of the imperial bishoprics and abbacies to a clergy that was loosed from all connection with the crown. With regard to the manner in which in future, according to the opinion of Gregory VII or the church-reform party, the bishoprics were to be filled, the above-mentioned synod does not express itself. The decrees of the Roman synod of 1080, as well as Gregory's own further attitude, however, make it appear unquestionable that, with the formal restoration of the old so-called canonical election by clergy and people in common with the metropolitan and his suffragans, he purposed the actual subjection to the pope of the episcopacy and of the resources which in consequence of its political position stood at its command. From the election of a secular clergy which should be freed from national and state interests by the carrying out of the celibacy laws—an election in which metropolitans who were to be kept in dependence on the papal throne were to play their part—there could result as a rule only bishops submissive to the papal court. All the more so as the Roman synod of 1080, in a form probably intentionally vague, gave the pope a right, concurrent with that of the archbishop, of testing the elections and of hindering any such as might be objectionable to the court of Rome. That the bishops and abbots elected in this way were to retain their former possessions and privileges in the empire was taken by Gregory VII as a matter of course. But were this the case their considerable resources stood wholly at the disposition of the papal chair; on the pope it depended what amount of services he would still allow for the benefit of the empire. Nay, more, as regards the ecclesiastical princes the pope would actually have taken the place of the emperor and king and could command the movements of the most insignificant vassal of a bishopric. … The dispute was finally ended by the concordat agreed to at Lobweisen (near Lorsch) and announced at Worms: … In the concordat the emperor renounced wholly the former investing with the bishop's and abbot's office by means of crosier and ring, and granted that in all churches these offices should be filled by canonical election and by the free consecration of the person elected. On the other hand the pope granted that the election of bishops and abbots belonging to the German kingdom might take place in presence of the emperor but without simony or violence, and that the emperor should have a right, employing the sceptre as a symbol and causing homage to be rendered, to perform the investiture—before the consecration, namely—with regard to the regalia, i. e. the totality of the landed possessions and rights which belonged to the individual bishopric or abbacy. … {3796} With the Concordat of Worms the church and the papacy, after a long struggle, had gained the victory over the empire. Even though the papal party had not been able to put through all its demands with regard to the question of investitures, yet the empire was compelled to renounce rights which had been exercised unassailed for centuries, and thereby to confirm the emancipation of the papacy from the former imperial overlordship, thus stamping its position as an independent political power. This success was the more considerable for the reason that the agreement of Worms had established the ecclesiastical and imperial rights only in the most general terms and in an equivocal form, but had left the further development of the new manner of conferring the offices to be decided by practice. … If already the Hohenstaufens of the 12th century had succeeded only with great efforts in protecting themselves against such interpretation of the Concordat as infringed on the imperial rights, there was, naturally, in the 13th century,—in view of the condition of the empire, the political situation of Germany, and the predominating supremacy of the papacy,—no further question of such an attitude. … In this form of interpretation, given to it by usage and derogatory to the imperial rights, the Concordat of Worms remained the basis of the German imperial law regarding the collation of bishoprics and imperial abbacies until the dissolution of the German empire in 1806."

_Hinschius, Investiturstreit (Herzog's Realencyklopaedie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, volume 6)._

See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122 (pages 2427-2431).

PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1177. The Pope and the Emperor.

"In this fullness of his power [after the destruction of Milan, 1162] the emperor came anew into conflict with the papacy. Reason enough for it was that the emperor intended to treat Rome also as a city of the empire like the rest. … Between the claims of the two powers there was an ineradicable fundamental difference which showed itself at every moment. What the papacy did, to continually bring forward and maintain new rights, the empire could, after all, do also. Among other ways the remarkable contradiction finds utterance thus, that the emperor claims to be above the law, the pope above tribunals; the one is the chief, unrestricted lawgiver, the other the chief judge over all. The emperor rose up in injured self-esteem when the pope used the word 'benefice' in speaking of his relations with the empire. The pope was forced to explain the word, which had two meanings, in its more harmless sense. The Lombard cities always maintained that they had been strengthened in their opposition by Adrian IV. It is probable that already between the emperor and this pope a struggle would have taken place; but Adrian died (at Anagni, September 1, 1159), and after his death there was a disputed papal election. There was a powerful imperial faction among the cardinals but a still more powerful anti-German one. At the election it came to a hand to hand fight, as it were, between the two candidates. The purple mantle was just about to be laid on the shoulders of the anti-imperial cardinal Roland when the imperial candidate Octavian rushed in and tore it away from him. The latter was first proclaimed in Rome as Victor IV, the former was consecrated in Ninfa as Alexander III. The emperor saw here an opportunity of extending his power, indirectly at least, over the papacy also. He ordered both popes to appear at a council which he called. He took occasion to recall to remembrance an old right of the empire, the right of holding councils and passing judgment on the papacy. He accordingly appointed a church assembly to be held in Pavia and invited to it, as he says in his summons, all the bishops of England, France, Hungary, Denmark and his own kingdom. What a conception he had of his own dignity is shown by the words: 'It is enough to have one God, one pope, one emperor, and it is proper that there should be only one church.' In venturing once more to pass judgment on Frederick's actions and to inquire, solely from a historical point of view, how far his ideas deviated from previous ones I find that in this case he went to work exactly as he did against the cities. From the oldest times church conflicts had been settled by the emperor with the assistance of a council; since the days of Otto I immense achievements had been made in this way; but never yet had a German emperor called together at the same time the bishops of all other kingdoms. Frederick's deviation lay herein, that he appropriated to himself this right. He did not stop at what was customary and a matter of precedent but, on the basis of his own ideal conception of the imperial rights, extended his claim until it became altogether universal. It might have been possible to maintain this claim; but, so much is certain, it could only have happened after previous arrangement with the other monarchs. The council was attended from all parts of the empire on the one side or the other of the Alps. The emperor left the deliberations in the hands of the clergy. They declared in a body for Victor; the emperor spoke last and accepted him. Thus did he understand the imperial power, thus did he wish to exercise it. But it is evident that herewith the whole conflict with the papacy came into an entirely new stage. The emperor with his council wished to decide which pope all Europe should obey. Naturally he met with opposition. John of Salisbury expresses the point at issue very well; 'who,' he says, 'has made the Germans judges over the nations?' One might almost say this had been their claim. In so far as they appointed the emperor they wished also to have the precedence over other nations. … Of the popes only one, the favored one, Victor, submitted; the other, Alexander III, declared the pope should summon and not be summoned, should judge and not be judged. He was not willing to plunge the church into a new slavery. For the time being Victor maintained the supremacy in Italy. … The Romans dated their legal documents according to the years of his pontificate. Meanwhile Alexander III fled to France. He found support here mainly from the fact that the western nations would not accord to the emperor the supremacy over Europe which was implied in his decision regarding the papacy. … For a moment the kingdom of England seemed about to join in the church policy of the German empire; they formed as it were a Germanic party. The strict papistical idea was more the Romanic; but at the same time it was that of the expanding freedom of the people. {3797} That is why Alexander III had also on his side the Lombard cities which were opposing the emperor. Here too it was not a mere faction but a grand idea. The cities, with their striving for a constitution to a certain degree autonomic and resting on a basis of free elections, sided with the idea of the independence of the European kingdoms. From the depths of European life arose mighty strivings which opposed the idea of the emperor to renew the Roman empire and its prerogatives. … In the year 1165 Alexander, coming from Salerno, was escorted by William I [of Sicily] into Rome. This great opposition against the German empire was joined also by the Greek emperor, Manuel. He wished himself to attain the rule of the Roman empire and in return the Greek and the Roman churches were to be united. All at once Emperor Frederick found himself involved in a most dangerous struggle, but he was determined to fight it out. And he had the empire of the Germans on his side in the matter. At a great diet in Wurzburg, at the especial prompting of the imperial chancellor Raynald, archbishop elect of Cologne, the emperor and the princes swore never to acknowledge either Alexander III or any pope elected by his party. Indeed no future emperor was to be elected who would not promise to act accordingly. Stern obligations were further attached to this oath. … In November 1166 the emperor began his expedition for the purpose of driving out Pope Alexander. But already under his very eyes the Lombard cities were bestirring themselves against him."

L. von Ranke, Weltgeschichte (translated from the German) volume 8, pages 179-185.

"The battle of Legnano, fought on May 29th, 1176, ended in disaster and defeat. Frederick himself, who was wounded and thrown from his horse, finally reached Pavia after days of adventurous flight, having meanwhile been mourned as dead by the remnant of his army. All was not yet lost, indeed, … but Frederick, although he at first made a pretense of continuing the war, was soon forced by the representations of his nobles to abandon the policy of twenty-four years, and to make peace on the best terms obtainable with Alexander III, and through him with the Lombard cities. The oath of Wurzburg was broken and the two treaties of Anagni and Venice put an end to the long war. … The terms of the treaty were finally assented to by the emperor at Chioggia, July 21st, 1177. Alexander now prepared to carry out his cherished project of holding a mighty peace congress at Venice; and there, at the news of the approaching reconciliation, nobles and bishops and their retinues came together from all parts of Europe. Now that the peace was to become an accomplished fact Venice outdid herself in preparing to honor the emperor. The latter, too, was determined to spare no expense that could add to the splendor of the occasion. He had negotiated for a loan with the rich Venetians, and he now imposed a tax of 1,000 marks of silver on his nobles. Frederick's coming was announced for Sunday, July 24th, and by that time the city had donned its most festive attire. … A platform had been constructed at the door of the church, and upon it was placed a raised throne for the pope. … Having reached the shore Frederick, in the presence of an immense crowd, approached the papal throne, and, throwing off his purple mantle, prostrated himself before the pope and kissed the latter's feet. Three red slabs of marble mark the spot where he knelt. It was a moment of world-wide importance; the empire and the papacy had measured themselves in mortal combat, and the empire, in form at least, was now surrendering at discretion. No wonder that later ages have fabled much about this meeting. The pope is said, with his foot on the neck of the prostrate king, to have exclaimed aloud, 'The lion and the young dragon shalt thou trample under thy feet!'"

E. F. Henderson, History of Germany in the Middle Ages, pages 277-279.

PAPACY: A. D. 1870-1874. The "Kulturkampf" in its first stages.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1870-1874.

----------PAPACY: End--------

PARIS: A. D. 1788-1789. The city during the Revolution.

See (in this Supplement) FRANCE: A. D. 1788-1789.

PARIS: Municipal Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: (page 2011).

PARRY, Captain, Northern voyages of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1819-1820, and after.

PATENT-RIGHT.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1875 (page 1994).

PATRONS OF HUSBANDRY, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1866-1875 (page 2951).

PEARY ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1886, 1891-1892, and 1893-1894.

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1785. The first Protective Tariff.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1785 (page 3065).

PENNSYLVANIA BANK, The.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A, D. 1780-1784 (page 2212).

PENNSYLVANIA GERMANS.

"At the close of the Thirty Years' war there ran through Protestant Germany a broad line; upon the one side of that line stood the followers of Luther and Zwingli, of Melanchthon and Calvin—these were the Church people; upon the other side stood Menno Simon and 'The Separatists'—these were the Sect people. It was a line which divided persecution by new boundaries, and left the faggot and the stake in new hands, for the Peace of Westphalia had thrown the guarantees of its powerful protection only over the one side of this Protestant division. … When 'the news spread through the Old World that William Penn, the Quaker, had opened an asylum to the good and the oppressed of every nation, and Humanity went through Europe gathering up the children of misfortune,' our forefathers came out from their hiding places in the forest depths and the mountain valleys which the sun never penetrated, clad in homespun, their feet shod with wood, their dialects ofttimes unintelligible to each other. There was scarcely a family among them which could not be traced to some ancestor burned at the stake for conscience sake. Judge Pennypacker says: 'Their whole literature smacks of fire. Beside a record like theirs the sufferings of Pilgrim and Quaker seem trivial.' … The thousands of Germans, Swiss and Dutch who migrated here on the invitation of Penn, came without ability to speak the English language, and without any knowledge, except that derived from general report, of the customs and habits of thought of the English people. {3798} They went vigorously to work to clear the wilderness and establish homes. They were sober, religious, orderly, industrious and thrifty. The reports the earlier settlers made to their friends at home of the prosperity and liberty they enjoyed in their new homes, induced from year to year many others to come. Their numbers increased so much as to alarm the proprietary officials. Logan wanted their immigration prevented by Act of Parliament, 'for fear the colony would in time be lost to the crown.' He wrote a letter in which he says: 'The numbers from Germany at this rate will soon produce a German colony here, and perhaps such a one as Britain received from Saxony in the 5th Century.' As early as 1747, one of the proprietary Governors attributed the prosperity of the Pennsylvania colony to the thrift, sobriety and good characters of the Germans. Numerous as they were, because this was in its government a purely English colony, the part they took in its public affairs was necessarily limited. The Government officials and the vast majority of the members of the Assembly were all English. During the long struggle in the Colonies to adjust the strained relations with Great Britain, the Germans were seemingly indifferent. They saw no practical gain in surrendering the Penn Charter, and Proprietary Government, under which they had obtained their homes, for the direct rule of the British King. They could not understand the distinction between King and Parliament. … When, therefore, in 1776, the issue was suddenly enlarged into a broad demand for final separation from Great Britain, and the creation of a Republic, all their traditional love of freedom was fully aroused. Under the Proprietary rule, although constituting nearly one-half the population of the colony, they were practically without representation in the General Assembly, and without voice in the Government. The right of 'electing or being elected' to the Assembly was confined to natural born subjects of England, or persons naturalized in England or in the province, who were 21 years old, and freeholders of the province owning fifty acres of seated land, and at least twelve acres improved, or worth clear fifty pounds and a resident for two years. Naturalization was not the simple thing it now is. The conditions were exceptionally severe, and comparatively few Germans qualified themselves to vote. The delegates to the Colonial Congress were selected by the General Assembly. In November, 1775, the Assembly instructed the Pennsylvania delegates not to vote for separation from Great Britain. The majority of the delegates were against separation. … At the election for new members in May, 1776, in Philadelphia, three out of four of those elected were opposed to separation. The situation was most critical. Independence and union were not possible without Pennsylvania. Geographically, she was midway between the Colonies. She was one of the wealthiest and strongest. Her government was in the hands of those opposed to separation. One course only remained. Peaceful efforts in the Assembly to enfranchise the Germans, by repealing the naturalization laws and oath of allegiance, had failed, and now this must be accomplished by revolution, because their enfranchisement would give the friends of liberty and union an overwhelming and aggressive majority. This was the course resolved on. The Philadelphia Committee called a conference of committees of the Counties. On the 18th of June, 1776, this provincial conference, numbering 104, met in Philadelphia. The German counties were represented no longer by English tories. There were leading Germans in the delegations from Philadelphia, Lancaster, Northampton, York, Bucks and Berks. In Berks, the royalist Biddle gives place to eight prominent Germans, headed by Governor Heister, Colonels Hunter, Eckert and Lutz. The proprietary government of Pennsylvania, with its Tory Assembly, was overthrown—foundation, pillar and dome. This conference called a Provincial Convention to frame a new Government. On the petition of the Germans, the members of that Convention were to be elected by persons qualified to vote for Assembly, and by the military associators (volunteers), being freemen 21 years of age, resident in the province one year. This gave the Germans the right to vote. Thus says Bancroft: 'The Germans were incorporated into the people and made one with them.' The 19th of June, 1776, enfranchised the Germans, and made the Declaration of Independence possible. … It is absolutely true, that, as the English people of the province were divided in 1776, the Germans were the potential factors in securing the essential vote of Pennsylvania for the Declaration of Independence. … Throughout the Revolution, these Germans … were the steadfast defenders of the new Republic. Dr. Stille, in his recent admirable 'Life of Dickinson,' concedes that 'no portion of the population was more ready to defend its homes, or took up arms more willingly in support of the American cause.' Washington, when in Philadelphia after the war, testified his high appreciation of the hearty support the Germans gave him, and the cause he represented, by worshiping with his family in the old German church on Race street. The descendants of the Pennsylvania-Germans have settled all over the West, contributing to Ohio, Illinois and other Western States, the same sturdy, honest population that characterizes Pennsylvania. From Revolutionary times until now, they have borne an honorable part In the Nation's history and progress."

_E. K. Martin and G. F. Baer, Addresses (Proceedings, Pennsylvania-German Convention, April 15, 1891), pages 14-24._

PENNY NEWSPAPERS, The beginning of.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1830-1888, and 1853-1870 (page 2601).

PETER, ST., and the Church at Rome.

See PAPACY (page 2417).

PETER THE HERMIT, and the first Crusade.

See (in this Supplement) CRUSADES.

PHŒNICIAN COMMERCE.

See (In this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT; also PHŒNICIANS (page 2530).

PINEL, and the treatment of the Insane.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 18-19TH CENTURIES (page 2142).

PITT, William.

See CHATHAM.

{3799}

PLYMOUTH BRETHREN, The.

"The rise of Plymouth Brotherism was almost contemporaneous with that of Tractarianism, and, far apart as the two systems appear to be, they were partly due to the action of similar causes. In both cases there was a dissatisfaction with the state of spiritual life, and a longing for something more real, more elevated in tone, more practical in results. … The society or 'assembly,' as the Brethren love to call it, was a development. There was no purpose on the part of its founders of establishing any new sect or party. A few men with spiritual affinities, desiring a religious fellowship which they could not find in the ordinary services of their Church, grouped themselves in small companies and held periodical meetings for the study of the Scriptures, for Christian conference, and for prayer. From the very beginning the movement had attractions for devout men of high social position and some culture. Mr. Darby, who was one of the leading spirits in Dublin, and who is said by those who have had personal acquaintance with the inner life of the Brethren to wield a power over his followers to which there is no parallel among ecclesiastics, except in the case of the Pope himself, was originally a curate of the Church of Ireland. Mr. Benjamin W. Newton, who was one of the principal members of the similar society in Plymouth, which has given its name to the movement, was a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. Dr. Tregelles, another of the Plymouth company, was a distinguished Biblical scholar. Mr. A. Groves, who, perhaps, rather than Mr. Darby or Mr. Newton, may be regarded as the promoter of these meetings, but who early withdrew from the party when, on a return from a visit to the East, he found that their social religious gatherings were rapidly developing into a distinct sectarian organization, was a student for the Anglican ministry at Trinity College, Dublin. The Brethren despise culture, and yet apart from men of culture it is hard to see how the movement could have had such success."

J. G. Rogers, The Church Systems of England in the 19th Century, lecture 10.

POLAR EXPLORATION.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION.

POLARIS, Voyage of the.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1871-1872.

PORTUGAL: Commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MEDIÆVAL, AND MODERN.

PORTUGAL: Exploration, and colonization in Africa.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA.

PRINCETON COLLEGE.

The College of New Jersey, more commonly called Princeton College, "originated in the plan of Jonathan Dickinson, John Pierson, Ebenezer Pemberton, Aaron Burr, with others, to found an institution 'in which ample provision should be made for the intellectual and religious culture of youth desirous to obtain a liberal education, and more especially for the thorough training of such as were candidates for the holy ministry.' Its first charter was granted in 1746 by the Honorable John Hamilton, President of His Majesty's Council, and is noteworthy as the first college charter ever given in this country by a Governor or acting Governor with simply the consent of his Council. A second and more ample charter was granted September 14th, 1748, by the 'trusty and well-beloved' Jonathan Belcher, Esquire, Governor and Commander-in-chief of the province of New Jersey. After the war of the Revolution, the charter was confirmed and renewed by the Legislature of New Jersey. The Corporation is styled in that instrument 'the Trustees of the College of New Jersey.' … On April 27th, 1747, the Trustees made a public announcement that they had 'appointed the Rev. Jonathan Dickinson, President,' and that the college would be opened in the fourth week of May next at Elizabethtown. President Dickinson having died on the 7th of October following, the Rev. Aaron Burr assumed the duties of the Presidency and the college was removed from Elizabethtown to Newark. Soon after, it was removed from Newark to Princeton, where in 1754-1755 the first college building was erected. … The College of New Jersey, as now constituted, includes the John C. Green School of Science. This institution, which has its own professors and instructors, was founded in 1873 upon an endowment of Mr. John C. Green. The first college building, erected in 1754-5, was named Nassau Hall, at the request of Governor Belcher."

College of New Jersey, Catalogue, 1893-4, pages 8-9.

ALSO IN: _J. F. Hageman, History of Princeton and its Institutions._

PROFIT-SHARING EXPERIMENTS.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1842-1889, and 1859-1887 (pages 2944 and 2947).

PROUDHON, and the doctrines of Anarchism.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1839-1894 (page 2941).

PROVISIONS OF OXFORD.

See LAW, COMMON: A. D. 1258 (page 1962).

PRUSSIA, The rise of.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1700; also, page 309.

PULLMAN STRIKE, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1894 (page 2957).

R.

RAE, Dr., Franklin search expeditions of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1851, and 1853-1854.

RAILWAYS, in modern inland commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

RAPP, George, and the Rappites.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1805-1827 (page 2937).

REDWOOD LIBRARY.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (page 2019).

REFORMATION, The Protestant: Outline sketch.

See EUROPE (pages 1053-1065).

REFORMATION, The Protestant: The beginning in Germany.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: 16TH CENTURY; also, page 1456.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

See below: TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS.

RENAISSANCE, Libraries of the.

See LIBRARIES, RENAISSANCE (page 2008).

ROCHDALE SOCIETY, The Co-operative.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1816-1886 (page 2938).

ROME: Outline sketch of the history of the Republic and the Empire.

See EUROPE (pages 996-1013).

{3800}

ROME: Charlemagne's restoration of the Empire in the West. His imperial coronation and its significance.

"The Germans, who had destroyed the Western Empire, now, after having been received into Roman civilisation and the bosom of the Church, effected its restoration. And the Church, whose laws controlled the West, created anew from within herself the Roman Empire, as the political form of her cosmopolitan principle, and that spiritual unity within which the Popes had embraced so many nations. Her supremacy over all churches of the West could, moreover, only attain complete recognition through the Emperor and the Empire. The restoration of the Empire was rendered necessary by the formidable power of Islam, which not only harassed Byzantium, but, from the side of Sicily and Spain, also threatened Rome. The Greek Emperors could rule the West together with the East so long as the Roman Church was weak, so long as Italy lay sunk in lethargy, and the German West swarmed with lawless barbarians. It was no longer possible to do so when the Church attained independence, Italy consciousness of her nationality, and Europe had become united in the powerful Frankish Empire, at the head of which stood a great monarch. Thus the idea of proclaiming Charles Emperor arose, and thus was carried out the scheme with which the irate Italians had threatened Leo the Isaurian at the beginning of the Iconoclastic controversy. The West now demanded the occupation of the Imperial throne. True, the Byzantine Empire had, in the course of time, acquired a legal sanction. Byzantium, however, was but the daughter of Rome. From Rome the Imperium had proceeded; here the Cæsars had their seat. The illustrious mother of the Empire now resumed her rights, when, as in ancient times, she offered the Imperial crown to the most powerful ruler of the West. … A transaction so momentous, and rendered necessary by the ideas of the time and the demands of the West, but which, nevertheless, bore the semblance of a revolt against the rights of Byzantium, could scarcely have been the work of the moment, but more probably was the result of a sequence of historic causes and resolutions consequent upon them. Can we doubt that the Imperial crown had been the goal of Charles's ambition and the ideal of such of his friends as cherished Roman aspirations? He himself came to Rome evidently to take the crown, or, at least, to form some decisive resolution with regard to it, and during his sojourn in France the Pope had declared himself ready to help in the accomplishment of this great revolution. … We may suppose that Charles's clerical friends were the most zealous supporters of the scheme, which perhaps was not received by the Pope with a like degree of enthusiasm. Alcuin's letter proves that he, at least, had already been initiated into the idea; and the Frankish envoys, after a year spent in Rome, had doubtless come to an understanding with the Romans, on whose vote the election mainly depended. The Romans it was who, exercising the ancient suffrages of the Senate and people, had elected Charles their Patricius, and who now, in virtue of the same rights, elected him Emperor. And only as Emperor of the Romans and of Rome did he become Emperor of the entire State. A decree of the Roman nobility and people had undoubtedly preceded the coronation; and Charles's nomination as Roman Emperor (in strict accordance with the plan of a papal election) was effected by the three traditional elective bodies. The great revolution which extinguished the ancient rights of the Byzantines was not to appear the arbitrary deed of either King or Pope, but the act of God Himself, and therefore the legal transaction of Christendom, as expressed by the voice of the Roman people, of the parliament of the united clergy, optimates, and citizens assembled in Rome, Germans as well as Latins. The Frankish chroniclers themselves say that Charles was made Emperor by the election of the Roman people, quote the united parliament of the two nations, and enumerate the list of the members who took part in the parliament: the Pope, the entire assembly of bishops, clergy, and abbots, the Frankish senate, the Roman optimates, and the rest of the Christian people. The resolution of the Romans and Franks was announced to Charles in the form of a request. Are we to believe that, like Augustus in former days, he made a feint of reluctance to accept the supreme dignity, until it was forced upon him as an accomplished fact? Are we to receive as hypocritical the assurance of a man so pious and heroic, when he asserts that the Imperial crown came upon him wholly as a surprise, and adds that he would not have entered S. Peter's had he known of Leo's intention? Had not Charles's son, Pipin, been purposely recalled from the war against Benevento, in order to witness the Imperial coronation? An explanation of these conflicting statements has been sought in the statement of Eginhard, who maintains that Charles's hesitation was dictated by respect for Byzantium; that he had not yet assented to the scheme, and had sought by negotiations to gain the recognition of the Greeks to the election; that, therefore, the coronation really did take him by surprise, and, with regard to the time chosen, seemed inopportune. This view is supported by reasons of probability, which, however, solely concern the occasion chosen for the coronation, since to his elevation to the Imperial throne Charles had already long given his consent. … When, in later times, the German Empire came into conflict with the Papacy, doctors of canon law advanced the theory that the Emperor received the crown solely by favour of the Pope, and traced the investiture to Charles's coronation at the hands of Leo the Third. The Emperors, on the other hand, appealed to the shout of the people: 'Life and victory to the Emperor of the Romans, crowned by God,' and asserted that they derived the crown, the inalienable heritage of the Cæsars, from God alone. The Romans, on their side, maintained that Charles owed the crown entirely to the majesty of the Roman Senate and people. The dispute as to the actual source of Empire continued throughout the entire Middle Ages, and, while exercising no actual change in the world's history, revealed an indwelling need of mankind; the necessity, namely, of referring the world of facts back to a rudimentary right by which power becomes legalised. Pope Leo the Third as little possessed the right to bestow the crown of Empire, which was not his, as Charles did to claim it. {3801} The Pope, however, regarded himself as the representative of the Empire and of Romanism; and undoubtedly, as the head of Latin nationality, and still more as the recognised spiritual overseer of the Christian republic, he possessed the power of accomplishing that revolution which, without the aid of the Church, would have been impossible. Mankind at large regarded him as the sacred intercessor between the world and the Divinity; and it was only through his coronation and unction at the papal hands that the Empire of Charles received divine sanction in the eyes of men. The elective right of the Romans, on the other hand, in whatever form it may appear, was uncontested, and in no later Imperial election could it have been of so decisive legal significance."

F. Gregorovius, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, book 4, chapter 7, section 3 (volume 2).

ROME: Ancient commerce.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, ANCIENT.

ROME: Money and banking.

See MONEY AND BANKING: ROME (page 2203).

RONALDS, Sir Francis, The telegraphic experiments of.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1753-1820 (page 771).

ROSS, Captain, Polar Expeditions of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1829-1833 and 1848-1849.

RUSSIA, Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

RUTGERS COLLEGE.

"Rutgers College, located at New Brunswick, was chartered by George III. in 1770, and was called Queen's College, in honour of his consort. The present name was substituted by the legislature of the State, in 1825, at request of the trustees, in honour of Colonel Henry Rutgers, of New York, to whom the institution is indebted for liberal pecuniary benefactions. The charter was originally granted to such Protestants as had adopted the constitution of the reformed churches in the Netherlands, as revised by the national synod of Dordrecht, in the years 1618 and 1619. … The Theological College of the Reformed Dutch Church is established here and intimately blended with the literary institution."

T. F. Gordon, Gazetteer of the State of New Jersey. (bound with "History of New Jersey"), page 86.

S.

SAINT SIMON, and Saint-Simonism.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1817-1825 (page 2939).

SALVATION ARMY, The.

"Some people of to-day seem to have the idea that the Rev. William Booth was Jove, and that the Salvation Army sprang from his brain full-grown and fully armed. Far from it; a boy trained in the Church of England is converted among Wesleyan Methodists, and, believing thoroughly in what he professes, is constrained to feel interested in the salvation of others. He is much moved by some revival services that he hears conducted by the Rev. James Caughey, an American evangelist, and the effect of the straightforward, conversational style of preaching, makes an impression upon him that is never forgotten. Through all the years that follow, among all the scenes of his labors as a Methodist minister, he never forgets that simple, open-air preaching, that pushing home of the truth, with its wonderful results, and year after year only increases the conviction that the masses can only be reached by going to them, and never, never saved by waiting until they come to us. Years passed away before William Booth and his wife came to the point where they could step out, shake off traditional methods and means, and begin to carry out evangelistic work on lines forbidden by the churches. … 'Nothing succeeds like success,' and when the first results were between three and four thousand souls in four little towns of Cornwall, there was a decided leaning toward them, overpowered, though, at a meeting of the Wesleyan Conference, which promulgated the strange formula that 'evangelistic movements are unfavorable to Church order.' However, the work was carried on steadily, until that memorable Sunday [July 5th, 1865] on Mile End Waste, East London, from which William Booth consecrated himself to the salvation of the ignorant, and from which he dates all statistics referring to his work as an independent movement in the religious world. From this time forward, without interrupting in the least the open-air work, one shelter after another was secured and appropriated for mission work, here a tent or an old stable, there a carpenter's shop, until the movement was strong enough to warrant the lease of 'The Eastern Star,' a notorious beer-house, which was used as book-store, hall, and classroom. From this place, with its name of good hope, hundreds of souls went forth to make the wilderness blossom like the rose, so far as their humble homes were concerned. Sheds, lofts, alleys, tumble-down theatres, well-known places of resort or of refuge were preferred as being familiar to the class of men who were to be reached. Such was the Salvation Army in its early years, merely a 'mission.' with no more idea of development into an 'army,' with military rule and nomenclature, than we at the present time have of what may come to us in the next twenty years."

M. B. Booth, Beneath Two Flags, chapter 2.

"In 1873 Mrs. Booth, overcoming her own intense reluctance, began to preach. In 1874 and the two following years the work spread to Portsmouth, Chatham, Wellingborough, Hammersmith, Hackney, Leeds, Leicester, Stockton, Middlesborough, Cardiff, Hartlepool, and other towns, where recent converts of the humblest rank—tinkers, railway guards, navvies—took charge of new stations. In 1876, shaking itself more and more free from the trammels of custom and routine, the Army deliberately utilized the services of women. In 1877 it spread still further. In 1878 it 'attacked' no less than fifty towns, and—more by what we should call 'accident' than by design—assumed the title of the Salvation Army. It also adopted, for good or for evil, the whole vocabulary of military organization, which has caused it to be covered with ridicule, but which may undoubtedly have aided its discipline and helped its progress. In 1879 advance was marked by the imprisonment of three Salvationists—who refused, as always, to pay the alternative fine—for the offence of praying in a country road near a public-house, which was regarded as 'obstructing the thoroughfare.' {3802} In this year began also the establishment of training homes for the instruction and equipment of the young officers; the printing of the 'War Cry'; the use of uniforms and badges; and the extension of the work to Philadelphia and the United States. In 1880 the United Kingdom was mapped into divisions. In 1881 the work was extended to Australia and the colonies, and so stupendous had become the religious energy of the soldiers that they began to dream of the religious rescue of Europe as well as of Great Britain and its empire-colonies. Since that year its spread, in spite of all opposition, has been steady and continuous, until, in 1890, it excited the attention of the civilized world by that immense scheme of social amelioration into which we shall not here enter particularly. At the present moment [1891] the Army has no less than 9,349 regular officers, 13,000 voluntary officers, 30 training homes; with 400 cadets, and 2,864 corps scattered over 32 different countries. In England alone it has 1,377 corps, and has held some 160,000 open-air meetings. This represents a part of its religious work. Besides this it has in social work 30 rescue homes, 5 shelters, 3 food depots, and many other agencies for good."

_F. W. Farrar, The Salvation Army (Harper's Magazine, May, 1891)._

In one of his addresses, delivered during his visit to the United States, in February, 1895, General Booth said: "We have, with God's help, been able to carry our banner and hoist our flag in 45 different countries and colonies, and we are reaching out day by day. We have been able to create and bring into harmonious action, with self-supporting and self-guiding officers, something like 4,000 separate societies. We have been able to gather together something like 11,000 men and women, separated from their earthly affiliations, who have gone forth as leaders of this host." In the same address, General Booth gave the number of the Army newspapers as 27, with a circulation of 50,000,000,—presumably meaning the total issues of a year.

SARACENS, Medical Science of the.

See MEDICAL SCIENCE: 7-11TH CENTURIES (page 2129).

SARDANAPALUS.

See SEMITES: THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE (page 2892).

SCHULZE-DELITZSCH, and the Cooperative movement in Germany.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1848-1883 (page 2946).

SCHURZ, Carl. Report on affairs in the South.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (page 3562).

SCHWATKA, Lieutenant, Polar explorations of.

See (in this Supplement) ARCTIC EXPLORATION: 1879-1880.

SECESSION, The Federalist Movement of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1803-1804 (page 3329).

SERVIA, A. D. 1893. Royal Coup d'Etat.

"A great sensation was created by the announcement, January 19, that Milan and Natalie, the divorced parents of King Alexander, had become reconciled at Biarritz. Whether this had political significance was unknown, but rumor connected it with various incidents bearing on the pending elections. The Skupshtina was dissolved in November, and the Liberal government, by energetic measures, put the electoral machinery in such shape that at the voting in March a small Liberal majority was secured in the place of the enormous Radical majority that had controlled the former legislature. When the Skupshtina assembled, April 6, the Radicals, in resentment at certain proceedings of the government designed to increase its majority, left the hall and refused to take part in the session. The troublesome situation thus produced was wholly abolished by a coup d'etat of King Alexander, April 13. At a banquet in the palace, at which the regents and cabinet were present, the king suddenly accused them of misrule and demanded their resignations, saying that he would assume the government himself. On the refusal of the regents to resign he ordered them under guard, and on the following day a new ministry was appointed, with M. Dokitch, a Radical, at its head. Careful arrangement of the troops had insured that no resistance could be made to the king's acts, and no blood was shed. The constitution makes eighteen the age at which the king attains his majority, but Alexander is not yet seventeen. His action was greeted with general favor throughout the country. An explanation of the affair is found in the ill-disguised relations of the Radicals with the pretender Karageorgiewitch, and the dread of Milan and Natalie that the hostile policy of the regents toward the Radicals, who are in a majority in the land, would precipitate an overthrow of the reigning dynasty." The elections which followed the coup d' état gave the Radicals an overwhelming majority in the Skupshtina—122 members out of 134.

_Political Science Quarterly, June and December, 1893._

SEWARD, William H., The "higher law" speech of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850 (page 3387).

SIEMENS, Dr. W., and his dynamo-electric inventions.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1831-1872 (page 774).

T. O'Conor Sloane, The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

SINGLE TAX MOVEMENT, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1880 (page 2955).

SLAVE TRADE: Abolition in the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1807 (page 3335).

SLAVERY, Petitions against, in the American Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835, 1836, 1837-1838, and 1842, (page 3373, and after).

SOCIAL PALACE AT GUISE, The.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1859-1887 (page 2947).

SOCIALIST PARTIES IN GERMANY.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D. 1862-1864, and 1875-1893 (pages 2949 and 2953).

SOLOMON. SOLOMON'S TEMPLE.

See JEWS: (page 1902); and TEMPLE OF SOLOMON (page 3093).

SOMMERING'S TELEGRAPH.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1753-1820 (page 771).

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861. Monarchical cravings.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (page 3426).

SPAIN: Outline Sketch of general history.

See EUROPE (pages 1016, 1034-1035, 1050-1051, 1055-1065, and after).

{3803}

SPAIN: A. D. 1034-1090. The exploits of the Cid.

"Rodrigo Diez de Bivar, who came of an old Castilian stock, was born in 1026—others say 1040—and was thus a contemporary of William the Conqueror, of England. Diez was his patronymic, meaning the son of Diego (in English James), and Bivar, the village of his birth, near Burgos, where the site of his house is still shown. His name of 'El Cid,' the Lord, or 'Mio Cid,' which is exactly 'Monseigneur,' was given him first by the Moors, his own soldiers and subjects, and universally adopted by all Spaniards from that day to this. Such a title is significant, not only of the relations between the two peoples, but of Rodrigo's position as at once a Moorish and a Spanish chief. 'El Campeador,' the name by which Rodrigo is also distinguished, means in Spanish something more special than 'champion.' A 'campeador' was a man who had fought and beaten the select fighting-man of the opposite side, in the presence of the two armies; which points to a custom derived, as much else of early Spanish, from the East. Rodrigo earned the name, not at the expense of any Moor but of a Christian, having when quite a youth slain a Navarrese champion in a war between Castile and Navarre. The first mention of his name occurs in a deed of Fernando I., of the year 1064."

H. E. Watts, Christian Recovery of Spain, chapter 3.

"Sancho III. of Navarre, who died in 1034, had united almost all the Christian states of the Peninsula under one dominion, having married the heiress of the county of Castile, and obtained the hand of the sister of Bermudez III., the last king of Leon, for his second son, Ferdinand. The Asturias, Navarre, and Aragon, were all subject to him, and he was the first who assumed the title of King of Castile. To him the sovereign houses of Spain have looked up as their common ancestor, for the male line of the Gothic Kings became extinct in Bermudez III. … D. Sancho divided his states amongst his children: D. Garcia became King of Navarre, D. Ferdinand, King of Castile, and D. Ramirez, King of Aragon. The Cid, who was a subject of D. Ferdinand, entered upon his military career under that monarch's banners, where he displayed that marvellous strength and prodigious valour, that constancy and coolness, which raised him above all the other warriors of Europe. Many of the victories of Ferdinand and the Cid were obtained over the Moors, who being at that time deprived of their leader and without a central government, were much exposed to the attacks of the Christians. … The arms of Ferdinand and the Cid were not, however, always directed against the infidels. The ambitious Monarch soon afterwards attacked his brother-in-law, Bermudez III. of Leon, the last of the descendants of D. Pelagius, whom he despoiled of his states, and put to death in 1037. He subsequently attacked and dethroned his eldest brother, D. Garcia, and afterwards his younger brother, D. Ramirez, the former of whom he likewise sacrificed. The Cid, who had received his earliest instructions under D. Ferdinand, made no scrupulous enquiries into the justice of that prince's cause, but combating blindly for him, rendered him glorious in the eyes of the vulgar by these iniquitous conquests. It is also in the reign of Ferdinand that the first romantic adventures of the Cid are said to have occurred; his attachment to Ximena, the only daughter of Count Gormaz; his duel with the Count, who had mortally injured his father; and lastly his marriage with the daughter of the man who had perished by his sword. The authenticity of these poetical achievements rests entirely on the romances [of the Chronicle of the Cid]; but though this brilliant story is not to be found in any historical document, yet the universal tradition of a nation seems to stamp it with sufficient credit. The Cid was in habits of the strictest friendship with the eldest son of Ferdinand, D. Sancho, surnamed the Strong, and the two warriors always combated side by side. During the lifetime of the father, the Cid, in 1049, had rendered tributary the Musulman Emir of Saragossa. He defended that Moorish prince against the Aragonese, in 1063; and when Sancho succeeded to the throne in 1065, he was placed, by the young King, at the head of all his armies, whence, without doubt, he acquired the name of 'Campeador.' D. Sancho, who merited the friendship of a hero, and who always remained faithful to him, was, notwithstanding, no less ambitious and unjust than his father, whose example he followed in endeavouring to deprive his brothers of their share of the paternal inheritance. To the valour of the Cid he owed his victories over D. Garcia, King of Galicia, and D. Alfonso, King of Leon, whose states he invaded. The latter prince took refuge amongst the Moors, with the King of Toledo, who afforded him a generous asylum. D. Sancho, after having also stripped his sisters of their inheritance, was slain in 1072, before Zamora, where the last of his sisters, D. Urraca, had fortified herself. Alfonso VI., recalled from the Moors to ascend the vacant throne, after having taken an oath, administered by the hands of the Cid, that he had been in no degree accessary to his brother's death, endeavoured to attach that celebrated leader to his interests by promising him in marriage his own niece Ximena, whose mother was sister-in-law to Ferdinand the Great and Bermudez III. the last King of Leon. This marriage, of which historical evidence remains, was celebrated on the 19th of July, 1074. The Cid was at that time nearly fifty years of age, and had survived his first wife Ximena, the daughter of Count Gormaz, so celebrated in the Spanish and French tragedies. Being soon afterwards despatched on an embassy to the Moorish princes of Seville and Cordova, the Cid assisted them in gaining a great victory over the King of Grenada; but scarcely had the heat of the battle passed away when he restored all the prisoners whom he had taken, with arms in their hands, to liberty. By these constant acts of generosity he won the hearts of his enemies as well as of his friends. He was admired and respected both by Moors and Christians. He had soon afterwards occasion to claim the protection of the former; for Alfonso VI., instigated by those who were envious of the hero's success, banished him from Castile. The Cid upon this occasion took refuge with his friend Ahmed el Muktadir, King of Saragossa, by whom he was treated with boundless confidence and respect. He was appointed by him to the post of governor of his son, and was in fact intrusted with the whole administration of the kingdom of Saragossa, during the reign of Joseph El Muktamam, from 1081 to 1085, within which period he gained many brilliant victories over the Christians of Aragon, Navarre, and Barcelona. Always generous to the vanquished, he again gave liberty to the prisoners. Alfonso VI. now began to regret that he had deprived himself of the services of the most valiant of his warriors; and being attacked by the redoubtable Joseph, the son of Teschfin, the Morabite, who had invaded Spain with a new army of Moors from Africa, and having sustained a defeat at Zalaka, on the 23d of October, 1087, he recalled the Cid to his assistance. {3804} That hero immediately repaired to his standard with 7,000 soldiers, levied at his own charge; and for two years continued to combat for his ungrateful sovereign; but at length, either his generosity in dismissing his captives, or his disobedience to the orders of a prince far inferior to himself in the knowledge of the art of war, drew upon him a second disgrace about the year 1090. He was again banished; his wife and son were imprisoned, and his goods were confiscated. It is at this period that the poem … commences. It is in fact the fragment of a complete history of the Cid, the beginning of which has been lost."

J. C. L. S. de Sismondi, Literature of the South of Europe, chapter 23 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: _R. Southey, Chronicle of the Cid, from the Spanish._

_R. Markham, Chronicle of the Cid, edited with introduction._

G. Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature, period 1, chapter 2 (volume 1).

SPAIN: 15-17th Centuries. The waste of the commercial opportunities of the Spaniards.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN.

SPAIN: A. D. 1788-1808. Charles IV., Marie Louise, and Godoy.

"Charles III. had just died when the French Revolution commenced. He was the best sovereign that Spain had had in a long time; he left good ministers: Aranda, Campomanès, Florida Blanca; but it was not given to them to continue his work. This reparative reign was followed by one the most disintegrating. Spain, elevated anew for an instant by an intelligent prince, was, in a few years, under the government of an imbecile one, to founder in an ignoble intrigue. The web of this latter was begun immediately upon the accession of the new king. Charles IV. was forty years old; corpulent and weak-minded, simple and choleric, incapable of believing evil because he was incapable of conceiving it: amorous, chaste, devout, and consequently the slave of his wife even more than of his temperament, the first years of his marriage blinded him for his entire life. Scrupulous to the point of separating himself from the queen when he no longer hoped to have children by her, he took refuge in the chase, manual labor, violent exercise, caring only for the table, music and bull-fights, exhausted when he had followed his trade of king for half an hour. Small and without beauty, dark of complexion, but with some grace, with elegance and above all carriage, Marie Louise of Parma was at once superstitious and passionate, ignorant, uneasy, with a very frivolous soul as a foundation, with obstinacy without firmness, with artifice without intelligence, with intrigue leading to no result, more covetousness than ambition, much emptiness of mind, still more of heart. Her husband seemed to her coarse and brutish; she despised him. She detested her eldest son and cared moderately for her other children. She was thirty-four years old, of perturbed imagination, of uneasy senses, without any curb of religion or virtue, when she ascended the throne and the fortune of Godoy threw him in her way. He was a small provincial gentleman; for lack of something better, he had entered the life-guards at seventeen. He was then twenty-one. He was very handsome, with a grave beauty frequent in the men of the south, which gives to youth that air of restrained and imperious passion, to mature age that impenetrable and imposing exterior so well calculated to conceal mediocrity of mind, barrenness of heart, despotic selfishness, and all the artifices of a corruption the more insinuating because it seems to be unaware of itself. The queen fell in love with him, and abandoned herself wildly; he took advantage of it without shame. She was not satisfied to make of Godoy her lover, she desired to make a great man of him, a minister, to make him a partner in her power. She introduced him to the court and into the intimacy of the royal household, where Charles IV. tractably became infatuated with him. Marie Louise had at first some circumspection in the gradation of the honors which she lavished upon him, and which marked, by so many scandals, the progress of her passion; but she was very soon entirely possessed by it. Godoy obtained over her an ascendancy equal to that which she arrogated to herself over Charles IV. Thus on the eve of the French Revolution, these three persons, so strangely associated, began, in court costume, and under the austere decorum of the palace of Philip II., that comedy, as old as vice and stupidity, of the compliant husband duped by his wife and of the old mistress exploited by her lover. At the beginning of the reign, Charles IV. from scruple, the queen from hypocrisy, Godoy from policy, became devout. The queen wished power for Godoy, and Godoy wished it for lucre. It was necessary to set aside the old counsellors of Charles III. They were philosophers, the nation had remained catholic. Marie Louise and Godoy relied on the old Spanish fanaticism. The ministers very soon lost influence, and after having secluded them for some time, the queen disgraced them. A complete reaction took place in Spain. The church regained its empire; the Inquisition was re-established. It would appear then that the Revolution must necessarily have found Spain hostile; a Bourbon king and a devout government could but detest it. But before being a Bourbon the king was a husband, and Marie Louise was devout only to mask her intrigues. The same passions led her to desire by turns, war to make her lover illustrious and peace to render him popular. This debilitated and corrupt court found itself given over in advance to all the suggestions of fear, to all the temptations of avidity. Those who had to treat with it did not fail to profit by its feebleness to dominate it. We see it successively linked to England, then to France; treat the Revolution with consideration, condemn it with violence, combat it without vigor; seek an alliance with the Directory, and abandon itself to Napoleon who annihilated it. France found at Madrid only too much docility to her designs; the illusions that she conceived from it became more fatal for her than were for Spain the incapacity and turpitude of its rulers. The French were led by the habits and traditions of the 'ancien regime' to treat the Spaniards as a subordinate nation consigned to the role of auxiliary. Holding the court of Spain as cowardly and venal, the politicians of Paris neglected to take account of the Spanish people. They judged them to be divisible and governable at mercy. {3805} It was not that they despised them nor that they intended to reduce them to servitude as a conquered people; but they thought that the last Austrian kings had enervated and enfeebled them, that they had been uplifted from this decadence only by the Bourbons, that that dynasty was degenerating in its turn; that another foreign government, more intelligent, more enlightened, more resolute, alone could take up again the work of reparation and bring it to a successful result by means of rigorous treatment and appropriate applications. What Louis XIV. had undertaken solely in the interest of despotism, France, herself regenerated by the Revolution, had the right and the power to accomplish, for the highest good of Spain and of humanity. These calculations in which the essential element, that is to say the Spanish character, was suppressed, deceived the Convention, led the Directory astray, and ended by drawing Napoleon into the most fatal of his enterprises."

A. Sorel, L'Europe et la Revolution française (translated from the French), part 1, pages 373-377.

SPAIN: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

----------SPAIN: End--------

STAMP TAX ON NEWSPAPERS, English.

See PRINTING AND PRESS: A. D. 1712, and 1853-1870 (pages 2599 and 2602).

STANLEY, Henry M., Explorations of.

See (in this Supplement) AFRICA: 1866-1873, and after.

SUEZ CANAL, Effects of the opening of the.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE, MODERN: THE RECENT REVOLUTION IN COMMERCE.

SUMERIAN.

See SEMITES: PRIMITIVE BABYLONIA (page 2888).

SUMNER, Senator Charles, The assault of Preston Brooks on.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 (page 3398).

SUMTER, Thomas, in the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (page 3273).

----------SWEDEN: Start--------

SWEDEN: A. D. 1810. The election of Bernadotte.

"It was necessary to look out for a new successor to the throne. Adlersparre desired the brother of the deceased crown prince, Frederic Christian, duke of Augustenborg, thinking by this means to secure the fruits of the revolution and to keep in view the union between Sweden and Norway. He succeeded in persuading Charles XII. to give his voice for this prince, and the council of State even sustained this idea, with the exception of Adlercreutz who proposed the emperor Alexander's brother-in-law, the Duke of Oldenburg. A third candidate was King Frederic VI. of Denmark, and even Napoleon himself worked in secret for him as he had by this time realized the advantage of the formation of a strong Northern power as a balance against Russia. But the king of Denmark as a candidate was far from popular among the Swedes, and still less prospect was there of the election of prince Gustaf. The Swedish government which had made its determination sent a writing to Napoleon in order to gain his influence in favor of the prince. The message was sent in duplicate by different roads. The choice of the Swedish government did not meet his approval; still he declared that he would not oppose it. One of the couriers who brought the above writing to Paris, was lieutenant in Upland's regiment, baron Carl Otto Mörner. This young officer was no friend of the candidacy of the Duke of Augustenborg; like many other Swedes, especially in the army, he desired as a successor to the throne a warrior, above all a French marshal, persuaded that in that way Sweden would most readily gain the alliance with France, and revenge upon Russia. Among the French marshals Bernadotte, prince of Ponte Corvo, was particularly known in Sweden through his contact with them during the last wars and to him their thoughts had turned in the first place. Young, bold, and forward, at the same time full of the wish to be useful to his country, Mörner had contrived to obtain the office of courier in order to find a successor to the crown at his own risk. He calls on a certain Captain La Pie whose acquaintance he had made on a former visit to Paris, and explains his plans, and La Pie strengthens him in his ideas, that Bernadotte would be preferable before Macdonald, Eugene Beauharnais, and others whom Mörner had in his mind. Through La Pie and the Swedish general consul Signeul, Mörner obtains the necessary information which enables him to meet the Marshal. He calls on Bernadotte and finds him, however careful in his utterance regarding the matter, not opposed to the project; nay Bernadotte hastens immediately after the conference with Mörner to the emperor to impart it to him. Napoleon, who had officially been informed of the thoughts of the Swedish government, looked on the whole matter as a ghost of the brain, but declared that he would not meddle with it. At Mörner's last visit (27 June 1810) Bernadotte gave him leave to communicate that the emperor had nothing against Bernadotte's election and that he himself was ready to accept if the choice fell on him. It is easy to imagine the astonishment of Engström, the minister of state, when he heard Mörner's description of his bold attempt in Paris. 'What do you bring from Paris?' Engström asked, when Mörner came into the foreign Minister's cabinet in Stockholm. 'That I have induced the prince of Ponte Corvo to accept the Swedish crown.' 'How could you speak to him about it without being commissioned?' 'Our only safety lies in the prince of Ponte Corvo.' 'Are you sure that he will receive it so that we are not doubly committed?' 'Certainly. I have a letter here.' 'From him to you?' 'No, from me to him.' 'Boy.' exclaimed Mörner's relation, his excellency Von Essen, at the end of the conference, 'You ought to sit where neither sun nor moon will shine on you.' But Mörner's project won more and more favor in the country though he himself was arrested in Orebro, whereby the government desired to prevent his presence as a member of the house of knights at the special diet called at Örebro for election. Through messengers and a pamphlet on the succession in Sweden he though absent worked for his plan even among the estates which met the 23d July 1810."

Sveriges Historia, 1805-1875 (translated from the Swedish by L. G. Sellstedt), pages 29-31.

See, also, SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1810 (page 2831).

SWEDEN: Libraries.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

----------SWEDEN: End--------

{3806}

SWEDENBORG, and the New Church.

"Swedenborg was born in 1688, and died in 1772. The son of a Lutheran Bishop of Sweden, a student at several universities, and an extensive traveler throughout all the principal countries of Europe, he had exceptional opportunities for testing the essential quality of contemporaneous Christianity. … Until he was more than fifty years of age, Swedenborg had written nothing on religious subjects, and apparently given them no special attention. He was principally known, in his own country, as Assessor Extraordinary of the Board of Mines, and an influential member of the Swedish Diet; and not only there, but throughout Europe, as a writer on many branches of science and philosophy. In this field he acquired great distinction; and the number and variety of topics which he treated was remarkable. Geometry and algebra, metallurgy and magnetism, anatomy, physiology, and the relation of the soul to the body were among the subjects which received his attention. There is to be noticed in the general order of his publications a certain gradual, but steady, progression from lower to higher themes,—from a contemplation of the mere external phenomena of nature to a study of their deep and hidden causes. He was always full of devout spiritual aspirations. In all his scientific researches he steadfastly looked through nature up to nature's God. … Maintaining this inflexible belief in God and revelation, and in the essential unity of truth, Swedenborg, in his upward course, at last reached the boundary line between matter and spirit. Then it was that he entered on those remarkable experiences by which, as he affirms, the secrets of the other world were revealed to him. He declares that the eyes of his spirit were opened, and that he had, from that time forward, conscious daily intercourse with spirits and angels. His general teaching on this subject is that the spiritual world is an inner sphere of being,—not material, and in no wise discernible to natural senses, yet none the less real and substantial,—and that it is the ever-present medium of life to man and nature."

_J. Reed, Why am I a New Churchman? (North American Review, January, 1887)._

"The doctrine of Correspondence is the central idea of Swedenborg's system. Everything visible has belonging to it an appropriate spiritual reality. The history of man is an acted parable; the universe, a temple covered with hieroglyphics. Behmen, from the light which flashes on certain exalted moments, imagines that he receives the key to these hidden significances,—that he can interpret the 'Signatura Rerum.' But he does not see spirits, or talk with angels. According to him, such communications would be less reliable than the intuition he enjoyed. Swedenborg takes opposite ground. 'What I relate,' he would say, 'comes from no such mere inward persuasion. I recount the things I have seen. I do not labour to recall and to express the manifestation made me in some moment of ecstatic exaltation. I write you down a plain statement of journeys and conversations in the spiritual world, which have made the greater part of my daily history for many years together. I take my stand upon experience. I have proceeded by observation and induction as strict as that of any man of science among you. Only it has been given me to enjoy an experience reaching into two worlds—that of spirit, as well as that of matter.' … According to Swedenborg, all the mythology and the symbolisms of ancient times were so many refracted or fragmentary correspondences—relics of that better day when every outward object suggested to man's mind its appropriate divine truth. Such desultory and uncertain links between the seen and the unseen are so many imperfect attempts toward that harmony of the two worlds which he believed himself commissioned to reveal. The happy thoughts of the artist, the imaginative analogies of the poet, are exchanged with Swedenborg for an elaborate system. All the terms and objects in the natural and spiritual worlds are catalogued in pairs."

R. A. Vaughan, Hours with the Mystics, book 12, chapter 1, (volume 2).

"It is more than a century since the foundation of this church [the New-Church] was laid, by the publication of the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. For more than half of that time, individuals and societies have been active in translating them, and in publishing them widely. There have been many preachers of these doctrines, and not a few writers of books and periodicals. The sale of Swedenborg's writings, and of books intended to present the doctrines of the church, has been constant and large. How happens it, under these circumstances, that the growth of this church has been and is so slow, if its doctrines are all that we who hold them suppose them to be? There are many answers to this question. One among them is, that its growth has been greater than is apparent. It is not a sect. Its faith does not consist of a few specific tenets, easily stated and easily received. It is a new way of thinking about God and man, this life and another, and every topic, connected with these. And this new way of thinking has made and is making what may well be called great progress. It may be discerned everywhere, in the science, literature, philosophy, and theology of the times; not prevalent in any of them, but existing, and cognizable by all who are able to appreciate these new truths with their bearings and results. … Let it not be supposed that by the New-Church is meant the organized societies calling themselves by that name. In one sense, that is their name. Swedenborg says there are three essentials of this Church: a belief in the Divinity of the Lord, and in the sanctity of the Scriptures, and a life of charity, which is a life governed by a love of the neighbor. Where these are, there is the Church. Whoever holds these essentials in faith and life is a member of the New-Church, whatever may be his theological name or place. Only in the degree in which he so holds these essentials is anyone a member of that church. Those who, holding or desiring to hold these essentials in faith and life, unite and organize that they may be assisted and may assist each other in so holding them, constitute the visible or professed New-Church. But very false would they be to its doctrines, if they supposed themselves to be exclusively members of that Church, or if they founded their membership upon their profession or external organization. For there is no other true foundation for this membership than every man's own internal reception of the essentials of the Church, and his leading the life which its truths require."

T. Parsons, Outlines of the Religion and Philosophy of Swedenborg, chapter 14, section 5.

ALSO IN: _E. Swedenborg, The four leading Doctrines of the New Church._

_G. F. E. Le Boys Des Guays, Letters to a Man of the World._

_B. F. Barrett, Lectures on the New Dispensation._

SWITZERLAND, Libraries of.

See LIBRARIES, MODERN (page 2013).

{3807}

T.

TAORMINA. TAUROMENION.

About 392 B. C. Dionysios, the tyrant of Syracuse, expelled the Sikels, or natives of Sicily, from one of their towns, Tauromenion (modern Taormina) on the height of Tauros, overlooking the site of the old Greek city of Naxos, which Dionysios had destroyed ten years before. He peopled the town anew with some of his mercenaries; but after his death the scattered Naxians were brought together in it, and made it their home. "The city thus strengthened by new colonists grew and prospered, and became specially remarkable for the wealth of its citizens. Greek Tauromenion ran through the usual course of a Sikeliot city in later times. Settled again by a Roman colony, it lived on till the days of its greatest glory, as the last of Sikeliot cities to hold out for Christ and Cæsar against the assaults of the besieging Saracens. But even that greater memory does not shut out the thoughts of the stirring early days of the city. … The rocks and the heights are there still, and not the rocks and the heights only. There is the wall with the work of the Sikel and the Greek side by side. There is the temple of the Greek changed into the church of the Christian apostle of Sicily. There is the theatre, the work of the Greek enlarged and modified by the Roman; the theatre which, unlike those of Syracuse and Argos, still keeps so large a part of its scena, 'and where we hardly mourn the loss of the rest as we look out on the hills and the sea between its fragments. … The matchless site would be something even without a story, but at Taormina the story is for ever written on the site. On the long ridge of the town, on its walls and gates, on the rocks on which it stands, on the prouder rocks which rise above it, we may truly say that, of all who have assailed or defended the mountain-city, alongside of the names of Ibrahim and of Roger, the first names in the long story of Tauromenion dwell there also."

E. A. Freeman, History of Sicily, chapter 11, section 2 (volume 4).

ALSO IN: _The Century, September 1893._

TELEGRAPH, Invention of the Electrical.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION (pages 771-772).

T. O'Conor Sloane, The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

THIRTY YEARS WAR, The effects of.

See (in this Supplement) GERMANY: A. D. 1648; also page 1484.

"TIPPECANOE AND TYLER TOO."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840 (page 3377).

----------TOLERATION, Religious: Start--------

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1631-1661. Denied in Massachusetts.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1656-1661 (pages 2103 to 2109).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1636. Established by Roger Williams in Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1647 (page 2639).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1649. Enacted in Maryland.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1649 (page 2094).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1689. Partial enactment in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (page 909).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1778. Repeal of Catholic penal laws in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780 (page 936).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1827-1829. Removal of disabilities from Dissenters and Emancipation of Catholics in England and Ireland.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828 (page 952); and IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829 (page 1784).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1869. Disestablishment of the Irish Church.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870 (page 969).

TOLERATION, Religious: A. D. 1871. Abolition of religious tests in English Universities.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871 (page 970).

----------TOLERATION, Religious: End--------

TORQUEMADA.

See INQUISITION (page 1751).

TRADE.

See (in this Supplement) COMMERCE.

TRADE-MARKS, Protection of.

See LAW, EQUITY: A. D. 1875 (page 1994).

TRADES UNIONS.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: A. D: 1720-1800 (page 2933), and after.

TSIAM NATION, The.

See TONKIN (page 3115).

TULANE UNIVERSITY, or University of Louisiana.

"This institution had its origin in certain land grants made by the United States 'for the use of a seminary of learning.' By an act of the General Government passed in 1806 one township of land was granted for the above named purpose, and in 1811 another township was added to this and both were confirmed by an act (of 1824) which also authorized their location. The first movement toward the utilization of these grants was made in 1845, when the following clause was adopted in the amended Constitution: 'A university shall be established in the city of New Orleans. It shall be composed of four faculties, to wit: one of law, one of medicine, one of natural sciences, and one of letters.' … The university was chartered in 1847. … For many years the university received but meagre support from the State. … By the Constitution of 1879 the institution was endowed permanently by authorizing the sum of not more than $10,000 payable annually [for five years] to the university. At the expiration of this period the university was united with the Tulane University (in 1884). Since that time no appropriations have been made by the Legislature."

_F. W. Blackmar, History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Education in the United States (Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, 1890. number 1), pages 272-273._

TYPHOID FEVER, Appearance of.

See PLAGUE; 18TH CENTURY (page 2543).

U.

"UNCLE TOM'S CABIN," The effect of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852 (page 3392).

-----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Start--------

{3808}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Historical Geography.

The historical geography of the United States possesses, in a unique degree, a two-fold character. These divisions of the subject are best described by the words exterior and interior. While such a classification is, of course, inevitable in the history of every nation, the fact remains that, with the United States, these divisions stand in a different relation to each other from any that appear usually in the historical geography of other countries. The difference is chiefly one of relative importance. The internal historical geography of the Old World nations, barring the feudal period, involves so largely questions concerning mere provincial administration that it has no claim, from a geographical standpoint, to an importance equal to the shifting of the great national frontiers. Examples of this are found in the Roman and Byzantine empires, and in the majority of the modern states. In our own case however the order of interest is reversed. Our internal geography has attracted the chief attention of the student, not so much from the greater difficulty of the subject as from its vast importance in the early history of our government. It is not, indeed, too much to say that the organization of the present government under the constitution is an event of scarcely greater importance than the determination of the final policy of the states and the nation concerning the unoccupied western lands. It is this fact alone which gives the higher degree of relative importance to our internal historical geography. The general facts concerning our external geography are quickly told. The outlines of the entire subject are contained in the enumeration of the eight cessions, as follows:

the original territory ceded by Great Britain at the peace of Paris in 1783 (see page 3287);

the Louisiana purchase from France in 1803 (pages 2049, and 3327);

the acquisition of Florida from Spain by the treaty of 1819 (page 1154);

the admission of Texas in 1845 (page 3102);

the undisputed acquisition of the Oregon country by treaty with Great Britain in 1846 (page 2402);

the first Mexican cession by the peace of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 (page 2175);

the second Mexican cession, known as the Gadsden purchase, in 1853 (page 133);

and the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 (page 30).

The enumeration of these eight acquisitions, all of which, save the final one are shown on the first United States map, affords a complete picture of the successive stages of our territorial growth. The occasion of these different annexations, as well as their exact territorial extent, would involve us in a series of details which are beyond the purpose of the present article. It should be observed, however, that in several cases the map shows the territories in question as finally determined by treaty or survey, rather than their actual extent as understood at the time the annexations were made. This is one of the inevitable disadvantages in the purely cartographic treatment of such a subject. The historical map is compelled from its nature to give a tangible appearance to matters which are often very intangible in fact. In the case, for example, of what we may call the first United States, the country as recognized by the treaty of Paris, the western line of the Mississippi was the only boundary which was not the subject of future discussion. The southern frontier as arranged at Paris was affirmed by treaty with Spain in 1795. On the other side, however, Great Britain retained a number of posts in the Old Northwest up to the Jay treaty of 1794; the boundary between the upper Mississippi and the Lake of the Woods, imperfectly described in the Paris treaty, was not settled until 1818; the line from the intersection of the St. Lawrence to the Sault Ste. Marie was established in 1822 by joint commission under the treaty of Ghent; while the Maine frontier question, the most difficult and obstinate of all our boundary disputes, was not finally settled until the year 1842. The Louisiana purchase of 1803 brought in fresh questions concerning our territorial limits. On three sides, the North, West and Southwest the frontiers of this vast area were undefined. On the northern side the boundary was settled with Great Britain by the treaty of 1818 which carried the line along the forty-ninth parallel to the Rocky Mountains, while the treaty of 1819 with Spain, which ceded Florida to the United States, also defined the limits of Louisiana on the South-West. This line of 1819 has an additional importance, in that it drew the frontier between Spain and the United States along the forty-second parallel to the Pacific coast. The importance of this lay in the fact that it gave us a clear title on the Spanish side to the so-called Oregon country. The exact connection, real or supposed, between this territory and the Louisiana country was for many years one of the disputed points in American historical geography. The belief in this connection, at one time general, undoubtedly had its origin in the undefined character of Louisiana at the time of the purchase, and the fact that our government turned this indefiniteness to its own purpose in advancing its Oregon claims. It is now clear, however, from the evidence of the old maps, the official statement of the limits of the region, of which there is but one in existence (the Crozat grant of 1712) and lastly the understanding of France herself at the time of the cession, that Louisiana did not include in its limits any part of the Pacific watershed. A map published in a subsequent work of the French plenipotentiary placed the western boundary of Louisiana at the one hundred and tenth meridian. A line drawn in this arbitrary fashion and unsanctioned by the terms of the treaty itself may be regarded merely as one of convenience. If this view is correct it is certainly more convenient and, at the same time, more logical, to consider the western boundary as extending to the Rocky Mountain watershed,—a line which would not deviate to any radical extent from the meridian in question. The historical connection however between the Louisiana purchase and our subsequent acquisition of the Oregon country is perfectly clear. The exploration of the latter followed almost immediately but its final annexation was delayed by the opposing claim of Great Britain. In this controversy the claim of the United States was merely relative as opposed to that of England. The just claimant was undoubtedly the king of Spain, whose rights, based on discovery, antedated those of either of the contesting powers. The Spanish title, however, having, as we have seen, been relinquished by the treaty of 1819, the issue between Great Britain and the United States became clearly defined. A joint occupation of the disputed territory by the two powers ensued from 1818 to 1846. In the latter year was negotiated the compromise treaty, which continued our northern line of 1818 on the forty-ninth parallel from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific coast. From the treaty of 1846 we may date the completion of our northern frontier, although the ownership of certain islands between Vancouver and the mainland was not settled until 1872. {3809} A few more years witnessed the completion of our southern frontier, as well. In 1845 Texas was admitted to the Union. The western boundary of the Rio Grande, claimed by the new state under her constitution of 1836, led directly to the war with Mexico, and by that war to the great additional cession at Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. The southern boundary was finally completed by the Gadsden purchase of 1853. Coming now to the study of our internal geography, we find ourselves in contact with what is practically a distinct subject. Here we encounter a whole series of those weighty questions, the solution of which figures so prominently in the early history of the American government. We have already noted that the first western boundary of the United States was placed by the treaty of 1783 at the Mississippi river. But during the Paris negotiations our ally France and quasi ally Spain both opposed this westward extension of our territory and it was long an open question, even after our independence itself was assured, whether we should not be compelled to accept a western boundary on the Appalachian range. Years before the final settlement of the question at Paris, the expectancy of the Mississippi boundary had given rise to questions which caused an undercurrent of dissension between the states during the entire period of the Revolutionary War. In their relation to the western land question, the thirteen original states divide themselves into two classes, the claimant and non-claimant states. In the first class were Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, the two Carolinas and Georgia; in the second, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. The claims of the seven first named states covered every inch of our prospective western domain and in the country north of the Ohio, known as the Old Northwest there were opposing claims of two and in some districts of even three states to the same territory. The extent of these claims is indicated on the map of the Federated states in 1783. They rested for the most part upon the royal grants and charters to the colonies, and, in the case of New York, upon the treaties with the Iroquois. Their relative merits where conflicting, or their collective merit as a whole, are questions which we will not attempt to discuss. It is sufficient to observe that if insisted upon in their entirety they would have presented an insuperable obstacle to the formation of an American federate government. In the proceedings of the Continental Congress, as well as in the state legislative bodies, touching this western domain, we may find the germs of nearly all the political and constitutional questions which have made the greater part of our subsequent history. The relative rank and power of the states, the obligation of one state towards another, the individual rights of states as opposed to the collective rights of the Union; all of these questions entered into the great problem which the nation was now called upon to solve. The objections to the western claims by the non-claimant states, though urged with varying degrees of vehemence and accompanied with many widely differing alternatives, may be fairly resolved into the two following contentions: that it was unjust that so vast a domain, whose acquisition at the peace could only be insured through the joint labor of all the states, should thereafter become the property of a certain favored few, and also that the claims if allowed would in the end give the claimant states a preponderating power which would be extremely prejudicial if not dangerous to the others. Of all the non-claimant states, Maryland was the most determined in her opposition, and it is to her that Professor Herbert B. Adams in his monograph on "Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States," assigns the chief credit for the final creation of the first national domain (see page 3280). The claim though a just one cannot be asserted without an important qualification. The proposition advanced by Maryland, that a national title to the western lands be asserted by a clause in the Articles of Confederation, was manifestly one to which the claimant states would never give their consent. It was due, however, to the action of Maryland,—which refused for more than three years, from November 1777 to March 1781, to ratify the articles,— that the question was kept open until the claimant states, in order to complete the circle of the Union, found it necessary to adopt the policy of voluntary cessions, suggested by Congress. The history in detail of the several state cessions involves many questions concerning the distribution and sale of public lands which need not concern us. Some of the offers of cession, at first conditional and partial, were made absolute and final, as, one by one, the besetting difficulties were cleared away. The dates of the final cessions by the seven claimant states in order were as follows: New York 1781, Virginia 1783, Massachusetts 1785, Connecticut 1786, South Carolina 1787, North Carolina 1790, Georgia 1802.

Certain land reservations north of the Ohio, as shown on the map of the United States in 1790, were made by both Virginia and Connecticut; but Virginia renounced jurisdiction over these lands in the cession, and Connecticut did likewise in 1800, the two states reserving merely the property rights. The territory south of the Ohio was not included in the Virginia cession of 1783 but the district of Kentucky was made the subject of a second cession in 1789. The completion of this list closed the interesting chapter in our history covered by the state cessions and gave to the United States the sovereignty over its first great western public domain. Before pursuing this subject further, let us see in what relation the cessions stand to the present form of the thirteen original states. Some boundary contentions still remained, but these are not of historic importance. The claim of Massachusetts in what is now "Western New York was settled by joint commission in 1786, while Pennsylvania purchased a tract of land on lake Erie from the general government in 1792. At the present day sixteen states stand upon the territory which remained to the original thirteen, the three additional ones each springing from the partition of one of the older states. In 1790 New York assented to the independence of Vermont, which was admitted to the Union in the following year; in 1820 Maine was separated from Massachusetts and admitted; and finally, in 1862, West Virginia was set off from Virginia and became a state in 1863. We will now resume the subject of the disposition of the western lands. {3810} We have already noted the termination of that stage of their history which involves the territorial claims of individual states. The second stage concerns itself with the evolution of what may be called the American system of territorial government. The first, indeed, had not reached its completion before the second began to receive the greater measure of public attention. The western land cessions to the government were made with the general understanding, tacit in most cases, but in that of Virginia explicitly stated, that the ceded territory should eventually be formed into additional states. The first national domain may therefore be regarded as a district held in trust by the government for a special purpose. This view, which was not only required by the terms of the Virginia cession, but also represented the general sentiment of the time, has formed the basis of our entire subsequent policy in dealing with the national domain,—a policy which has remained unaltered even in the case of the immense territories that afterwards came into the direct possession of the government by treaty with foreign powers. The one question remaining was the erection of the legislative machinery which should provide for the government of the territories during their preparation for statehood. The problem was finally solved by the Ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest territory. This famous ordinance, the first of the long series of acts concerning territorial government, was the last noteworthy piece of legislation under the old Articles of Confederation, and the year which witnessed both the successful inauguration of our territorial policy and the adoption of the new constitution is the most memorable in the entire history of American institutions. The history of the enactment of the Ordinance, for many years veiled in obscurity, has been fully elucidated by the late W. F. Poole (monograph on "The Ordinance of 1787"); the full text is printed in its proper place in this work (page 2380). Many of its provisions, suited only for the special occasion of their use, are now antiquated and obsolete, and neither their letter nor spirit find a place in subsequent territorial legislation. But the fact remains that this act was in a certain sense the great proto-type; it was the first to organize and set in motion the machinery of our territorial policy. A policy that has provided without friction for the tremendous national expansion which has ensued during the present century may justly be regarded as one of the greatest achievements in the political history of the American government. In our own day, when the admission of a new state or the erection of a new territory is regarded as hardly more than a routine event in the working of our political system, it is easy for us to underestimate the vital importance of the first steps which were taken concerning the regulation of the national domain. It was because those steps were to determine in a measure our entire future policy, that the history of the old Continental Congress should form an absorbing theme for every student of our internal geography. It is unnecessary to follow this subject in detail through its later history, which is simply a monotonous record of legislative enactments for the organization of new territories or the admission of new states. The principle had been fully established; the history of the next century, followed step by step, can show very little beyond its consistent application. Political considerations have, it is true, often delayed or prematurely hastened the admission of new states, but there has been one case only where we have been called upon again to face a question similar to that which was solved by the old congress. The circumstances of the admission of the republic of Texas bear no analogy to that of any other state received into the Union since the formation of the government. Here was, not a state created by mere legislative enactment, but an independent foreign sovereignty, admitted to the Union at its own solicitation, bringing with it as a dower a territory immeasurably greater than the national policy had ever before assigned to a single state. Once more therefore we have the old question of a troublesome state sovereignty in immense unoccupied lands. The comparative absence of friction in the solution of this new problem proves again the efficiency of the old policy in dealing with all such questions. No cession of territory was wrung from Texas or in this case even solicited. The state was admitted to the Union in 1845 claiming a continuous western boundary on the Rio Grande. In 1850, after the peace of Guadalupe Hidalgo had determined our boundary on the Mexican side, Texas sold to the General Government, for the sum of $10,000,000, all of her territorial claims north and west of her present boundaries. With some modifications the history of the original cessions repeats itself in this transaction, which was the last occasion of a great transfer of territory to the Union by one of its members. There are many other features in our internal geography, among the most notable the institution of slavery, which would be worthy of attention were the space to permit. In view of this limitation, however, we cannot pursue the subject beyond this general review of its main outlines. There is a dearth of works on American historical geography subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. It is a subject, indeed, which cannot be very satisfactorily studied simply through the literature dealing exclusively with the topic. Of the atlases Professor Albert Bushnell Hart's. "Epoch Maps Illustrating American History" is the best; the most serviceable of the text works is Henry Gannett's pamphlet on "Boundaries of the United States and of the several States and Territories, with a Historical Sketch of the Territorial Changes," published as bulletin Number 13 of the United States Geological Survey. Townsend MacCoun's "Historical Geography of the United States" and the later chapters of Walter B. Scaife's "America, its Geographical History" are also useful. An excellent account of our geographical history during the early years of the Government, covering the period of the state cessions, may be found in B. A. Hinsdale's Old Northwest, with a View of the Thirteen Colonies as constituted by the, Royal Charters." For a more careful study there is of course no substitute for the texts of the grants, charters, treaties and legislative acts of Congress, and the more important of these are freely quoted from in Mr. Gannett's work.

Alan C. Reiley.

UNITED STATES: A. D. 1863. Adoption and Organization of the National Bank System of the United States.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1861-1878 (page 2219).

{3811}

UTOPIAS.

See SOCIAL MOVEMENTS (page 2932).

UZBEGS.

A Turkish branch of the Tatars of Turkestan.

V.

VOLAPUK.

A proposed universal language, invented in 1879 by a Swabian pastor, named Schleyer.

VOLTA, The electrical discoveries of.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: A. D. 1786-1800 (page 771).

W.

WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY.

See EDUCATION (page 743).

WHEATSTONE, Prof., Inventions of.

See ELECTRICAL DISCOVERY (page 773).

T. O'Conor Sloane, The Standard Electrical Dictionary https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26535

{3812}

CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT AND INDICATIVE EVENTS.

TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA. [BEFORE]

B. C. 4777. Beginning of the Egyptian dynasties as given by Manetho, according to the latest computations. [Uncertain date]

2250. Beginning of the reign of Hammurabi, or Chammurabi, the first important king of Babylonia. [Uncertain date]

1500. Independence of Assyria as a kingdom separate from Babylonia, and rise of Nineveh. [Uncertain date]

1330. Beginning of the reign in Egypt of Ramses II., the Sesostris of the Greeks. [Uncertain date]

1260. Death of Ramses II., king of Egypt, and accession of Merneptah or Merenptah, supposed by many writers to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression. [Uncertain date]

1200. Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt. [Uncertain date]

1120. Beginning of the reign of Tiglathpileser I., king of Assyria. [Uncertain date]

1000. Beginning of the reign of King David. [Uncertain date]

960. Death of David and beginning of the reign of Solomon. [Uncertain date]

776. Beginning of the Olympiads.

753. The founding of Rome. [Uncertain date]

745. First war between Sparta and Messenia.

734. Founding of Syracuse by Greeks from Corinth.

725. End of first Messenian War. 722. Overthrow of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. Captivity of the Ten Tribes.

685. The second war between Messenia and Sparta.

668. End of the second Messenian war.

640. Birth of Thales. [Uncertain date]

624. Supposed date of the legislation of Draco, at Athens. [Uncertain date] 612. Conspiracy of Cylon at Athens.

608. Accession of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylonia.

606. Destruction of Nineveh and overthrow of the Assyrian empire by the Medes. [Uncertain date]

601. First invasion of Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar.

598. Invasion of Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar.

594. The Constitution of Solon adopted at Athens.

586. Capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. End of the kingdom of Judah and exile of the remnant of the people to Babylon.

560. Tyranny of Pisistratus established at Athens.

551. Birth of Confucius [Uncertain date] (d. 478).

549. Overthrow of the Median monarchy by Cyrus, and founding of the Persian.

546. Overthrow of Crœsus and the kingdom of Lydia by Cyrus, king of Persia.

538. Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus.

529. Death of Cyrus and accession of Cambyses to the throne of Persia.

525. Conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, king of Persia. Birth of Æschylus (d. 456).

521. Accession of Darius I., king of Persia.

520. Birth of Pindar. [Uncertain date] 516. Invasion of Scythia by Darius, king of Persia. [Uncertain date]

514. Birth of Themistocles [Uncertain date] (d. 449 [Uncertain date]).

510. Expulsion of the Pisistratids from Athens.

509. Expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome. [Uncertain date] Founding of the Republic (Roman chronology).

508. Political reorganization of Athens by Cleisthenes.

506. Subjection of Macedonia to Persia.

500. Rising of the Greek colonies in Ionia, against the Persians.

495. Birth of Sophocles (d. 405 [Uncertain date]).

493. League of the Romans and Latins.

492. First secession of the Roman Plebs. Creation of the Tribunes of the People.

490. First Persian expedition against Greece. Destruction of Naxos by the Persians. Their overwhelming defeat at Marathon.

489. Condemnation and death of Miltiades at Athens. [Uncertain date]

486. Accession of Xerxes to the throne of Persia.

484. Birth of Herodotus. [Uncertain date]

480. Second Persian invasion of Greece. Thermopylæ. Artemisium. Salamis. Retreat of Xerxes. Carthaginian invasion of Sicily. Battle of Himera. Birth of Euripides. [Uncertain date]

479. Battles of Platæa and Mycale and end of the Persian invasion of Greece.

478. Beginning of the tyranny of Hieron at Syracuse.

477. Formation of the Confederacy of Delos, under Athens.

471. Exile of Themistocles from Athens. Birth of Thucydides (d. 401 [Uncertain date]).

{3813}

469. Birth of Socrates [Uncertain date] (d. 399 [Uncertain date]).

466. Naval victory of the Greeks over the Persians at Eurymedon. Outbreak of the Plague at Rome. Revolt of Naxos from the Delian Confederacy. Fall of the tyrants at Syracuse.

465. Murder of Xerxes I., and accession of Artaxerxes I. to the throne of Persia.

464. Great earthquake at Sparta. Rising of the Helots, or beginning of the third Messenian War.

460. Birth of Hippocrates.

458. Commencement of the Long Walls of Athens.

457. Beginning of war of Corinth, Sparta, and Ægina with Athens. Battle of Tanagra.

456. Athenian victory at Œnophyta.

455. End of the third Messenian War.

450. End of war against Athens. Framing of the Twelve Tables of the Roman Law. The Decemvirs at Rome. Birth of Alcibiades [Uncertain date] (d. 404).

447. Defeat of the Athenians by the Bœotians at Coronea.

445. Conclusion of the Thirty Years Peace between Athens and Sparta and their allies. Ascendancy of Pericles at Athens. Peace of Callias between Greece and Persia. Birth of Xenophon. [Uncertain date]

444. Creation of Consular Tribunes at Rome. Exile of Thucydides from Athens.

435. War between Corinth and Corcyra.

432. Complaints against Athens. Peloponnesian Congress at Sparta. Revolt of Potidæa.

431. Beginning of the Peloponnesian War. Invasion of Attica.

430. Second invasion of Attica. The Plague at Athens.

429. Death of Pericles at Athens. Capture of Potidæa. Birth of Plato (d. 347).

427. Destruction of Platæa by the Peloponnesians. Massacre at Corcyra.

425. Surrender of Spartans to the Athenians at Sphacteria. Accession of Xerxes II., king of Persia.

421. Peace of Nicias between Athens and Sparta. End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War.

415. Expedition of the Athenians against Syracuse. Mutilation of the Hermæ at Athens. Accusation and flight of Alcibiades.

413. Disaster to the Athenians before Syracuse. Renewal of the Peloponnesian War.

411. Oligarchical revolution at Athens. The Four Hundred and their fall. Recall of Alcibiades.

409. Carthaginian invasion of Sicily.

406. Victory of the Athenians over the Peloponnesians in the battle of Arginusæ. Execution of the generals at Athens.

405. Defeat of the Athenians at Aigospotamoi. Successful revolt of the Egyptians against the Persians, and independence established.

404. Fall of Athens. End of the Peloponnesian War.

401. Expedition of Cyrus the Younger.

400. Retreat of the Ten Thousand under Xenophon. Birth of Timoleon [Uncertain date] (d. 337).

391). Condemnation and death of Socrates at Athens. War of Sparta with Persia.

395. League of Greek cities against Sparta. The Corinthian War.

390. Rome destroyed by the Gauls.

389. Birth of Æschines [Uncertain date] (d. 314).

387. Peace of Antalcidas between the Greeks and Persians.

385. Birth of Demosthenes [Uncertain date] (d. 322).

384. Birth of Aristotle (d. 322).

383. Betrayal of Thebes to Sparta. War of Syracuse with Carthage.

379. Overthrow of the Olynthian League by Sparta. Deliverance of Thebes.

371. Defeat of Sparta at Leuctra. Ascendancy of Thebes. Arcadian Union.

370. Peloponnesian expedition of Epaminondas.

361. Adoption of the Licinian Laws at Rome.

362. Victory and death of Epaminondas at Mantinea.

359. Accession of Philip to the throne of Macedonia.

357. Outbreak of the Ten Years Sacred War in Greece.

356. Burning of the Temple of Diana at Ephesus. Birth of Alexander the Great (d. 323).

353. Final conquest of Egypt by the Persians.

352. Interference of Philip of Macedonia in the Greek Sacred War. First Philippic of Demosthenes.

343. Deliverance of Syracuse by Timoleon. First Samnite War in Italy.

341. End of first Samnite War.

340. Adoption of the Publilian Laws at Rome.

338. League of Greek cities against Philip of Macedonia. His victory at Chæronea. His domination established. Subjugation of the Latins by Rome.

336. Assassination of Philip of Macedonia, and accession of Alexander the Great.

335. Revolt of Thebes. Alexander's destruction of the city.

334. Alexander's expedition against Persia. His victory at the Granicus.

333. Alexander's victory over the Persians at Issus.

332. Alexander's sieges of Tyre and Gaza. His conquest of Egypt and founding of Alexandria.

331. Alexander's victory at Arbela. Overthrow of the Persian empire.

{3814}

330. Alexander's destruction of Persepolis.

326. Alexander in India. Defeat of Porus. Beginning of second Samnite War in Italy.

323. Death of Alexander the Great at Babylon. Partition of his dominion among the generals. Revolt in Greece. The Lamian War.

322. Subjugation of Athens by the Macedonians. Death of Demosthenes.

321. Beginning of the Wars of the Successors of Alexander. Founding of the kingdom of the Ptolemies In Egypt. Defeat of the Romans by the Samnites at the Caudine Forks.

317. Execution of Phocion at Athens.

307. Athens under the rule of Demetrius Poliorcetes.

306. Royal titles assumed by Antigonus (as king of Asia), Ptolemy, in Egypt, Seleucus Nicator, in Syria, Lysimachus, in Thrace, and Cassander, in Macedonia.

305. Siege of Rhodes by Demetrius Poliorcetes.

304. End of the second Samnite War in Italy.

301. Battle of Ipsus. Overthrow and death of Antigonus.

298. Beginning of third Samnite War.

295. Roman defeat of the Gauls at Sentinum.

290. End of the third Samnite War.

287. Birth of Archimedes [Uncertain date] (d. 212).

286. Adoption of the Hortensian Laws at Rome.

280. Invasion of Italy by Pyrrhus, king of Epirus. Invasion of Greece by the Gauls. Rise of the Achaian League.

278. Pyrrhus in Sicily, in war against Carthage.

275. Defeat of Pyrrhus at Beneventum.

264. Beginning of the first Punic War between Rome and Carthage.

263. Athens captured by Antigonus Gonatus.

255. Defeat and capture of Regulus in Africa.

250. Founding of the kingdom of Parthia by Arsaces. [Uncertain date]

247. Birth of Hannibal [Uncertain date] (d. 183). 241. End of the first Punic War. Roman conquest of Sicily. Revolt of the Carthaginian mercenaries.

234. Birth of Cato the Elder (d. 149). Birth of Scipio Africanus the Elder [Uncertain date](d. 183).

227. War of Sparta with the Achaian League.

222. Roman conquest of Cisalpine Gaul completed.

221. Battle of Sellasia. Sparta crushed by the king of Macedonia.

218. Beginning of the second Punic War between Rome and Carthage. Hannibal in Italy.

217. Hannibal's defeat of the Romans at the Trasimene Lake. Cœle-Syria and Palestine ceded to Egypt by Antiochus the Great.

216. Great defeat of the Romans by Hannibal at Cannæ.

214. Beginning of war between Rome and Macedonia.

212. Siege and reduction of Syracuse by the Romans.

211. Hannibal at the Roman gates.

210. Ægina taken by the Romans and the inhabitants reduced to slavery.

207. Defeat of Hasdrubal on the Metaurus.

206. Birth of Polybius. [Uncertain date]

205. End of first Macedonian War.

202. Scipio's decisive victory at Zama, in Africa, ending the second Punic War.

201. Subjection of the Jews to the Seleucid monarchy.

200. Roman declaration of war against the king of Macedonia.

197. Decisive Roman victory over the Macedonians at Cynoscephalæ.

196. Freedom of the Greeks proclaimed by the Roman general Flamininus.

195. Birth of Terence [Uncertain date] (d. 158 [Uncertain date]).

191. Romans defeat Antiochus of Syria at Thermopylæ in Greece. Final subjugation of Cisalpine Gaul by the Romans.

190. Decisive defeat of Antiochus at Magnesia, by the Romans. Beginning of Roman conquest in Asia.

189. Fall of the Ætolian League.

185. Birth of Scipio Africanus the Younger (d. 129).

171. The third war between Rome and Macedonia.

168. Roman victory at Pydna; extinction of the Macedonian kingdom. Birth of Tiberius Gracchus [Uncertain date] (d. 133).

167. Revolt of the Jews under Judas Maccabæus, against Antiochus, king of Syria.

165. Judas Maccabæus in Jerusalem; the Temple purified. 161. Defeat and death of Judas Maccabæus.

157. Birth of Marius (d. 86).

149. Opening of the third Punic War between Rome and Carthage.

146. Roman destruction of Carthage and Corinth. Greece absorbed in the dominion of Rome.

138. Birth of Sulla (d. 78).

135. Assassination of Simon Maccabæus; accession of John Hyrcanus to the High Priesthood.

133. Outbreak of the Servile War in Sicily. Attempted reforms and death of Tiberius Gracchus at Rome. Reduction of Numantia.

121. Death of Caius Gracchus at Rome.

111. Beginning of the Jugurthine War between Rome and Numidia.

{3815}

106. Birth of Cicero (d. 43). Birth of Pompey the Great (d. 48).

105. Great defeat of the Romans by the Cimbri at Arausio. Royal title taken by Aristobulus in Judea.

104. Ending of the Jugurthine War by Marius.

102. Destruction of the Teutones at Aquæ Sextiæ by the Romans under Marius.

101. Destruction of the Cimbri by Marius.

100. Adoption of the Apuleian Law at Rome. Birth of Julius Cæsar (d. 44).

95. Birth of Lucretius (d. 55).

90. Outbreak of the Social War, or struggle of the Italians.

88. Beginning of the first civil war (Marius and Sulla) at Rome, and of war with Mithridates, king of Pontus. Unsuccessful siege of Rhodes by Mithridates.

87. Campaigns of the Romans under Sulla against Mithridates in Greece. Marian proscriptions at Rome. Birth of Catullus [Uncertain date] (d. 47 [Uncertain date]).

86. Sulla's capture of Athens and victory at Chæronea. Death of Marius. Birth of Sallust (d. 34 [Uncertain date]).

84. End of the first Mithridatic War.

83. Return of Sulla to Italy; burning of the Temple of Jupiter; civil war at Rome.

82. Sulla master of Rome; the Sullan reign of terror.

80. War with Sertorius in Spain.

79. Sulla's resignation of the dictatorship.

78. Death of Sulla.

74. Opening of third Mithridatic War between Rome and the king of Pontus.

73. Rising of the Roman gladiators under Spartacus.

72. Assassination of Sertorius in Spain; Pompey in command.

71. Defeat of the gladiators and death of Spartacus.

70. Consulship of Pompey and Crassus at Rome. Cicero's impeachment of Verres.

61. Pompey's campaign against the pirates of Cilicia.

66. Command of Pompey in the East. Overthrow of Mithridates.

65. Birth of Horace (d. 8).

64. Extinction of the Seleucid kingdom by Pompey.

63. Consulship of Cicero at Rome; Conspiracy of Catiline. Pompey's siege and conquest of Jerusalem; the Asmonean kingdom made tributary to Rome.

60. The first Triumvirate at Rome.

59. Consulship of Cæsar at Rome.

58. Beginning of Cæsar's campaigns in Gaul. Exile of Cicero from Rome.

57. Recall of Cicero.

56. Roman conquest of Aquitaine.

55. Cæsar's first invasion of Britain.

53. Roman war with Parthia; defeat and death of Crassus at Carrhæ.

51. Cæsar's conquest of Gaul completed.

50. Beginning of the second Civil War at Rome; Cæsar's passage of the Rubicon.

49. Cæsar's campaign against the Pompeians in Spain; his conquest of Massilia.

48. Cæsar's victory at Pharsalia; death of Pompey in Egypt; Cæsar in Alexandria.

46. Cæsar's victory at Thapsus; death of Cato.

45. Cæsar's victory in Spain.

44. Assassination of Cæsar at Rome.

43. The second Triumvirate at Rome; murder of Cicero. Birth of Ovid (d. A. D. 18).

42. Battles of Philippi; destruction of the Liberators.

40. Herod proclaimed King of Judea.

37. Conquest of Jerusalem by Herod.

31. War of Antony and Octavius; victory of Octavius at Actium, establishing his supremacy.

30. Death of Antony and Cleopatra; annexation of Egypt to the Roman dominion.

29. Triumph of Octavius celebrated at Rome; title of Imperator given to him; closing of the Temple of Janus.

27. Title of Augustus assumed by Octavius at Rome.

12. Expedition of the Romans under Drusus into Germany.

9. Last German campaign and death of Drusus.

8. First campaign of Tiberius (afterward Roman emperor) in Germany.

4. Probable date of the birth of Jesus. Death of Herod, king of Judea.

CHRISTIAN ERA.

First Century.

1. Beginning of the Christian Era.

4. Campaign of the Emperor Tiberius in Germany.

6. Deposition of the Herodian ethnarch Archelaus; Judea made a district of the Roman prefecture of Syria.

9. Destruction of Varus and his Roman legions by the Germans under Arminius.

14. Death of Augustus; Tiberius made Emperor of Rome. Expedition of Germanicus into Germany.

23. Birth of Pliny the Elder (d. 79).

26. Pontius Pilate, Roman procurator in Judea.

{3816}

27. Completion of the Pantheon at Rome.

29. Crucifixion of Jesus. [Uncertain date] Martyrdom of Saint Stephen.

35. Conversion of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]

37. Death of the Emperor Tiberius. Accession of Caius, called Caligula. Birth of Agricola (d. 93). Birth of Josephus (d. 95 [Uncertain date]).

40. Birth of Martial. [Uncertain date]

41. Murder of the Emperor Caligula; elevation of Claudius to the throne. Restoration of the Herodian kingdom of Judea under Herod Agrippa.

43. Roman invasion of Britain by Aulius Plautius and the Emperor Claudius.

44. Death of Herod Agrippa; extinction of the kingdom of Judea.

50. First missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date]

51. Capture of Caractacus, king of the Trinobantes, in Britain. Adoption of Nero by Claudius.

52. Second missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date] Birth of Trajan [Uncertain date] (d. 117).

53. Felix, procurator of Judea.

54. Murder of the Emperor Claudius and accession of Nero. Saint Paul at Athens. [Uncertain date]

55. Third missionary journey of Saint Paul. [Uncertain date] Birth of Tacitus. [Uncertain date]

59. Festus made governor of Judea. Arrest of Saint Paul. Murder of Agrippina.

61. Destruction of the Druids of Britain; revolt under Boadicea. Saint Paul in Rome. [Uncertain date]

62. Birth of Pliny the Younger. [Uncertain date]

64. The burning of Rome; first persecution of Christians.

65. Conspiracy of Piso. Execution of Lucan and Seneca by the command of Nero.

66. Revolt of the Jews.

67. Campaign of Vespasian against the insurgent Jews.

68. Suicide of the Emperor Nero; Galba proclaimed Emperor.

69. Murder of Galba; brief reigns of Otho and Vitellius; Vespasian raised to the throne. Revolt of the Batavians under Civilis.

70. Siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

78. Beginning of Agricola's campaign in Britain.

79. Death of the Emperor Vespasian and accession of Titus. Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Pestilence in the Roman Empire.

81. Death of the Emperor Titus and accession of Domitian.

96. Murder of the Emperor Domitian; Nerva raised to the throne.

97. Adoption of Trajan by Nerva.

98. Death of the Emperor Nerva and accession of Trajan.

Second Century.

106. Completed Roman conquest of Dacia by Trajan.

115. War of Rome with Parthia. Trajan's conquests in Asia. Martyrdom of St. Ignatius. Great earthquake at Antioch.

116. Rising of the Jews in Cyrene, Cyprus and Egypt.

117. Death of the Emperor Trajan and accession of Hadrian. Relinquishment of Asiatic conquests.

118. Campaign of Hadrian in Mœsia.

119. Hadrian's visit to Britain.

121. Birth of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (d. 180).

131. Birth of Galen.

132. Savage revolt of the Jews, savagely repressed; name of Jerusalem changed to Ælia Capitolina; complete dispersion of the Jews.

138. Death of the Emperor Hadrian and succession of Antoninus Pius.

161. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus made Emperor on the death of Antoninus Pius. Roman war with Parthia begun.

165. End of war between Rome and Parthia. Sack of Seleucia and Ctesiphon. Acquisition of Mesopotamia by Rome.

166. Great plague in the Roman Empire.

167. Beginning of the wars of Rome with the Marcomanni and Quadi.

174. Great victory of Marcus Aurelius over the Quadi.

180. Death of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius; and accession of his Bon Commodus.

186. Birth of Origen [Uncertain date] (d. 253).

192. Murder of the Emperor Commodus (December 31).

193. Pertinax made Emperor, and murdered; sale of the throne of the Roman Empire to Didius Julianus; contest of rivals; accession of Septimius Severus.

198. Siege and capture of the Parthian city Ctesiphon by the Romans.

Third Century.

208. Campaign of Severus against the Caledonians of Britain.

211. Death of the Emperor Severus; accession of his sons, Caracalla and Geta.

212. Murder of Geta by Caracalla.

213. First collision of the Romans with the Alemanni.

215. Massacre at Alexandria commanded by Caracalla.

217. Murder of the Emperor Caracalla; elevation of Macrinus.

218. Overthrow of Macrinus by Elagabalus.

{3817}

222. Murder of Elagabalus; Alexander Severus made Emperor.

226. The new monarchy of Persia; fall of the Parthian power; rise of the Sassanidæ.

235. Murder of the Emperor Alexander Severus; accession of Maximin.

237. Fate of the two Gordians at Rome.

238. Overthrow and death of the Emperor Maximin; elevation of the third Gordian.

244. Death of the Emperor Gordian; accession of Philip.

249. Death of the Emperor Philip; accession of Decius.

250. Decian persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. Gothic invasion of Mœsia.

251. Victory of the Goths over the Romans; death of Decius in battle; accession of Gallus to the imperial throne.

253. Murder of the Emperor Gallus; accession of Æmilianus. First appearance of the Franks in the Empire. Murder of Æmilianus and accession of Valerian.

259. Invasion of Gaul and Italy by the Alemanni.

260. Roman war with Persia. Defeat and capture of the Emperor Valerian; accession of Gallienus.

267. Accession of Zenobia, queen of Palmyra.

268. Murder of the Emperor Gallienus; accession of Claudius II. Invasion of Thrace and Macedonia by the Goths checked by Claudius.

270. Death of the Emperor Claudius II.; accession of Aurelian. Dacia yielded to the Goths. Italy invaded by the Alemanni.

273. Defeat and capture of Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, by the Emperor Aurelian.

275. Murder of the Emperor Aurelian; accession of Tacitus.

276. Death of the Emperor Tacitus; accession of Probus.

277. Roman repulse of the Franks. Invasion of Germany by Probus.

282. Murder of the Emperor Probus; accession of Carus.

283. War of Rome with Persia. Death of Carus; accession of Numerian.

284. Murder of the Emperor Numerian; accession of Diocletian.

286. Maximian made imperial colleague of Diocletian.

287. Insurrection of the Bagauds in Gaul.

288. Revolt of Carausius in Britain.

292. Galerius and Constantius Chlorus created "Cæsars."

296. Revolt of the African provinces of Rome; siege of Alexandria. Birth of Athanasius [Uncertain date] (d. 373).

297. Roman war with Persia; defeat of Galerius.

298. Victorious peace of Rome with Persia; extension of the Empire.

Fourth Century.

303. Persecution of Christians by the Emperor Diocletian.

305. Abdication of the Emperors Diocletian and Maximian; Galerius and Constantius Chlorus become "Augusti"; Maximin and Severus made "Cæsars."

306. Constantius Chlorus succeeded as "Cæsar" by his son Constantine; beginning of civil war between Constantine and his rivals; defeat of the Salian Franks by Constantine.

312. Conversion of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity.

313. Constantine and Licinius share the Empire. Toleration Edict of Milan.

316. Birth of Saint Martin of Tours (d. 397).

318. Opening of the Arian controversy.

325. First general Council of the Church at Nicæa.

330. Removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to Byzantium (Constantinople).

337. Death of the Emperor Constantine; partition of the Empire.

340. Beginning of Civil War between the three sons of Constantine.

348. Defeat of the Romans by the Persians at Singara.

353. Constantius sole Emperor. Synod of Aries.

354. Birth of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo (d. 430).

355. Julian made Cæsar; his defense of Gaul.

361. Death of the Emperor Constantius and accession of Julian; revival of Paganism.

363. Expedition of Julian into Persia; his retreat and death; accession of Jovian; Christianity again ascendant.

364. Death of the Emperor Jovian; accession of Valentinian I. in the West and of Valens in the East.

365. Great earthquake in the Roman world.

367. First campaigns of Theodosius against the Picts and Scots.

368. Repulse of the Alemanni, from Gaul.

375. Death of Valentinian; accession of Gratian and Valentinian II. in the West.

376. The Visigoths, driven by the Huns, admitted to the Empire.

377. Rising of the Goths in Mœsia and indecisive battle of Ad Salices.

378. Death of the Emperor Valens in battle with the Goths at Adrianople. Invasion of Gaul by the Alemanni and their repulse by Gratian.

379. Theodosius named Emperor in the East by Gratian.

380. Trinitarian edict of Theodosius.

381. Second general council of the Church, at Constantinople.

382. Conclusion of peace with the Goths by the Emperor Theodosius; final settlement of the Goths in Mœsia and Thrace.

{3818}

388. Overthrow of the usurper, Maximus. Formal vote of the Senate establishing Christianity in the Roman Empire.

389. Destruction of the Serapeum at Alexandria.

390. Sedition at Thessalonica and massacre ordered by Theodosius.

392. Final suppression of Paganism in the Empire, by law. Murder of Valentinian II., Emperor in the West; usurpation of Eugenius.

394. Overthrow of the usurper Eugenius.

395. Death of the Emperor Theodosius; accession of his sons, Arcadius and Honorius; final division of the Empire. Invasion of Greece by Alaric; capture of Athens.

398. Suppression by Stilicho of Gildo's revolt in Africa.

400. Alaric's invasion of Italy.

Fifth Century.

402. Defeat of Alaric by Stilicho. Birth of Phocion [Uncertain date] (d. 317).

404. Removal of the capital of the Western Empire from Rome to Ravenna. [Uncertain date] Banishment of the Patriarch, John Chrysostom, from Constantinople; burning of the Church of St. Sophia.

406. Barbarian inroad of Radagaisus into Italy. Breaking of the Rhine barrier by German tribes; overwhelming invasion of Gaul by Vandals, Alans, Suevi, and Burgundians.

407. Usurpation of Constantine in Britain and Gaul.

408. Death of the Eastern Emperor, Arcadius, and accession of Theodosius II. Execution of Stilicho at Ravenna; massacre of barbarian hostages in Italy; blockade of Rome by Alaric.

409. Invasion of Spain by the Vandals, Suevi, and Alans.

410. Siege, capture and pillage of Rome by Alaric; his death. Abandonment of Britain by the Empire. The barbarian attack upon Gaul joined by the Franks.

412. Gaul entered by the Visigoths. Cyril made Patriarch of Alexandria.

414. Title of Augusta taken by Pulcheria at Constantinople.

415. Visigothic conquest of Spain begun. Persecution of Jews at Alexandria; death of Hypatia.

418. Founding of the Gothic kingdom of Toulouse in Aquitaine.

420. Death of Saint Jerome, in Palestine.

422. War between Persia and the Eastern Empire; partition of Armenia.

423. Death of Honorius, Emperor in the West; usurpation of John the Notary.

425. Accession of the Western Emperor, Valentinian III., under the regency of Placidia; formal and legal separation of the Eastern and Western Empires.

428. Conquests of the Vandals in Spain. Nestorius made Patriarch of Constantinople.

429. Vandal conquests in Africa begun.

430. Siege of Hippo Regius In Africa; death of Saint Augustine, bishop of Hippo.

431. Third general Council of the Church, held at Ephesus.

433. Beginning of the reign of Attila, king of the Huns. [Uncertain date]

435. Nestorius exiled to the Libyan desert.

439. Carthage taken by the Vandals.

440. Leo the Great elected Pope.

441. Invasion of the Eastern Empire by Attila and the Huns.

443. Conquest and settlement of Savoy by the Burgundians.

446. Thermopylæ passed by the Huns; humiliating purchase of peace with them by the Eastern Emperor.

449. Landing in Britain of the Jutes under Hengist and Horsa. [Uncertain date] Meeting of the so-called Robber Synod at Ephesus.

450. Death of the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II., and accession of Pulcheria.

451. Great defeat of the Huns at Chalons; retreat of Attila from Gaul. Fourth General Council of the Church, held at Chalcedon.

452. Invasion of Italy by Attila; origin of Venice.

453. Death of Attila; dissolution of his empire. Death of Pulcheria, Empress in the East.

455. Murder of Valentinian III., Emperor in the West; usurpation of Maximus. Rome pillaged by the Vandals. Birth of Theodoric the Great (d. 526).

456. Supremacy of Ricimer, commander of the barbarian mercenaries, in the Western Empire; Avitus deposed.

457. Marjorian, first of the imperial puppets of Ricimer, raised to the throne of the Western Empire. Accession of Leo I., Emperor in the East.

461. Marjorian deposed; Severus made Emperor in the West. Death of Pope Leo the Great and election of Pope Hilarius.

467. Anthemius made Emperor in the West.

472. Siege and storming of Rome by Ricimer; death of Anthemius, and of Ricimer; Olybrius and Glycerius successive emperors.

473. Ostrogothic invasion of Italy diverted to Gaul.

474. Julius Nepos Emperor in the West; accession of Zeno in the Eastern Empire.

475. Romulus Augustulus made Emperor in the West.

476. Romulus Augustulus dethroned by Odoacer; extinction for more than three centuries of the Western line of emperors.

477. Beginning of Saxon conquests in Britain.

480. Birth of Saint Benedict (d. 543).

481. Founding of the Frank kingdom by Clovis.

{3819}

483. Election of Pope Felix II.

486. Overthrow of the kingdom of Syagrius, the last Roman sovereignty in Gaul.

488. Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, commissioned by the Eastern Emperor to invade Italy.

489. Defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric at Verona.

491. Accession of Anastasius, Emperor in the East. Capture of Anderida by the South Saxons.

492. Election of Pope Gelasius I.

493. Surrender of Odoacer at Ravenna; his murder: Theodoric king of Italy.

494. Landing of Cerdic and his band of Saxons in Britain. [Uncertain date]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us