Chapter II (part 7 of 23)

Chapter II (part 7 of 23)

Naples had again slipped from the grasp of France, and this time it had passed to Spain. Louis XII. abandoned the tempting kingdom to his rival, and applied himself to the establishing of his sovereignty over Milan and its domain. Some territory formerly belonging to the Milaness had been ceded to Venice by the Sforzas. He himself had ceded another district or two to the republic in payment for services rendered. Ferdinand of Spain had made payments in the same kind of coin, from his Neapolitan realm, for Venetian help to secure it. {1053} The warlike Pope Julius II. saw Rimini and other towns formerly belonging to the States of the Church now counted among the possessions of the proud mistress of the Adriatic. All of these disputants in Italy resented the gains which Venice had gathered at their expense, and envied and feared her somewhat insolent prosperity. They accordingly suspended their quarrels with one another, to form a league for breaking her down and for despoiling her. The Emperor Maximilian, who had grievances of his own against the Venetians, joined the combination, and Florence was bribed to become a party to it by the betrayal of Pisa into her hands. Thus was formed the shameful League of Cambrai (1508). The French did most of the fighting in the war that ensued, though Pope Julius, who took the field in person, easily proved himself a better soldier than priest. The Venetians were driven for a time from the greater part of the dominion they had acquired on the mainland, and were sorely pressed. But they made terms with the Pope, and it then became his interest, not merely to stop the conquests of his allies, but to press them out of Italy, if possible. He began accordingly to intrigue against the French, and presently had a new league in operation, making war upon them. It was called a Holy League, because the head of the Church was its promoter, and it embraced the Emperor, King Ferdinand of Spain, King Henry VIII. of England, and the Republic of Venice. As the result of the ruthless and destructive war which they waged, Louis XII., before he died, in 1515, saw all that he had won in Lombardy stripped from him and restored to the Sforzas—the old family of the Dukes of Milan; Venice recovered most of her possessions, but never regained her former power, since the discovery of the ocean route to India, round the Cape of Good Hope, was now turning the rich trade of the East, the great source of her wealth, into the hands of the Portuguese; the temporal dominion of the Popes was enlarged by the recovery of Bologna and Perugia and by the addition of Parma and Piacenza; and Florence, which had been a republic since the death of Savonarola, was forced to submit anew to the Medici.

The Age of Infamous Popes.

The fighting Pope, Julius II., who made war and led armies, while professing to be the vicar of Him who brought the message of good-will and peace to mankind, was very far from being the worst of the popes of his age. He was only worldly, thinking much of his political place as a temporal sovereign in Italy, and little of his spiritual office as the head of the Church of Christ. As the sovereign of Rome and the Papal States, Julius II. ran a brilliant career, and is one of the splendid figures of the Italian renaissance. Patron of Michael Angelo and Raphael, projector of St. Peter's, there is a certain grandeur in his character to be admired, if we could forget the pretended apostolic robe which he smirched with perfidious politics and stained with blood.

But the immediate predecessors of Julius II., Sixtus IV. and Alexander VI., had had nothing in their characters to lure attention from the hideous examples of bestial wickedness which they set before the world. Alexander, especially, the infamous Borgia,—systematic murderer and robber, liar and libertine,—accomplished practitioner of every crime and every vice that was known to the worst society of a depraved generation, and shamelessly open in the foulest of his doings,—there is scarcely a pagan monster of antiquity that is not whitened by comparison with him. Yet he sat in the supposed seat of St. Peter for eleven years, to be venerated as the Vicar of Christ, the "Holy Father" of the Christian Church; his declarations and decrees in matters of faith to be accepted as infallible inspirations; his absolution to be craved as a passport to Heaven; his anathema to be dreaded as a condemnation to Hell!

This evil and malignant being died in 1503. poisoned by one of his own cups, which he had brewed for another. Julius II. reigned until 1513; and after him came the Medicean Pope, Leo X., son of Lorenzo the Magnificent,—princely and worldly as Julius, but in gentler fashion; loving ease, pleasure, luxury, art, and careless of all that belonged to religion beyond its ceremonies and its comfortable establishment of clerical estates. Is it strange that Christendom was prepared to give ear to Luther?

Luther and the Reformation.

When Luther raised his voice, he did but renew a protest which many pure and pious and courageous men before him had uttered, against evils in the Church and falsities and impostures in the Papacy. But some of them, like Arnold of Brescia, like Peter Waldo, and the Albigenses, had been too far in advance of their time, and their revolt was hopeless from the beginning. Wyclif's movement had been timed unfortunately in an age of great commotions, which swallowed it up. That of Huss had roused an ignorant peasantry, too uncivilized to represent a reformed Christianity, and had been ruined by the fierceness of their misguided zeal. The Reformation of Savonarola, at Florence, had been nobly begun, but not wisely led, and it had spent its influence at the end on aims less religious than political.

But there occurred a combination, when Luther arose, of character in himself, of circumstances in his country, and of temper in his generation, which made his protest more lastingly effective. He had high courage, without rashness. He had earnestness and ardor, without fanaticism. He had the plain good sense and sound judgment which win public confidence. His substantial learning put him on terms with the scholars of his day, and he was not so much refined by it as to lose touch with the common people. A certain coarseness in his nature was not offensive to the time in which he lived, but rather belonged among the elements of power in him. His spirituality was not fine, but it was strong. He was sincere, and men believed in him. He was open, straightforward, manly, commanding respect. His qualities showed themselves in his speech, which went straight to its mark, in the simplest words, moulding the forms and phrases of the German language with more lasting effect than the speech of any other man who ever used it. Not many have lived in any age or any country who possessed the gift of so persuasive a tongue, with so powerful a character to command the hearing for it.

{1054}

And the generation to which Luther spoke really waited for a bold voice to break into the secret of its thoughts concerning the Church. It had inherited a century of alienation from quarreling popes and greedy, corrupted priests and now there had been added in its feeling the deep abhorrence roused by such villains as the Borgia in the papal chair, and by their creatures and minions in the priesthood of the Church. If it is crediting too much to the common multitude of the time to suppose them greatly sickened by the vices and corruptions of their priests, we may be sure, at least, that they were wearied and angered by the exactions from them, which a vicious hierarchy continually increased. The extravagance of the Papacy kept pace with its degradation, and Christendom groaned under the burden of the taxes that were wrung from it in the name of the lowly Saviour of mankind.

Nowhere in Europe were the extortions of the Church felt more severely than in Germany, where the serfdom of the peasants was still real and hard, and where the depressing weight of the feudal system had scarcely been lifted from society at all. Feudalism had given way in that country less than in any other. Central authority remained as weak, and national solidification as far away, as ever. Of organic unity in the heterogeneous bundle of electoral principalities, duchies, margravates and free cities which made up the nominal realm of the King of the Romans, there was no more at the beginning of the sixteenth century than there had been in the twelfth. But that very brokenness and division in the political state of Germany proved to be one of the circumstances which favored the Protestant Reformation of the Church. Had monarchical authority established itself there as in France, then the Austro-Spanish family which wielded it, with the concentrated bigotry of their narrow-minded race, would have crushed the religious revolt as completely in Saxony as they did in Austria and Bohemia.

The Ninety-five Theses.

The main events of the Reformation in Germany are so commonly known that no more than the slightest sketching of them is needed here. Letters of indulgence, purporting to grant a remission of the temporal and purgatorial penalties of sin, had been sold by the Church for centuries; but none before Pope Leo X. had made merchandize of them in so peddlar-like and shameful a fashion as that which scandalized the intelligent piety of Europe in 1517. Luther, then a professor in the new University of Wittenberg, Saxony, could not hide his indignation, as most men did. He stood forth boldly and challenged the impious fraud, in a series of propositions or theses, which, after the manner of the time, he nailed to the door of Wittenberg Church. Just that bold action was needed to let loose the pent-up feeling of the German people. The ninety-five theses were printed and went broadcast through the land, to be read and to be listened to, and to stir every class with independent ideas. It was the first great appeal made to the public opinion of the world, after the invention of printing had put a trumpet to the mouths of eloquent men, and the effect was too amazing to be believed by the careless Pope and his courtiers.

Political Circumstances.

But more than possibly—probably, indeed—the popular feeling stirred up would never have accomplished the rupture with Rome and the religious independence to which North Germany attained in the end, if political motives had not coincided with religious feelings to bring certain princes and great nobles into sympathy with the Monk of Wittenberg. The Elector of Saxony, Luther's immediate sovereign, had long been in opposition to the Papacy on the subject of its enormous collections of money from his subjects, and he was well pleased to have the hawking of indulgences checked in his dominions. Partly for this reason, partly because of the pride and interest with which he cherished his new University, partly from personal liking and admiration of Luther, and partly, too, no doubt, in recognition of the need of Church reforms, he gave Luther a quiet protection and a concealed support. He was the strongest and most influential of the princes of the Empire, and his obvious favor to the movement advanced it powerfully and rapidly.

At first, there was no intention to break with the Papacy and the Papal Church,—certainly none in Luther's mind. His attitude towards both was conciliatory in every way, except as concerned the falsities and iniquities which he had protested against. It was not until the Pope, in June, 1520, launched against him the famous Bull, "Exurge Domine," which left no alternative between abject submission and open war, that Luther and his followers cast off the authority of the Roman Church and its head, and grounded their faith upon Holy Scripture alone. By formally burning the Bull, Luther accepted the papal challenge, and those who believed with him were ready for the contest.

The Diet of Worms.

In 1521, the reformer was summoned before a Diet of the Empire, at Worms, where a hearing was given him. The influence of the Church, and of the young Austro-Spanish Emperor, Charles V., who adhered to it, was still great enough to procure his condemnation; but they did not dare to deal with him as Huss had been dealt with. He was suffered to depart safely, pursued by an imperial edict which placed the ban of the Empire on all who should give him countenance or support. His friends among the nobles spirited him away and concealed him in a castle, the Wartburg, where he remained for several months, employed in making his translation of the Bible. Meantime, the Emperor had been called away from Germany by his multifarious affairs, in the Netherlands and Spain, and had little attention to give to Luther and the questions of religion for half-a-dozen years. He was represented in Germany by a Council of Regency, with the Elector of Saxony at the head of, it; and the movement of reformation, if not encouraged in his absence, was at least considerably protected. It soon showed threatening signs of wildness and fanaticism in many quarters; but Luther proved himself as powerful in leadership as he had been in agitation, and the religious passion of the time was controlled effectively, on the whole.

{1055}

Organization of the Lutheran Church.

Before the close of the year 1521, Pope Leo X. died, and his successor, Adrian, while insisting upon the enforcement of the Edict of Worms against Luther and his supporters, yet acknowledged the corruptions of the Church and promised a reformation of them. His promises came too late; his confessions only gave testimony to the independent reformers which their opponents could not impeach. There was no longer any thought of cleansing the Church of Rome, to abide in it. A separated—a restored Church—was clearly determined on, and Luther framed a system of faith and discipline which was adopted in Saxony, and then accepted very generally by the reformed Churches throughout Germany. In 1525, the Elector Frederick of Saxony died. He had quietly befriended the Lutherans and tolerated the reform, but never identified himself with them. His brother, John, who succeeded him, made public profession of his belief in the Lutheran doctrines, and authoritatively established the church system which Luther had introduced. The Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, the Margrave of Brandenburg, and the Dukes of Mecklenburg, Pomerania and Zell, followed his example; while the imperial cities of Frankfort, Nuremberg, Bremen, Strasburg, Brunswick, Nordhausen, and others, formally ranged themselves on the same side. By the year 1526, when a diet at Spires declared the freedom of each state in the Empire to deal with the religious reform according to its own will, the Reformation in Germany was a solidly organized fact. But those of the reform had not yet received their name, of "Protestants." That came to them three years later, when the Roman party had rallied its forces in a new diet at Spires, to undo the declaration of 1526, and the leaders of the Lutheran party recorded their solemn protest.

The Austro-Burgundian Marriage.

To understand the situation politically, during the period of struggle for and against the Reformation, it will be necessary to turn back a little, for the noting of important occurrences which have not been mentioned.

When Albert II., who was King of Hungary and Bohemia, as well as King of the Romans (Emperor-elect, as the title came to be, soon afterwards), died, in 1439, he was succeeded by his second cousin Frederick III., Duke of Styria, and from that time the Roman or imperial crown was held continuously in the Austrian family, becoming practically hereditary. But Frederick did not succeed to the duchy of Austria, and he failed of election to the throne in Hungary and Bohemia. Hence his position as Emperor was peculiarly weak and greatly impoverished, through want of revenue from any considerable possessions of his own. During his whole long reign, of nearly fifty-four years, Frederick was humiliated and hampered by his poverty; the imperial authority was brought very low, and Germany was in a greatly disordered state. There were frequent wars between its members, and between Austria and Bohemia, with rebellions in Vienna and elsewhere; while the Hungarians were left to contend with the aggressive Turks, almost unhelped.

But in 1477 a remarkable change in the circumstances and prospects of the family of the Emperor Frederick III. was made by the marriage of his son and heir, Maximilian, to Mary, the daughter and heiress of the wealthy and powerful Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold. The bridegroom was so poor that the bride is said to have loaned him the money which enabled him to make a fit appearance at the wedding. She had lost, as we saw, the duchy of Burgundy, but the valiant arm of Maximilian enabled her to hold the Burgundian county, Franche Comté, and the rich provinces of the Netherlands, which formed at that time, perhaps, the most valuable principality in Europe. The Duchess Mary lived only five years after her marriage; but she left a son, Philip, who inherited the Netherlands and Franche Comté, and Maximilian ruled them as his guardian.

In 1493, the Emperor Frederick died, and Maximilian, who had been elected King of the Romans some years before, succeeded him in the imperial office. He was never crowned at Rome, and he took the title, not used before, of King of Germany and Emperor-elect. He was Archduke of Austria, Duke of Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, and Count of Tyrol; and, with his guardianship in the Low Countries, he rose greatly in importance and power above his father. But he accomplished less than might possibly have been done by a ruler of more sureness of judgment and fixity in purpose. His plans were generally beyond his means, and the failures in his undertakings were numerous. He was eager to interfere with the doings of Charles VIII. and Louis XIII. in Italy; but the Germanic diet gave him so little support that he could do nothing effective. He joined the League of Cambrai against Venice, and the Holy League against France, but bore no important part in either. His reign was signalized in Germany by the division of the nation into six administrative "Circles," afterwards increased to ten, and by the creation of a supreme court of appeal, called the Imperial Chamber,—both of which measures did something towards the diminution of private wars and disorders.

The Austro-Spanish Marriage.—Charles V.

But Maximilian figures most conspicuously in history as the immediate ancestor of the two great sovereign dynasties—the Austrian and the Austro-Spanish—which sprang from his marriage with Mary of Burgundy and which dominated Europe for a century after his death. His son Philip, heir to the Burgundian sovereignty of the Netherlands, married (1496) Joanna, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Two children, Charles and Ferdinand, were the fruit of this marriage. Charles, the elder, inherited more crowns and coronets than were ever gathered, in reality, by one sovereign, before or since. Ferdinand and Isabella had united by their marriage the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, and, by the conquest of Granada and the partial conquest of Navarre, the entire peninsula, except Portugal, was subsequently added to their joint dominion. Joanna inherited the whole, on the death of Isabella, in 1504, and the death of Ferdinand, in 1516. She also inherited from her father, Ferdinand, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies—which he had reunited—and the island of Sardinia. Philip, on his side, already in possession of the Netherlands and Franche Comté, was heir to the domain of the House of Austria. Both of these great inheritances descended in due course to Charles, and he had not long to wait for them. His father, Philip, died in 1506, and his mother, Joanna, lost her mind, through grief at that event. The death of his Spanish grandfather, Ferdinand, occurred in 1516, and that of his Austrian grandfather, the Emperor Maximilian, followed three years later. {1056} At the age of twenty years (representing his mother in her incapacity) Charles found himself sovereign of Spain, and America, of Sicily, Naples, Sardinia, the Low Countries, Franche Comté, Austria, and the duchies associated with it. The same year (1519) he was chosen King of Germany and Emperor-elect, after a keen contest over the imperial crown, in which Francis I. of France and Henry VIII. of England were his competitors. On attaining this dignity, he conferred the Austrian possessions on his brother Ferdinand. But he remained the most potent and imposing monarch that Europe had seen since Charlemagne. He came upon the stage just as Luther had marshalled, in Germany, the reforming forces of the new era, against intolerable iniquities in the Papal Church. Unfortunately, he came, with his vast armament of powers, to resist the demands of his age, and to be the champion of old falsities and wrongs, both in Church and State. There was nothing in the nature of the man, nor in his education, nor in the influences which bore upon him, from either the Spanish or the Austrian side of his family, to put him in sympathy with lifting movements or with liberal ideas. He never formed a conception of the world in which it looked larger to his eyes, or signified more to him, than the globe upon his scepter. So, naturally enough, this Cæsar of the Renaissance (Charles V. in Germany and Charles I. in Spain) did his utmost, from the day he climbed the throne, to thrust Europe back into the murk of the fourteenth century, which he found it pretty nearly escaped from. He did not succeed; but he gave years of misery to several countries by his exertions, and he resigned the task to a successor whom the world is never likely to tire of abhorring and despising.

The end of popular freedom in Spain.

The affairs which called Charles V. away from Germany, after launching his ineffectual edict of Worms against Luther and Luther's supporters, grew in part out of disturbances in his kingdom of Spain. His election to the imperial office had not been pleasing to the Spaniards, who anticipated the complications they would be dragged into by it, the foreign character which their sovereign (already foreign in mind by his education in the Netherlands) would be confirmed in, and the indifference with which their grievances would be regarded. For their grievances against the monarchy had been growing serious in the last years of Ferdinand, and since his death. The crown had gained power in the process of political centralization, and its aggrandizement from the possession of America began to loom startlingly in the light of the conquest of Mexico, just achieved. During the absence of Charles in Germany, his former preceptor, Cardinal Adrian, of Utrecht, being in charge of the government as regent, a revolt broke out at Toledo which spread widely and became alarming. The insurgents organized their movement under the name of the Santa Junta, or Holy League, and having obtained possession of the demented Queen, Joanna, they assumed to act for her and with her authority. This rebellion was suppressed with difficulty; but the suppression was accomplished (1521-1522), and it proved to be the last struggle for popular freedom in Spain. The government used its victory with an unsparing determination to establish absolute powers, and it succeeded. The conditions needed for absolutism were already created, in fact, by the deadly blight which the Inquisition had been casting upon Spain for forty years. Since the beginning of the frightful work of Torquemada, in 1483, it had been diligently searching out and destroying every germ of free thought and manly character that gave the smallest sign of fruitfulness in the kingdom; and the crushing of the Santa Junta may be said to have left few in Spain who deserved a better fate than the political, the religious and the intellectual servitude under which the nation sank.

Persecution of the Spanish Moriscoes.

Charles, whose mind was dense in its bigotry, urged on the Inquisition, and pointed its dreadful engines of destruction against the unfortunate Moriscoes, or Moors, who had been forced to submit to Christian baptism after their subjugation. Many of these followers of Mahomet had afterwards taken up again the prayers and practices of their own faith, either secretly or in quiet ways, and their relapse appears to have been winked at, more or less. For they were a most useful people, far surpassing the Spaniards in industry, in thrift and knowledge of agriculture, and in mechanical skill. Many of the arts and manufactures of the kingdom were entirely in their hands. It was ruinous to interfere with their peaceful labors. But Charles, as heathenish as the Grand Turk when it suited his ends to be so, could look on these well-behaved and useful Moors with no eyes but the eyes of an orthodox piety, and could take account of nothing but their infidel faith. He began, therefore, in 1524, the heartless, senseless and suicidal persecution of the Moriscoes which exterminated them or drove them from the land, and which contributed signally to the making of Spain an exemplary pauper among the nations.

Despotism of Charles V. in the Netherlands.

In his provinces of the Low Countries, Charles found more than in Spain to provoke his despotic bigotry. The Flemings and the Dutch had been tasting of freedom too much for his liking, in recent years, and ideas, both political and religious, had been spreading among them, which were not the ideas of his august mind, and must therefore, of necessity, be false. They had already become infected with the rebellious anti-papal doctrines of Luther. Indeed, they had been even riper than Luther's countrymen for a religious revolution, when he sounded the signal note which echoed through all northern Europe. In Germany, the elected emperor could fulminate an edict against the audacious reformers, but he had small power to give force to it. In the Netherlands, he possessed a sovereignty more potent, and he took instant measures to exercise the utmost arbitrariness of which he could make it capable. The Duchess Margaret, his aunt, who had been governess of the provinces, was confirmed by him in that office, and he enlarged the powers in her commission. His commands practically superseded the regular courts, and subjected the whole administration of justice to his arbitrary will and that of his representative. At the same time they stripped the States of their legislative functions and reduced them to insignificance. {1057} Having thus trampled on the civil liberties of the provinces, he borrowed the infernal enginery of the Inquisition, and introduced it for the destruction of religious freedom. Its first victims were two Augustine monks, convicted of Lutheranism, who were burned at Brussels, in July, 1523. The first martyr in Holland was a priest who suffered impalement as well as burning, at the Hague, in 1525. From these beginnings the persecution grew crueler as the alienation of the stubborn Netherlanders from the Church of Rome widened; and Charles did not cease to fan its fires with successive proclamations or "placards," which denounced and forbade every reading of Scripture, every act of devotion, every conversation of religion, in public or private, which the priests of the Church did not conduct. "The number of Netherlanders who were burned, strangled, beheaded, or buried alive, in obedience to his edicts, … have been placed as high as 100,000 by distinguished authorities, and have never been put at a lower mark than 50,000."

Charles V. and Francis I. in Italy.

These exercises of an autocratic piety in Spain and the Low Countries may be counted, perhaps, among the pleasures of the young Emperor during the earlier years of his reign. His more serious affairs were connected mainly with his interests or ambitions in Italy, which seemed to be threatened by the King of France. The throne in that country was now occupied by Francis I., a cousin of Louis XII., who had succeeded the latter in 1515, and who had taken up anew the Italian projects in which Louis failed. In the first year of his reign, he crossed the Alps with an army, defeated the Swiss whom the Duke of Milan employed against him, and won the whole duchy by that single fight. This re-establishment of the French at Milan was regarded with exceeding jealousy by the Austrian interest, and by the Pope. Maximilian, shortly before his death, had made a futile effort to dislodge them, and Charles V., on coming to the throne, lost no time in organizing plans to the same end. He entered into an alliance with Pope Leo X., by a treaty which bears the same date as the Edict of Worms against Luther, and there can be little doubt that the two instruments were part of one understanding. Both parties courted the friendship of Henry VIII. of England, whose power and importance had risen to a high mark, and Henry's able minister, Cardinal Wolsey, figured notably in the diplomatic intrigues which went on during many years.

War began in 1521, and in three months the French were expelled from nearly every part of the Milanese territory. Pope Leo X. lived just long enough to receive the news. His successor was Adrian VI., former tutor of the Emperor, who made vain attempts to arrange a peace. Wolsey had brought Henry VIII. of England into the alliance against Francis, expecting to win the papal tiara through the Emperor's influence; but he was disappointed.

Francis made an effort in 1523 to recover Milan; but was crippled at the moment of sending his expedition across the Alps by the treason of the most powerful noble of France, the Constable, Charles, Duke of Bourbon. The Constable had been wronged and affronted by the King's mother, and by intriguers at court, and he revenged himself basely by going over to the enemies of his country. In the campaigns which followed (1523-1524), the French had ill-success, and lost their chivalrous and famous knight, Bayard, in one of the last skirmishes of their retreat. Another change now occurred in the occupancy of the papal throne, and Wolsey's ambitious schemes were foiled again. The new Pope was Giulio de'Medici, who took the name of Clement VII.

Once more the King of France, in October, 1524, led his forces personally into Italy and laid siege to Pavia. It was a ruinous undertaking. He was defeated overwhelmingly in a battle fought before Pavia (February 24, 1525) and taken prisoner. After a captivity in Spain of nearly a year, he regained his freedom disgracefully, by signing and solemnly swearing to a treaty which he never intended to observe. By this treaty he not only renounced all claims to Milan, Naples, Genoa, and other Italian territory, but he gave up the duchy of Burgundy. Released in good faith on these terms, in the early part of 1526, he perfidiously repudiated the treaty, and began fresh preparations for war. He found the Italians now as ready to oust the Spaniards from their peninsula with French help, as they had been ready before to expel the French with help from Spain. The papal interest was in great alarm at the power acquired by the Emperor, and Venice and Milan shared the feeling. A new "Holy Alliance" was accordingly formed, with the Pope at its head, and with Henry VIII. of England for its "Protector." But before this League took the field with its forces, Rome and Italy were stricken and trampled, as though by a fresh invasion of Goths.

Sack of Rome, by the army of the Constable.

The imperial army, quartered in the duchy of Milan, under the command of the Constable Bourbon, was scantily paid and fed. The soldiers were forced to plunder the city and country for their subsistence, and, of course, under those circumstances, there was little discipline among them. The region which they terrorized was soon exhausted, by their robberies and by the stoppage of industries and trade. It then became necessary for the Constable to lead them to new fields, and he moved southwards. His forces were made up in part of Spaniards and in part of Germans—the latter under a Lutheran commander, and enlisted for war with the Pope and for pillage in Italy. He directed the march to Rome, constrained, perhaps, by the demands of his soldiery, but expecting, likewise, to crush the League by seizing its apostolic head. On the 5th of May, 1527, his 40,000 brigands arrived before the city. At daybreak, the next morning, they assaulted the walls irresistibly and swarmed over them. Bourbon was killed in the assault, and his men were left uncontrolled masters of the venerable capital of the world. They held it for seven months, pillaging and destroying, committing every possible excess and every imaginable sacrilege. Rome is believed to have suffered at their hands more lasting defacement and loss of the splendors of its art than from the sacking of Vandals or Goths.

The Pope held out in Castle St. Angelo for a month and then surrendered. The hypocritical Charles V., when he learned what his imperially commissioned bandits had done, made haste to express horror and grief, but did not hasten to check or repair the outrage in the least. Pope Clement was not released from captivity until a great money-payment had been extorted from him, with the promise of a general council of the Church to reform abuses and to eradicate Lutheranism.

{1058}

Spanish Domination in Italy.

Europe was shocked by the barbarity of the capture of Rome, and the enemies leagued against Charles were stimulated to more vigorous exertions. Assisted with money from England, Francis sent another army into Italy, which took Genoa and Pavia and marched to Naples, blockading the city by sea and land. But the siege proved fatal to the French army. So many perished of disease that the survivors were left at the mercy of the enemy, and capitulated in September, 1528.

The great Genoese Admiral, Andrea Doria, had been offended, meantime, by King Francis, and had excited his fellow citizens to a revolution, which made Genoa, once more, an independent republic, with Doria at its head. Shortly before this occurred, Florence had expelled the Medici and reorganized her government upon the old republican basis. But the defeat of the French before Naples ended all hope of Italian liberty; since the Pope resigned himself after that event to the will of the Emperor, and the papal and imperial despotisms became united as one, to exterminate freedom from the peninsula. Florence was the first victim of the combination. The city was besieged and taken by the Emperor's troops, in compliance with the wishes of the Pope, and the Medici, his relatives, were restored. Francis continued war feebly until 1529, when a peace called the "Ladies Peace" was brought about, by negotiations between the French King's mother and the Emperor's aunt. This was practically the end of the long French wars in Italy.

Germany.

Such were the events which, in different quarters of the world, diverted the attention of the Emperor during several years from Luther and the Reformation in Germany. The religious movement in those years had been making a steady advance. Yet its enemies gained control of another Diet held at Spires in 1529 and reversed the ordinance of the Diet of 1526, by which each state had been left free to deal in its own manner with the edict of Worms. Against this action of the Diet, the Lutheran princes and the representatives of the Lutheran towns entered their solemn protest, and so acquired the name, "Protestants," which became in time the accepted and adopted name of all, in most parts of the world, who withdrew from the Roman communion.

The Peasants' War and the Anabaptists.

Before this time, the Reform had passed through serious trials, coming from excesses in the very spirit out of which itself had risen and to which it gave encouragement. The long suffering, much oppressed peasantry of Germany, who had found bishops as pitiless extortioners as lords, caught eagerly at a hope of relief from the overthrow of the ancient Church. Several times within the preceding half-century they had risen in formidable revolts, with a peasants' clog, or bundschuh for their banner. In 1525 fresh risings occurred in Swabia, Franconia, Alsace, Lorraine, Bavaria, Thuringia and elsewhere, and a great Peasants' War raged for months, with ferocity and brutality on both sides. The number who perished in the war is estimated at 100,000. The demands made by the peasants were for measures of the simplest justice—for the poorest rights and privileges in life. But their cause was taken up by half-crazed religious fanatics, who became in some parts their leaders, and such a character was given to it that reasonable reformers were justified, perhaps, in setting themselves sternly against it. The wildest prophet of the outbreak was one Thomas Münzer, a precursor of the frenzied sect of the Anabaptists. Münzer perished in the wreck of the peasants' revolt; but some of his disciples, who fled into Westphalia and the Netherlands, made converts so rapidly in the town of Münster that in 1535 they controlled the city, expelled every inhabitant who would not join their communion, elected and crowned a king, and exhibited a madness in their proceedings that is hardly equalled in history. The experience at Münster may reasonably be thought to have proved the soundness of Luther's judgment in refusing countenance to the cause of the oppressed peasants when they rebelled.

At all events, his opposition to them was hard and bitter. And it has been remarked that what may be called Luther's political position in Germany had become by this time quite changed. "Instead of the man of the people, Luther became the man of the princes; the mutual confidence between him and the masses, which had supported the first faltering steps of the movement, was broken; the democratic element was supplanted by the aristocratic; and the Reformation, which at first had promised to lead to a great national democracy, ended in establishing the territorial supremacy of the German princes. … The Reformation was gradually assuming a more secular character, and leading to great political combinations" (Dyer).

Progress of Lutheranism in Germany.

By the year 1530, the Emperor Charles was prepared to give more attention to affairs in Germany and to gratify his animosity towards the movement of Reformation. He had effectually beaten his rival, the King of France, had established his supremacy in Italy, had humbled the Pope, and was quite willing to be the zealous champion of a submissive Church. His brother Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria, had secured, against much opposition, both the Hungarian and the Bohemian crowns, and so firmly that neither was ever again wrested from his family, though they continued for some time to be nominally elective. The dominions of Ferdinand had suffered a great Turkish invasion, in 1529, under the Sultan Solyman, who penetrated even to Vienna and besieged the city, but without success, losing heavily in his retreat.

In May, 1530, Charles re-entered Germany from Italy. The following month he opened the sitting of the Diet, which had been convened at Augsburg. His first act at Augsburg was to summon the protesting princes, of Saxony, Hesse, Brandenburg, and other states, before him and to signify to them his imperial command that the toleration of Lutheranism in their dominions must cease. He expected the mandate to suffice; when he found it ineffectual, he required an abstract of the new religions doctrines to be laid before him. This was prepared by Melancthon, and, afterwards known as the Confession of Augsburg, became the Lutheran standard of faith. {1059} The Catholic theologians prepared a reply to it, and both were submitted to the Emperor. He made some attempt to bring about a compromise of the differences, but he demanded of the Protestants that they should submit themselves to the Pope, pending the final decisions of a proposed general Council of the Church. When this was refused, the Diet formally condemned their doctrines and required them to reunite themselves with the Catholic Church before the 15th of April following. The Emperor, in November, issued a decree accordingly, renewing the Edict of Worms and commanding its enforcement.

The Protestant princes, thus threatened, assembled in conference at Schmalkald at Christmas, 1530, and there organized their famous armed league. But fresh preparations for war by the Turk now compelled Charles to make terms with his Lutheran subjects. They refused to give any assistance to Austria or Hungary against the Sultan, while threatened by the Augsburg decree. The gravity of the danger forced a concession to them, and by the Peace of Nuremberg (1532) it was agreed that the Protestants should have freedom of worship until the next Diet should meet, or a General Council should be held. This peace was several times renewed, and there were ten years of quiet under it, in Germany, during which time the cause of Protestantism made rapid advances. By the year 1540, it had established an ascendancy in Würtemberg, among the states of the South, and in the imperial cities of Nuremberg, Augsburg, Ulm, Constance, and Strasburg. Its doctrines had been adopted by "the whole of central Germany, Thuringia, Saxony, Hesse, part of Brunswick, and the territory of the Guelphs; in the north by the bishoprics of Magdeburg, Halberstadt, and Naumburg … ; by East Friesland, the Hanse Towns, Holstein and Schleswig, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Anhalt, Silesia, the Saxon states, Brandenburg, and Prussia. Of the larger states that were closed against it there remained only Austria, Bavaria, the Palatinate and the Rhenish Electorates" (Hausser). In 1542, Duke Henry of Brunswick, the last of the North German princes who adhered to the Papal Church, was expelled from his duchy and Protestantism established. About the same time the Archbishop-Elector of Cologne announced his conviction of the truth of the Protestant doctrines.

The Schmalkaldic War.

Charles was still too much involved in foreign wars to venture upon a struggle with the Lutherans; but a few years more sufficed to free his hands. The Treaty of Crespy, in 1544, ended his last conflict with Francis I. In the same year, Pope Paul III. summoned the long promised General Council of the Church to meet at Trent the following spring—by which appointment a term was put to the toleration conceded in the Peace of Nuremberg. The Protestants, though greatly increased in numbers, were now less united than at the time of the formation of the Schmalkaldic League. There was much division among the leading princes. They yielded no longer to the influence of their wisest and ablest chief, Philip of Hesse. Luther, whose counsels had always been for peace, approached his end, and died in 1546. The circumstances were favorable to the Emperor, when he determined to put a stop to the Reformation by force. He secured an important ally in the very heart of Protestant Germany, winning over to his side the selfish schemer, Duke Maurice of Saxony—now the head of the Albertine branch of the Saxon house. In 1546 he felt prepared and war began. The successes were all on the imperial side. There was no energy, no unity, no forethoughtfulness of plan, among the Lutherans. The Elector, John Frederick, of Saxony, and Philip of Hesse, both fell into the Emperor's hands and were barbarously imprisoned. The former was compelled to resign his Electorate, and it was conferred upon the renegade Duke Maurice. Philip was kept in vile places of confinement and inhumanly treated for years. The Protestants of Germany were entirely beaten down, for the time being, and the Emperor imposed upon them in 1548 a confession of faith called "the Interim," the chief missionaries of which were the Spanish soldiers whom he had brought into the country. But if the Lutherans had suffered themselves to be overcome, they were not ready to be trodden upon in so despotic a manner. Even Maurice, now Elector of Saxony, recoiled from the tyranny which Charles sought to establish, while he resented the inhuman treatment of Philip of Hesse, who was his father-in-law. He headed a new league, therefore, which was formed against the Emperor, and which entered into a secret alliance with Henry II. of France (Francis I. having died in 1547). Charles was taken by surprise when the revolt broke out, in 1552, and barely escaped capture. The operations of Maurice were vigorous and ably conducted, and in a few weeks the Protestants had recovered all the ground lost in 1546-7; while the French had improved the opportunity to seize the three bishoprics of Metz, Toul and Verdun. The ultimate result was the so-called "Religious Peace of Augsburg," concluded in 1555, which gave religious freedom to the ruling princes of Germany, but none whatever to the people. It put the two religions on the same footing, but it was simply a footing of equal intolerance. Each ruler had the right to choose his own creed, and to impose it arbitrarily upon his subjects if he saw fit to do so. As a practical consequence, the final division of Germany between Protestantism and Catholicism was substantially determined by the princes and not by the people.

The humiliating failure of Charles V. to crush the Reformation in Germany was no doubt prominent among the experiences which sickened him of the imperial office and determined him to abdicate the throne, which he did in the autumn of 1556.

Reformation in Switzerland.

A generation had now passed since the Lutheran movement of Reformation was begun in Germany, and, within that time, not only had the wave of influence from Wittenberg swept over all western Europe, but other reformers had risen independently and contemporaneously, or nearly so, in other countries, and had co-operated powerfully in making the movement general. The earliest of these was the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, who began preaching against indulgences and other flagrant abuses in the Church, at Zurich, in 1519, the same year in which Luther opened his attack. The effect of his preaching was so great that Zurich, four years later, had practically separated itself from the Roman Church. {1060} From that beginning the Reformation spread so rapidly that in half-a-dozen years it had mastered most of the Cantons of Switzerland outside of the five Forest Cantons, where Catholicism held its ground with stubbornness. The two religions were then represented by two parties, which absorbed in themselves all the political as well as the religious questions of the day, and which speedily came to blows. The Catholics allied themselves with Ferdinand of Austria, and the Protestants with several of the imperial cities of Germany. But such an union between the Swiss and the German Protestants as seemed plainly desirable was prevented; mainly, by the dictatorial obstinacy of Luther. Zwingli's reforming ideas were broader, and at the same time more radical, than Luther's, and the latter opposed them with irreconcilable hostility. He still held with the Catholics to the doctrine of transubstantiation, which the Swiss reformer rejected. Hence Zwingli was no less a heretic in Luther's eyes than in the eyes of the pope, and the anathemas launched against him from Wittenberg were hardly less thunderous than those from Rome. So the two contemporaneous reformation movements, German and Swiss, were held apart from one another, and went on side by side, with little help or sympathy from one another. In 1531 the Forest Cantons attacked and defeated the men of Zurich, and Zwingli was slain in the battle. Peace was then concluded on terms which left each canton free to establish its own creed, and each congregation free to do the same in the common territories of the confederation.

Reformation in France.

In France, the freer ideas of Christianity—the ideas less servile to tradition and to Rome—that were in the upper air of European culture when the sixteenth century began, had found some expression even before Luther spoke. The influence of the new classical learning, and of the "humanists" who imbibed its spirit, tended to that liberation of the mind, and was felt in the greatest center of the learning of the time, the University of Paris. But not sufficiently to overcome the conservatism of the Sorbonne—the theological faculty of the University; for Luther's writings were solemnly condemned and burned by it in 1521, and a persecution of those inclined toward the new doctrines was early begun. Francis I., in whose careless and coarse nature there was some taste for letters and learning, as well as for art, and who patronized in an idle way the Renaissance movements of his reign, seemed disposed at the beginning to be friendly to the religious Reformers. But he was too shallow a creature, and too profoundly unprincipled and false, to stand firmly in any cause of righteousness, and face such a power as that of Rome. His nobler sister, Margaret of Angoulême, who embraced the reformed doctrines with conviction, exerted a strong influence upon the king in their favor while she was by his side; but after her marriage to Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre, and after Francis had suffered defeat and shame in his war with Charles V., he was ready to make himself the servant of the Papacy for whatever it willed against his Protestant subjects, in order to have its alliance and support. So the persecution grew steadily more fierce, more systematic, and more determined, as the spirit of the Reformation spread more widely through the kingdom.

Calvin at Geneva.

One of the consequences of the persecution was the flight from France, in 1534, of John Calvin, who subsequently became the founder and the exponent of a system of Protestant theology which obtained wider acceptance in Europe than that of Luther. All minor differences were practically merged in the great division between these two theologies—the Lutheran and the Calvinistic—which split the Reformation in twain. After two years of wandering, Calvin settled in the free city of Geneva, where his influence very soon rose to so extraordinary a height that he transformed the commonwealth and ruled it, unselfishly, and in perfect piety, but with iron-handed despotism, for a quarter of a century.

The French Court.

The reign of Francis I. has one other mark in history, besides that of his persecution of the Reformers, his careless patronage of arts and letters, and his unsuccessful wars with the Emperor. He gave to the French Court—at least more than his predecessors had done—the character which made it in later French history so evil and mischievous a center of dissoluteness, of base intrigue, of national demoralization. It was invested in his time with the fascinations which drew into it the nobles of France and its men of genius, to corrupt them and to destroy their independence. It was in his time that the Court began to seem to be, in its own eyes, a kind of self-centered society, containing all of the French nation which needed or deserved consideration, and holding its place in the order of things quite apart from the kingdom which it helped its royal master to rule. Not to be of the Court was to be non-existent in its view; and thus every ambition in France was invited to push at its fatal doors.

Catherine de' Medici and the Guises.

Francis I. died in 1547, and was followed on the throne by his son Henry II., whose marriage to Catherine de' Medici, of the renowned Florentine family, was the most important personal act of his life. It was important in the malign fruits which it bore; since Catherine, after his death, gave an evil Italian bend-sinister to French politics, which had no lack of crookedness before. Henry continued the war with Charles V., and was afterwards at war with Philip II., Charles' son, and with England, the latter country losing Calais in the contest,—its last French possession. Peace was made in 1559, and celebrated with splendid tournaments, at one of which the French king received a wound that caused his death.

He left three sons, all weaklings in body and character, who reigned successively. The elder, Francis II., died the year following his accession. Although aged but seventeen when he died, he had been married some two years to Mary Stuart, the young queen of Scots. This marriage had helped to raise to great power in the kingdom a family known as the Guises. They were a branch of the ducal House of Lorraine, whose duchy was at that time independent of France, and, although the father of the family, made Duke of Guise by Francis I., had become naturalized in France in 1505, his sons were looked upon as foreigners by the jealous Frenchmen whom they supplanted at Court. {1061} Of the six sons, there were two of eminence, one (the second duke of Guise) a famous general in his day, the other a powerful cardinal. Five sisters completed the family in its second generation. The elder of these, Mary, had married James V. of Scotland (whose mother was the English princess, Margaret, sister of Henry VIII.), and Mary Stuart, queen of Scots, born of that marriage, was therefore a niece of the Guises. They had brought about her marriage to Francis II., while he was dauphin, and they mounted with her to supreme influence in the kingdom when she ascended the throne with her husband. The queen-mother, Catherine de' Medici, was as eager as the Guises to control the government, in what appeared to her eyes the interest of her children; but during the short reign of Francis II. she was quite thrust aside, and the queen's uncles ruled the state.

The death of Francis II. (1560) brought a change, and with the accession of Charles IX., a boy of ten years, there began a bitter contest for ascendancy between Catherine and the Guises; and this struggle became mixed and strangely complicated with a deadly conflict of religions, which the steady advance of the Reformation in France had brought at this time to a crisis.

The Huguenots.

Under the powerful leadership which Calvin assumed, at Geneva, the reformed religion in France had acquired an organized firmness and strength which not only resisted the most cruel persecution, but made rapid headway against it. "Protestantism had become a party which did not, like Lutheranism in Germany, spring up from the depths." "It numbered its chief adherents among the middle and upper grades of society, spread its roots rather among the nobles than the citizens, and among learned men and families of distinction rather than among the people." "Some of the highest aristocracy, who were discontented, and submitted unwillingly to the supremacy of the Guises, had joined the Calvinistic opposition—some undoubtedly from policy, others from conviction. The Turennes, the Rohans, and Soubises, pure nobles, who addressed the king as 'mon cousin,' especially the Bourbons, the agnates of the royal house, had adopted the new faith" (Hausser). One branch of the Bourbons had lately acquired the crown of Navarre. The Spanish part of the old Navarrese kingdom had been subjugated and absorbed by Ferdinand of Aragon; but its territory on the French side of the Pyrenees—Béarn and other counties—still maintained a half independent national existence, with the dignity of a regal government. When Margaret of Angoulême, sister of Francis I., married Henry d'Albret, King of Navarre, as mentioned before, she carried to that small court an earnest inclination towards the doctrines of the Reform. Under her protection Navarre became largely Protestant, and a place of refuge for the persecuted of France. Margaret's daughter, the famous Jeanne d'Albret, espoused the reformed faith fully, and her husband, Antoine de Bourbon, as well as Antoine's brother, Louis de Condé, found it politic to profess the same belief. For the Protestants (who were now acquiring, in some unknown way, the name of Huguenots) had become so numerous and so compactly organized as to form a party capable of being wielded with great effect, in the strife of court factions which the rivalry of Catherine and the Guises produced. Hence politics and religion were inextricably confused in the civil wars which broke out shortly after the death of Francis II. (1560), and the accession of the boy king, Charles IX. These wars belong to a different movement in the general current of European events, and we will return to them after a glance at the religious Reformation, and at the political circumstances connected with it, in England and elsewhere.

England.

Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, made king of England by his victory at Bosworth, established himself so firmly in the seat of power that three successive rebellions failed to disturb him. In one of these (1487) a pretender, Lambert Simnel, was put forward, who claimed to be the Earl of Warwick. In another (1491-1497) a second pretender, Perkin Warbeck, personated one of the young princes whom Richard III. had caused to be murdered in the tower. Neither of the impostures had much success in the kingdom. Henry VII. was not a popular king, but he was able and strong, and he solidified all the bases of monarchical independence which circumstances had enabled Edward IV. to begin laying down.

It was in the reign of Henry that America was discovered, and he might have been the patron of Columbus, the beneficiary of the great voyage, and the proprietor and lord of the grand realm which Isabella and Ferdinand secured. But he lacked the funds or the faith—apparently both—and put aside his unequaled opportunity. When the field of westward exploration had been opened, however, he was early in entering it, and sent the Cabots upon those voyages which gave England her claim to the North American coasts.

During the reign of Henry VII. there were two quiet marriages in his family which strangely influenced subsequent history. One was the marriage, in 1501, of the king's eldest son, Arthur, to Catherine of Aragon, youngest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella. The other, in 1503, united the king's daughter, Margaret, to James IV., King of Scotland. It was through this latter marriage that the inheritance of the English crown passed to the Scottish House of Stuart, exactly one hundred years later, upon the failure of the direct line of descent in the Tudor family. The first marriage, of Prince Arthur to Catherine of Aragon, was soon dissolved by the death of the prince, in 1502. Seven years afterwards the widowed Catherine married her late husband's brother, just after he became Henry VIII., King of England, upon the death of his father, in 1509. Whence followed notable consequences which will presently appear.

{1062}

Henry VIII. and his breach with Rome.

It was the ambition of Henry VIII. to play a conspicuous part in European affairs; and as England was rich and strong, and as the king had obtained nearly the absoluteness of the crown in France, the parties to the great contests then going on were all eagerly courting his alliance. His ambitions ran parallel, too, with those of the able minister, Thomas Wolsey, who rose to high influence at his side soon after his reign began. Wolsey aspired to the Papal crown, with the cardinal's cap as a preparatory adornment, and he drew England, as we have seen, into the stormy politics of the sixteenth century in Europe, with no gain, of glory or otherwise, to the nation, and not much result of any kind. When the Emperor Maximilian died, in 1519, Henry entered the lists against Maximilian's grandson, Charles of Spain, and Francis I. of France, as a candidate for the imperial crown. In the subsequent wars which broke out between his two rivals, he took the side of the successful Charles, now Emperor, and helped him to climb to supremacy in Europe over the prostrate French king. He had dreams of conquering France again, and casting the glories of Henry V. in the shade; but he carried his enterprise little beyond the dreaming. When it was too late to check the growth of Charles' overshadowing power, he changed his side and took Francis into alliance.

But Henry's motives were always selfish and personal—never political; and the personal motives had now taken on a most despicable character. He had tired of his wife, the Spanish Catherine, who was six years older than himself. He had two pretexts for discontent with his marriage: 1, that his queen had borne him only a daughter, whereas England needed a male heir to the throne; 2, that he was troubled with scruples as to the lawfulness of wedlock with his brother's widow. On this latter ground he began intrigues to win from the Pope, not a divorce in the ordinary sense of the term, but a declaration of the nullity of his marriage. This challenged the opposition of the Emperor, Catherine's nephew, and Henry's alliances were naturally changed.

The Pope, Clement VII., refused to annul the marriage, and Henry turned his unreasoning wrath upon Cardinal Wolsey, who had conducted negotiations with the Pope and failed in them. Wolsey was driven from the Court in disgrace and died soon afterwards. He was succeeded in the king's favor by a more unscrupulous man, Thomas Cromwell. Henry had not yet despaired of bringing the Pope to compliance with his wishes; and he began attacks upon the Church and upon the papal revenues which might shake, as he hoped, the firmness of the powers at Rome. With the help of a pliant minister and a subservient Parliament, he forced the clergy (1531-1532) in Convocation to acknowledge him to be the Supreme Head of the English Church, and to submit themselves entirely to his authority. At the same time he grasped the "annates," or first year's income of bishoprics, which had been the richest perquisite of the papal treasury. In all these proceedings, the English king was acting on a line parallel to that of the continental rising against Rome; but it was not in friendliness toward it nor in sympathy with it that he did so. He had been among the bitterest enemies of the Reformation, and he never ceased to be so. He had won from the Pope the empty title of "Defender of the Faith," by a foolish book against Luther, and the faith which he defended in 1521 was the faith in which he died. But when he found that the influence of Charles V. at Rome was too great to be overcome, and that the Pope could be neither bribed, persuaded nor coerced to sanction the putting away of his wife, he resolved to make the English Church sufficient in authority to satisfy his demand, by establishing its ecclesiastical independence, with a pontiff of its own, in himself. He purposed nothing more than this. He contemplated no change of doctrine, no cleansing of abuses. He permitted no one whose services he commanded in the undertaking to bring such changes into contemplation. So far as concerned Henry's initiative, there was absolutely nothing of religious Reformation in the movement which separated the Church of England from the Church of Rome. It accomplished its sole original end when it gave finality to the decree of an English ecclesiastical court, on the question of the king's marriage, and barred queen Catherine's appeal from it. It was the intention of Henry VIII. that the Church under his papacy should remain precisely what it had been under the Pope at Rome, and he spared neither stake nor gibbet in his persecuting zeal against impudent reformers.

But the spirit of Reformation which was in the atmosphere of that time lent itself, nevertheless, to King Henry's project, and made that practicable which could hardly have been so a generation before. The influence of Wyclif had never wholly died out; the new learning was making its way in England and broadening men's minds; the voice of Luther and his fellow workers on the continent had been heard, and not vainly. England was ripe for the religious revolution, and her king promoted it, without intention. But while his reign lasted, and his despotism was heavy on the land, there was nothing accomplished but the breaking of the old Church fetters, and the binding of the nation anew with green withes, which, presently, it would burst asunder.

The conspicuous events of Henry's reign are familiarly known. Most of them bear the stamp of his monstrous egotism and selfishness. He was the incomparable tyrant of English history. The monarch who repudiated two wives, sent two to the block, and shared his bed with yet two more; who made a whole national church the servant of his lusts, and who took the lives of the purest men of his kingdom when they would not bend their consciences to say that he did well—has a pedestal quite his own in the gallery of infamous kings.

Edward VI. and the Reformation.

Dying in 1547, Henry left three children: Mary, daughter of Catherine of Aragon, Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, and Edward, son of Jane Seymour. The latter, in his tenth year, became King (Edward VI.), and his uncle, the Duke of Somerset, acquired the control of the government, with the title of Protector. Somerset headed a party which had begun before the death of the king to press for more changes in the character of the new Church of England and less adherence to the pattern of Rome. There seems to be little reason to suppose that the court leaders of this party were much moved in the matter by any interest of a religious kind; but the growth of thinking and feeling in England tended that way, and the side of Reformation had become the stronger. They simply gave way to it, and, abandoned the repression which Henry had persisted in. At the same time, their new policy gave them more freedom to grasp the spoils of the old Church, which Henry VIII. had begun to lay hands on, by suppression of monasteries and confiscation of their estates. The wealth thus sequestered went largely into private hands.

{1063}

It was in the short reign of Edward VI. that the Church of England really took on its organic form as one of the Churches of the Reformation, by the composition of its first prayer-books, and by the framing of a definite creed.

Lady Jane Grey.

In 1553, the young king died. Somerset had fallen from power the previous year and had suffered death. He had been supplanted by Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Duke of Northumberland, and that minister had persuaded Edward to bequeath his crown to Lady Jane Grey, grand-daughter of the younger sister of Henry VIII. But Northumberland was hated by the people, and few could recognize the right of a boy on the throne to change the order of regal succession by his will. Parliament had formally legitimated both Catherine's daughter, Mary, and Anne Boleyn's daughter, Elizabeth, and had placed them in the line of inheritance. Mary's legal title to the crown was clear. She had adhered with her mother to the Roman Church, and her advent upon the throne would mean the subjection of the English Church to the Papacy anew; since the constitution of the Church armed the sovereign with supreme and indisputable power over it. The Protestants of the kingdom knew what to expect, and were in great fear; but they submitted. Lady Jane Grey was recommended to them by her Protestant belief, and by her beautiful character; but her title was too defective and her supporters too much distrusted. There were few to stand by the poor young girl when Northumberland proclaimed her queen, and she was easily dethroned by the partisans of Mary. A year later she was sent to the block.

Catholicism was now ascendant again, and England was brought to share in the great reaction against the Reformation which prevailed generally through Europe and which we shall presently consider. Before doing so, let us glance briefly at the religious state of some other countries not yet touched upon.

The Reformation in Scotland.

In Scotland, a deep undercurrent of feeling against the corruptions of the Church had been repressed by resolute persecutions, until after the middle of the sixteenth century. Wars with England, and the close connection of the Scottish Court with the Guises of France, had both tended to retard the progress of a reform sentiment, or to delay the manifestation of it. But when the pent-up feeling began to respond to the voice of the great Calvinistic evangelist and organizer, John Knox, it swept the nation like a storm. Knox's first preaching, after his captivity in France and exile to Geneva, was in 1555. In 1560, the authority of the Pope was renounced, the mass prohibited, and the Geneva confession of faith adopted, by the Scottish Estates. After that time the Reformed Church in Scotland—the Church of Presbyterianism—had only to resist the futile hostility of Mary Stuart for a few years, until it came to its great struggle against English Episcopacy, under Mary's son and grandson, James and Charles.

The Reformation in the North.

In the three Scandinavian nations the ideas of the Reformation, diffused from Germany, had won early favor, both from kings and people, and had soon secured an enduring foothold. They owed their reception quite as much, perhaps, to the political situation as to the religious feeling of the northern peoples.

When the ferment of the Reformation movement began, the three crowns were worn by one king, as they had been since the "Union of Calmar," in 1397, and the King of Denmark was the sovereign of the Union. His actual power in Sweden and Norway was slight; his theoretical authority was sufficient to irritate both. In Sweden, especially, the nobles chafed under the yoke of the profitless federation. Christian II., the last Danish king of the three kingdoms, crushed their disaffection by a harsh conquest of the country (1520), and by savage executions, so perfidious and so numerous that they are known in Swedish history as the Massacre of Stockholm. But this brutal and faithless king became so hateful in his own proper kingdom that the Danish nobles rose against him in 1523 and he was driven from the land. The crown was given to his uncle, Frederick, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. In that German Duchy, Lutheranism had already made its way, and Frederick was in accord with it. On coming to the throne of Denmark, where Catholicism still prevailed, he pledged himself to attempt no interference with it; but he felt no obligation, on the other hand, to protect it. He demanded and established a toleration for both doctrines, and gave to the reformers a freedom of opportunity which speedily undermined the old faith and overthrew it.

In the meantime, Sweden had undergone the important revolution of her history, which placed the national hero, Gustavus Vasa, on the throne. Gustavus was a young noble whose title to the crown was not derived from his lineage, but from his genius. After Christian II. had bloodily exterminated the elder leaders of the Swedish state, this young lord, then a hostage and prisoner in the tyrant's hands, made his escape and took upon himself the mission of setting his country free. For three years Gustavus lived a life like that of Alfred the Great in England, when he, too, struggled with the Danes. His heroic adventures were crowned with success, and Sweden, led to independence by its natural king, bestowed the regal title upon him (1523) and seated him upon its ancient throne. The new Danish king, Frederick, acknowledged the revolution, and the Union of Calmar was dissolved. Sweden under Gustavus Vasa recovered from the state of great disorder into which it had fallen, and grew to be a nation of important strength. As a measure of policy, he encouraged the introduction of Lutheranism and promoted the spread of it, in order to break the power of the Catholic clergy, and also, in order, without doubt, to obtain possession of the property of the Church, which secured to the Crown the substantial revenues it required.

{1064}

Italy.

In Italy, the reformed doctrines obtained no popular footing at any time, though many among the cultivated people regarded them with favor, and would gladly have witnessed, not only a practical purging of the Church, but a revision of those Catholic dogmas most offensive to a rational mind. But such little movement as stirred in that direction was soon stopped by the success of the Emperor, Charles V., in his Italian wars with Francis I., and by the Spanish domination in the peninsula which ensued thereon. The Spain of that age was like the bloodless octopus which paralyzes the victim in its clutch, and Italy, gripped in half of its many principalities by the deadly tentacles thrust out from Madrid, showed no consciousness for the next two centuries.

The Council of Trent.

The long demanded, long promised General Council, for considering the alleged abuses in the Church and the alleged falsities in its doctrine, and generally for discussion and action upon the questions raised by the Reformation, assembled at Trent in December, 1545. The Emperor seems to have desired with sincerity that the Council might be one which the Protestants would have confidence in, and in which they might be represented, for a full discussion of their differences with Rome. But this was made impossible from the beginning. The Protestants demanded that "final appeal on all debated points should be made to the sole authority of Holy Scripture," and this being refused by the Pope (Paul III.), there remained no ground on which the two parties could meet. The Italian prelates who composed the majority of the Council made haste, it would seem, to take action which closed the doors of conciliation against the Reformers. "First, they declared that divine revelation was continuous in the Church of which the Pope was the head; and that the chief written depository of this revelation—namely, the Scriptures—had no authority except in the version of the Vulgate. Secondly, they condemned the doctrine of justification by Faith. … Thirdly, they confirmed the efficacy and the binding authority of the Seven Sacraments." "The Council terminated in December [1563] with an act of submission, which placed all its decrees at the pleasure of the Papal sanction. Pius [Pius IV. became Pope in 1560] was wise enough to pass and ratify the decrees of the Tridentine fathers by a Bull dated on December 26, 1563, reserving to the Papal sovereign the sole right of interpreting them in doubtful or disputed cases. This he could well afford to do; for not an article had been penned without his concurrence, and not a stipulation had been made without a previous understanding with the Catholic powers. The very terms, moreover, by which his ratification was conveyed, secured his supremacy, and conferred upon his successors and himself the privileges of a court of ultimate appeal. At no previous period in the history of the Church had so wide, so undefined, and so unlimited an authority been accorded to the See of Rome" (Symonds).

Some practical reforms in the Church were wrought by the Council of Trent, but its disciplinary decrees were less important than the dogmatic. From beginning to end of its sessions, which, broken by many suspensions and adjournments, dragged through eighteen years, it addressed itself to the task of solidifying the Church of Rome, as left by the Protestant schism,—not of healing the schism itself or of removing the provocations to it. The work which the Council did in that direction was of vast importance, and profoundly affected the future of the Papacy and of its spiritual realm. It gave a firm dogmatic footing to the great reactionary new forces which now came into play, with aggressive enthusiasm and zeal, to arrest the advance of the Reformation and roll it back.

The Catholic reaction.

The extraordinary revival of Catholicism and thrusting back of Protestantism which occurred in the later half of the sixteenth century had several causes behind it and within it.

1. The spiritual impulse from which the Reformation started had considerably spent itself, or had become debased by a gross admixture of political and mercenary aims. In Germany, the spoils derived from the suppressing of monastic establishments and the secularizing of ecclesiastical fiefs and estates, appeared very early among the potent inducements by which mercenary princes were drawn to the side of the Lutheran reform. Later, as the opposing leagues, Protestant and Catholic, settled into chronic opposition and hostility, the struggle between them took on more and more the character of a great political game, and lost more and more the spirit of a battle for free conscience and a free mind. In France, as we have noticed, the political entanglements of the Huguenot party were such, by this time, that it could not fail to be lowered by them in its religious tone. In England, every breath of spirituality in the movement had so far (to the death of Henry VIII.) been stifled, and it showed nothing but a brazen political front to the world. In the Netherlands, the struggle for religious freedom was about to merge itself in a fight of forty years for self-government, and the fortitude and valor of the citizen were more surely developed in that long war than the faith and fervor of the Christian. And so, generally throughout Europe, Protestantism, in its conflict with the powers of the ancient Church, had descended, ere the sixteenth century ran far into its second half, to a distinctly lower plane than it occupied at first. On that lower plane Rome fronted it more formidably, with stronger arms, than on the higher.

2. Broadly stating the fact, it may be said that Protestantism made all its great inroads upon the Church of Rome before partisanship came to the rescue of the latter, and closed the open mind with which Luther, and Zwingli, and Farel, and Calvin were listened to at first. It happens always, when new ideas, combative of old ones, whether religious or political, are first put forward in the world, they are listened to for a time with a certain disinterestedness of attention—a certain native candor in the mind—which gives them a fair hearing. If they seem reasonable, they obtain ready acceptance, and spread rapidly,—until the conservatism of the beliefs assailed takes serious alarm, and the radicalism of the innovating beliefs becomes ambitious and rampant; until the for and the against stiffen themselves in opposing ranks, and the voice of argument is drowned by the cries of party. That ends all shifting of masses from the old to the new ground. That ends conversion as an epidemic and dwindles it to the sporadic character.

3. Protestantism became bitterly divided within itself at an early stage of its career by doctrinal differences, first between Zwinglians and Lutherans, and then between Lutherans and Calvinists, while Catholicism, under attack, settled into more unity and solidity than before.

{1065}

4. The tremendous power in Europe to which the Spanish monarchy, with its subject dominions, and its dynastic relations, had now risen, passed, in 1556, to a dull-brained and soulless bigot, who saw but one use for it, namely, the extinction of all dissent from his own beliefs, and all opposition to his own will. Philip II. differed from his father, Charles V., not in the enormity of his bigoted egotism—they were equals, perhaps, in that—but in the exclusiveness of it. There was something else in Charles, something sometimes faintly admirable. He did have some interests in life that were not purely malignant. But his horrid vampire of a son, the most repulsive creature of his kind in all history, had nothing in him that was not as deadly to mankind as the venom secreted behind the fang of a cobra. It was a frightful day for the world when a despotism which shadowed Spain, Sicily, Italy and the Low Countries, and which had begun to drag unbounded treasure from America, fell to the possession of such a being as this. Nothing substantial was taken away from the potent malevolence of Philip by his failure of election in Germany to the Imperial throne. On the contrary, he was the stronger for it, because all his dominion was real and all his authority might assume to be absolute. His father had been more handicapped than helped by his German responsibilities and embarrassments, which Philip escaped. It is not strange that his concentration of the vast enginery under his hands to one limited aim, of exterminating what his dull and ignorant mind conceived to be irreligion and treason, had its large measure of success. The stranger thing is, that there was fortitude and courage to resist such power, in even one corner of his realm.

5. The Papacy was restored at this time to the purer and higher character of its best ages, by well-guided elections, which raised in succession to the throne a number of men, very different in ability, and quite different, too, in the spirit of their piety, but generally alike in dignity and decency of life, and in qualities which command respect. The fiery Neapolitan zealot, Caraffa, who became Pope in 1555 as Paul IV.; his cool-tempered diplomatic successor, Pius IV., who manipulated the closing labors of the Council of Trent; the austere inquisitor, Pius V.; the more commonplace Gregory XIII., and the powerful Sixtus V., were pontiffs who gave new strength to Catholicism, in their different ways, both by what they did and by what they were.

6. The revival of zeal in the Roman Church, naturally following the attacks upon it, gave rise to many new religious organizations within its elastic fold, some reformatory, some missionary and militant, but all bringing an effectual reinforcement to it, at the time when its assailants began to show faltering signs. Among these was one—Loyola's Society of Jesus—which marched promptly to the front of the battle, and which contributed more than any other single force in the field to the rallying of the Church, to the stopping of retreat, and to the facing of its stubborn columns forward for a fresh advance. The Jesuits took such a lead and accomplished such results by virtue of the military precision of discipline under which they had been placed and to which they were singularly trained by the rules of the founder; and also by effect of a certain subtle sophistry that runs through their ethical maxims and their counsels of piety. They fought for their faith with a sublime courage, with a devotion almost unparalleled, with an earnestness of belief that cannot be questioned; but they used weapons and modes of warfare which the higher moral feeling of civilized mankind, whether Christian or Pagan, has always condemned. It is not Protestant enemies alone who say this. It is the accusation that has been brought against them again and again in their own Church, and which has expelled them from Catholic countries, again and again. In the first century or more of their career, this plastic conscience, moulded by a passionate zeal, and surrendered, with every gift of mind and body, to a service of obedience which tolerated no evasion on one side nor bending on the other, made the Jesuits the most invincible and dangerous body of men that was ever organized for defense and aggression in any cause.

The order was founded in 1540, by a bull of Pope Paul III. At the time of Loyola's death, in 1556, it numbered about one thousand members, and under Lainez, the second general of the order, who succeeded Loyola at the head, it advanced rapidly, in numbers, in efficiency of organization, and in wide-spread influence.

Briefly stated, these are the incidents and circumstances which help to explain—not fully, perhaps, but almost sufficiently—the check to Protestantism and the restored energy and aggressiveness of the Catholic Church, in the later half of the sixteenth century.

The Ruin of Spain.

In his kingdoms of Spain, Philip II. may be said to have finished the work of death which his father and his father's grand-parents committed to him. They began it, and appointed the lines on which it was to be done. The Spain of their day had the fairest opportunity of any nation in Europe for a great and noble career. The golden gates of her opportunity were unlocked and opened by good Queen Isabella; but the pure hands of the same pious queen threw over the neck of her country the noose of a strangler, and tightened it prayerfully. Her grandson, who was neither pious nor good, flung his vast weight of power upon it. But the strangling halter of the Spanish Inquisition did not extinguish signs of life in his kingdom fast enough to satisfy his royal impatience, and he tightened other cords upon the suffering body and all its limbs. Philip, when he came to take up the murderous task, found every equipment for it that he could desire. He had only to gather the strands of the infernal mesh into his hands, and bring the strain of his awful sovereignty to bear upon them: then sit and watch the palsy of death creep over his dominions.

Of political life, Charles really left nothing for his son to kill. Of positive religious life, there can have been no important survival, for he and his Inquisition had been keenly vigilant; but Philip made much of the little he could discover. As to the industrial life of Spain, father and son were alike active in the murdering of it, and alike ingenious. They paralyzed manufactures, in the first instance, by persecuting and expelling the thrifty and skilful Moriscoes; then they made their work complete by heavy duties on raw materials. To extinguish the agricultural industries of the kingdom, they had happy inspirations. {1066} They prohibited the exportation of one commodity after another—corn, cattle, wool, cloth, leather, and the like—until they had brought Spain practically to the point of being dependent on other countries for many products of skill, and yet of having nothing to offer in exchange, except the treasure of precious metals which she drew from America. Hence it happened that the silver and gold of the Peruvian and Mexican mines ran like quicksand through her fingers, into the coffers of the merchants of the Low Countries and of England; and, probably, no other country in Europe saw so little of them, had so little of benefit from them, as the country they were supposed to enrich.

If the killing of Spain needed to be made complete by anything more, Philip supplied the need, in the deadliness of his taxation. Spending vast sums in his attempt to repeat upon the Netherlands the work of national murder he had accomplished in Spain; losing, by the same act, the rich revenues of the thrifty provinces; launching into new expenditures as he pursued, by clumsy warfare, his mission of death into fresh fields, aiming now at the life of France, and now at the life of England,—he squeezed the cost of his armies and armadas from a country in which he had strangled production already, and made poverty the common estate. It was the last draining of the life-blood of a nation which ought to have been strong and great, but which suffered murder most foul and unnatural.

We hardly exaggerate even in figure when we say that Spain was a dead nation whim Philip quitted the scene of his arduous labors. It is true that his successors still found something for their hands to do, in the ways that were pleasant to their race, and burned and bled and crushed the unhappy kingdom with indefatigable persistency; but it was really the corpse of a nation which they practised on. The life of Spain, as a breathing, sentient state, came to an end under the hands of Philip II., first of the Thugs.

Philip II. and the Netherlands.

The hand of Charles V. had been heavy on the Netherlands; but resistance to such a power as that of Spain in his day was hardly dreamed of. It was not easy for Philip to outdo his father's despotism; less easy to drive the laborious Hollanders and Flemings to desperation and force them into rebellious war. But he accomplished it. He filled the country with Spanish troops. He reorganized and stimulated the Inquisition. He multiplied bishoprics in the Provinces, against the wish of even the Catholic population. He scorned the counsels of the great nobles, and gave foreign advisers to the Regent, his half-sister, Margaret of Parma, illegitimate daughter of Charles V., whom he placed at the head of the government. His oppressions were endured, with increasing signs of hidden passion, for ten years. Then, in 1566, the first movement of patriotic combination appeared. It was a league among certain of the nobles; its objects were peaceful, its plans were legal; but it was not countenanced by the wiser of the patriots, who saw that events were not ripe. The members of the league went in solemn procession to the Regent with a petition; whereupon one of her councillors denounced them as "a troop of beggars." They promptly seized the epithet and appropriated it. A beggar's wallet became their emblem; the idea was caught up and carried through the country, and a visible party rose quickly into existence.

The religious feeling now gained boldness. Enormous field-meetings began to be held, under arms, in every part of the open country, defying edicts and Inquisition. There followed a little later some fanatical and riotous outbreaks in several cities, breaking images and desecrating churches. Upon these occurrences, Philip despatched to the Netherlands, in the summer of 1567, a fresh army of Spanish troops, commanded by a man who was after his own heart—as mean, as false, as merciless, as little in soul and mind, as himself,—the Duke of Alva. Alva brought with him authority which practically superseded that of the Regent, and secret instructions which doomed every man of worth in the Provinces.

At the head of the nobility of the country; by eminence of character, no less than by precedence in rank, stood William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, who derived his higher title from a petty and remote principality, but whose large family possessions were in Flanders, Brabant, Holland and Luxemburg. Associated closely with him, in friendship and in political action, were Count Egmont, and the Admiral Count Horn, the latter of a family related to the Montmorencies of France. These three conspicuous nobles Philip had marked with special malice for the headsman, though their solitary crime had been the giving of advice against his tyrannies. William of Orange-"the Silent," as he came to be known—far-seeing in his wisdom, and well-advised by trusty agents in Spain, withdrew into Germany before Alva arrived. He warned his friends of their danger and implored them to save themselves; but they were blinded and would not listen. The perfidious Spaniard lured them with flatteries to Brussels and thrust them into prison. They were to be the first victims of the appalling sacrifice required to appease the dull rage of the king. Within three months they had eighteen hundred companions, condemned like themselves to the scaffold, by a council in which Alva presided and which the people called "the Council of Blood." In June, 1568, they were brought to the block.

Meantime Prince William and his brother, Louis of Nassau, had raised forces in Germany and attempted the rescue of the terrorized Provinces; but their troops were ill-paid and mutinous and they suffered defeat. For the time being, the Netherlands were crushed. As many of the people as could escape had fled; commerce was at a standstill; workshops were idle; the cities, once so wealthy, were impoverished; death, mourning, and terror, were everywhere. Alva had done very perfectly what he was sent to do.

The first break in the blackness of the clouds appeared in April, 1572, when a fleet, manned by refugee adventurers who called themselves Sea-Beggars, attacked and captured the town of Brill. From that day the revolt had its right footing, on the decks of the ships of the best sailors in the world. It faced Philip from that day as a maritime power, which would grow by the very feeding of its war with him, until it had consumed everything Spanish within its reach. The taking of Brill soon gave the patriots control of so many places in Holland and Zealand that a meeting of deputies was held at Dort, in July, 1572, which declared William of Orange to be "the King's legal Stadtholder in Holland, Zealand, Friesland and Utrecht," and recommended to the other Provinces that he be appointed Protector of all the Netherlands during the King's absence.

{1067}

Alva's reign of terror had failed so signally that even he was discouraged and asked to be recalled. It was his boast when he retired that he had put eighteen thousand and six hundred of the Netherlanders to death since they were delivered into his hands, above and beyond the horrible massacres by which he had half depopulated every captured town. Under Alva's successor, Don Louis de Requesens, a man of more justice and humanity, the struggle went on, adversely, upon the whole, to the patriots, though they triumphed gloriously in the famous defense of Leyden. To win help from England, they offered the sovereignty of their country to Queen Elizabeth; but in vain. They made no headway in the southern provinces, where Catholicism prevailed, and where the religious difference drew people more to the Spanish side. But when Requesens died suddenly, in the spring of 1576, and the Spanish soldiery broke into a furious mutiny, sacking Antwerp and other cities, then the nobles of Flanders and Brabant applied to the northern provinces for help. The result was a treaty, called the Pacification of Ghent, which contemplated a general effort to drive the Spaniards from the whole land. But not much came of this confederacy; the Catholic provinces never co-operated with the Protestant provinces, and the latter went their own way to freedom and prosperity, while the former sank back, submissive, to their chains.

For a short time after the death of Requesens, Philip was represented in the Netherlands by his illegitimate half-brother, Don John of Austria; but Don John died in October, 1578, and then came the great general, Alexander Farnese, Prince of Parma, who was to try the patriots sorely by his military skill. In 1579, the Prince of Orange drew them more closely together, in the Union of Utrecht, which Holland, Zealand, Gelderland, Zutphen, Utrecht, Overyssel, and Groningen, subscribed, and which was practically the foundation of the Dutch republic, though allegiance to Philip was not yet renounced. This followed two years later, in July, 1581, when the States General, assembled at the Hague, passed a solemn Act of Abjuration, which deposed Philip from his sovereignty and transferred it to the Duke of Anjou, a prince of the royal family of France, who did nothing for the Provinces, and who died soon after. At the same time, the immediate sovereignty of Holland and Zealand was conferred on the Prince of Orange.

In March, 1582, Philip made his first deliberate attempt to procure the assassination of the Prince. He had entered into a contract for the purpose, and signed it with his own hand. The assassin employed failed only because the savage pistol wound he inflicted, in the neck and jaw of his victim, did not kill. The master-murderer, at Madrid, was not discouraged. He launched his assassins, one following the other, until six had made their trial in two years. The sixth, one Balthazar Gerard, accomplished that for which he was sent, and William the Silent, wise statesman and admirable patriot, fell under his hand (July 10, 1584). Philip was so immeasurably delighted at this success that he conferred three lordships on the parents of the murderer.

William's son, Maurice, though but eighteen years old, was immediately chosen Stadtholder of Holland, Zealand and Utrecht, and High Admiral of the Union. In the subsequent years of the war, he proved himself a general of great capacity. Of the details of the war it is impossible to speak. Its most notable event was the siege of Antwerp, whose citizens defended themselves against the Duke of Parma, with astonishing courage and obstinacy, for many months. They capitulated in the end on honorable terms; but the prosperity of their city had received a blow from which it never revived.

Once more the sovereignty of the Provinces was offered to Queen Elizabeth of England, and once more declined; but the queen sent her favorite, the Earl of Leicester, with a few thousand men, to help the struggling Hollanders (1585). This was done, not in sympathy with them or their cause, but purely as a self-defensive measure against Spain. The niggardliness and the vacillations of Elizabeth, combined with the incompetency of Leicester, caused troubles to the Provinces nearly equal to the benefit of the forces lent them. Philip of Spain was now involved in his undertakings with the Guises and the League in France, and in his plans against England, and was weakened in the Netherlands for some years. Parma died in 1592, and Count Mansfield took his place, succeeded in his turn by the Marquis Spinola. The latter, at last, made an honest report, that the subjugation of the United Provinces was impracticable, and, Philip II. being now dead, the Spanish government was induced in 1607 to agree to a suspension of arms. A truce for twelve years was arranged; practically it was the termination of the war of independence, and practically it placed the United Provinces among the nations, although the formal acknowledgment of their independence was not yielded by Spain until 1648.

England under Mary.

While the Netherlands had offered to Philip of Spain a special field for his malice, there were others thrown open to him which he did not neglect. He may be said, in fact, to have whetted his appetite for blood and for burned human flesh in England, whither he went, as a young prince, in 1554, to marry his elderly second cousin, Queen Mary. We may be sure that he did not check the ardor of his consort, when she hastened to re-establish the supremacy of the Pope, and to rekindle the fires of religious persecution. The two-hundred and seventy-seven heretics whom she is reckoned to have burned may have seemed to him, even then, an insignificant handful. He quickly tired of her, if not of her congenial work, and left her in 1555. In 1558 she died, and the Church of Rome fell once more, never to regain its old footing of authority.

{1068}

England under Elizabeth.

Elizabeth, daughter of Anne Boleyn, who now came to the throne, was Protestant by the necessities of her position, whether doctrinally convinced or no. The Catholics denied her legitimacy of birth, and disputed, therefore, her right to the crown. She depended upon the Protestants for her support, and Protestantism, either active or passive, had become, without doubt, the dominant faith of the nation. But the mild schism which formerly took most of its direction from Luther, had now been powerfully acted upon by the influence of Calvin. Geneva had been the refuge of many ministers and teachers who fled from Mary's fires, and they returned to spread and deepen in England the stern, strong, formidable piety which Calvin evoked. These Calvinistic Protestants now made themselves felt as a party in the state, and were known ere long by that name which the next century rendered famous in English and American history—the great name of the Puritans. They were not satisfied with the stately, decorous, ceremonious Church which Elizabeth reconstructed on the pattern of the Church of Edward VI. At the same time, no party could be counted on more surely for the support of the queen, since the hope of Protestantism in England depended upon her, even as she was dependent upon it.

The Catholics, denying legitimacy to Elizabeth, recognized Mary Queen of Scots as the lawful sovereign of England. And Mary was, in fact, the next in succession, tracing her lineage, as stated before, to the elder sister of Henry VIII. If Elizabeth had been willing to frankly acknowledge Mary's heirship, failing heirs of her own body, it seems probable that the partisans of the Scottish queen would have been quieted, to a great extent. But Mary had angered her by assuming, while in France, the arms and style of Queen of England. She distrusted and disliked her Stuart cousin, and, moreover, the whole idea of a settlement of the succession was repugnant to her mind. At the same time, she could not be brought to marry, as her Protestant subjects wished. She coquetted with the notion of marriage through half her reign, but never to any purpose.

Such were the elements of agitation and trouble in England under Elizabeth. The history of well-nigh half-a-century was shaped in almost all its events by the threatening attitude of Catholicism and its supporters, domestic and foreign, toward the English queen. She was supported by the majority of her subjects with staunch loyalty and fidelity, even though she treated them none too well, and troubled them in their very defense of her by her whims and caprices. They identified her cause with themselves, and took such pride in her courage that they shut their eyes to the many weaknesses that went with it. She never grasped the affairs she dealt with in a broadly capable way. She never acted on them with well considered judgment. Her ministers, it is clear, were never able to depend upon a reasonable action of her mind. Her vanity or her jealousy might put reason in eclipse at any moment, and a skilful flatterer could make the queen as foolish as a milkmaid. But she had a royal courage and a royal pride of country, and she did make the good and glory of England her aim. So she won the affection of all Englishmen whose hearts were not in the keeping of the Pope, and no monarch so arbitrary was ever more ardently admired.

Mary, Queen of Scots.

In 1567, Mary Stuart was deposed by her own subjects, or forced to abdicate in favor of her infant son, James. She had alienated the Scottish people, first by her religion, and then by her suspected personal crimes. Having married her second cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, she was accused of being false to him. Darnley revenged his supposed wrongs as a husband by murdering her secretary, David Rizzio. In the next year (1567) Darnley was killed; the hand of the Earl of Bothwell appeared quite plainly in the crime, and the queen's complicity was believed. She confirmed the suspicions against herself by marrying Bothwell soon afterwards. Then her subjects rose against her, imprisoned her in Loch Leven Castle, and made the Earl of Murray regent of the Kingdom. In 1568 Mary escaped from her Scottish prison and entered England. From that time until her death, in 1587, she was a captive in the hands of her rival, Queen Elizabeth, and was treated with slender magnanimity. More than before, she became the focus of intrigues and conspiracies which threatened both the throne and the life of Elizabeth, and a growing feeling of hostility to the wretched woman was inevitable.

In 1570, Pope Pius V. issued against Elizabeth his formal bull of excommunication, absolving her subjects from their allegiance. This quickened, of course, the activity of the plotters against the queen and set treason astir. Priests from the English Catholic Seminary at Douai, afterwards at Rheims, began to make their appearance in the country; a few Jesuits came over; and both were active agents of the schemes on foot which contemplated the seating of Mary Stuart on the throne of Elizabeth Tudor. Some of these emissaries were executed, and they are counted among the martyrs of the Catholic Church, which is a serious mistake. The Protestantism of the sixteenth century was quite capable of religious persecution, even to death; but it has no responsibilities of that nature in these Elizabethan cases. As a matter of fact, the religion of the Jesuit sufferers in the reign of Elizabeth was a mere incident attaching itself to a high political crime, which no nation has ever forgiven.

The plotting went on for twenty years, keeping the nation in unrest; while beyond it there were thickening signs of a great project of invasion in the sinister mind of Philip II. At last, in 1586, the coolest councillors of Elizabeth persuaded her to bring Mary Stuart to trial for alleged complicity in a conspiracy of assassination which had lately come to light. Convicted, and condemned to death, Mary ended her sad life on the scaffold, at Fotheringay, on the 8th of February, 1587. Whether guilty or guiltless of any knowledge of what had been done in her name, against the peace of England and against the life of the English queen, it cannot be thought strange that Protestant England took her life.

The Spanish Armada.

A great burst of wrath in Catholic Europe was caused by the execution of Mary, and Philip of Spain hastened forward his vast preparations for the invasion and conquest of England. In 1588, the "invincible armada," as it was believed to be, sailed out of the harbors of Portugal and Spain, and wrecked itself with clumsy imbecility on the British and Irish coasts. It scarcely did more than give sport to the eager English sailors who scattered its helpless ships and hunted them down. Philip troubled England no more, and conspiracy ceased.

{1069}

England at Sea.

But the undeclared, half-piratical warfare which private adventurers had been carrying on against Spanish commerce for many years now acquired fresh energy. Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher, Grenvil, Raleigh, were the heroic spirits of this enterprising warfare; but they had many fellows. It was the school of the future navy of England, and the foundations of the British Empire were laid down by those who carried it on.

Otherwise, Elizabeth had little war upon her hands, except in Ireland, where the state of misery and disorder had already been long chronic. The first really complete conquest of the island was accomplished by Lord Mountjoy between 1600 and 1603.

Intellectual England.

But neither the political troubles nor the naval and military triumphs of England during the reign of Elizabeth are of much importance, after all, compared with the wonderful flowering of the genius of the nation which took place in that age. Shakespeare, Spenser, Bacon, Ben Jonson, Marlowe, Hooker, Raleigh, Sidney, are the great facts of Elizabeth's time, and it shines with the luster of their names, the period most glorious in English history.

The Religious Wars in France.

Wherever the stealthy arm of the influence of Philip II. of Spain could reach, there the Catholic reaction of his time took on a malignant form. In France, it is quite probable that the Catholics and the Huguenots, if left to themselves, would have come to blows; but it is certain that the meddling fingers of the Spanish king put fierceness and fury into the wars of religion, which raged from 1562 to 1596, and that they were prolonged by his encouragement and help.

Catherine de' Medici, to strengthen herself against the Guises, after the death of Francis II., offered attentions for a time to the Huguenot nobles, and encouraged them to expect a large and lasting measure of toleration. She went so far that the Huguenot influence at court, surrounding the young king, became very seriously alarming to Catholic onlookers, both at home and abroad. Among the many remonstrances addressed to the queen-regent, the one which appears to have been decisive in its effect came from Philip. He coldly sent her word that he intended to interfere in France and to establish the supremacy of the Catholic Church; that he should give his support for that purpose to any true friend of the Church who might request it. Whether Catherine had entertained an honest purpose or not, in her dealing with the Huguenots, this threat, with what lay behind it, put an end to the hope of justice for them. It is true that an assembly of notables, in January, 1562, did propose a law which the queen put forth, in what is known as the "Edict of January," whereby the Huguenots were given, for the first time, a legal recognition, ceasing to be outlaws, and were permitted to hold meetings, in the daytime, in open places, outside of walled cities; but their churches were taken away from them, they were forbidden to build more, and they could hold no meetings in walled towns. It was a measure of toleration very different from that which they had been led to expect; and even the little meted out by this Edict of January was soon shown to have no guarantee. Within three months, the Duke of Guise had found an opportunity for exhibiting his contempt of the new law, by ordering his armed followers to attack a congregation at Vassy, killing fifty and wounding two hundred of the peaceful worshippers. This outrage drove the Huguenots to arms and the civil wars began.

The frivolous Anthony, King of Navarre, had been won back to the Catholic side. His staunch wife, Jeanne d'Albret, with her young son, the future Henry IV., and his brother, Louis, Prince of Condé, remained true to their faith. Condé was the chief of the party. Next to him in rank, and first in real worth and weight, was the noble Admiral Coligny. The first war was brief, though long enough to end the careers of Anthony of Navarre, killed in battle, and the Duke of Guise, assassinated. Peace was made in 1563 through a compromise, which conceded certain places to the Huguenots, wherein they might worship God in their own way. But it was a hollow peace, and the malicious finger of the great master of assassins at Madrid never ceased picking at it. In 1566, civil war broke out a second time, continuing until 1570. Its principal battles were that of Jarnac, in which Condé was taken prisoner and basely assassinated by his captors, and that of Moncontour. The Huguenots were defeated in both. After the death of Condé, young Henry of Navarre, who had reached his fifteenth year, was chosen to be the chief of the party, with Coligny for his instructor in war.

Again peace was made, on a basis of slight concessions. Henry of Navarre married the King's sister, Margaret of Valois; prior to which he and his mother took up their residence with the court, at Paris, where Jeanne d'Albret soon sickened and died. The Admiral Coligny acquired, apparently, a marked influence over the mind of the young king; and once more there seemed to be a smiling future for the Reformed. But damnable treacheries were hidden underneath this fair showing. The most hideous conspiracy of modern times was being planned, at the very moment of the ostentatious peace-marriage of the King of Navarre, and the chief parties to it were Catherine de' Medici and the Guises, whose evil inclinations in common had brought them together at last. On the 22d of August, 1572, Coligny was wounded by an assassin, employed by the widow and son of the late Duke of Guise, whose death they charged against him, notwithstanding his protestations of innocence. Two days later, the monstrous and almost incredible massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day was begun. Paris was full of Huguenots—the heads of the party—its men of weight and influence—who had been drawn to the capital by the King of Navarre's marriage and by the supposed new era of favor in which they stood. To cut these off was to decapitate Protestantism in France, and that was the purpose of the infernal scheme. The weak-minded young king was not an original party to the plot. When everything had been planned, he was easily excited by a tale of pretended Huguenot conspiracies, and his assent to summary measures of prevention was secured. A little after midnight, on the morning of Sunday, August 24, the signal was given, by Catherine's order, which let loose a waiting swarm of assassins, throughout Paris, on the victims who had been marked for them. The Huguenots had had no warning; they were taken everywhere by surprise, and they were easily murdered in their beds, or hunted down in their hopeless flight.

{1070}

The noble Coligny, prostrated by the wound he had received two days before, was killed in his chamber, and his body flung out of the window. The young Duke of Guise stood waiting in the court below, to gloat on the corpse and to basely spurn it with his foot.

The massacre in Paris was carried on through two nights and two days; and, for more than a month following, the example of the capital was imitated in other cities of France, as the news of what were called "the Paris Matins" reached them. The total number of victims in the kingdom is estimated variously to have been between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand. Henry of Navarre and the young Prince of Condé escaped the massacre, but they saved their lives by a hypocritical abjuration of their religion.

The strongest town in the possession of the Huguenots was La Rochelle, and great numbers of their ministers and people of mark who survived the massacre now took refuge in that city, with a considerable body of armed men. The royal forces laid siege to the city, but made no impression on its defences. Peace was conceded in the end on terms which again promised the Huguenots some liberty of worship. But there was no sincerity in it.

In 1574, Charles IX. died, and his brother, the Duke of Anjou, who had lately been elected King of Poland, ran away from his Polish capital with disgraceful haste and secrecy, to secure the French crown. He was the most worthless of the Valois-Medicean brood, and the French court in his reign attained its lowest depth of degradation. The contending religions were soon at war again, with the accustomed result, in 1576, of another short-lived peace. The Catholics were divided into two factions, one fanatical, following the Guises, the other composed of moderate men, calling themselves the Politiques, who hated the Spanish influence under which the Guises were always acting, and who were willing to make terms with the Huguenots. The Guises and the ultra-Catholics now organized throughout France a great oath-bound "Holy League", which became so formidable in power that the king took fright, put himself at the head of it, and reopened war with the Reformed.

More and more, the conflict of religions became confused with questions of politics and mixed with personal quarrels. At one time, the king's younger brother, the Duke of Alençon, had gone over to the Huguenot side; but stayed only long enough to extort from the court some appointments which he desired. The king, more despised by his subjects than any king of France before him had ever been, grew increasingly jealous and afraid of the popularity and strength of the Duke of Guise, who was proving to be a man quite superior to his father in capability. Guise, on his side, was made arrogant by his sense of power, and his ambition soared high. There were reasons for believing that he did not look upon the throne itself as beyond his reach.

After 1584, when the Duke of Alençon (Duke of Anjou under his later title) died, a new political question, vastly disturbing, was brought into affairs. That death left no heir to the crown in the Valois line, and the King of Navarre, of the House of Bourbon, was now nearer in birth to the throne than any other living person. Henry had, long ere this, retracted his abjuration of 1572, had rejoined the Huguenots and taken his place as their chief. The head of the Huguenots was now the heir presumptive to the crown, and the wretched, incapable king was being impelled by his fear of Guise to look to his Huguenot heir for support. It was a strange situation. In 1588 it underwent a sinister change. Guise and his brother, the Cardinal, were both assassinated by the king's body-guard, acting under the king's orders, in the royal residence at the Castle of Blois. When the murder had been done, the cowardly king spurned his dead enemy with his foot, as Guise, sixteen years before, had spurned the murdered Coligny, and said "I am King at last." He was mistaken. His authority vanished with the vile deed by which he expected to reinvigorate it. Paris broke into open rebellion. The League renewed its activity throughout France. The king, abandoned and cursed on all sides, had now no course open to him but an alliance with Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots. The alliance was effected, and the two Henrys joined forces to subdue insurgent Paris. While the siege of the city was in progress (1589), Henry III. fell a victim, in his turn, to the murderous mania of his depraved age and court. He was assassinated by a fanatical monk.

Henry of Navarre.

Henry of Navarre now steps into the foreground of French history, as Henry IV., lawful King of France as well as of Navarre, and ready to prove his royal title by a more useful reign than the French nation had known since it buried St. Louis, his last ancestor on the throne. But his title was recognized at first by few outside the party of the Huguenots. The League went openly into alliance with Philip of Spain, who even half-stopped his war in the Netherlands to send money and troops into France. The energies of his insignificant soul were all concentrated on the desire to keep the heretical Béarnese from the throne of France. But happily his powers were no longer equal to his malice; he was still staggering under the blow which destroyed his great Armada.

Henry received some help in money from Queen Elizabeth, and 5,000 English and Scotch came over to join his army. He was an abler general than any among his opponents, and he made headway against them. His splendid victory at Ivry, on the 14th of March, 1590, inspirited his followers and took heart from the League. He was driven from his subsequent siege of Paris by a Spanish army, under the Duke of Parma; but the very interference of the Spanish king helped to turn French feeling in Henry's favor. On the 25th of July, 1593, he practically extinguished the opposition to himself by his final submission to the Church of Rome. It was an easy thing for him to do. His religion sat lightly on him. He had accepted it from his mother; he had adhered to it—not faithfully—as the creed of a party. He could give it up, in exchange for the crown of France, and feel no trouble of conscience. But the Reformed religion in France was really benefited by his apostacy. Peace came to the kingdom, as the consequence,—a peace of many years,—and the Huguenots were sheltered in considerable religious freedom by the peace. Henry secured it to them in 1598 by the famous Edict of Nantes, which remained in force for nearly a hundred years.

{1071}

The reign of Henry IV. was one of the satisfactory periods in the life of France, so far as concerns the material prosperity of the nation. He was a man of strong, keen intellect, with firmness of will and elasticity of temper, but weak on the moral side. He was of those who win admiration and friendship easily, and he remains traditionally the most popular of French kings. He had the genius for government which so rarely coincides with royal birth. A wise minister, the Duke of Sully, gave stability to his measures, and between them they succeeded in remarkably improving and promoting the agricultural and the manufacturing industries of France, effacing the destructive effects of the long civil wars, and bringing economy and order into the finances of the overburdened nation. His useful career was ended by an assassin in 1610.

Germany and the Thirty Years War.

The reactionary wars of religion in Germany came half-a-century later than in France. While the latter country was being torn by the long civil conflicts which Henry IV. brought to an end, the former was as nearly in the enjoyment of religious peace as the miserable contentions in the bosom of Protestantism, between Lutherans and Calvinists (the latter more commonly called "the Reformed"), would permit. On the abdication of Charles V., in 1556, he had fortunately failed to bring about the election of his son Philip to the imperial throne. His brother Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and King of Bohemia and Hungary, was chosen Emperor, and that sovereign had too many troubles in his immediate dominions to be willing to invite a collision with the Protestant princes of Germany at large. The Turks had overrun Hungary and established themselves in possession of considerable parts of the country. Ferdinand obtained peace with the redoubtable Sultan Suleiman, but only by payments of money which bore a strong likeness to tribute. He succeeded, through his prudent and skilful policy, in making both the Hungarian and the Bohemian crowns practically hereditary in the House of Austria.

Dying in 1564, Ferdinand transmitted both those kingdoms, with the Austrian Archduchy and the imperial office, to his son, Maximilian II., the broadest and most liberal minded of his race. Though educated in Spain, and in companionship with his cousin, Philip II., Maximilian exhibited the most tolerant spirit that appears anywhere in his age. Perhaps it was the hatefulness of orthodox zeal as exemplified in Philip which drove the more generous nature of Maximilian to revolt. He adhered to the Roman communion; but he manifested so much respect for the doctrines of the Lutheran that his father felt called upon at one time to make apologies for him to the Pope. Throughout his reign he held himself aloof from religious disputes, setting an example of tolerance and spiritual intelligence to all his subjects, Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics alike, which ought to have influenced them more for their good than it did. Under the shelter of the toleration which Maximilian gave it, Protestantism spread quickly over Austria, where it had had no opportunity before; revived the old Hussite reform in Bohemia; made great gains in Hungary, and advanced in all parts of his dominions except the Tyrol. The time permitted to it for this progress was short, since Maximilian reigned but twelve years. He died in 1576, and his son Rudolph, who followed him, brought evil changes upon the country in all things. He, too, had been educated in Spain, but with a very different result. He came back a creature of the Jesuits; but so weakly wilful a creature that even they could do little with him. Authority of government went to pieces in his incompetent hands, and at last, in 1606, a family conclave of princes of the Austrian house began measures which aimed at dispossessing Rudolph of his various sovereignties, so far as possible, in favor of his brother Matthias. Rudolph resisted with some effect, and in the contests which ensued the Protestants of Austria and Bohemia improved their opportunity for securing an enlargement of their rights. Matthias made the concession of complete toleration in Austria, while Rudolph, in Bohemia, granted the celebrated charter, called the Letter of Majesty (1609), which gave entire religious liberty to all sects.

These concessions were offensive to two princes, the Archduke Ferdinand of Styria, and Duke Maximilian of Bavaria, who had already taken the lead in a vigorous movement of Catholic reaction. Some proceedings on the part of Maximilian, which the Emperor sanctioned, against the Protestant free city of Donauwörth, had caused certain Protestant princes and cities, in 1608, to form a defensive Union. But the Elector Palatine, who attached himself to the Reformed or Calvinist Church, was at the head of this Union, and the bigoted Lutherans, especially the Elector of Saxony, looked with coldness upon it. On the other hand, the Catholic states formed a counter-organization—a Holy League—which was more compact and effective. The two parties being thus set in array, there rose suddenly between them a political question of the most disturbing character. It related to the right of succession to an important duchy, that of Juliers, Clèves, and Berg. There were several powerful claimants, in both of the Saxon families, and including also the Elector of Brandenburg and the Palsgrave of Neuberg, two members of the Union. As usual, the political question took possession of the religious issue and used it for its own purposes. The Protestant Union opened negotiations with Henry IV. of France, who saw an opportunity to weaken the House of Austria and to make some gains for France at the expense of Germany. A treaty was concluded, and Henry began active preparations for campaigns in both Germany and Italy, with serious intent to humble and diminish the Austrian power. The Dutch came into the alliance, likewise, and James I. of England promised his co-operation. The combination was formidable, and might have changed very extensively the course of events that awaited unhappy Germany, if the whole plan had not been frustrated by the assassination of Henry IV., in 1610. All the parties to the alliance drew back after that event, and both sides waited.

{1072}

In 1611, Rudolph was deposed in Bohemia, and the following year he died. Matthias, already King of Hungary, succeeded Rudolph in Bohemia and in the Empire. But Matthias was scarcely stronger in mind or body than his brother, and the same family pressure which had pushed Rudolph aside now forced Matthias to accept a coadjutor, in the person of the vigorous Ferdinand, Archduke of Styria. For the remainder of his reign Matthias was a cipher, and all power in the government was exercised by Ferdinand. His bitter opposition to the tolerant policy which had prevailed generally for half-a-century was well understood. Hence, his rise to supremacy in the Empire gave notice that the days of religious peace were ended. The outbreak of civil war was not long in coming.

Beginning of the war in Bohemia.

It began in Bohemia. A violation of the Protestant rights guaranteed by the Letter of Majesty provoked a rising under Count Thurn. Two of the king's councilors, with their secretary, were flung from a high window of the royal castle, and this act of violence was followed by more revolutionary measures. A provisional government of thirty Directors was set up and the king's authority set wholly aside. The Protestant Union gave prompt support to the Bohemian insurrection and sent Count Mansfield with three thousand soldiers to its aid. The Thirty Years War was begun (1618).

Early in these disturbances, Matthias died (1619). Ferdinand had already made his succession secure, in Austria, Bohemia and Hungary, and the imperial crown was presently conferred on him. But the Bohemians repudiated his kingship and offered their crown to Frederick, the Elector Palatine, lately married to the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James I. of England. The Elector, persuaded, it is said, by his ambitious young wife, unwisely accepted the tempting bauble, and went to Prague to receive it. But he had neither prudence nor energy to justify his bold undertaking. Instead of strengthening himself for his contest with Ferdinand, he began immediately to enrage his new subjects by pressing Calvinistic forms and doctrines upon them, and by arrogantly interfering with their modes of worship. His reign was so brief that he is known in Bohemian annals as "the winter king." A single battle, won by Count Tilly, in the service of the Catholic League and of its chief, Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria, ended his sovereignty. He lost his Electorate as well as his kingdom, and was a wandering fugitive for the remainder of his life. Bohemia was mercilessly dealt with by the victorious Ferdinand. Not only was Protestantism crushed, and Catholicism established as the exclusive religion, but the very life of the country, intellectually and materially, was extinguished; so that Bohemia never again stood related to the civilization of Europe as it had stood before, when Prague was an important center of learning and thought. To a less extent, Austria suffered the same repression, and its Protestantism was uprooted.

In this sketch it is unnecessary to follow the details of the frightful Thirty Years War, which began as here described. During the first years it was carried on mainly by the troops of the Catholic League, under Tilly, acting against Protestant forces which had very little coherence or unity, and which were led by Count Mansfield, Christian of Anhalt, and other nobles, in considerable independence of one another. In 1625 the first intervention from outside occurred. Christian IV. of Denmark took up the cause of threatened Protestantism. As Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, he was a prince of the Empire, and he joined with other Protestant princes in condemning the deposition of the Elector-Palatine, whose electorate had been conferred on Maximilian of Bavaria. King Christian entered into an alliance with England and Holland, which powers promised help for the reinstatement of the Elector. But the aid given was trifling, and slight successes which Christian and his German allies obtained against Tilly were soon changed to serious reverses.

Wallenstein.

For the first time during the war, the Emperor now brought into the field an army acting in his own name, and not in that of the League. It was done in a singular manner—by contract, so to speak, with a great soldier and wealthy nobleman, the famous Wallenstein. Wallenstein offered to the Emperor the services of an army of 50,000 men, which he would raise and equip at his own expense, and which should be maintained without public cost—that is, by plunder. His proposal was accepted, and the formidable body of trained and powerfully handled brigands was launched upon Germany, for the torture and destruction of every region in which it moved. It was the last appearance in European warfare of the "condottiere" of the Middle Ages. Wallenstein and Tilly swept all before them. The former failed only before the stubborn town of Stralsund, which defied his siege. Mansfield and Christian of Anhalt both died in 1627. Peace was forced upon the Danish king. The Protestant cause was prostrate, and the Emperor despised its weakness so far that he issued an "Edict of Restitution," commanding the surrender of certain bishoprics and ecclesiastical estates which had fallen into Protestant hands since the Treaty of Passau. At the same time, he yielded to the jealousy which Wallenstein's power had excited, by dismissing that commander from his service.

Gustavus Adolphus.

The time was an unfavorable one for such an experiment. A new and redoubtable champion of Protestantism had just appeared on the scene and was about to revive the war. This was Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, who had ambitions, grievances and religious sympathies, all urging him to rescue the Protestant states of Germany from the Austrian-Catholic despotism which seemed to be impending over them. His interference was jealously resented at first by the greater Protestant princes. The Elector of Brandenburg submitted to an alliance with him only under compulsion. The Elector of Saxony did not join the Swedish king until (1631) Tilly had ravaged his territories with ferocity, burning 200 villages. When Gustavus had made his footing in the country secure, he quickly proved himself the greatest soldier of his age. Tilly was overwhelmed in a battle fought on the Breitenfeld, at Leipsic. The following spring he was again beaten, on the Lech, in Bavaria, and died of wounds received in the battle. Meantime, the greater part of Germany was at the feet of the Swedish king; and a sincere co-operation between him and the German princes would probably have ended the war. But small confidence existed between these allies, and Richelieu, the shrewd Cardinal who was ruling France, had begun intrigues which made the Thirty Years War profitable in the end to France. The victories of Gustavus seemed to bear little fruit. Wallenstein was summoned once more to save the Emperor's cause, and reappeared in the field with 40,000 men. The heroic Swede fought him at Lützen, on the 16th of November, 1632, and routed him, but fell in the battle among the slain.

{1073}

With the death of Gustavus Adolphus, the possibility of a satisfactory conclusion of the war vanished. The Swedish army remained in Germany, under the military command of Duke Bernhard of Saxe Weimar and General Horn, but under the political direction of Axel Oxenstiern, the able Swedish Chancellor. On the Imperial side, Wallenstein again incurred distrust and suspicion. His power was so formidable that his enemies were afraid to let him live. They plotted his death by assassination, and he was murdered on the 25th of February, 1634. The Emperor's son Ferdinand now took the command of the Imperial forces, and, a few months later, having received reinforcements from Spain, he had the good fortune to defeat the Swedes at Nördlingen.

The French in the War.

The Elector of Saxony, and other Protestant princes, then made peace with the Emperor, and the war was only prolonged by the intrigues of Richelieu and for the aggrandizement of France. In this final stage of it, when the original elements of contention, and most of the original contestants, had disappeared, it lasted for yet fourteen years. Ferdinand II. died in 1637, and was succeeded by his son Ferdinand III. Duke Bernhard died in 1639. In the later years of the war, Piccolomini on the Imperial side, Baner, Torstenson and Wrangel at the head of the Swedes, and Turenne and Condé in command of the French, were the soldiers who made great names.

Destructiveness of the War.

In 1648, the long suffering of Germany was eased by the Peace of Westphalia. Years of quiet, and of order fairly restored, would be needed to heal the bleeding wounds of the country and revive its strength. From end to end, it had been trampled upon for a generation by armies which plundered and destroyed as they passed. There is nothing more sickening in the annals of war than the descriptions which eye-witnesses have left of the misery, the horror, the desolation of that frightful period in German history. "Especially in the south and west, Germany was a wilderness of ruins; places that were formerly the seats of prosperity were the haunts of wolves and robbers for many a long year. It is estimated that the population was diminished by twenty, by some even by fifty, per cent. The population of Augsburg was reduced from 80,000 to 18,000; of Frankenthal, from 18,000 to 324 inhabitants. In Würtemberg, in 1641, of 400,000 inhabitants, 48,000 remained; in the Palatinate, in 1636, there were 201 peasant farmers; and in 1648, but a fiftieth part of the population remained" (Häusser).

The Peace of Westphalia.

By the treaties of Westphalia, the religious question was settled with finality. Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed (Calvinists), were put on an equal footing of religious liberty. Politically, the effects of the Peace were radical and lasting in their injury to the German people. The few bonds of Germanic unity which had survived the reign of feudalism were dissolved. The last vestige of authority in the Empire was destroyed. "From this time Germany long remained a mere lax confederation of petty despotisms and oligarchies with hardly any national feeling. Its boundaries too were cut short in various ways. The independence of the two free Confederations at the two ends of the Empire, those of Switzerland and the United Provinces, which had long been practically cut off from the Empire, was now formally acknowledged. And, what was far more important, the two foreign kingdoms which had had the chief share in the war, France and Sweden, obtained possessions within the Empire, and moreover, as guarantors or sureties of the peace, they obtained a general right of meddling in its affairs." "The right of France to the 'Three Lotharingian Bishoprics,' which had been seized nearly a hundred years before, was now formally acknowledged, and, besides this, the possessions and rights of the House of Austria in Elsass, the German land between the Rhine and the Vosges, called in France Alsace, were given to France. The free city of Strasburg and other places in Elsass still remained independent, but the whole of South Germany now lay open to France. This was the greatest advance that France had yet made at the expense of the Empire. Within Germany itself the Elector of Brandenburg also received a large increase of territory" (Freeman).

Among the treaties which made up the Peace of Westphalia was one signed by Spain, acknowledging the independence of the United Provinces, and renouncing all claims to them.

France under Richelieu.

The great gains of France from the Thirty Years War were part of the fruit of bold and cunning statesmanship which Richelieu had ripened and plucked for that now rising nation. For a time after the death of Henry IV., chaos had seemed likely to return again in France. His son, Louis XIII., was but nine years old. The mother, Marie de' Medici, who secured the regency, was a foolish woman, ruled by Italian favorites, who made themselves odious to the French people. As soon as the young king approached manhood, he put himself in opposition to his mother and her favorites, under the influence of a set of rivals no more worthy, and France was carried to the verge of civil war by their puerile hostilities. Happily there was something in the weak character of Louis XIII. which bent him under the influence of a really great mind when circumstances had brought him within its reach. Richelieu entered the King's council in 1624. The king was soon an instrument in his hands, and he ruled France, as though the scepter was his own, for eighteen years. He was as pitiless a despot as ever set heel on a nation's neck; but the power which he grasped with what seemed to be a miserly and commonplace greed, was all gathered for the aggrandizement of the monarchy that he served. He believed that the nation needed to have one master, sole and unquestioned in his sovereignty. That he enjoyed being that one master, in reality, while he lived, is hardly doubtful; but his whole ambition is not so explained. He wrought according to his belief for France, and the king, in his eyes, was the embodiment of France. He erected the pedestal on which "the grand monarch" of the next generation posed with theatrical effect.

{1074}

Three things Richelieu did;

1. He enforced the royal authority, with inexorable rigor, against the great families and personages, who had not learned, even under Henry IV., that they were subjects in the absolute sense.

2. He struck the Huguenots, not as a religious sect, but as a political party, and peremptorily stopped their growth of strength in that character, which had clearly become threatening to the state.

3. He organized hostility in Europe to the overbearing and dangerous Austro-Spanish power, put France at the head of it, and took for her the lion's share of the conquests by which the Hapsburgs were reduced.

Mazarin and the Fronde.

The great Cardinal died near the close of the year 1642; and Louis XIII. followed him to the grave in the succeeding May, leaving a son, Louis XIV., not yet five years of age, under the regency of his mother, Anne of Austria. The minister, Cardinal Mazarin, who enjoyed the confidence of the queen-regent, and who was supposed to enjoy her affections as well, had been Richelieu's disciple, and took the helm of government on Richelieu's recommendation. He was an adroit politician, with some statesmanlike sagacity, but he lacked the potent spirit by which his master had awed and ruled every circle into which he came, great or small. Mazarin had the Thirty Years War to bring to a close, and he managed the difficult business with success, wasting nothing of the effect of the brilliant victories of Condé and Turenne. But the war had been very costly. Mazarin was no better financier than Richelieu had been before him, and the burdens of taxation were greater than wise management would have made them. There was inevitable discontent, and Mazarin, as a foreigner, was inevitably unpopular. With public feeling in this state, the Court involved itself in a foolish conflict with the Parliament of Paris, and presently there was a Paris revolution and a civil war afoot (1649). It was a strange affair of froth and empty rages—this war of "The Fronde," as it was called—having no depth of earnestness in it and no honesty of purpose anywhere visible in its complications. The men and women who sprang to a lead in it—the women more actively and rancorously than the men—were mere actors of parts in a great play of court intrigue, for the performance of which unhappy France had lent its grand stage. There seems to have been never, in any other civil conflict which history describes, so extraordinary a mixture of treason and libertinism, of political and amorous intrigue, of heartlessness and frivolity, of hot passion and cool selfishness. The people who fought most and suffered most hardly appear as noticeable factors in the contest. The court performers amused themselves with the stratagems and bloody doings of the war as they might have done with the tricks of a masquerade.

It was in keeping with the character of the Frondeurs that they went into alliance, at last, with Spain, and that, even after peace within the nation had been restored, "the Great Condé" remained in the Spanish service and fought against his own countrymen. Mazarin regained control of affairs, and managed them on the whole ably and well. He brought about an alliance with England, under Cromwell, and humbled Spain to the acceptance of a treaty which considerably raised the position of France among the European Powers. By this Treaty of the Pyrenees (1659), the northwestern frontier of the kingdom was both strengthened and advanced; Lorraine was shorn of some of its territory and prepared for the absorption which followed after no long time; there were gains made on the side of the Pyrenees; and, finally, Louis XIV. was wedded to the infanta of Spain, with solemn renunciations on her part, for herself and her descendants, of all claims upon the Spanish crown, or upon Flanders, or Burgundy, or Charolais. Not a claim was extinguished by these solemn renunciations, and the Treaty of the Pyrenees is made remarkable by the number of serious wars and important events to which it gave rise.

Cardinal Mazarin died in 1661 and the government was assumed personally by Louis XIV., then twenty-three years old.

England Under the Stuarts.

While Germany and France had, each in turn, been disordered by extremely unlike civil wars, one to the unmitigated devastation and prostration of the land, the other to the plain putting in proof of the nothingness of the nation at large, as against its monarchy and court, the domestic peace of England had been ruffled in a very different way, and with very different effects.

The death of Queen Elizabeth united the crown of England with that of Scotland, on the head of James, son of the unhappy Mary Stuart. In England he was James I., in Scotland James VI. His character combined shrewdness in some directions with the most foolish simplicity in others. He was not vicious, he was not in any particular a bad man; but he was exasperating in his opinionated self-conceit, and in his gaucheries of mind and body. The Englishmen of those days did not love the Scots; and, all things considered, we may wonder, perhaps, that James got on so well as he did with his English subjects. He had high notions of kingship, and a superlative opinion of his own king-craft, as he termed the art of government. He scarcely deviated from the arbitrary lines which Elizabeth had laid down, though he had nothing of Elizabeth's popularity. He offended the nation by truckling to its old enemy, the King of Spain, and pressing almost shamefully for a marriage of his elder son to the Spanish infanta. The favorites he enriched and lavished honors upon were insolent upstarts. His treatment of the growing Puritanism in English religious feeling was contemptuous. There was scarcely a point on which any considerable number of his subjects could feel in agreement with him, or entertain towards him a cordial sentiment of loyalty or respect. Yet his reign of twenty-two years was disturbed by nothing more serious than the fatuous "gunpowder plot" (1605) of a few discontented Catholics. But his son had to suffer the retarded consequences of a loyalty growing weak, on one side, while royalty strained its prerogatives on the other.

The reign of James I. witnessed the effective beginnings of English colonization in America,—the planting of a durable settlement in Virginia and the migration of the Pilgrim Fathers to New England. The latter movement (1620) was one of voluntary exile, produced by the hard treatment inflicted on those "Separatists" or "Independents" who could not reconcile themselves to a state-established Church. Ten years later, the Pilgrim movement, of Independents, was followed by the greater migration of Puritans—quite different in class, in character and in spirit.

{1075}

Charles. I.

James died in 1625, and the troubled reign of his son, Charles I., began. Charles took over from his father a full measure of popular discontent, along with numerous active springs in operation for increasing it. The most productive of these was the favorite, Buckingham, who continued to be the sole counselor and minister of the young king, as he had been of the older one, and who was utterly hateful to England, for good reasons of incapacity and general worthlessness. In the king himself, though he had virtues, there was a coldness and a falsity of nature which were sure to widen the breach between him and his people.

Failing the Spanish marriage, Charles had wedded (1624) a French princess, Henrietta Maria, sister of Louis XIII. The previous subserviency to Spain had then been followed by a war with that country, which came to Charles among his inheritances, and which Buckingham mismanaged, to the shame of England. In 1627 another war began, but this time with France, on account of the Huguenots besieged at La Rochelle. Again the meddlesome hand of Buckingham wrought disaster and national disgrace, and public indignation was greatly stirred. When Parliament endeavored to call the incapable minister to account, and to obtain some security for a better management of affairs, the king dissolved it. Twice was this done, and Charles and his favorite employed every arbitrary and questionable device that could be contrived for them, to raise money without need of the representatives of the people. At length, in 1628, they were driven to face a third Parliament, in order to obtain supplies. By this time the Commons of England were wrought up to a high and determined assertion of their rights, as against the Crown, and the Puritans had gained a majority in the popular representation. In the lower House of Parliament, therefore, the demands of the king for money were met by a counter-demand for guarantees to protect the people from royal encroachments on their liberties. The Commons were resolute, and Charles gave way to them, signing with much reluctance the famous instrument known as the "Petition of Right," which pledged the Crown to abstain in future from forced loans, from taxes imposed without Parliamentary grant, from arbitrary imprisonments, without cause shown, and from other despotic proceedings. In return for his signature to the Petition of Right, Charles received a grant of money; but the Commons refused to authorize his collection of certain customs duties, called Tonnage and Poundage, beyond a single year, and it began attacks on Buckingham,—whereupon the king prorogued it. Shortly afterwards Buckingham was assassinated; a second expedition to relieve Rochelle failed miserably; and early in 1629 Parliament was assembled again. This time the Puritan temper of the House began to show itself in measures to put a stop to some revivals of ancient ceremony which had appeared in certain churches. At the same time officers of the king, who had seized goods belonging to a member of the House, for non-payment of Tonnage and Poundage, were summoned to the bar to answer for it. The king protected them, and a direct conflict of authority arose. On the 2d of March, the king sent an order to the Speaker of the House of Commons for adjournment; but the Speaker was forcibly held in his chair, and not permitted to announce the adjournment, until three resolutions had been read and adopted, denouncing as an enemy to the kingdom every person who brought in innovations in religion, or who advised the levying of Tonnage and Poundage without parliamentary grant, or who voluntarily paid such duties, so levied. This done, the members dispersed; the king dissolved Parliament immediately, and his resolution was taken to govern England thenceforth on his own authority, with no assembly of the representatives of the people to question or criticise him. He held to that determination for eleven years, during which long time no Parliament sat in England, and the Constitution was practically obliterated.

The leaders of the Commons in their recent proceedings were arrested and imprisoned. Sir John Eliot, the foremost of them, died in harsh confinement within the Tower, and others were held in long custody, refusing to recognize the jurisdiction of the king's judges over things done in Parliament.

Wentworth and Laud.

One man, of great ability, who had stood at the beginning with Sir John Eliot, and acted with the party which opposed the king, now went over to the side of the latter and rose high in royal favor, until he came in the end to be held chiefly responsible for the extreme absolutism to which the government of Charles was pushed. This was Sir Thomas Wentworth, made Earl of Strafford at a later day, in the tardy rewarding of his services. But William Laud, Bishop of London, and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, was the evil counselor of the king, much more than Wentworth, in the earlier years of the decade of tyranny. It was Laud's part to organize the system of despotic monarchy on its ecclesiastical side; to uproot Puritanism and all dissent, and to cast religion for England and for Scotland in one mould, as rigid as that of Rome.

For some years, the English nation seemed terrorized or stupefied by the audacity of the complete overthrow of its Constitution. The king and his servants might easily imagine that the day of troublesome Parliaments and of inconvenient laws was passed. At least in those early years of their success, it can scarcely have occurred to their minds that a time of accounting for broken laws, and for the violated pledges of the Petition of Right, might come at the end. At all events they went their way with seeming satisfaction, and tested, year by year, the patient endurance of a people which has always been slow to move. Their courts of Star Chamber and of High Commission, finding a paramount law in the will and pleasure of the king, imprisoned, fined, pilloried, flogged and mutilated in quite the spirit of the Spanish Inquisition, though they did not burn. {1076} They collected Tonnage and Poundage without parliamentary consent, and servile judges enforced the payment. They invented a claim for "ship-money" (in commutation of an ancient demand for ships to serve in the King's navy) from inland towns and counties, as well as from the commercial ports; and when John Hampden, a squire in Buckinghamshire, refused payment of the unlawful tax, their obedient judges gave judgment against him. And still the people endured; but they were laying up in memory many things, and gathering a store of reasons for the action that would by and by begin.

Rebellion in Scotland.

At last, it was Scotland, not England, that moved to rebel. Laud and the king had determined to break down Presbyterianism in the northern kingdom and to force a Prayer Book on the Scottish Church. There was a consequent riot at St. Giles, in Edinburgh (1637); Jenny Geddes threw her stool at the bishop, and Scotland presently was in revolt, signing a National Covenant and defying the king. Charles, attempting to frighten the resolute Scots with an army which he could not pay, was soon driven to a treaty with them (1639) which he had not honesty enough to keep. Wentworth, who had been Lord Deputy of Ireland since 1632, and who had framed a model of absolutism in that island, for the admiration of his colleagues in England, now returned to the king's side and became his chief adviser. He counselled the calling of a Parliament, as the only means by which English help could be got for the restoring of royal authority in Scotland. The Parliament was summoned and met in April, 1640. At once, it showed a temper which alarmed the king and he dissolved it in three weeks. Again Charles made the attempt to put down his Scottish subjects without help from an English Parliament, and again the attempt failed.

The Long Parliament.

Then the desperate king summoned another Parliament, which concentrated in itself, when it came together, the suppressed rebellion that had been in the heart of England for ten years, and which broke his flimsy fabric of absolutism, almost at a single blow. It was the famous Long Parliament of English history, which met in November, 1640, and which ruled England for a dozen years, until it gave way to the Cromwellian dictatorship. It sent Laud and Strafford to the Tower, impeached the latter and brought him to the block, within six months from the beginning of its session; and the king gave up his minister to the vengeance of the angry Commons with hardly one honest attempt to protect him. Laud waited in prison five years before he suffered the same fate. The Parliament declared itself to be indissoluble by any royal command; and the king assented. It abolished the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission; and the king approved. It swept ship-money, and forest claims, and all of Charles' lawless money-getting devices into the limbo; and he put his signature to its bills. But all the time he was intriguing with the Scots for armed help to overthrow his masterful English Parliament, and he was listening to Irish emissaries who offered an army for the same purpose, on condition that Ireland' should be surrendered to the Catholics.

Civil War.

Charles had arranged nothing on either of these treacherous plans, nor had he gained anything yet from the division between radicals and moderates that was beginning to show itself in the popular party, when he suddenly brought the strained situation to a crisis, in January, 1642, by his most foolish and arrogant act. He invaded the House of Commons in person, with a large body of armed men, for the purpose of arresting five members—Pym, Hampden, Holles, Hazlerigg and Strode—whom he accused of having negotiated treasonably with the Scots in 1640. The five members escaped; the House appealed to the citizens of London for protection; king and Parliament began immediately to raise troops; the nation divided and arrayed itself on the two sides,—most of the gentry, the Cavaliers, supporting the king, and most of the Puritan middle-class, wearing close-cut hair and receiving the name Roundheads, being ranged in the party of Parliament. They came to blows in October, when the first battle was fought, at Edgehill.

In the early period of the war, the parliamentary forces were commanded by the Earl of Essex; and Sir Thomas Fairfax was their general at a later stage; but the true leader on that side, for war and for politics alike, was soon found in Oliver Cromwell, a member of Parliament, whose extraordinary capacity was first shown in the military organization of the Eastern Counties, from which he came. After 1645, when the army was remodeled, with Cromwell as second in rank, his real chieftainship was scarcely disguised. The decisive battle of the war was fought that year at Naseby, where the king's cause suffered an irrecoverable defeat.

The Presbyterians of Scotland had now allied themselves with the English Roundheads, on condition that the Church of England should be remodeled in the Presbyterian form. The Puritan majority in Parliament being favorable to that form, a Solemn League and Covenant between the two nations had been entered into, in 1643, and an Assembly of Divines was convened at Westminster to frame the contemplated system of the Church. But the Independents, who disliked Presbyterianism, and who were more tolerantly inclined in their views, had greatly increased in numbers, and some of the stronger men on the Parliament side, including Cromwell, the strongest of all, were among them. This difference brought about a sharp struggle within the popular party for the control of the fruits of the triumph now beginning to seem secure. Under Cromwell, the Army became a powerful organization of religious Independency, while Parliament sustained Presbyterianism, and the two stood against each other as rival powers in the state.

{1077}

At the beginning of the year 1646 the fortunes of Charles had fallen very low. His partisan, Montrose, in Scotland, had been beaten; his intrigues in Ireland, for the raising of a Catholic army, had only alarmed and disgusted his English friends; he was at the end of his resources, and he gave himself up to the Scots. The latter, in conjunction with the Presbyterian majority in Parliament, were willing to make terms with him, and restore him to his throne; on conditions which included the signing of the Covenant and the establishing of Presbyterianism in the Churches of both kingdoms. He refused the proposal, being deluded by a belief that the quarrel of Independents and Presbyterians would open his way to the recovery of power without any concessions at all. The Scots then surrendered him to the English, and he was held in confinement by the latter for the next two years, scheming and pursuing intrigues in many directions, and convincing all who dealt with him that his purposes were never straightforward—that he was faithless and false to the core.

Ill-will and suspicion, meanwhile, were widening the breach between Parliament and the Army. Political and religious agitators were gaining influence in the latter and republican ideas were spreading fast. At length (December, 1648), the Army took matters into its own hands; expelled from Parliament those members who favored a reconciliation with the king, on the basis of a Presbyterian establishment of the Church, and England passed under military rule. The "purged" Parliament (or rather the purged House of Commons, which now set the House of Lords aside, declaring itself to be the sole and supreme power in the state) brought King Charles to trial in the following month, before a High Court of Justice created for the occasion. He was convicted of treason, in making war upon his subjects, and was beheaded on the 30th of January, 1649.

The Commonwealth and the Protectorate.

The king being thus disposed of, the House of Commons proclaimed England a Commonwealth, "without a King or House of Lords," took to itself the name of Parliament, and appointed an executive Council of State, forty-one in number. The new government, in its first year, had a rebellion in Ireland to deal with, and sent Cromwell to the scene. He crushed it with a merciless hand. The next year Scotland was in arms, for the late king's son, now called Charles II., who had entered the country, accepted Presbyterianism, and signed the Covenant. Again Cromwell was the man for the occasion, and in a campaign of two months he ended the Scottish war, with such decision that he had no more fighting to do on English or Scottish soil while he lived. There was war with the Dutch in 1652, 1653 and 1654, over questions of trade, and the long roll of English naval victories was opened by the great soldier-seaman, Robert Blake.

But the power which upheld and carried forward all things at this time was the power of Oliver Cromwell, master of the Army, and, therefore, master of the Commonwealth. The surviving fragment of the Long Parliament was an anomaly, a fiction; men called it "the Rump." In April, 1653, Cromwell drove the members of it from their chamber and formally took to himself the reins of government which in fact he had been holding before. A few months later he received from his immediate supporters the title of Lord Protector, and an Instrument of Government was framed, which served as a constitution during the next three years. Cromwell was as unwilling as Charles had been to share the government with a freely elected and representative Parliament. The first House which he called together was dissolved at the end of five months (1655), because it persisted in discussing a revision of the constitution. His second Parliament, which he summoned the following year, required to be purged by the arbitrary exclusion of about a hundred members before it could be brought to due submission. This tractable body then made certain important changes in the constitution, by an enactment called the "Humble Petition and Advice." It created a second house, to take the place of the House of Lords, and gave to the Lord Protector the naming of persons to be life-members of such upper house. It also gave to the Protector the right of appointing his own successor, a right which Cromwell exercised on his death-bed, in 1658, by designating his son Richard.

The responsible rule of Cromwell, from the expulsion of the Rump and his assumption of the dignity of Lord Protector, covered only the period of five years. But in that brief time he made the world respect the power of England as it had never been respected before. His government at home was as absolute and arbitrary as the government of the Stuarts, but it was infinitely wiser and more just. Cromwell was a statesman of the higher order; a man of vast power, in intellect and will. That he did not belong to the yet higher order of commanding men, whose statesmanship is pure in patriotism and uncolored by selfish aims, is proved by his failure to even plan a more promising settlement of the government of England than that which left it, an anomalous Protectorate, to a man without governing qualities, who happened to be his son.

Restoration of the Stuarts.

Richard Cromwell was brushed aside after eight months of an absurd attempt to play the part of Lord Protector. The officers of the Army and the resuscitated Rump Parliament, between them, managed affairs, in a fashion, for almost a year, and then they too were pushed out of the way by the army which had been stationed in Scotland, under General George Monk. By the action of Monk, with the consent, and with more than the consent, of England at large, the Stuart monarchy was restored. Charles II. was invited to return, and in May, 1660, he took his seat on the re-erected throne.

The nation, speaking generally, was tired of a military despotism; tired of Puritan austerity; tired of revolution and political uncertainty;—so tired that it threw itself down at the feet of the most worthless member of the most worthless royal family in its history, and gave itself up to him without a condition or a guarantee. For twenty-five years it endured both oppression and disgrace at his hands. It suffered him to make a brothel of his Court; to empty the national purse into the pockets of his shameless mistresses and debauched companions; to revive the ecclesiastical tyranny of Laud; to make a crime of the religious creeds and the worship of more than half his subjects; to sell himself and sell the honor of England to the king of France for a secret pension, and to be in every possible way as ignoble and despicable as his father had been arrogant and false. When he died, in 1685, the prospects of the English nation were not improved by the accession of his brother, the Duke of York, who became James II. {1078} James had more honesty than his brother or his father; but the narrowness and meanness of the Stuart race were in his blood. He had made himself intolerable; to his subjects, both English and Scotch, by entering the Catholic Church, openly, while Charles was believed to have done the same in secret. His religion was necessarily bigotry, because of the smallness of his nature, and he opposed it to the Protestantism of the kingdom with a kind of brutal aggressiveness. In the first year of his reign there was a rebellion undertaken, in the interest of a bastard son of Charles II., called Duke of Monmouth; but it was savagely put down, first by force of arms, at Sedgemoor, and afterwards by the "bloody assizes" of the ruthless Judge Jeffreys. Encouraged by this success against his enemies James began to ignore the "Test Act," which excluded Catholics from office, and to surround himself by men of his own religion. The Test Act was an unrighteous law, and the "Declaration of Indulgence" which James issued, for the toleration of Catholics and Dissenters, was just in principle, according to the ideas of later times; but the action of the king with respect to both was, nevertheless, a gross and threatening violation of law. England had submitted to worse conduct from Charles II., but its Protestant temper was now roused, and the loyalty of the subject was consumed by the fierceness of the Churchman's wrath. James' daughter, Mary, and her husband, William, Prince of Orange, were invited from Holland to come over and displace the obnoxious father from his throne. They accepted the invitation, November, 1688; the nation rose to welcome them; James fled,—and the great Revolution, which ended arbitrary monarchy in England forever, and established constitutional government on clearly defined and lasting bases, was accomplished without the shedding of a drop of blood.

The House of Orange and the Dutch Republic.

William of Orange, who thus acquired a place in the line of English kings, held, at the same time, the nearly regal office of Stadtholder of Holland; but the office had not remained continuously in his family since William the Silent, whose great-grandson he was. Maurice, the son of the murdered William the Silent, had been chosen to the stadtholdership after his father's death, and had carried forward his father's work with success, so far as concerned the liberation of the United Provinces from the Spanish yoke. He was an abler soldier than William, but not his equal as a statesman, nor as a man. The greater statesman of the period was John of Barneveldt, between whom and the Stadtholder an opposition grew up which produced jealousy and hostility, more especially on the part of the latter. A shameful religious conflict had arisen at this time between the Calvinists, who numbered most of the clergy in their ranks, and a dissenting body, led by Jacob Hermann, or Arminius, which protested against the doctrine of predestination. Barneveldt favored the Arminians. The Stadtholder, Maurice, without any apparent theological conviction in the matter, threw his whole weight of influence on the side of the Calvinists; and was able, with the help of the Calvinist preachers, to carry the greater part of the common people into that faction. The Arminians were everywhere put down as heretics, barred from preaching or teaching, and otherwise silenced and ill treated. It is a singular fact that, at the very time of this outburst of Calvinistic fury, the Dutch were exhibiting otherwise a far more tolerant temper in religion than any other people in Europe, and had thrown open their country as a place of shelter for the persecuted of other lands,—both Christian sectaries and Jews. We infer, necessarily, that the bitterness of the Calvinists against the Arminians was more political than religious in its source, and that the source is really traceable to the fierce ambition of Prince Maurice, and the passion of the party which supported his suspicious political aims.

Barneveldt lost influence as the consequence of the Calvinistic triumph, and was exposed helplessly to the vindictive hatred of Prince Maurice, who did not scruple to cause his arrest, his trial and execution (1619), on charges which none believed. Maurice, whose memory is blackened by this great crime, died in 1625, and was succeeded by his half-brother, Frederic Henry. The war with Spain had been renewed in 1621, at the end of the twelve years truce, and more than willingly renewed; for the merchant class, and the maritime interest in the cities which felt secure, preferred war to peace. Under a hostile flag they pushed their commerce into Spanish and Portuguese seas from which a treaty of peace would undoubtedly exclude them; and, so long as Spanish American silver fleets were afloat, the spoils of ocean war were vastly enriching. It was during these years of war that the Dutch got their footing on the farther sides of the world, and nearly won the mastery of the sea which their slower but stronger English rivals wrested from them in the end. Not until the general Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, was a final settlement of issues between Spain and the United Provinces brought about. The freedom and independence of the Provinces, as sovereign states, was then acknowledged by the humbled Spaniard, and favorable arrangements of trade were conceded to them. The southern, Catholic Provinces, which Spain had held, were retained in their subjection to her.

Frederic Henry, the third Stadtholder, was succeeded in 1647 by his son, William II. The latter wasted his short career of less than four years in foolish plotting to revolutionize the government and transform the stadtholdership into a monarchy, supported by France, for the help of which country he seemed willing to pay any base and treasonable price. Dying suddenly in the midst of his scheming, he left an unborn son—the future William III. of England—who came into the world a week after his father had left it. Under these circumstances the stadtholdership was suspended, with strong feelings against the revival of it, resulting from the conduct of William II. The lesser provinces then fell under the domination of Holland—so much so that the name of Holland began soon to be applied to the confederation at large, and is very commonly used with that meaning for a long subsequent time. The chief minister of the Estates of Holland, known as the Grand Pensionary, became the practical head of the federal government. After 1653 the office of Grand Pensionary was filled by a statesman of high ability, John de Witt, the chief end of whose policy appears to have been the prevention of the return of the House of Orange to power. The government thus administered, and controlled by the commercial class, was successful in promoting the general prosperity of the provinces, and in advancing their maritime importance and power. {1079} It conducted two wars with England—one with the Commonwealth and one with the restored monarchy—and could claim at least an equal share of the naval glory won in each. But it neglected the land defense of the country, and was found shamefully unprepared in 1672, when the Provinces were attacked by a villainous combination, formed between Louis XIV. of France and his servile pensioner, Charles II. of England. The republic, humbled and distressed by the rushing conquests of the French, fixed its hopes upon the young Prince of Orange, heir to the prestige of a great historic name, and turned its wrath against the party of De Witt. The Prince was made Stadtholder, despite the opposition of John de Witt, and the latter, with his brother Cornelius, was murdered by a mob at Amsterdam. William of Orange proved both wise and heroic as a leader, and the people were roused to a new energy of resistance by his appeals and his example. They cut their dykes and flooded the land, subjecting themselves to unmeasured loss and distress, but peremptorily stopping the French advance, until time was gained for awakening public feeling in Europe against the aggressions of the unscrupulous French king. Then William of Orange began that which was to be his great and important mission in life,—the organizing of resistance to Louis XIV. Without the foresight and penetration of French designs which he evinced,—without his unflagging exertions for the next thirty years,—without his diplomatic tact, his skill of management, his patience in war, his obstinate perseverance,—it seems to be a certainty that the ambitious "grand monarch," concentrating the whole power of France in himself, would have been able to break the surrounding nations one by one, and they would not have combined their strength for an effective self-protection. The revolution of 1688-9 in England, which gave the crown of that kingdom to William, and his wife Mary, contributed greatly to his success, and was an event nearly as important in European politics at large as it was in the constitutional history of Great Britain.

Germany after the Thirty Years War.

In a natural order of things, Germany should have supplied the main resistance to Louis XIV. and held his unscrupulous ambition in check. But Germany had fallen to its lowest state of political demoralization and disorder. The very idea of nationality had disappeared. The Empire, even collapsed to the Germanic sense, and even reduced to a frame and a form, had almost vanished from practical affairs. The numerous petty states which divided the German people stood apart from one another, in substantial independence, and were sundered by small jealousies and distrusts. Little absolute principalities they were, each having its little court, which aped, in a little way, the grand court of the grand monarch of France—central object of the admiration and the envy of all small souls in its time. Half of them were ready to bow down to the splendid being at Versailles, and to be his creatures, if he condescended to bestow a nod of patronage and attention upon them. The French king had more influence among them than their nominal Emperor. More and more distinctly the latter drew apart in his immediate dominions as an Austrian sovereign; and more and more completely Austrian interests and Austrian policy became removed and estranged from the interests of the Germanic people. The ambitions and the cares of the House of Hapsburg were increasingly in directions most opposite to the German side of its relations, tending towards Italy and the southeast; while, at the same time, the narrow church influence which depressed the Austrian states widened a hopeless intellectual difference between them and the northern German people.

Brandenburg.—Prussia.

The most notable movements in dull German affairs after the Peace of Westphalia were those which connected themselves with the settling and centering in Brandenburg of a nucleus of growing power, around which the nationalizing of Germany has been a crystalizing process ever since. The Mark of Brandenburg was one of the earliest conquests (tenth century) of the Germans from the Wends. Prussia, afterwards united with Brandenburg, was a later conquest (thirteenth century) from Wendish or Slavonic and other pagan inhabitants, and its subjugation was a missionary enterprise, accomplished by the crusading Order of Teutonic Knights, under the authority and direction of the Pope. The Order, which held the country for more than two centuries, and ruled it badly, became degenerate, and about the middle of the fifteenth century it was overcome in war by Casimir IV. of Poland, who took away from it the western part of its territory, and forced it to do homage to him for the eastern part, as a fief of the Polish crown. Sixty years later, the Reformation movement in Germany brought about the extinguishment of the Teutonic Order as a political power. The Grand Master of the Order at that time was Albert, a Hohenzollern prince, belonging to a younger branch of the Brandenburg family. He became a Lutheran, and succeeded in persuading the Polish king, Sigismund I., to transfer the sovereignty of the East Prussian fief to him personally, as a duchy. He transmitted it to his descendants, who held it for a few generations; but the line became extinct in 1618, and the Duchy of Prussia then passed to the elder branch of the family and was united with Brandenburg. The Mark of Brandenburg had been raised to the rank of an Electorate in 1356 and had been acquired by the Hohenzollern family in 1417. The superior weight of the Brandenburg electors in northern Germany may be dated from their acquisition of the important Duchy of Prussia; but they made no mark on affairs until the time of Frederick William I., called the Great Elector, who succeeded to the Electorate in 1640, near the close of the Thirty Years War. In the arrangements of the Peace of Westphalia he secured East Pomerania and other considerable additions of territory. In 1657 he made his Duchy of Prussia independent of Poland, by treaty with the Polish king. In 1672 and 1674 he had the courage and the independence to join the allies against Louis XIV., and when the Swedes, in alliance with Louis, invaded his dominions, he defeated and humbled them at Fehrbellen, and took from them the greater part of their Pomeranian territory. When the Great Elector died, in 1688, Brandenburg was the commanding North-German power, and the Hohenzollern family had fully entered on the great career it has since pursued.

{1080}

Frederick William's son Frederick, with none of his father's talent, had a pushing but shallow ambition. He aspired to be a king, and circumstances made his friendship so important to the Emperor Leopold I. that the latter, exercising the theoretical super-sovereignty of the Cæsars, endowed him with the regal title. He was made King of Prussia, not of Brandenburg, because Brandenburg stood in vassalage to the Empire, while Prussia was an independent state.

Poland and Russia.

When Brandenburg and Prussia united began to rise to importance, the neighboring kingdom of Poland had already passed the climax of its career. Under the Jagellon dynasty, sprung from the Duke Jagellon of Lithuania, who married Hedwig, Queen of Poland, in 1386, and united the two states, Poland was a great power for two centuries, and seemed more likely than Russia to dominate the Slavonic peoples of Europe. The Russians at that time were under the feet of the Mongols or Tartars, whose terrific sweep westwards, from the steppes of Asia, had overwhelmed them completely and seemed to bring their independent history to an end. Slowly a Russian duchy had emerged, having its seat of doubtful sovereignty at Moscow, and being subject quite humbly to the Mongol Khan. About 1477 the Muscovite duke of that time, Ivan Vasilovitch, broke the Tartar yoke and acquired independence. But his dominion was limited. The Poles and Lithuanians, now united, had taken possession of large and important territories formerly Russian, and the Muscovite state was entirely cut off from the Baltic. It began, however, in the next century, under Ivan the Terrible, first of the Czars, to make conquests southward and south-eastward, from the Tartars, until it had reached the Caspian Sea. The dominion of the Czar stretched northward, at the same time, to the White Sea, at the single port of which trade was opened with the Russian country by English merchant adventurers in the reign of Elizabeth. Late in the sixteenth century the old line of rulers, descended from the Scandinavian Ruric, came to an end, and after a few years Michael Romanoff established the dynasty which has reigned since his time.

As between the two principal Slavonic nations, Russia was now gaining stability and weight, while Poland had begun to lose both. It was a fatal day for the Poles when, in 1573, on the death of the last of the Jagellons, they made their monarchy purely elective, abolishing the restriction to one family which had previously prevailed. The election was by the suffrage of the nobles, not the people at large (who were generally serfs), and the government became an oligarchy of the most unregulated kind known in history. The crown was stripped of power, and the unwillingness of the nobility to submit to any national authority, even that of its own assembly, reached a point, about the middle of the seventeenth century, at which anarchy was virtually agreed upon as the desirable political state. The extraordinary "liberum veto," then made part of the Polish constitution, gave to each single member of the assemblies of the nobles, or of the deputies representing them, a right to forbid any enactment, or to arrest the whole proceedings of the body, by his unsupported negative. This amazing prerogative appears to have been exercised very rarely in its fullness; but its theoretical existence effectually extinguished public spirit and paralyzed all rational legislation. Linked with the singular feebleness of the monarchy, it leaves small room for surprise at the ultimate shipwreck of the Polish state.

The royal elections at Warsaw came to be prize contests at which all Europe assisted. Every Court set up its candidate for the paltry titular place; every candidate emptied his purse into the Polish capital, and bribed, intrigued, corrupted, to the best of his ability. Once, at least (1674), when the game was on, a sudden breeze of patriotic feeling swept the traffickers out of the diet, and inspired the election of a national hero, John Sobieski, to whom Europe owes much; for it was he who drove back the Turks, in 1683, when their last bold push into central Europe was made, and when they were storming at the gates of Vienna. But when Sobieski died, in 1696, the old scandalous vendue of a crown was re-opened, and the Elector of Saxony was the buyer. During most of the last two centuries of its history, Poland sold its throne to one alien after another, and allowed foreign states to mix and meddle with its affairs. Of real nationality there was not much left to extinguish when the time of extinction came. There were patriots, and very noble patriots, among the Poles, at all periods of their history; but it seems to have been the very hopelessness of the state into which their country had drifted which intensified their patriotic feeling.

Russia had acquired magnitude and strength as a barbaric power, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; but it was not until the reign of Peter the Great, which opened in 1682, that the great Slavonic empire began to take on a European character, with European interests and influences, and to assimilate the civilization of the West. Peter may be said to have knotted Russia to Europe at both extremities, by pushing his dominions to the Baltic on the north and to the Black Sea on the south, and by putting his own ships afloat in both. From his day, Russia has been steadily gathering weight in each of the two continents over which her vast bulk of empire is stretched, and moving to a mysterious great destiny in time to come.

The Turks.

The Turks, natural enemies of all the Christian races of eastern and southeastern Europe, came practically to the end of their threatening career of conquest about the middle of the sixteenth century, when Suleiman the Magnificent died (1566). He had occupied a great part of Hungary; seated a pasha in Buda; laid siege to Vienna; taken Rhodes from the Knights of St. John; attacked them in Malta; made an alliance with the King of France; brought a Turkish fleet into the western Mediterranean, and held Europe in positive terror of an Ottoman domination for half a century. His son Selim added Cyprus to the Turkish conquests; but was humbled in the Mediterranean by the great Christian victory of Lepanto, won by the combined fleets of Spain, Venice and the Pope, under Don John of Austria. After that time Europe had no great fear of the Turk; though he still fought hard with the Venetians, the Poles, the Russians, the Hungarians, and, once more, carried his arms even to Vienna. But, on the whole, it was a losing fight; the crescent was on the wane.

{1081}

Last glories of Venice.

In the whole struggle with the Ottomans, through the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, the republic of Venice bore a noble part. She contested with them foot by foot the Greek islands, Peloponnesus, and the eastern shores of the Adriatic. Even after her commerce began to slip from her control, and the strength which came from it sank rapidly, she gave up her eastern possessions but slowly, one by one, and after stout resistance. Crete cost the Turks a war of twenty-four years (1645-1669). Fifteen years afterwards the Venetians gathered their energies afresh, assumed the aggressive, and conquered the whole Peloponnesus, which they held for a quarter of a century. Then it was lost again, and the Ionian Islands alone remained Venetian territory in the East.

Rise of the House of Savoy.

Of Italy at large, in the seventeenth century, lying prostrate under the heavy hand of Spain, there is no history to claim attention in so brief a sketch as this. One sovereign family in the northwest, long balanced on the Alps, in uncertainty between a cis-Alpine and a trans-Alpine destiny, but now clearly committed to Italian fortunes, had begun to win its footing among the noticeable smaller powers of the day by sheer dexterity of trimming and shifting sides in the conflicts of the time. This was the House of Savoy, whose first possessions were gathered in the crumbling of the old kingdom of Burgundy, and lay on both slopes of the Alps, commanding several important passes. On the western and northern side, the counts, afterwards dukes, of Savoy had to contend, as time went on, with the expanding kingdom of France and with the stout-hearted communities which ultimately formed the Swiss Confederacy. They fell back before both. At one period, in the fifteenth century, their dominion had stretched to the Saone, and to the lake of Neufchatel, on both sides of it, surrounding the free city of Geneva, which they were never able to overcome, and the lake of Geneva entire. After that time, the Savoyards gradually lost territory on the Gallic side and won compensations on the Italian side, in Piedmont, and at the expense of Genoa and the duchy of Milan. The Duke Victor Amadeus II. was the most successful winner for his house, and he made his gains by remarkable manœuvering on both sides of the wars of Louis XIV. One of his acquisitions (1713) was the island kingdom of Sicily, which gave him a royal title. A few years later he exchanged it with Austria for the island kingdom of Sardinia—a realm more desirable to him for geographical reasons only. The dukes of Savoy and princes of Piedmont thus became kings of Sardinia, and the name of the kingdom was often applied to their whole dominion, down to the recent time when the House of Savoy attained the grander kingship of united Italy.

First wars of Louis XIV.

The wars of Louis XIV. gave little opportunity for western and central Europe to make any other history than that of struggle and battle, invasion and devastation, intrigue and faithless diplomacy, shifting of political landmarks and traffic in border populations, as though they were pastured cattle, for fifty years, in the last part of the seventeenth century and the first part of the eighteenth (1665-1715). It will be remembered that when this King of France married the Infanta of Spain, he joined in a solemn renunciation of all rights on her part and on that of her children to such dominions as she might otherwise inherit. But such a renunciation, with no sentiment of honor behind it, was worthless, of course, and Louis XIV., in his own esteem, stood on a height quite above the moral considerations that have force with common men. When Philip IV. of Spain died, in 1665, Louis promptly began to put forward the claims which he had pledged himself not to make. He demanded part of the Netherlands, and Franche Comté—the old county (not the duchy) of Burgundy—as belonging to his queen. It was his good fortune to be served by some of the greatest generals, military engineers and administrators of the day—by Turenne, Condé, Vauban, Louvois, and others—and when he sent his armies of invasion into Flanders and Franche Comté they carried all before them. Holland took alarm at these aggressions which came so near to her, and formed an alliance with England and Sweden to assist Spain. But the unprincipled English king, Charles II., was easily bribed to betray his ally; Sweden was bought over; Spain submitted to a treaty which gave the Burgundian county back to her, and surrendered an important part of the Spanish Netherlands to France. Louis' first exploit of national brigandage had thus been a glorious success, as glory is defined in the vocabulary of sovereigns of his class. He had stolen several valuable towns, killed some thousands of people, carried misery into the lives of some thousands more, and provoked the Dutch to a challenge of war that seemed promising of more glory of like kind.

In 1672 he prepared himself to chastise the Dutch, and his English pensioner, Charles II., with several German princes, joined him in the war. It was this war, as related already, which brought about the fall and the death of John de Witt, Grand Pensionary of Holland; which raised William of Orange to the restored stadtholdership, and which gave him a certain leadership of influence in Europe, as against the French king. It was this war, likewise, which gave the Hohenzollerns their first great battle-triumph, in the defeat of the Swedes, allies of the French, at Fehrbellin. For Frederick William, the Great Elector, had joined the Emperor Leopold and the King of Spain in another league with Holland to resist the aggressions of France; while Sweden now took sides with Louis. England was soon withdrawn from the contest, by the determined action of Parliament, which forced its king to make peace. Otherwise the war became general in western Europe and was frightful in the death and misery it cost. Generally the French had the most success. Turenne was killed in 1675 and Condé retired the same year; but able commanders were found in Luxemburg and Crequi to succeed them. In opposition to William of Orange, the Dutch made peace at Nimegueu, in 1678, and Spain was forced to give up Franche Comté, with another fraction of her Netherland territories; but Holland lost nothing. Again Louis XIV. had beaten and robbed his neighbors with success, and was at the pinnacle of his glory. France, it is true, was oppressed and exhausted, but her king was a "grand monarch," and she must needs be content.

{1082}

For a few years the grand monarch contented himself with small filchings of territory, which kept his conscience supple and gave practice to his sleight-of-hand. On one pretext and another he seized town after town in Alsace, and, at last, 1681, surprised and captured the imperial free city of Strasburg, in a time of entire peace. He bombarded Genoa, took Avignon from the Pope, bullied and abused feeble Spain, made large claims on the Palatinate in the name of his sister-in-law, but against her will, and did nearly what he was pleased to do, without any effective resistance, until after William of Orange had been called to the English throne. That completed a great change in the European situation.

Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

The change had already been more than half brought about by a foul and foolish measure which Louis had adopted in his domestic administration. Cursed by a tyrant's impatience at the idea of free thought and free opinion among his subjects, he had been persuaded by Catholic zealots near his person to revoke the Edict of Nantes and revive persecution of the Huguenots. This was done in 1685. The fatal effects within France resembled those which followed the persecution of the Moriscoes of Spain. The Huguenots formed a large proportion of the best middle class of the kingdom,—its manufacturers, its merchants, its skilled and thrifty artisans. Infamous efforts were made to detain them in the country and there force them to apostacy or hold them under punishment if they withstood. But there was not power enough in the monarchy, with all its absolutism, to enclose France in such a wall. Vast numbers escaped—half a million it is thought—carrying their skill, their knowledge, their industry and their energy into Holland, England, Switzerland, all parts of Protestant Germany, and across the ocean to America. France was half ruined by the loss.

The League of Augsburg.

At the same time, the Protestant allies in Germany and the North, whom Louis had held in subserviency to himself so long, were angered and alarmed by his act. They joined a new defensive league against him, formed at Augsburg, in 1686, which embraced the Emperor, Spain, Holland, and Sweden, at first, and afterwards took in Savoy and other Italian states, along with Germany almost entire. But the League was miserably unprepared for war, and hardly hindered the march of Louis' armies when he suddenly moved them into the Rhenish electorates in 1688. For the second time in his reign, and under his orders, the Palatinate was fearfully devastated with fire and sword. But this attack on Germany, occupying the arms of France, gave William of Orange his opportunity to enter England unopposed and take the English crown. That accomplished, he speedily brought England into the League, enlarging it to a "grand alliance" of all western Europe against the dangerous monarch of France, and inspiring it with some measure of his own energy and courage. France had now to deal with enemies on every side. They swarmed on all her frontiers, and the strength and valor with which she met them were amazing. For three years the French more than held their own, not only in land-fighting, but on the sea, where they seemed likely, for a time, to dispute the supremacy of the English and the Dutch with success. But the frightful draft made on the resources of the nation, and the strain on its spirit, were more than could be kept up. The obstinacy of the king, and his indifference to the sufferings of his people, prolonged the war until 1697, but with steady loss to the French of the advantages with which they began. Two years before the end, Louis had bought over the Duke of Savoy, by giving back to him all that France had taken from his Italian territories since Richelieu's time. When the final peace was settled, at Ryswick, like surrenders had to be made in the Netherlands, Lorraine, and beyond the Rhine; but Alsace, with Strasburg, was kept, to be a German graft on France, until the sharp Prussian pruning knife, in our own time, cut it away.

War of the Spanish Succession.

There were three years of peace after the treaty of Ryswick, an then a new war—longer, more bitter, and more destructive than those before it—arose out of questions connected with the succession to the crown of Spain. Charles II., last of the Austro-Spanish or Spanish-Hapsburg kings, died in 1700, leaving no heir. The nearest of his relatives to the throne were the descendants of his two sisters, one of whom had married Louis XIV. and the other the Emperor Leopold, of the Austrian House. Louis XIV., as we know, had renounced all the Spanish rights of his queen and her issue; but that renunciation had been shown already to be wasted paper. Leopold had renounced nothing; but he had required a renunciation of her Spanish claims from the one daughter, Maria, of his Spanish wife, and he put forward claims to the Spanish succession, on his own behalf, because his mother had been a princess of that nation, as well as his wife. He was willing, however, to transfer his own rights to a younger son, fruit of a second marriage, the Archduke Charles.

The question of the Spanish succession was one of European interest and importance, and attempts had been made to settle it two years before the death of the Spanish king, in 1698, by a treaty, or agreement, between France, England, and Holland. By that treaty these outside powers (consulting Spain not at all) undertook a partition of the Spanish monarchy, in what they assumed to be the interest of the European balance of power. They awarded Naples, Sicily, and some lesser Italian possessions to a grandson of Louis XIV., the Milanese territory to the Archduke Charles, and the rest of the Spanish dominions to an infant son of Maria, the Emperor's daughter, who was married to the elector of Bavaria. But the infant so selected to wear the crown of Spain died soon afterwards, and a second treaty of partition was framed. This gave the Milanese to the Duke of Lorraine, in exchange for his own duchy, which he promised to cede to France, and the whole remainder of the Spanish inheritance was conceded to the Austrian archduke, Charles. In Spain, these arrangements were naturally resented, by both people and king, and the latter was persuaded to set against them a will, bequeathing all that he ruled to the younger grandson of Louis XIV., Philip of Anjou, on condition that the latter renounce for himself and for his heirs all claims to the crown of France. The inducement to this bequest was the power which the King of France possessed to enforce it, and so to preserve the unity of the Spanish realm. That the argument and the persuasion came from Louis' own agents, while other agents amused England, Holland and Austria with treaties of partition, is tolerably clear.

{1083}

Near the end of the year 1700, the King of Spain died; his will was disclosed; the treaties were as coolly ignored as the prior renunciation had been, and the young French prince was sent pompously into Spain to accept the proffered crown. For a time, there was indignation in Europe, but no more. William of Orange could persuade neither England nor Holland to war, and Austria could not venture hostilities without their help. But that submissiveness only drew from the grand monarch fresh displays of his dishonesty and his insolence. Philip of Anjou's renunciation of a possible succession to the French throne, while occupying that of Spain, was practically annulled: The government of Spain was guided from Paris like that of a dependency of France. Dutch and English commerce was injured by hostile measures. Movements alarming to Holland were made on the frontiers of the Spanish Netherlands. Finally, when the fugitive ex-king of England, James II., died at St. Germains, in September, 1701, Louis acknowledged James' son, the Pretender, as King of England. This insult roused the war spirit in England which King William had striven so hard to evoke. He had already arranged the terms of a new defensive Grand Alliance with Holland, Austria, and most of the German states. There was no difficulty now in making it an offensive combination.

But William, always weak in health, and worn by many cares and harassing troubles, died in March, 1702, before the war which he desired broke out. His death made no pause in the movement of events. Able statesmen, under Queen Anne, his successor, carried forward his policy and a great soldier was found, in the person of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, to command the armies of England and the Dutch. Another commander, of remarkable genius, Prince Eugene of Savoy, took service with the Emperor, and these two, acting cordially together, humbled the overweening pride of Louis XIV. in the later years of his reign. He had worn out France by his long exactions. His strong ministers, Colbert, Louvois and others, were dead, and he did not find successors for them. He had able generals, but none equal to Turenne, Condé or Luxemburg,—none to cope with Marlborough and Prince Eugene. The war was widespread, on a stupendous scale, and it lasted for twelve years. Its campaigns were fought in the Low Countries, in Germany, in Italy and in Spain. It glorified the reign of Anne, in English history, by the shining victories of Blenheim, Ramilies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet, and by the capture of Gibraltar, the padlock of the Mediterranean. The misery to which France was reduced in the later years of the war was probably the greatest that the much suffering nation ever knew.

The Peace of Utrecht.

Louis sought peace, and was willing to go far in surrenders to obtain it. But the allies pressed him too hard in their demands. They would have him not only abandon the Bourbon dynasty that he had set up in Spain, but join them in overthrowing it. He refused to negotiate on such terms, and Fortune approved his resolution, by giving decisive victories to his arms in Spain, while dealing, out disaster and defeat in every other field. England grew weary of the war when it came to appear endless, and Marlborough and the Whigs, who had carried it on, were ousted from power. The Tories, under Harley and Bolingbroke, came into office and negotiated the famous Peace of Utrecht (1713), to which all the belligerents in the war, save the Emperor, consented. The Emperor yielded to a supplementary treaty, signed at Rastadt the next year. These treaties left the Bourbon King of Spain, Philip V., on his throne, but bound him, by fresh renunciations, not to be likewise King of France. They gave to England Gibraltar and Minorca, at the expense of Spain, and Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Hudson's Bay at the expense of France. They took much more from Spain. They took Sicily, which they gave to the Duke of Savoy, with the title of King; they took Naples, Milan, Mantua and Sardinia, which they gave to Austria, or, more strictly speaking, to the Emperor; and they took the Spanish Netherlands, which they gave to Austria in the main, with some barrier towns to the Dutch. They took from France her conquests on the right bank of the Rhine; but they left her in possession of Alsace, with Strasburg and Landau. The great victim of the war was Spain.

France at the death of Louis XIV.

Louis XIV. was near the end of his reign when this last of the fearful wars which he caused was brought to a close. He died in September, 1715, leaving a kingdom which had reasons to curse his memory in every particular of its state. He had foiled the exertions of as wise a minister, Jean Colbert, as ever strove to do good to France. He had dried the sources of national life as with a searching and monstrous sponge. He had repressed everything which he could not absorb in his flaunting court, in his destroying armies, and in himself. He had dealt with France as with a dumb beast that had been given him to bestride; to display himself upon, before the gaze of an envious world; to be bridled, and spurred at his pleasure, and whipped; to toil for him and bear burdens as he willed; to tread upon his enemies and trample his neighbors' fields. It was he, more than all others before or after, who made France that dumb creature which suffered and was still for a little longer time, and then began thinking and went mad.

{1084}

Charles XII. of Sweden.

While the Powers of western Europe were wrestling in the great war of the Spanish Succession, the nations of the North and East were tearing each other, at the same time, with equal stubbornness and ferocity. The beginning of their conflict was a wanton attack from Russia, Poland and Denmark, on the possessions of Sweden. Sweden, in the past century, had made extensive, conquests, and her territories, outside of the Scandinavian peninsula, were thrust provokingly into the sides of all these three neighbors. There had been three Charleses on the Swedish throne in succession, following Christina, the daughter of Gustavus Adolphus. Queen Christina, an eccentric character, had abdicated in 1654, in order to join the Catholic Church, and had been succeeded by her cousin, Charles X. The six years reign of this Charles was one of constant war with the Danes and the Poles, and almost uniformly he was the aggressor. His son and successor, Charles XI., suffered the great defeat at Fehrbellin which gave prestige to Brandenburg; but he was shielded by the puissant arm of Louis XIV., his ally, and lost no territory. More successful in his domestic policy than in his wars, he, both practically and formally, established absolutism in the monarchy. Inheriting from his father that absolute power, while inheriting at the same time the ruthless ambition of his grandfather, Charles XII. came to the throne in 1697.

In the first two years of his reign, this extraordinary young autocrat showed so little of his character that his royal neighbors thought him a weakling, and Peter the Great, of Russia, conspired with Augustus of Poland and Frederick IV. of Denmark to strip him of those parts of his dominion which they severally coveted. The result was like the rousing of a lion by hunters who went forth to pursue a hare. The young Swede, dropping, instantly and forever, all frivolities, sprang at his assailants before they dreamed of finding him awake, and the game was suddenly reversed. The hunters became the hunted, and they had no rest for nine years from the implacable pursuit of them which Charles kept up. He defeated the Danes and the Russians in the first year of the war (1700). In 1702 he invaded Poland and occupied Warsaw; in 1704 he forced the deposition of the Saxon King of Poland, Augustus, and the election of Stanislaus Leczinski. Not yet satisfied, he followed Augustus into his electorate of Saxony, and compelled him there to renounce the Polish crown and the Russian alliance. In 1708 he invaded Russia, marching on Moscow, but turning aside to meet an expected ally, Mazeppa the Cossack. It was the mistake which Napoleon repeated a century later. The Swedes exhausted themselves in the march, and the Russians bided their time. Peter the Czar had devoted eight years, since Charles defeated him at Narva, to making soldiers, well-trained, out of the mob which that fight scattered. When Charles had worn his army down to a slender and disheartened force, Peter struck and destroyed it at Pultowa. Charles escaped from the wreck and took refuge, with a few hundreds of is guards, in the Turkish province of Bessarabia, at Bender. In that shelter, which the Ottomans hospitably accorded to him, he remained for five years, intriguing to bring the Porte into war with his Muscovite enemy, while all the fruits of his nine years of conquest in the North were stripped from him by the old league revived. Augustus returned to Poland and recovered his crown. Peter took possession of Livonia, Ingria, and a great part of Finland. Frederick IV., of Denmark, attacked Sweden itself. The kingless kingdom made a valiant defense against the crowd of eager enemies; but Charles had used the best of its energies and its resources, and it was not strong.

Near the end of 1710, Charles succeeded in pushing the Sultan into war with the Czar, and the latter, advancing into Moldavia, rashly placed himself in a position of great peril, where the Turks had him really at their mercy. But Catherine, the Czarina, who was present, found means to bribe the Turkish vizier in command, and Peter escaped with no loss more serious than the surrender of Azov. That ended the war, and the hopes of the Swedish king. But still the stubborn Charles wearied the Porte with his importunities, until he was commanded to quit the country. Even then he refused to depart,—resisted when force was used to expel him, and did not take his leave until late in November, 1714, when he received intelligence that his subjects were preparing to appoint his sister regent of the kingdom and to make peace with the Czar. That news hurried him homeward; but only for continued war. He was about to make terms with Russia, and to secure her alliance against Denmark, Poland and Hanover, when he was killed during an invasion of Norway, in the siege of Friedrickshall (December, 1718). The crown of Sweden was then conferred upon his sister, but shorn of absolute powers, and practically dependent upon the nobles. All the wars in which Charles XII. had involved his kingdom were brought to an end by great sacrifices, and Russia rose to the place of Sweden as the chief power in the North. The Swedes paid heavily for the career of their "Northern Alexander."

Alliance against Spain.

Before the belligerents in the North had quieted themselves, those of the West were again in arms. Spain had fallen under the influence of two eager and restless ambitions, that of the queen, Elizabeth of Parma, and an Italian minister, Cardinal Alberoni; and the schemes into which these two drew the Bourbon king, Philip V., soon ruptured the close relations with France which Louis XIV. had ruined his kingdom to bring about. To check them, a triple alliance was formed (1717) between France, England and Holland,—enlarged the next year to a quadruple alliance by the adhesion of Austria. At the outset of the war, Spain made a conquest of Sardinia, and almost accomplished the same in Sicily; but the English crushed her navy and her rising commerce, while the French crossed the Pyrenees with an army which the Spaniards could not resist. A vast combination which Alberoni was weaving, and which took in Charles XII., Peter the Great, the Stuart pretender, the English Jacobites, and the opponents of the regency in France, fell to pieces when the Swedish king fell. Alberoni was driven from Spain and all his plans were given up. The Spanish king withdrew from Sicily and surrendered Sardinia. The Emperor and the Duke of Savoy exchanged islands, as stated before, and the former (holding Naples already) revived the old Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, while the latter became King of Sardinia.

{1085}

War of the Polish Succession.

These disturbances ended, there were a few years of rest in Europe, and then another war, of the character peculiar to the eighteenth century, broke out. It had its cause in the Polish election of a king to succeed Augustus II. As usual, the neighboring nations formed a betting ring of onlookers, so to speak, and "backed" their several candidates heavily. The deposed and exiled king, Stanislaus Leczinski, who received his crown from Charles XII. and lost it after Pultowa, was the French candidate; for he had married his daughter to Louis XV. Frederick Augustus of Saxony, son of the late King Augustus, was the Russian and Austrian candidate. The contest resulted in a double election (1733), and out of that came war. Spain and Sardinia joined France, and the Emperor had no allies. Hence the House of Austria suffered greatly in the war, losing the Two Sicilies, which went to Spain, and were conferred on a younger son of the king, creating a third Bourbon monarchy. Part of the duchy of Milan was also yielded by Austria to the King of Sardinia; and the Duke of Lorraine, husband of the Emperor's daughter, Maria Theresa, gave up his duchy to Stanislaus, who renounced therefor his claim on the crown of Poland. The Duke of Lorraine received as compensation a right of succession to the grand duchy of Tuscany, where the Medicean House was about to expire. These were the principal consequences, humiliating to Austria, of what is known as the First Family Compact of the French and Spanish Bourbons.

War of Jenkins' Ear.

This alliance between the two courts gave encouragement to hostile demonstrations in the Spanish colonies against English traders, who were accused of extensive smuggling, and the outcome was a petty war (1739), called "the War of Jenkins' Ear."

War of the Austrian Succession.

Before these hostilities were ended, another "war of succession," more serious than any before it, was wickedly brought upon Europe. The Emperor, Charles VI., died in 1740, leaving no son, but transmitting his hereditary dominions to his eldest daughter, the celebrated Maria Theresa, married to the ex-Duke of Lorraine. Years before his death he had sought to provide against any possible disputing of the succession, by an instrument known as the Pragmatic Sanction, to which he obtained, first, the assent of the estates of all the provinces and kingdoms of the Austrian realm, and, secondly, the guaranty by solemn treaty of almost every European Power. He died in the belief that he had established his daughter securely, and left her to the enjoyment of a peaceful reign. It was a pitiful illusion. He was scarcely in his grave before half the guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction were putting forward claims to this part and that part of the Austrian territories. The Elector of Bavaria, the Elector of Saxony (in his wife's name) and the King of Spain, claimed the whole succession; the two first mentioned on grounds of collateral lineage, the latter (a Bourbon cuckoo in the Spanish-Hapsburg nest) as being the heir of the Hapsburgs of Spain.

While these larger pretensions were still jostling each other in the diplomatic stage, a minor claimant, who said little but acted powerfully, sent his demands to the Court of Vienna with an army following close at their heels. This was Frederick II. of Prussia, presently known as Frederick the Great, who resuscitated an obsolete claim on Silesia and took possession of the province (1740-41) without waiting for debate. If, anywhere, there had been virtuous hesitations before, his bold stroke ended them. France could not see her old Austrian rival dismembered without hastening to grasp a share. She contracted with the Spanish king and the Elector of Bavaria to enforce the latter's claims, and to take the Austrian Netherlands in prospect for compensation, while Spain should find indemnity in the Austro-Italian states. Frederick of Prussia, having Silesia in hand, offered to join Maria Theresa in the defense of her remaining dominions; but his proposals were refused, and he entered the league against her. Saxony did the same. England and Sardinia were alone in befriending Austria, and England was only strong at sea. Maria Theresa found her heartiest support in Hungary, where she made a personal appeal to her subjects, and enlarged their constitutional privileges. In 1742 the Elector of Bavaria was elected Emperor, as Charles VII. In the same year, Maria Theresa, acting under pressure from England, gave up the greater part of Silesia to Frederick, by treaty, as a price paid, not for the help he had offered at first, but barely for his neutrality. He abandoned his allies and withdrew from the war. His retirement produced an immense difference in the conditions of the contest. Saxony made peace at the same time, and became an active ally on the Austrian side. So rapidly did the latter then recover their ground and the French slip back that Frederick, after two years of neutrality, became alarmed, and found a pretext to take up arms again. The scale was now tipped to the side on which he threw himself, but not immediately; and when, in 1745, the Emperor, Charles VII., died suddenly, Maria Theresa was able to secure the election of her husband, Francis of Lorraine (or Tuscany), which founded the Hapsburg-Lorraine dynasty on the imperial throne. This was in September. In the following December Frederick was in Dresden, and Saxony—the one effective ally left to the Austrians, since England had withdrawn from the war in the previous August—was at his feet. Maria Theresa, having the Spaniards and the French still to fight in Italy and the Netherlands, could do nothing but make terms with the terrible Prussian king. The treaty, signed at Dresden on Christmas Day, 1745, repeated the cession of Silesia to Frederick, with Glatz, and restored Saxony to the humbled Elector.

Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

France and Spain, deserted the second time by their faithless Prussian ally, continued the war until 1748, when the influence of England and Holland brought about a treaty of peace signed at Aix-la-Chapelle. France gained nothing from the war, but had suffered a loss of prestige, distinctly. Austria, besides giving up Silesia to Frederick of Prussia, was required to surrender a bit of Lombardy to the King of Sardinia, and to make over Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla to Don Philip of Spain, for a hereditary principality. Under the circumstances, the result to Maria Theresa was a notable triumph, and she shared with her enemy, Frederick, the fruitage of fame harvested in the war. But antagonism between these two, and between the interests and ambitions which they respectively represented—dynastic on one side and national on the other—was henceforth settled and irreconcilable, and could leave in Germany no durable peace.

{1086}

Colonial conflicts of France and England.

The peace was broken, not for Germany alone, but for Europe and for almost the world at large, in six years after the signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. The rupture occurred first very far from Europe—on the other sides of the globe, in America and Hindostan, where England and France were eager rivals in colonial conquest. In America, they had quarreled since the Treaty of Utrecht over the boundaries of Acadia, or Nova Scotia, which that treaty transferred to England. Latterly, they had come to a more serious collision in the interior of the continent. The English, rooting their possession of the Atlantic seaboard by strong and stable settlements, had been tardy explorers and slow in passing the Alleganies to the region inland. On the other hand, the French, nimble and enterprising in exploration, and in military occupation, but superficial and artificial in colonizing, had pushed their way by a long circuit from Canada, through the great lakes to the head waters of the Ohio, and were fortifying a line in the rear of the British colonies, from the valley of the St. Lawrence to the valley of the Mississippi, before the English were well aware of their intent. Then the colonists, Virginians and Pennsylvanians, took arms, and the career of George Washington was begun as leader of an expedition in 1754 to drive the French from the Ohio. It was not successful, and a strong force of regular troops was sent over next year by the British government, under Braddock, to repeat the attempt. A frightful catastrophe, worse than failure, came of this second undertaking, and open war between France and England, which had not yet been declared, followed soon. This colonial conflict of England and France fired the train, so to speak, which caused a great explosion of suppressed hostilities in Europe.

The House of Hanover in England.

If the English crown had not been worn by a German king, having a German principality to defend, the French and English might have fought out their quarrel on the ocean, and in the wilderness of America, or on the plains of the Carnatic, without disturbing their continental neighbors. But England was now under a new, foreign-bred line of sovereigns, descended from that daughter of James I., the princess Elizabeth, who married the unfortunate Elector Palatine and was queen of Bohemia for a brief winter term. After William of Orange died, his wife, Queen Mary, having preceded him to the grave, and no children having been born to them, Anne, the sister of Mary, had been called to the throne. It was in her reign that the brilliant victories of Marlborough were won, and in her reign that the Union of Scotland with England, under one parliament as well as one sovereign, was brought about. On Anne's death (1714), her brother, the son of James II., called "the Pretender," was still excluded from the throne, because of his religion, and the next heir was sought and summoned, in the person of the Elector George, of Hanover, whose remote ancestress was Elizabeth Stuart. George I. had reigned thirteen years, and his son, George II., had been twenty-seven years on the throne, when these quarrels with France arose. Throughout the two reigns, until 1742, the English nation had been kept mostly at peace, by the potent influence of a great minister, Sir Robert Walpole, and had made a splendid advance in material prosperity and strength; while the system of ministerial government, responsible to Parliament and independent of the Crown, which has been in later times the peculiar feature of the British constitution, was taking shape. In 1742, Walpole fell from power, and the era of peace for England was ended. But her new dynasty had been firmly settled, and politically, industrially, and commercially, the nation was so sound in its condition as to be well prepared for the series of wars into which it plunged. In the War of the Austrian Succession England had taken a limited part, and with small results to herself. She was now about to enter, under the lead of the high spirited and ambitious Pitt, afterwards Earl of Chatham, the greatest career of conquest in her history.

[Image: Europe 1768 A. D.]

The Seven Years War.

As before said, it was the anxiety of George II. for his electorate of Hanover which caused an explosion of hostilities in Europe to occur, as consequence of the remote fighting of French and English colonists in America. For the strengthening of Hanover against attacks from France, he sought an alliance with Frederick of Prussia. This broke the long-standing anti-French alliance of England with Austria, and Austria joined fortunes with her ancient Bourbon enemy, in order to be helped to the revenge which Maria Theresa now promised herself the pleasure of executing upon the Prussian king. As the combination finally shaped itself on the French side, it embraced France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Poland, Saxony, and the Palatinate, and its inspiring purpose was to break Prussia down and partition her territories, rather than to support France against England. The agreements to this end were made in secret; but Frederick obtained knowledge of them, and learned that papers proving the conspiracy against him were in the archives of the Saxony government, at Dresden. His action was decided with that promptitude which so often disconcerted his enemies. He did not wait to be attacked by the tremendous league formed against him, nor waste time in efforts to dissolve it, but defiantly struck the first blow. He poured his army into Saxony (August, 1756), seized Dresden by surprise, captured the documents he desired, and published them to the world in vindication of his summary precipitation of war. Then, blockading the Saxon army in Pirna, he pressed rapidly into Bohemia, defeated the Austrians at Lowositz, and returned as rapidly, to receive the surrender of the Saxons and to enlist most of them in his own ranks. This was the European opening of the Seven Years War, which raged, first and last, in all quarters of the globe. In the second year of the war, Frederick gained an important victory at Prague and suffered a serious reverse at Kolin, which threw most of Silesia into the hands of the Austrians. Close following that defeat came crushing news from Hanover, where the incompetent Duke of Cumberland, commanding for his father, the English King George, had allowed the French to force him to an agreement which disbanded his army, and left Prussia alone in the terrific fight. Frederick's position seemed desperate; but his energy retrieved it. {1087} He fought and defeated the French at Rossbach, near Lützen, on the 5th of November, and the Austrians, at Leuthen, near Breslau, exactly one month later. In the campaigns of 1758, he encountered the Russians at Zorndorf, winning a bloody triumph, and he sustained a defeat at Hochkirk, in battle with the Austrians. But England had repudiated Cumberland's convention and recalled him; English and Hanoverian forces were again put into the field, under the capable command of Prince Frederick of Brunswick, who turned the tide in that quarter against the French, and the results of the year were generally favorable to Frederick. In 1759, the Hanoverian army, under Prince Ferdinand, improved the situation on that side; but the prospects of the King of Prussia were clouded by heavy disasters. Attempting to push a victory over the Russians too far, at Kunersdorf, he was terribly beaten. He lost Dresden, and a great part of Saxony. In the next year he recovered all but Dresden, which he wantonly and inhumanly bombarded. The war was now being carried on with great difficulty by all the combatants. Prussia, France and Austria were suffering almost equally from exhaustion; the misery among their people was too great to be ignored; the armies of each had dwindled. The opponents of Pitt's war policy in England overcame him, in October, 1761, whereupon he resigned, and the English subsidy to Frederick was withdrawn. But that was soon made up to him by the withdrawal of Russia from the war, at the beginning of 1762, when Peter of Holstein, who admired Frederick, became Czar. Sweden made peace a little later. The remainder of the worn and wearied fighters went on striking at each other until near the end of the year.

Meantime, on the colonial and East Indian side of it, this prodigious Seven Years War, as a great struggle for world-empire between England and France, had been adding conquest to conquest and triumph to triumph for the former. In 1759, Wolfe had taken Quebec and died on the Heights of Abraham in the moment of victory. Another twelve months saw the whole of Canada clear of Frenchmen in arms. In the East, to use the language of Macaulay, "conquests equalling in rapidity and far surpassing in magnitude those of Cortes and Pizarro, had been achieved." "In the space of three years the English had founded a mighty empire. The French had been defeated in every part of India. Chandernagore had yielded to Clive, Pondicherry to Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa, and the Carnatic, the authority of the East India Company was more absolute than that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been."

Treaties of Paris and Hubertsburg.

In February, 1763, two treaties of peace were concluded, one at Paris, on the 10th, between England, France and Spain (the latter Power having joined France in the war as late as January, 1762); the other at Hubertsburg, on the 15th, between Prussia and Austria. France gave up to England all her possessions in North America, except Louisiana (which passed to Spain,), and yielded Minorca, but recovered the Philippines. She surrendered, moreover, considerable interests in the West Indies and in Africa. The colonial aspirations of the French were cast down by a blow that was lasting in its effect. As between Prussia and Austria, the triumphs of the peace and the glories of the war were won entirely by the former. Frederick came out of it, "Frederick the Great," the most famous man of his century, as warrior and as statesman, both. He had defended his little kingdom for seven years against three great Powers, and yielded not one acre of its territory. He had raised Prussia to the place in Germany from which her subsequent advance became easy and almost inevitable. But the great fame he earned is spotted with many falsities and much cynical indifference to the commonest ethics of civilization. His greatness is of that character which requires to be looked at from selected standpoints.

Russia.

Another character, somewhat resembling that of Frederick, was now drawing attention on the eastern side of Europe. Since the death of Peter the Great, the interval in Russian history had been covered by six reigns, with a seventh just opening, and the four sovereigns who really exercised power were women. Peter's widow, Catherine I., had succeeded him (1725) for two years. His son, Alexis, he had put to death; but Alexis left a son, Peter, to whom Catherine bequeathed the crown. Peter II. died after a brief reign, in 1730; and the nearest heirs were two daughters of Peter the Great, Anne and Elizabeth. But they were set aside in favor of another Anne—Anne of Courland—daughter of Peter the Great's brother. Anne's reign of ten years was under the influence of German favorites and ministers, and nearly half of it was occupied with a Turkish War, in cooperation with Austria. For Austria the war had most humiliating results, costing her Belgrade, all of Servia, part of Bosnia and part of Wallachia. Russia won back Asov, with fortifications forbidden, and that was all. Anne willed her crown to an infant nephew, who appears in the Russian annals as Ivan VI.; but two regencies were overthrown by palace revolutions within little more than a year, and the second one carried to the throne that Princess Elizabeth, younger daughter of Peter the Great, who had been put aside eleven years before. Elizabeth, a woman openly licentious and intemperate, reigned for twenty-one years, during the whole important period of the War of the Austrian Succession, and almost to the end of the Seven Years War. She was bitterly hostile to Frederick the Great, whose sharp tongue had offended her, and she joined Maria Theresa with eagerness in the great effort of revenge, which failed. In the early part of her reign, war with Sweden had been more successful and had added South Finland to the Russian territories. It is claimed for her domestic government that the general prosperity of the country was advanced.

{1088}

Catherine II.

On the death of Elizabeth, near the end of the year 1761, the crown passed to her nephew, Peter of Holstein, son of her eldest sister, Anne, who had married the Duke of Holstein. This prince had been the recognized heir, living at the Russian court, during the whole of Elizabeth's reign. He was an ignorant boor, and he had become a besotted drunkard. Since 1744 he had been married to a young German princess, of the Anhalt Zerbst family, who took the baptismal name of Catherine when she entered the Greek Church. Catherine possessed a superior intellect and a strong character; but the vile court into which she came as a young girl, bound to a disgusting husband, had debauched her in morals and lowered her to its own vileness. She gained so great an ascendancy that the court was subservient to her, from the time that her incapable husband, Peter III., succeeded to the throne. He reigned by sufferance for a year and a half, and then (July, 1762) he was easily deposed and put to death. In the deposition, Catherine was the leading actor. Of the subsequent murder, some historians are disposed to acquit her. She did not scruple, at least, to accept the benefit of both deeds, which raised her, alone, to the throne of the Czars.

Partition of Poland.

Peter III., in his short reign, had made one important change in Russian policy, by withdrawing from the league against Frederick of Prussia, whom he greatly admired. Catherine found reasons, quite aside from those of personal admiration, for cultivating the friendship of the King of Prussia, and a close understanding with that astute monarch was one of the earliest objects of her endeavor. She had determined to put an end to the independence of Poland. As she first entertained the design, there was probably no thought of the partitioning afterwards contrived. But her purpose was to keep the Polish kingdom in disorder and weakness, and to make Russian influence supreme in it, with views, no doubt, that looked ultimately to something more. On the death of the Saxon king of Poland, Augustus III., in 1763, Catherine put forward a native candidate for the vacant throne, in the person of Stanislaus Poniatowsky, a Russianized Pole and a former lover of her own. The King of Prussia supported her candidate, and Poniatowsky was duly elected, with 10,000 Russian troops in Warsaw to see that it was properly done. The Poles were submissive to the invasion of their political independence; but when Catherine, who sought to create a Russian party in Poland by protecting the members of the Greek Church and the Protestants, against the intolerance of the Polish Catholics, forced a concession of civil equality to the former (1768), there was a wide-spread Catholic revolt. In the fierce war which followed, a band of Poles was pursued across the Turkish border, and a Turkish town was burned by the Russian pursuers. The Sultan, who professed sympathy with the Poles, then declared war against Russia. The Russo-Turkish war, in turn, excited Austria, which feared Russian conquests from the Turks, and another wide disturbance of the peace of Europe seemed threatening. In the midst of the excitement there came a whispered suggestion, to the ear of the courts of Vienna and St. Petersburg, that they severally satisfy their territorial cravings and mutually assuage each other's jealousy, at the expense of the crumbling kingdom of Poland. The whisper may have come from Frederick II. of Prussia, or it may not. There are two opinions on the point. From whatever source it came, it found favorable consideration at Vienna and St. Petersburg, and between February and August, 1772, the details of the partition were worked out.

Poland was not yet extinguished. The kingdom was only shorn of some 160,000 square miles of territory, more than half of which went to Russia, a third to Austria, and the remainder, less than 10,000 square miles, to Prussia. This last mentioned annexation was the old district of West Prussia which the Polish king, Casimir IV., had wrested from the Teutonic Knights in 1466, before Brandenburg had aught to do with Prussian lands or name. After three centuries, Frederick reclaimed it.

The diminished kingdom of Poland showed more signs of a true national life, of an earnest national feeling, of a sobered and rational patriotism, than had appeared in its former history. The fatal powers monopolized by the nobles, the deadly "liberum veto," the corrupting elective kingship, were looked at in their true light, and in May, 1791, a new constitution was adopted which reformed those evils. But a few nobles opposed the reformation and appealed to Russia, supplying a pretext to Catherine on which she filled Poland with her troops. It was in vain that the patriot Kosciusko led the best of his countrymen in a brave struggle with the invader. They were overborne (1793-1794); the unhappy nation was put in fetters, while Catherine and a new King of Prussia, Frederick William II., arranged the terms of a second partition. This gave to Prussia an additional thousand square miles, including the important towns of Danzig and Thorn, while Russia took four times as much. A year later, the small remainder of Polish territory was dismembered and divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria, and thus Poland disappeared from the map of Europe as a state.

Russia as left by Catherine II.

Meantime, in her conflicts with the Turks, Catherine was extending her vast empire to the Dneister and the Caucasus, and opening a passage for her fleets from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. By treaty in 1774 she placed the Tartars of the Crimea in independence of the Turks, and so isolated them for easy conquest. In 1783 the conquest was made complete. By the same treaty she secured a right of remonstrance on behalf of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, in the Danubian principalities and in the Greek Church at Constantinople, which opened many pretexts for future interference and for war at Russian convenience. The aggressions of the strong-willed and powerful Czarina, and their dazzling success, filled her subjects with pride, and effaced all remembrance of her foreign origin and her want of right to the seat which she filled. She was ambitious to improve the empire, as well as to expand it; for her liberal mind took in the large ideas of that speculative age and was much moved by them. She attempted many reforms; but most things that she tried to do for the bettering of civilization and the lifting of the people were done imperiously, and spoiled by the autocratic method of the doing. In her later years, her inclination towards liberal ideas was checked, and the French Revolution put an end to it.

{1089}

State of France in the Eighteenth Century.

In tracing the destruction of Poland and the aggrandizement of Russia, we have passed the date of that great catastrophe in France which ended the old modern order of things, and introduced a new one, not for France only, but for Europe at large. It was a catastrophe toward which the abused French people had been slowly slipping for generations, pushed unrelentingly to it by blind rulers and a besotted aristocracy. By nature a people ardent and lively in temper, hopeful and brave in spirit, full of intelligence, they had been held down in dumb repression: silenced in voice, even for the uttering of their complaints; the national meeting of their representative States suppressed for nearly two centuries; taxes wrung from them on no measure save the will of a wanton-minded and ignorant king; their beliefs prescribed, their laws ordained, their courts of justice commanded, their industries directed, their trade hedged round, their rights and permissions in all particulars meted out to them by the same blundering and irresponsible autocracy. How long would they bear it? and would their deliverance come by the easing of their yoke, or by the breaking of it?—were the only questions.

Their state was probably at its worst in the later years of Louis XIV. That seems to be the conclusion which the deepest study has now reached, and the picture formerly drawn by historians, of a society continually sinking into lower miseries, is mostly put aside. The worst state, seemingly, was passed, or nearly so, when Louis XIV. died. It began to mend under his despicable successor, Louis XV. (1715-1774),— perhaps even during the regency of the profligate Orleans (1715-1723). Why it mended, no historian has clearly explained. The cause was not in better government; for the government grew worse. It did not come from any rise in character of the privileged classes; for the privileged classes abused their privileges with increasing selfishness. But general influences were at work in the world at large, stimulating activities of all kinds,—industry, trade, speculation, combination, invention, experiment, science, philosophy,—and whatever improvement occurred in the material condition and social state of the common people of France may find its explanation in these. There was an augmentation of life in the air of the eighteenth century, and France took some invigoration from it, despite the many maladies in its social system and the oppressions of government under which it bent.

But the difference between the France of Louis XIV. and the France of Louis XVI. was more in the people than in their state. If their misery was a little less, their patience was less, and by not a little. The stimulations of the age, which may have given more effectiveness to labor and more energy to trade, had likewise set thinking astir, on the same practical lines. Men whose minds in former centuries would have labored on riddles dialectical, metaphysical and theological, were now bent on the pressing problems of daily life. The mysteries of economic science began to challenge them. Every aspect of surrounding society thrust questions upon them, concerning its origin, its history, its inequalities, its laws and their principles, its government and the source of authority in it. The so-called "philosophers" of the age, Rousseau, Voltaire and the encyclopædists—were not the only questioners of the social world, nor did the questioning all come from what they taught. It was the intellectual epidemic of the time, carried into all countries, penetrating all classes, and nowhere with more diffusion than in France.

After the successful revolt of the English colonies in America, and the conspicuous blazoning of the doctrines of political equality and popular self-government in their declaration of independence and their republican constitution, the ferment of social free-thinking in France was naturally increased. The French had helped the colonists, fought side by side with them, watched their struggle with intense interest, and all the issues involved in the American revolution were discussed among them, with partiality to the republican side. Franklin, most republican representative of the young republic, came among them and captivated every class. He recommended to them the ideas for which he stood, perhaps more than we suspect.

Louis XVI. and his reign.

And thus, by many influences, the French people of all classes except the privileged nobility, and even in that class to some small extent, were made increasingly impatient of their misgovernment and of the wrongs and miseries going with it. Louis XVI., who came to the throne in 1774, was the best in character of the Bourbon kings. He had no noxious vices and no baleful ambitions. If he had found right conditions prevailing in his kingdom he would have made the best of them. But he had no capacity for reforming the evils that he inherited, and no strength of will to sustain those who had. He accepted an earnest reforming minister with more than willingness, and approved the wise measures of economy, of equitable taxation, and of emancipation for manufactures and trade, which Turgot proposed. But when protected interests, and the privileged order which fattened on existing abuses, raised a storm of opposition, he weakly gave way to it, and dismissed the man (1776) who might possibly have made the inevitable revolution a peaceful one. Another minister, the Genevan banker, Necker, who aimed at less reform, but demanded economy, suffered the same overthrow (1781). The waste, the profligate expenditure, the jobbery, the leeching of the treasury by high-born pensioners and sinecure office-holders, went on, scarcely checked, until the beginnings of actual bankruptcy had appeared.

The States-General.

Then a cry, not much heeded before, for the convocation of the States-general of the kingdom—the ancient great legislature of France, extinct since the year 1614—became loud and general. The king yielded (1788). The States-general was called to meet on the 1st of May, 1789, and the royal summons decreed that the deputies chosen to it from the third estate—the common people—should be equal in number to the deputies of the nobility and the clergy together. So the dumb lips of France as a nation were opened, its tongue unloosed, its common public opinion, and public feeling made articulate, for the first time in one hundred and seventy-five years. And the word that it spoke was the mandate of Revolution.

The States-general assembled at Versailles on the 5th of May, and a conflict between the third estate and the nobles occurred at once on the question between three assemblies and one. Should the three orders deliberate and vote together as one body, or sit and act separately and apart. The commons demanded the single assembly. The nobles and most of the clergy refused the union, in which their votes would be overpowered.

{1090}

The National Assembly.

After some weeks of dead-lock on this fundamental issue, the third estate brought it to a summary decision, by boldly asserting its own supremacy, as representative of the mass of the nation, and organizing itself in the character of the "National Assembly" of France. Under that name and character it was joined by a considerable part of the humbler clergy, and by some of the nobles,—additional to a few, like Mirabeau, who sat from the beginning with the third estate, as elected representatives of the people. The king made a weak attempt to annul this assumption of legislative sufficiency on the part of the third estate, and only hurried the exposure of his own powerlessness. Persuaded by his worst advisers to attempt a stronger demonstration of the royal authority, he filled Paris with troops, and inflamed the excitement, which had risen already to a passionate heat.

Outbreak of the Revolution.

Necker, who had been recalled to the ministry when the meeting of the States-general was decided upon, now received his second dismissal (July 11), and the news of it acted on Paris like a signal of insurrection. The city next day was in tumult. On the 14th the Bastile was attacked and taken. The king's government vanished utterly. His troops fraternized with the riotous people. Citizens of Paris organized themselves as a National Guard, on which every hope of order depended, and Lafayette took command. The frightened nobility began flight, first from Paris, and then from the provinces, as mob violence spread over the kingdom from the capital. In October there were rumors that the king had planned to follow the "émigrés" and take refuge in Metz. Then occurred the famous rising of the women; their procession to Versailles; the crowd of men which followed, accompanied but not controlled by Lafayette and his National Guards; the conveyance of the king and royal family to Paris, where they remained during the subsequent year, practically in captivity, and at the mercy of the Parisian mob.

Meanwhile, the National Assembly, negligent of the dangers of the moment, while actual anarchy prevailed, busied itself with debates on constitutional theory, with enactments for the abolition of titles and privileges, and with the creating of an inconvertible paper money, based on confiscated church lands, to supply the needs of the national treasury. Meantime, too, the members of the Assembly and their supporters outside of it were breaking into parties and factions, divided by their different purposes, principles and aims, and forming clubs,—centers of agitation and discussion,—clubs of the Jacobins, the Cordeliers, the Feuillants and the like,—where fear, distrust and jealousy were soon engendering ferocious conflicts among the revolutionists themselves. And outside of France, on the border where the fugitive nobles lurked, intrigue was always active, striving to enlist foreign help for King Louis against his subjects.

The First Constitution.

In April, 1791, Mirabeau, whose influence had been a powerful restraint upon the Revolution, died. In June, the king made an attempt to escape from his durance in Paris, but was captured at Varennes and brought back. Angry demands for his deposition were now made, and a tumultuous republican demonstration occurred, on the Champ de Mars, which Lafayette and the mayor of Paris, Bailly, dispersed, with bloodshed. But republicanism had not yet got its footing. In the constitution, which the Assembly completed at this time, the throne was left undisturbed. The king accepted the instrument, and a constitutional monarchy appeared to have quietly taken the place of the absolute monarchy of the past.

The Girondists.

It was an appearance not long delusive. The Constituent National Assembly being dissolved, gave way to a Legislative Assembly (October, 1791) elected under the new constitution. In the Legislative Assembly the republicans appeared with a strength which soon gave them control of it. They were divided into various groups; but the most eloquent and energetic of these, coming from Bordeaux and the department of the Gironde, fixed the name of Girondists upon the party to which they belonged. The king, as a constitutional sovereign, was forced presently to choose ministers from the ranks of the Girondists, and they controlled the government for several months in the spring of 1792. The earliest use they made of their control was to hurry the country into war with the German powers, which were accused of giving encouragement to the hostile plans of the émigrés on the border. It is now a well-determined fact that the Emperor Leopold was strongly opposed to war with France, and used all his influence for the preservation of peace. It was revolutionary France which opened the conflict, and it was the Girondists who led and shaped the policy of war.

Overthrow of the Monarchy.

In the first encounters of the war, the undisciplined French troops were beaten, and Paris was in panic. Measures were adopted which the king refused to sanction, and he dismissed his Girondist ministers. Lafayette, who was commanding one division of the army in the field, approved the king's course, and wrote an unwise letter to the Assembly, intimating that the army would not submit to a violation of the constitution. The republicans were enraged. Everything seemed proof to them of a treasonable connivance with the enemies of France, to bring about the subjugation of the country, and a forcible restoration of the old regime, absolutism, aristocratic privilege and all. On the 20th of June there was another rising of the Paris mob, unchecked by those who could, as yet, have controlled it. The rioters broke into the Tuileries and humiliated the king and queen with insults, but did no violence. Lafayette came to Paris and attempted to reorganize his old National Guard, for the defense of the constitution and the preservation of order, but failed. The extremists then resolved to throw down the toppling monarchy at once, by a sudden blow. In the early morning of August 10, they expelled the Council-General of the Municipality of Paris from the Hotel de Ville, and placed the government of the city under the control of a provisional Commune, with Danton at its head. {1091} At the same hour, the mob which these conspirators held in readiness, and which they directed, attacked the Tuileries and massacred the Swiss guard, while the king and the royal family escaped for refuge to the Chamber of the Legislative Assembly, near at hand. There, in the king's presence, on a formal demand made by the new self-constituted Municipality or Commune of Paris, the Assembly declared his suspension from executive functions, and invited the people to elect without delay a National Convention for the revising of the Constitution. Commissioners, hastily sent out to the provinces and the armies in the field, were received everywhere with submission to the change of government, except by Lafayette and his army, in and around Sedan. The Marquis placed them under arrest and took from his soldiers a new oath of fidelity to the constitution and the king. But he found himself unsupported, and, yielding to the sweep of events, he obeyed a dismissal by the new government from his command, and left France, to wait in exile for a time when he might serve his Country with a conscience more assured.

The Paris Commune.

Pending the meeting of the Convention, the Paris Commune, increased in number to two hundred and eighty-eight, and dominated by Danton and Robespierre, became the governing power in France. The Legislative Assembly was subservient to it; the kingless Ministry, which had Danton in association with the restored Girondists, was no less so. It was the fierce vigor of the Commune which caused the king and the royal family to be imprisoned in the Temple; which instituted a special tribunal for the summary trial of political prisoners; which searched Paris for "suspects," on the night of August 29-30, gathered three thousand men and women into the prisons and convents of the city, planned and ordered the "September Massacres" of the following week, and thus thinned the whole number of these "suspects" by a half.

Fall of the Girondists.

On the 22d of September the National Convention assembled. The Jacobins who controlled the Commune were found to have carried Paris overwhelmingly and all France largely with them, in the election of representatives. A furious, fanatical democracy, a bloodthirsty anarchism, was in the ascendant. The republican Girondists were now the conservative party in the Convention. They struggled to hold their ground, and very soon they were struggling for their lives. The Jacobin fury was tolerant of no opposition. What stood in its path, with no deadlier weapon than an argument or an appeal, must be, not merely overcome, but destroyed. The Girondists would have saved the king from the guillotine, but they dared not adopt his defense, and their own fate was sealed when they gave votes, under fear, which sent him in January to his death. Five months longer they contended irresolutely, as a failing faction, with their terrible adversaries, and then, in June, 1793, they were proscribed and their arrest decreed. Some escaped and raised futile insurrections in the provinces. Some stayed and faced the death which awaited them in the fast approaching "reign of terror."

"The Mountain" and "the Terror."

The fall of the Girondists left the Jacobin "Mountain" (so-called from the elevation of the seats on which its deputies sat in the Convention) unopposed. Their power was not only absolute in fact, but unquestioned, and they inevitably ran to riot in the exercise of it. The same madness overcame them in the mass which overcame Nero, Caligula, Caracalla, as individuals; for it is no more strange that the unnatural and awful feeling of unlimited dominion over one's fellows should turn the brain of a suddenly triumphant faction, than that it should madden a single shallow-minded man. The men of "the Mountain" were not only masters of France—except in La Vendée and the neighboring region south of the Loire, where an obstinate insurrection had broken out—but the armies which obeyed them had driven back the invading Germans, had occupied the Austrian Netherlands and taken possession of Savoy and Nice. Intoxicated by these successes, the Convention had proclaimed a crusade against all monarchical government, offering the help of France to every people which would rise against existing authorities, and declaring enmity to those who refused alliance with the Revolution. Holland was attacked and England forced to war. The spring of 1793 found a great European coalition formed against revolutionary France, and justified by the aggressions of the Jacobinical government.

For effective exercise of the power of the Jacobins, the Convention as a whole proved too large a body, even when it had been purged of Girondist opposition. Its authority was now gathered into the hands of the famous Committee of Public Safety, which became, in fact, the Revolutionary Government, controlling the national armies, and the whole administration of domestic and foreign affairs. Its reign was the Reign of Terror, and the fearful Revolutionary Tribunal, which began its bloody work with the guillotine in October, 1793, was the chief instrument of its power. Robespierre, Barère, St. Just, Couthon, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d' Herbois and Carnot—the latter devoted to the business of the war—were the controlling members of the Committee. Danton withdrew from it, refusing to serve.

In September, the policy of terrorism was avowedly adopted, and, in the language of the Paris Commune, "the Reign of Terror" became "the order of the day." The arraignment of "suspects" before the Revolutionary Tribunal began. On the 14th of October Marie Antoinette was put on trial; on the 16th she met her death. On the 31st the twenty-one imprisoned Girondist deputies were sent to the guillotine; followed on the 10th of November by the remarkable woman, Madame Roland, who was looked upon as the real leader of their party. From that time until the mid-summer following, the blood-madness raged; not in Paris alone, but throughout France, at Lyons, Marseilles, Toulon, Bordeaux, Nantes, and wherever a show of insurrection and resistance had challenged the ferocity of the Commissioners of the Revolutionary Government, who had been sent into the provinces with unlimited death-dealing powers.

{1092}

But when Jacobinism had destroyed all exterior opposition, it began very soon to break into factions within itself. There was a pitch in its excesses at which even Danton and Robespierre became conservatives, as against Hébert and the atheists of his faction. A brief struggle ensued, and the Hébertists, in March, 1794, passed under the knife of the guillotine. A month later Danton's enemies had rallied and he, with his followers, went down before their attack, and the sharp knife in the Place de la Revolution silenced his bold tongue. Robespierre remained dominant for a few weeks longer in the still reigning Committee of Public Safety; but his domination was already undermined by many fears, distrusts and jealousies among his colleagues and throughout his party. His downfall came suddenly on the 27th of July. On the morning of that day he was the dictator of the Convention and of its ruling committee; at night he was a headless corpse, and Paris was shouting with joy.

On the death of Robespierre the Reign of Terror came quickly to an end. The reaction was sudden and swift. The Committee of Public Safety was changed; of the old members only Carnot, indispensable organizer of war, remained. The Revolutionary Tribunal was remodeled. The Jacobin Club was broken up. The surviving Girondist deputies came back to the Convention. Prosecution of the Terrorists for their crimes began. A new struggle opened, between the lower elements in Parisian and French society, the sansculotte elements, which had controlled the Revolution thus far, and the middle class, the bourgeoisie, long cowed and suppressed, but now rallying to recover its share of power. Bourgeoisie triumphed in the contest. The Sansculottes made their last effort in a rising on the 1st Prairial (May 20, 1795) and were put down. A new constitution was framed which organized the government of the Republic under a legislature in two chambers,—a Council of Five Hundred and a Council of Ancients,—with an executive Directory of Five. But only one third of the legislature first assembled was to be freely elected by the people. The remaining two thirds were to be taken from the membership of the existing Convention. Paris rejected this last mentioned feature of the constitution, while France at large ratified it. The National Guard of Paris rose in insurrection on the 13th Vendémiare (October 5), and it was on this occasion that the young Corsican officer, Napoleon Bonaparte, got his foot on the first round of the ladder by which he climbed afterwards to so great a height. Put in command of the regular troops in Paris, which numbered only 5,000, against 30,000 of the National Guards, he crushed the latter in an action of an hour. That hour was the opening hour of his career.

The government of the Directory was instituted on the 27th of October following. Of its five members, Carnot and Barras were the only men of note, then or afterwards.

The war with the Coalition.

While France was cowering under "the Terror," its armies, under Jourdan, Hoche, and Pichegru, had withstood the great European combination with astonishing success. The allies were weakened by ill feeling between Prussia and Austria over the second partition of Poland, and generally by a want of concert and capable leadership in their action. On the other side, the democratic military system of the Republic, under Carnot's keen eyes, was continually bringing forward fresh soldierly talent to the front. The fall of the Jacobins made no change in that vital department of the administration, and the successes of the French were continued. In the summer of 1794 they carried the war into Germany, and expelled the allies from the Austrian Netherlands. Thence they invaded Holland, and before the end of January, 1795, they were masters of the country; the Stadtholder had fled to England, and a Batavian Republic had been organized. Spain had suffered losses in battle with them along the Pyrenees, and the King of Sardinia had yielded to them the passes of the Maritime Alps. In April the King of Prussia made peace with France. Before the close of the year 1795 the revolt in La Vendée was at an end; Spain had made peace; Pichegru had attempted a great betrayal of the armies on the Rhine, and had failed.

Napoleon in Italy.

This in brief was the situation at the opening of the year 1796, when the "little Corsican officer," who won the confidence of the new government of the Directory by saving its constitution on the 13th Vendemiare, planned the campaign of the year, and received the command of the army sent to Italy. He attacked the Sardinians in April, and a single month sufficed to break the courage of their king and force him to a treaty of peace. On the 10th of May he defeated the Austrians at Lodi; on the 15th he was in Milan. Lombardy was abandoned to him; all central Italy was at his mercy, and he began to act the sovereign conqueror in the peninsula, with a contempt for the government at Paris which he hardly concealed. Two ephemeral republics were created under his direction, the Cisalpine, in Lombardy, and the Cispadane, embracing Modena, Ferrara and Bologna. The Papacy was shorn of part of its territories.

Every attempt made by the Austrians to shake the hold which Bonaparte had fastened on the peninsula only fixed it more firmly. In the spring he began movements beyond the Alps, in concert with Hoche on the Rhine, which threatened Vienna itself and frightened Austria into proposals of peace. Preliminaries, signed in April, foreshadowed the hard terms of the treaty concluded at Campo Formio in the following October. Austria gave up her Netherland provinces to France, and part of her Italian territories to the Cisalpine Republic; but received, in partial compensation, the city of Venice and a portion of the dominions of the Venetian state; for, between the armistice and the treaty, Bonaparte had attacked and overthrown the venerable republic, and now divided it with his humbled enemy.

France under the Directory.

The masterful Corsican, who handled these great matters with the airs of a sovereign, may have known himself already to be the coming master of France. For the inevitable submission again of the many to one was growing plain to discerning eyes. The frightful school-teaching of the Revolution had not impressed practical lessons in politics on the mind of the untrained democracy, so much as suspicions, distrusts, and alarms. All the sobriety of temper, the confidence of feeling, the constraining habit of public order, without which the self-government of a people is impracticable, were yet to be acquired. French democracy was not more prepared for republican institutions in 1797 than it had been in 1789. {1093} There was no more temperance in its factions, no more balance between parties, no more of a steadying potency in public opinion. But it had been brought to a state of feeling that would prefer the sinking of all factions under some vigorous autocracy, rather than another appeal of their quarrels to the guillotine. And events were moving fast to a point at which that choice would require to be made. The summer of 1797 found the members of the Directory in hopeless conflict with one another and with the legislative councils. On the 4th of September a "coup d' état," to which Bonaparte contributed some help, purged both the Directory and the Councils of men obnoxious to the violent faction, and exiled them to Guiana. Perhaps the moment was favorable then for a soldier, with the great prestige that Bonaparte had won, to mount to the seat of power; but he did not so judge.

The Expedition to Egypt.

He planned, instead, an expedition to Egypt, directed against the British power in the East,—an expedition that failed in every object it could have, except the absence in which it kept him from increasing political disorders at home. He was able to maintain some appearance of success, by his subjugation of Egypt and His invasion of Syria; but of harm done to England, or of gain to France in the Mediterranean, there was none; since Nelson, at the battle of the Nile, destroyed the French fleet, and Turkey was added to the Anglo-Austrian coalition. The blunder of the expedition, as proved by its whole results, was not seen by the French people so plainly, however, as they saw the growing hopelessness of their own political state, and the alarming reverses which their armies in Italy and on the Rhine had sustained since Bonaparte went away.

French Aggressions.—The new Coalition.

Continued aggressions on the part of the French had provoked a new European coalition, formed in 1798. In Switzerland they had overthrown the ancient constitution of the confederacy, organizing a new Helvetic Republic on the Gallic model, but taking Geneva to themselves. In Italy they had set up a third republic, the Roman, removing the Pope forcibly from his sovereignty and from Rome. Every state within reach had then taken fresh alarm, and even Russia, undisturbed in the distance, was now enlisted against the troublesome democracy of France.

The unwise King of Naples, entering rashly into the war before his allies could support him, and hastening to restore the Pope, had been driven (December, 1798) from his kingdom, which underwent transformation into a fourth Italian republic, the Parthenopeian. But this only stimulated the efforts of the Coalition, and in the course of the following year the French were expelled from all Italy, saving Genoa alone, and the ephemeral republics they had set up were extinguished. On the Rhine they had lost ground; but they had held their own in Switzerland, after a fierce struggle with the Russian forces of Suwarrow.

Napoleon in power.

When news of these disasters, and of the ripeness of the situation at Paris for a new coup d' état, reached Bonaparte, in Egypt, he deserted his army there, leaving it, under Kléber, in a helpless situation, and made his way back to France. He landed at Fréjus on the 9th of October. Precisely a month later, by a combination with Sieyès, a veteran revolutionist and maker of constitutions, he accomplished the overthrow of the Directory. Before the year closed, a fresh constitution was in force, which vested substantially monarchical powers in an executive called the First Consul, and the chosen First Consul was Napoleon Bonaparte. Two associate Consuls, who sat with him, had no purpose but to conceal for a short time the real absoluteness of his rule.

From that time, for fifteen years, the history of France—it is almost possible to say the history of Europe—is the story of the career of the extraordinary Corsican adventurer who took possession of the French nation, with unparalleled audacity, and who used it, with all that pertained to it—lives, fortunes, talents, resources—in the most prodigious and the most ruthless undertakings of personal ambition that the modern world has ever seen. He was selfishness incarnate; and he was the incarnation of genius in all those modes of intellectual power which bear upon the mastery of momentary circumstances and the mastery of men. But of the higher genius that might have worthily employed such vast powers,—that might have enlightened and inspired a really great ambition in the man, to make himself an enduring builder of civilization in the world, he had no spark. The soul behind his genius was ignoble, the spirit was mean. And even on the intellectual side, his genius had its narrowness. His projects of selfishness were extraordinary, but never sagacious, never far-sighted, thoughtfully studied, wisely planned. There is no appearance in any part of his career of a pondered policy, guiding him to a well-determined end in what he did. The circumstances of any moment, whether on the battle-field or in the political arena, he could handle with a swift apprehension, a mastery and a power that may never have been surpassed. But much commoner men have apprehended and have commanded in a larger and more successful way the general sweep of circumstances in their lives. It is that fact which belittles Napoleon in the comparison often made between him and Cæsar. He was probably Cæsar's equal in war. But who can imagine Cæsar in Napoleon's place committing the blunders of blind arrogance which ruined the latter in Germany and Spain, or making his fatuous attempt to shut England, the great naval power, out of continental Europe?

His domestic administration was beneficial to France in many ways. He restored order, and maintained it, with a powerful hand. He suppressed faction effectually, and eradicated for the time all the political insanities of the Revolution. He exploited the resources of the country with admirable success; for his discernment in such matters was keen and his practical judgment was generally sound. But he consumed the nation faster than he gave it growth. His wars—the wars in which Europe was almost unceasingly kept by the aggression of his insolence and his greed—were the most murderous, the most devouring, that any warrior among the civilized races of mankind has ever been chargeable with. {1094} His blood-guiltiness in these wars is the one glaring fact which ought to be foremost in every thought of them. But it is not. There is a pitiable readiness in mankind to be dazzled and cheated by red battle-lights, when it looks into history for heroes; and few figures have been glorified more illusively in the world's eye than the marvelous warrior, the vulgar-minded adventurer, the prodigy of self-exalting genius, Napoleon Bonaparte.

In the first year of his Consulate, Bonaparte recovered Italy, by the extraordinary Marengo campaign, while Moreau won the victory of Hohenlinden, and the Treaty of Luneville was brought about. Austria obtained peace again by renewing the concessions of Campo Formio, and by taking part in a reconstruction of Germany, under Bonaparte's dictation, which secularized the ecclesiastical states, extinguished the freedom of most of the imperial cities, and aggrandized Bavaria, Würtemberg, Baden and Saxony, as protégés and dependencies of France. England was left alone in the war, with much hostile feeling raised against her in Europe and America by the arrogant use she had made of her mastery of the sea. The neutral powers had all been embittered by her maritime pretensions, and Bonaparte now brought about the organization among them of a Northern League of armed neutrality. England broke it with a single blow, by Nelson's bombardment of Copenhagen. Napoleon, however, had conceived the plan of starving English industries and ruining British trade by a "continental system" of blockade against them, which involved the compulsory exclusion of British ships and British goods from all European countries. This impossible project committed him to a desperate struggle for the subjugation of Europe. It was the fundamental cause of his ruin.

The First Empire.

In 1802 the First Consul advanced his restoration of absolutism in France a second step, by securing the Consulate for life. A short interval of peace with England was arranged, but war broke out anew the following year, and the English for a time had no allies. The French occupied Hanover, and the Germans were quiescent. But in 1804, Bonaparte shocked Europe by the abduction and execution of the Bourbon prince, Duc d'Enghien, and began to challenge again the interference of the surrounding powers by a new series of aggressive measures. His ambition had thrown off all disguises; he had transformed the Republic of France into an Empire, so called, and himself, by title, into an Emperor, with an imposing crown. The Cisalpine or Italian Republic received soon afterwards the constitution of a kingdom, and he took the crown to himself as King of Italy. Genoa and surrounding territory (the Ligurian Republic) were annexed, at nearly the same time, to France; several duchies were declared to be dependencies, and an Italian principality was given to Napoleon's elder sister. The effect produced in Europe by such arbitrary and admonitory proceedings as these enabled Pitt, the younger, now at the head of the English government, to form an alliance (1805), first with Russia, afterwards with Austria, Sweden and Naples, and finally with Prussia, to break the yoke which the French Emperor had put upon Italy, Holland, Switzerland and Hanover, and to resist his further aggressions.

Austerlitz and Trafalgar.

The amazing energy and military genius of Napoleon never had more astonishing proof than in the swift campaign which broke this coalition at Ulm and Austerlitz. Austria was forced to another humiliating treaty, which surrendered Venice and Venetia to the conqueror's new Kingdom of Italy; gave up Tyrol to Bavaria; yielded other territory to Würtemberg, and raised both electors to the rank of kings, while making Baden a grand duchy, territorially enlarged. Prussia was dragged by force into alliance with France, and took Hanover as pay. But England triumphed at the same time on her own element, and Napoleon's dream of carrying his legions across the Channel, as Cæsar did, was forever dispelled by Nelson's dying victory at Trafalgar. That battle, which destroyed the combined navies of France and Spain, ended hope of contending successfully with the relentless Britons at sea.

End of the Holy Roman Empire.

France was never permitted to learn the seriousness of Trafalgar, and it put no check on the vaulting ambition in Napoleon which now began to o'erleap itself. He gave free rein to his arrogance in all directions. The King of Naples was expelled from his kingdom and the crown conferred on Joseph Bonaparte. Louis Bonaparte was made King of Holland. Southern Germany was suddenly reconstructed again. The little kingdoms of Napoleon's creation and the small states surrounding them were declared to be separated from the ancient Empire, and were formed into a Confederation of the Rhine, under the protection of France. Warned by this rude announcement of the precarious tenure of his imperial title as the head of the Holy Roman Empire, Francis II. resigned it, and took to himself, instead, a title as meaningless as that which Napoleon had assumed,—the title of Emperor of Austria. The venerable fiction of the Holy Roman Empire disappeared from history on the 6th of August, 1806.

Subjugation of Prussia.

But while Austria had become submissive to the offensive measures of Napoleon, Prussia became now fired with unexpected, sudden wrath, and declared war in October, 1800. It was a rash explosion of national resentment, and the rashness was dearly paid for. At Jena and Auerstadt, Prussia sank under the feet of the merciless conqueror, as helplessly subjugated as a nation could be. Russia, attempting her rescue, was overcome at Eylau and Friedland; and both the vanquished powers came to terms with the victor at Tilsit (July, 1807). The King of Prussia gave up all his kingdom west of the Elbe, and all that it had acquired in the second and third partitions of Poland. A new German kingdom, of Westphalia, was constructed for Napoleon's youngest brother, Jerome. A free state of Danzig, dependent on France, and a Grand Duchy of Warsaw, were created. The Russian Czar, bribed by some pieces of Polish Prussia, and by prospective acquisitions from Turkey and Sweden, became an ally of Napoleon and an accomplice in his plans for the subjection of Europe. He enlisted his empire in the "continental system" against England, and agreed to the enforcement of the decree which Napoleon issued from Berlin, declaring the British islands in a state of blockade, and prohibiting trade with them. The British government retorted by its "orders in council," which blockaded in the like paper-fashion all ports of France and of the allies and dependencies of France. And so England and Napoleon fought one another for years in the peaceful arena of commerce, to the exasperation of neutral nations and the destruction of the legitimate trade of the world.

{1095}

The crime against Spain.

And now, having prostrated Germany, and captivated the Czar, Napoleon turned toward another field, which had scarcely felt, as yet, his intrusive hand. Spain had been in servile alliance with France for ten years, while Portugal adhered steadily to her friendship with Great Britain, and now refused to be obedient to the Berlin Decree. Napoleon took prompt measures for the punishment of so bold a defiance. A delusive treaty with the Spanish court, for the partition of the small kingdom of the Braganzas, won permission for an army under Junot to enter Portugal, through Spain. No resistance to it was made. The royal family of Portugal quitted Lisbon, setting sail for Brazil, and Junot took possession of the kingdom. But this accomplished only half of Napoleon's design. He meant to have Spain, as well; and he found, in the miserable state of the country, his opportunity to work out an ingenious, unscrupulous scheme for its acquisition. His agents set on foot a revolutionary movement, in favor of the worthless crown prince, Ferdinand, against his equally worthless father, Charles IV., and pretexts were obtained for an interference by French troops. Charles was first coerced into an abdication; then Ferdinand was lured to an interview with Napoleon, at Bayonne, was made prisoner there, and compelled in his turn to relinquish the crown. A vacancy on the Spanish throne having been thus created, the Emperor gathered at Bayonne a small assembly of Spanish notables, who offered the seat to Joseph Bonaparte, already King of Naples. Joseph, obedient to his imperial brother's wish, resigned the Neapolitan crown to Murat, his sister's husband, accepted the crown of Spain, and was established at Madrid with a French army at his back.

This was one of the two most ruinous of the political blunders of Napoleon's life. He had cheated and insulted the whole Spanish nation, in a way too contemptuous to be endured even by a people long cast down. There was a revolt which did not spring from any momentary passion, but which had an obstinacy of deep feeling behind that made effective suppression of it impossible. French armies could beat Spanish armies, and disperse them, but they could not keep them dispersed; and they could not break up the organization of a rebellion which organized itself in every province, and which went on, when necessary, without any organization at all. England sent forces to the peninsula, under Wellington, for the support of the insurgent Spaniards and Portuguese; and thenceforward, to the end of his career, the most inextricable difficulties of Napoleon were those in which he had entangled himself on the southern side of the Pyrenees.

The chastening of Germany.

The other cardinal blunder in Napoleon's conduct, which proved more destructive to him than the crime in Spain, was his exasperating treatment of Germany. There was neither magnanimity on the moral side of him nor real wisdom on the intellectual side, to restrain him from using his victory with immoderate insolence. He put as much shame as he could invent into the humiliations of the German people. He had Prussia under his heel, and he ground the heel upon her neck with the whole weight of his power. The consequence was a pain and a passion which wrought changes like a miracle in the temper and character of the abused nation. There were springs of feeling opened and currents of national life set in motion that might never have been otherwise discovered. Enlightened men and strong men from all parts of Germany found themselves called to Prussia and to the front of its affairs, and their way made easy for them in labors of restoration and reform. Stein and Hardenburg remodeled the administration of the kingdom, uprooted the remains of serfdom in it, and gave new freedom to its energies. Scharnhorst organized the military system on which rose in time the greatest of military powers. Humboldt planned the school system which educated Prussia beyond all her neighbors, in the succeeding generations. Even the philosophers came out of their closets and took part, as Fichte did, in the stirring and uplifting of the spirit of their countrymen. So it was that the outrages of Napoleon in Germany revenged themselves, by summoning into existence an unsuspected energy that would be turned against him to destroy him in the end.

But the time of destruction was not yet come. He had a few years of triumph still before him,—of triumph everywhere except in Portugal and Spain. Austria, resisting him once more (1809), was once more crushed at Wagram, and to such submissiveness that it gave a daughter of the imperial house in marriage to the parvenu sovereign of France, next year, when he divorced his wife Josephine. He was at the summit of his renown that year, but already declining from the greatest height of his power. In 1811 there was little to change the situation.

The fall of Napoleon.

In 1812 the downfall of Napoleon was begun by his fatal expedition to Russia. The next year Prussia, half regenerated within the brief time since Jena and Tilsit, went into alliance with Russia, and the War of Liberation was begun. Austria soon joined the alliance; and at Leipzig (Oct. 18, 1813) the three nations shattered at last the yoke of oppression that had bound Europe so long. At the same time, the French armies in Spain were expelled, and Wellington entered France through the Pyrenees, to meet the allies who pursued Napoleon across the Rhine. Forced to abdicate and retire to the little island of Elba (the sovereignty of which was ceded to him), he remained there in quiet from May, 1814, until March, 1815, when he escaped and reappeared in France. Army and people welcomed him. The Bourbon monarchy, which had been restored by the allies, fell at his approach. The king, Louis XVIII., fled. Napoleon recovered his throne and occupied it for it few weeks. But the alliance which had expelled him from it refused to permit his recovery of power. The question was settled finally at Waterloo, on the 18th of June, when a British army under Wellington and a Prussian army under Blücher won a victory which left no hope to the beaten Emperor. He surrendered himself to the commander of a British vessel of war, and was sent to confinement for the remainder of his life on the remote island of St. Helena.

{1096}

The Congress of Vienna.

But Europe, delivered from one tyrannical master, was now given over to several of them, in a combination which oppressed it for a generation. The sovereigns who had united to dethrone Napoleon, with the two emperors, of Austria and Russia, at their head, and with the Austrian minister, Metternich, for their most trusted counselor, assumed first, in the Congress of Vienna, a general work of political rearrangement, to repair the Revolutionary and Napoleonic disturbances, and then, subsequently, an authoritative supervision of European politics which proved as meddlesome as Napoleon's had been. Their first act, as before stated, was to restore the Bourbon monarchy in France, indifferent to the wishes of the people. In Spain, Ferdinand had already taken the throne, when Joseph fled. In Italy, the King of Sardinia was restored and Genoa transferred to him; Lombardy and Venetia were given back to Austria; Tuscany, Modena and some minor duchies received Hapsburg princes; the Pope recovered his States, and the Bourbons returned to Naples and Sicily. In Germany, the Prussian kingdom was enlarged again by several absorptions, including part of Saxony, but some of its Polish territory was given to the Czar; Hanover became a kingdom; Austria resumed the provinces which Napoleon had conveyed to his Rhenish proteges; and, finally, a Germanic Confederation was formed, to take the place of the extinct Empire, and with no more efficiency in its constitution. In the Netherlands, a new kingdom was formed, to bear the Netherland name, and to embrace Holland and Belgium in union, with the House of Orange on the throne.

The Holy Alliance.

Between the Czar, the Emperor of Austria, and the King of Prussia, there was a personal agreement that went with these arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, and which was prolonged for a number of years. In the public understanding, this was associated, perhaps wrongly, with a written declaration, known as the Holy Alliance, in which the three sovereigns set forth their intention to regulate their foreign and domestic policy by the precepts of Christianity, and invited all princes to join their alliance for the maintenance of peace and the promotion of brotherly love. Whether identical as a fact with this Holy Alliance or secreted behind it, there was, and long continued to be, an undoubted league between these sovereigns and others, which had aims very different from the promotion of brotherly love. It was wholly reactionary, hostile to all political liberalism, and repressive of all movements in the interest of the people. Metternich was its skilful minister, and the deadly, soulless system of beaureaucratic absolutism which he organized in Austria was the model of government that it strove to introduce.

In Italy, the governments generally were reduced to the Austrian model, and the political state of the peninsula, for forty years, was scarcely better, if at all, than it had been under the Spanish rule in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Germany, as divided as ever, under a federal constitution which federated nothing else so much as the big and little courts and their reactionary ideas, was profoundly depressed in political spirit, while prospering materially and showing notable signs of intellectual life.

France was not slow in finding that the restored Bourbons and the restored émigrés had forgotten nothing and learned nothing, in the twenty-five years of their exile. They put all their strength into the turning back of the clock, trying to make it strike again the hours in which the Revolution and Napoleon had been so busy. It was futile work; but it sickened and angered the nation none the less. After all the stress and struggle it had gone through, there was a strong nation yet to resist the Bourbonism brought back to power. It recovered from the exhaustion of its wars with a marvellous quickness. The millions of peasant land-owners, who were the greatest creation of the Revolution, dug wealth from its soil with untiring free arms, and soon made it the most prosperous land in Europe. Through country and city, the ideas of the Revolution were in the brains of the common people, while its energies were in their brawn, and Bourbonism needed more wisdom than it ever possessed to reconcile them to its restoration.

Revolutions of 1820-1821.

It was not in France, however, but in Spain, that the first rising against the restored order of things occurred. Ferdinand VII., when released from his French imprisonment in 1814, was warmly received in Spain, and took the crown with quite general consent. He accepted the constitution under which the country had been governed since 1812, and made large lying promises of a liberal rule. But when seated on the throne, he suppressed the constitution, restored the Inquisition, revived the monasteries, called back the expelled Jesuits, and opened a deadly persecution of the liberals in Spanish politics. No effective resistance to him was organized until 1820, when a revolutionary movement took form which forced the king, in March, to reestablish the constitution and call different men to his council. Portugal, at the same time, adopted a similar constitution, and the exiled king, John VI., returning now from Brazil, accepted it.

The revolution in Spain set fire to the discontent that had smouldered in Italy. The latter broke forth, in the summer of 1820, at Naples, where the Bourbon king made no resistance to a sudden revolt of soldiers and citizens, but yielded the constitution they demanded at once. Sardinia followed, in the next spring, with a rising of the Piedmontese, requiring constitutional government. The king, Victor Emmanuel I., who was very old, resigned the crown to his brother, Charles Felix. The latter refused the demands of the constitutionalists and called upon Austria for help.

{1097}

These outbreaks of the revolutionary spirit were alarming to the sovereigns of the Holy Alliance and excited them to a vigorous activity. They convened a Congress, first at Troppau, in October, 1820, afterwards at Laybach, and finally at Verona, to plan concerted action for the suppressing of the popular movements of the time. As the result of these conferences, the congenial duty of restoring absolutism in the Two Sicilies, and of helping the King of Sardinia against his subjects, was imposed upon Austria and willingly performed; while the Bourbon court of France was solicited to put an end to the bad example of constitutional government in Spain. Both commissions were executed with fidelity and zeal. Italy was flung down and fettered again; French troops occupied Spain from 1823 until 1827. England, alone, protested against this flagrant policing of Europe by the Holy Alliance. Canning, its spirited minister, "called in the New World," as he described his policy, "to redress the balance of the old," by recognizing the independence of the Spanish colonies in America, which, Cuba excepted, were now separated forever from the crown of Spain. Brazil in like manner was cut loose from the Portuguese crown, and assumed the constitution of an empire, under Dom Pedro, the eldest son of John VI.

Greek War of Independence.

These stifled revolutions in western Europe failed to discourage a more obstinate insurrection which began in the East, among the Christian subjects of the Turks, in 1821. The Ottoman government had been growing weaker and more vicious for many years. The corrupted and turbulent Janissaries were the masters of the empire, and a sultan who attempted, as Selim III. (1789-1807) had done, to introduce reforms, was put to death. Russia, under Alexander I., had been continuing to gain ground at the expense of the Turks, and assuming more and more of a patronage of the Christian subjects of the Porte. There seems to be little doubt that the rising begun in 1821, which had its start in Moldavia, and its first leader in a Greek, Ypsilanti, who had been an officer in the Russian service, received encouragement from the Czar. But Alexander turned his back on it when the Greeks sprang to arms and seriously appealed to Europe for help in a war of national independence. The Congress of Verona condemned the Greek rising, in common with that of Spain. Again, England alone showed sympathy, but did nothing as a government, and left the struggling Greeks to such help as they might win from individual friends. Lord Byron, with others, went to Greece, carrying money and arms; and, generally, these volunteers lost much of their ardor in the Greek cause when they came into close contact with its native supporters. But the Greeks, however lacking in high qualities, made an obstinate fight, and held their ground against the Turks, until the feeling of sympathy with them had grown too strong in England and in France for the governments of those countries to be heedless of it. Moreover, in Russia, Alexander I. had been succeeded (1825) by the aggressive Nicholas, who had not patience to wait for the slow crumbling of the Ottoman power, but was determined to break it as summarily as he could. He joined France and England, therefore, in an alliance and in a naval demonstration against the Turks (1827), which had its result in the battle of Navarino. The allies of Nicholas went no farther; but he pursued the undertaking, in a war which lasted until the autumn of 1829. Turkey at the end of it conceded the independence of Greece, and practically that of Wallachia and Moldavia. In 1830, a conference at London established the Greek kingdom, and in 1833 a Bavarian prince, Otho I., was settled on the throne.

Revolutions of 1830.

Before this result was reached, revolution in western Europe, arrested in 1821-23, had broken out afresh. Bourbonism had become unendurable to France. Charles X., who succeeded his brother Louis XVIII; in 1824, showed not only a more arbitrary temper, but a disposition more deferential to the Church than his predecessor. He was fond of the Jesuits, whom his subjects very commonly distrusted and disliked. He attempted to put shackles on the press, and when elections to the chamber of deputies went repeatedly against the government, he undertook practically to alter the suffrage by ordinances of his own. A revolution seemed then to be the only remedy that was open to the nation, and it was adopted in July, 1830, the veteran Lafayette taking the lead. Charles X. was driven to abdication, and left France for England. The crown was transferred to Louis Philippe, of the Orleans branch of the Bourbon family,—son of the Philip Égalité who joined the Jacobins in the Revolution.

The July Revolution in France proved a signal for more outbreaks in other parts of Europe than had followed the Spanish rising of ten years before.

Belgium broke away from the union with Holland, which had never satisfied its people, and, after some struggle, won recognized independence, as a new kingdom, with Leopold of Saxe Coburg raised to the throne.

Russian Poland, bearing the name of a constitutional kingdom since 1815, but having the Czar for its king and the Czar's brother for viceroy, found no lighter oppression than before, and made a hopeless, brave attempt to escape from its bonds. The revolt was put down with unmerciful severity, and thousands of the hapless patriots went to exile in Siberia.

In Germany, there were numerous demonstrations in the smaller states, which succeeded more or less in extorting constitutional concessions; but there was no revolutionary movement on a larger scale.

Italy remained quiet in both the north and the south, where disturbances had arisen before; but commotions occurred in the Papal states, and in Modena and Parma, which required the arms of Austria to suppress.

In England, the agitations of the continent hastened forward a revolution which went far beyond all other popular movements of the time in the lasting importance of its effects, and which exhibited in their first great triumph the peaceful forces of the Platform and the Press.

{1098}

England under the last two Georges.

But we have given little attention to affairs in Great Britain during the past half century or more, and need to glance backward.

Under the third of the Georges, there was distinctly a check given to the political progress which England had been making since the Revolution of 1688. The wilfulness of the king fairly broke down, for a considerable period, the system of responsible cabinet government which had been taking shape and root under the two earlier Hanoverians, and ministers became again, for a time, mere mouthpieces of the royal will. The rupture with the American colonies, and the unsuccessful war which ended in their independence, brought in another influence, adverse, for the time being, to popular claims in government. For it was not King George, alone, nor Lord North, nor any small Tory faction, that prosecuted and upheld the attempt to make the colonists in America submissive to "taxation without representation." The English nation at large approved the war; English national sentiment was hostile to the Americans in their independent attitude, and the Whigs—the liberals then in English politics—were a discredited and weakened party for many years because of their leaning to the American side of the questions in dispute. Following close upon the American war, came the French Revolution, which frightened into Toryism great numbers of people who did not by nature belong there. In England, as everywhere else, the reaction lasted long, and government was more arbitrary and repressive than it could possibly have continued to be under different circumstances.

Meantime extraordinary social changes had taken place, which tended to mark more strongly the petrifying of things in the political world. The great age of mechanical invention had been fully opened. Machines had begun to do the work of human hands in every industry, and steam had begun to move the machines. The organization of labor, too, had assumed a new phase. The factory system had arisen; and with it had appeared a new growth of cities and towns. Production was accelerated; wealth was accumulating more rapidly, and the distribution of wealth was following different lines. The English middle class was rising fast as a money-power and was gathering the increased energies of the kingdom into its hands.

Parliamentary Reform in England.

But while the tendency of social changes had been to increase vastly the importance of this powerful middle class, the political conditions had actually diminished its weight in public affairs. In Parliament, it had no adequate representation. The old boroughs, which sent members to the House of Commons as they had sent them for generations before, no longer contained a respectable fraction of the "commons of England," supposed to be represented in the House, and those who voted in the boroughs were not at all the better class of the new England of the nineteenth century. Great numbers of the boroughs were mere private estates, and the few votes polled in them were cast by tenants who elected their landlords' nominees. On the other hand, the large cities and the numerous towns of recent growth had either no representation in Parliament, or they had equal representation with the "rotten boroughs" which cast two or three or half-a-dozen votes.

That the commons of England, with all the gain of substantial strength they had been making in the last half of the eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth, endured this travesty of popular representation so long as until 1832, is proof of the potency of the conservatism which the French Revolution induced. The subject of parliamentary reform had been now and then discussed since Chatham's time; but Toryism had always been able to thrust it aside and bring the discussion to naught. At last there came the day when the question would no longer be put down. The agitations of 1830, combined with a very serious depression of industry and trade, produced a state of feeling which could not be defied. King and Parliament yielded to the public demand, and the First Reform Bill was passed. It widened the suffrage and amended very considerably the inequities of the parliamentary representation; but both reforms have been carried much farther since, by two later bills.

Repeal of the English Corn Laws.

The reform of Parliament soon brought a broader spirit into legislation. Its finest fruits began to ripen about 1838, when an agitation for the repeal of the foolish and wicked English "corn-laws" was opened by Cobden and Bright. In the day of the "rotten boroughs," when the landlords controlled Parliament, they imagined that they had "protected" the farming interest, and secured higher rents to themselves, by laying heavy duties on the importation of foreign bread-stuffs. A famous "sliding scale" of such duties had been invented, which raised the duties when prices in the home market dropped, and lowered them proportionately when home prices rose. Thus the consumers were always deprived, as much as possible, of any cheapening of their bread which bountiful Nature might offer, and paid a heavy tax to increase the gains of the owners and cultivators of land.

Now that other "interests" besides the agricultural had a voice in Parliament, and had become very strong, they began to cry out against this iniquity, and demand that the "corn laws" be done away with. The famous "anti-corn-law league," organized mainly by the exertions of Richard Cobden, conducted an agitation of the question which brought about the repeal of the laws in 1846.

But the effect of the agitation did not end there. So thorough and prolonged a discussion of the matter had enlightened the English people upon the whole question between "protection" and free trade. The manufacturers and mechanics, who had led the movement against protective duties on food-stuffs, were brought to see that they were handicapped more than protected by duties on imports in their own departments of production. So Cobden and his party continued their attacks on the theory of "protection" until every vestige of it was cleared from the English statute books.

The Revolutions of 1848.

Another year of revolutions throughout Europe came in 1848, and the starting point of excitement was not, this time, at Paris, but, strangely enough, in the Vatican, at Rome. Pius IX. had been elected to the papal chair in 1846, and had immediately rejoiced the hearts and raised the hopes of the patriots in misgoverned Italy by his liberal measures of reform and his promising words. The attitude of the Pope gave encouragement to popular demonstrations in various Italian states during the later part of 1847; and in January 1848 a formidable rising occurred in Sicily, followed in February by another in Naples. King Ferdinand II. was compelled to change his ministers and to concede a constitution, which he did not long respect.

{1099}

Lombardy was slow this time in being kindled; but when the flame of revolution burst out it was very fierce. The Austrians were driven first from Milan (March, 1848), and then from city after city, until they seemed to be abandoning their Italian possessions altogether. Venice asserted its republican independence under the presidency of Daniel Manin. Charles Albert, King of Sardinia, thought the time favorable for recovering Lombardy to himself, and declared war against Austria. The expulsion of the Austrians became the demand of the entire peninsula, and even the Pope, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and the King of Naples were forced to join the patriotic movement in appearance, though not with sincerity. But the King of Sardinia brought ruin on the whole undertaking, by sustaining a fatal defeat in battle at Custozza, in July, 1848.

France had been for some time well prepared for revolt, and was quick to be moved by the first whisper of it from Italy. The short-lived popularity of Louis Philippe was a thing of the past. There was widespread discontent with many things, and especially with the limited suffrage. The French people had the desire and the need of something like that grand measure of electoral reform which England secured so peacefully in 1832; but they could not reach it in the peaceful way. The aptitude and the habit of handling and directing the great forces of public opinion effectively in such a situation were alike wanting among them. There was a mixture, moreover, of social theories and dreams in their political undertaking, which heated the movement and made it more certainly explosive. The Parisian mob took arms and built barricades on the 23d of February. The next day Louis Philippe signed an abdication, and a week later he was an exile in England. For the remainder of the year France was strangely ruled: first by a self-constituted provisional government, Lamartine at its head, which opened national workshops, and attempted to give employment and pay to 125,000 enrolled citizens in need; afterwards by a Constituent National Assembly, and an Executive Commission, which found the national workshops a devouring monster, difficult to control and hard to destroy. Paris got rid of the shops in June, at the cost of a battle which lasted four days, and in which more than 8,000 people were wounded or slain. In November a republican constitution, framed by the Assembly, was adopted, and on the 10th of December Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, son of Louis Bonaparte, once King of Holland, and of Hortense Beauharnais, daughter of the Empress Josephine, was elected President of the Republic by an enormous popular vote.

The revolutionary shock of 1848 was felt in Germany soon after the fall of the monarchy in France. In March there was rioting in Berlin and a collision with the troops, which alarmed the king so seriously that he yielded promises to almost every demand. Similar risings in other capitals had about the same success. At Vienna, the outbreak was more violent and drove both Metternich and the Emperor from the city. In the first flush of these popular triumphs there came about a most hopeful-looking election of a Germanic National Assembly, representative of all Germany, and gathered at Frankfort, on the invitation of the Diet, for a revision of the constitution of the Confederation. But the Assembly contained more learned scholars than practical statesmen, and its constitutional work was wasted labor. A Constituent Assembly elected in Prussia accomplished no more, and was dispersed in the end without resistance; but the king granted a constitution of his own framing. The revolutionary movement in Germany left its effects, in a general loosening of the bonds of harsh government, a general broadening of political ideas, a final breaking of the Metternich influence, even in Austria; but it passed over the existing institutions of the much-divided country with a very light touch.

In Hungary the revolution, stimulated by the eloquence of Kossuth, was carried to the pitch of serious war. The Hungarians had resolved to be an independent nation, and in the struggle which ensued they approached very near the attainment of their desire; but Russia came to the help of the Hapsburgs, and the armies of the two despotisms combined were more than the Hungarians could resist. Their revolt was abandoned in August, 1849, and Kossuth, with other leaders, escaped through Turkish territory to other lands.

The suppression of the Hungarian revolt was followed by a complete restoration of the despotism and domination of the Austrians in Italy. Charles Albert, of Sardinia, had taken courage from the struggle in Hungary and had renewed hostilities in March, 1849. But, again, he was crushingly defeated, at Novara, and resigned, in despair, the crown to his son, Victor Emmanuel II. Venice, which had resisted a long siege with heroic constancy, capitulated in August of the same year. The whole of Lombardy and Venetia was bowed once more under the merciless tyranny of the Austrians, and savage revenges were taken upon the patriots who failed to escape. Rome, whence the Pope—no longer a patron of liberal politics—had fled, and where a republic had been once more set up, with Garibaldi and Mazzini in its constituent assembly, was besieged and taken, and the republic overturned, by troops sent from republican France. The Neapolitan king restored his atrocious absolutism without help, by measures of the greatest brutality.

A civil war in Switzerland, which occurred simultaneously with the political collisions in surrounding countries, is hardly to be classed with them. It was rather a religious conflict, between the Roman Catholics and their opponents. The Catholic cantons, united in a League, called the Sonderbund, were defeated in the war; the Jesuits were expelled from Switzerland in consequence, and, in September, 1848, a new constitution for the confederacy was adopted.

{1100}

The Second Empire in France.

The election of Louis Napoleon to the Presidency of the French Republic was ominous of a disposition among the people to bring back a Napoleonic regime, with all the falsities that it might imply. He so construed the vote which elected him, and does not seem to have been mistaken. Having surrounded himself with unprincipled adventurers, and employed three years of his presidency in preparations for the attempt, he executed a coup d' état on the 2d of December, dispersing the National Assembly, arresting influential republicans, and submitting to popular vote a new constitution which prolonged his presidency to ten years. This was but the first step. A year later he secured a "plébiscite" which made him hereditary Emperor of the French. The new Empire—the Second Empire in France—was more vulgar, more false, more fraudulent, more swarmingly a nest of self-seeking and dishonest adventurers, than the First had been, and with nothing of the saving genius that was in the First. It rotted for eighteen years, and then it fell, France with it.

The Crimean War.

A certain respectability was lent to this second Napoleonic Empire by the alliance of England with it in 1854, against Russia. The Czar, Nicholas, had determined to defy resistance in Europe to his designs against the Turks. He first endeavored to persuade England to join him in dividing the possessions of "the sick man," as he described the Ottoman, and, that proposal being declined, he opened on his own account a quarrel with the Porte. France and England joined forces in assisting the Turks, and the little kingdom of Sardinia, from motives of far-seeing policy, came into the alliance. The principal campaign of the war was fought in the Crimea, and its notable incident was the long siege of Sebastopol, which the Russians defended until September, 1855. An armistice was concluded the following January, and the terms of peace were settled at a general conference of powers in Paris the next March. The results of the war were a check to Russia, but an improvement of the condition of the Sultan's Christian subjects. Moldavia and Wallachia were soon afterwards united under the name of Roumania, paying tribute to the Porte, but otherwise independent.

Liberation and Unification of Italy.

The part taken by Sardinia in the Crimean War gave that kingdom a standing in European politics which had never been recognized before. It was a measure of sagacious policy due to the able statesman, Count Cavour, who had become the trusted minister of Victor Emmanuel, the Sardinian king. The king and his minister were agreed in one aim—the unification of Italy under the headship of the House of Savoy. By her participation in the war with Russia, Sardinia won a position which enabled her to claim and secure admission to the Congress of Paris, among the greater powers. At that conference, Count Cavour found an opportunity to direct attention to the deplorable state of affairs in Italy, under the Austrian rule and influence. No action by the Congress was taken; but the Italian question was raised in importance at once by the discussion of it, and Italy was rallied to the side of Sardinia as the necessary head of any practicable movement toward liberation. More than that: France was moved to sympathy with the Italian cause, and Louis Napoleon was led to believe that his throne would be strengthened by espousing it. He encouraged Cavour and Victor Emmanuel, therefore, in an attitude toward Austria which resulted in war (1859), and when the Sardinians were attacked he went to their assistance with a powerful force. At Magenta and Solferino the Austrians were decisively beaten, and the French emperor then abruptly closed the war, making a treaty which ceded Lombardy alone to Sardinia, leaving Venetia still under the oppressor, and the remainder of Italy unchanged in its state. For payment of the service he had rendered, Louis Napoleon exacted Savoy and Nice, and Victor Emmanuel was compelled to part with the original seat of his House.

There was bitter disappointment among the Italian patriots over the meagerness of the fruit yielded by the splendid victories of Magenta and Solferino. Despite the treaty of Villafranca, they were determined to have more, and they did. Tuscany, Parma, Modena and Romagna demanded annexation to Sardinia, and, after a plébiscite, they were received (March, 1860) into the kingdom and represented in its parliament. In the Two Sicilies there was an intense longing for deliverance from the brutalities of the Neapolitan Bourbons. Victor Emmanuel could not venture an attack upon the rotten kingdom, for fear of resentments in France and elsewhere. But the adventurous soldier, Garibaldi, now took on himself the task of completing the liberation of Italy. With an army of volunteers, he first swept the Neapolitans out of Sicily, and then took Naples itself, within the space of four months, between May and September, 1860. The whole dominion was annexed to what now became the Kingdom of Italy, and which embraced the entire peninsula except Rome, garrisoned for the Pope by French troops, and Venetia, still held in the clutches of Austria. In 1862, Garibaldi raised volunteers for an attack on Rome; but the unwise movement was suppressed by Victor Emmanuel. Two years later, the King of Italy brought about an agreement with the French emperor to withdraw his garrison from Rome, and, after that had been done, the annexation of Rome to the Italian kingdom was a mere question of time. It came about in 1870, after the fall of Louis Napoleon, and Victor Emmanuel transferred his capital to the Eternal City. The Pope's domain was then limited to the precincts of the Vatican.

The Austro-Prussian War.

The unification of Italy was the first of a remarkable series of nationalizing movements which have been the most significant feature of the history of the last half of the nineteenth century. The next of these movements to begin was in Germany—the much divided country of one peculiarly homogeneous and identical race. Influences tending toward unification had been acting on the Germans since Prussia rose to superiority in the north. By the middle of the century, the educated, military Prussia that was founded after 1806 had become a power capable of great things in capable hands; and the capable hands received it. In 1861, William I. succeeded his brother as king; in 1862, Otto von Bismarck became his prime minister. It was a remarkable combination of qualities and talents, and remarkable results came from it.

{1101}

In 1864, Prussia and Austria acted together in taking Schleswig and Holstein, as German states, from Denmark. The next year they quarreled over the administration of the duchies. In 1866, they fought, and Austria was entirely vanquished in a "seven weeks war." The superiority of Prussia, organized by her great military administrator and soldier, Moltke, was overpowering. Her rival was left completely at her mercy. But Bismarck and his king were wisely magnanimous. They refrained from inflicting on the Austrians a humiliation that would rankle and keep enmities alive. They foresaw the need of future friendship between the two powers of central Europe, as against Russia on the one side and France on the other, and they shaped their policy to secure it. It sufficed them to have put Austria out of the German circle, forever; to have ended the false relation in which the Hapsburgs—rulers of an essentially Slavonic and Magyar dominion—had stood towards Germany so long.

Prussia now dominated the surrounding German states so commandingly that the mode and the time of their unification may be said to have been within her own control. Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau, Schleswig-Holstein, and Frankfort were incorporated in the Prussian kingdom at once. Saxony and the other states of the north were enveloped in a North German Confederation, with the King of Prussia for its hereditary president and commander of its forces. The states of southern Germany were left unfederated for the time being, but bound themselves by treaty to put their armies at the disposal of Prussia. Thus Germany as a whole was already made practically one power, under the control of King William and his great minister.

Final Expulsion of Austria from Italy.

The same war which unified Germany carried forward the nationalization of Italy another step. Victor Emmanuel had shrewdly entered into an alliance with Prussia before the war began, and attacked Austria in Venetia simultaneously with the German attack on the Bohemian side. The Italians were beaten at Custozza, and their navy was defeated in the Adriatic; but the victorious Prussians exacted Venetia for them in the settlement of peace, and Austria had no more footing in the peninsula.

Austria-Hungary.

It is greatly to the credit of Austria, long blinded and stupefied by the narcotic of absolutism, that the lessons of the war of 1866 sank deep into her mind and produced a very genuine enlightenment. The whole policy of the court of Vienna was changed, and with it the constitution of the Empire. The statesmen of Hungary were called into consultation with the statesmen of Austria, and the outcome of their discussions was an agreement which swept away the old Austria, holding Hungary in subjection, and created in its place a new power—a federal Austria-Hungary—equalized in its two principal parts, and united under the same sovereign with distinct constitutions.

The Franco-German War.

The surprising triumph of Prussia in the Seven Weeks War stung Louis Napoleon with a jealousy which he could not conceal. He was incapable of perceiving what it signified,—of perfection in the organization of the Prussian kingdom and of power in its resources. He was under illusions as to the strength of his own Empire. It had been honeycombed by the rascalities that attended and surrounded him, and he did not know it. He imagined France to be capable of putting a check on Prussian aggrandizement; and he began very early after Sadowa to pursue King William with demands which were tolerably certain to end in war. When the war came, in July, 1870, it was by his own declaration; yet Prussia was prepared for it and France was not. In six weeks time from the declaration of war,—in one month from the first action,—Napoleon himself was a prisoner of war in the hands of the Germans, surrendered at Sedan, with the whole army which he personally commanded; the Empire was in collapse, and a provisional government had taken the direction of affairs. On the 20th of September Paris was invested; on the 28th of October Baznine, with an army of 150,000 men, capitulated at Metz. A hopeless attempt to rally the nation to fresh efforts of defence in the interior, on the Loire, was valiantly made under the lead of Gambetta; but it was too late. When the year closed, besieged Paris was at the verge of starvation and all attempts to relieve the city had failed. On the 28th of January, 1871, an armistice was sought and obtained; on the 30th, Paris was surrendered and the Germans entered it. The treaty of peace negotiated subsequently ceded Alsace to Germany, with a fifth of Lorraine, and bound France to pay a war indemnity of five milliards of francs.

The Paris Commune.

In February, 1871, the provisional "Government of National Defense" gave way to a National Assembly, duly elected under the provisions of the armistice, and an executive was instituted at Bordeaux, under the presidency of M. Thiers. Early in March, the German forces were withdrawn from Paris, and control of the city was immediately seized by that dangerous element—Jacobinical, or Red Republican, or Communistic, as it may be variously described—which always shows itself with promptitude and power in the French capital, at disorderly times. The Commune was proclaimed, and the national government was defied. From the 2d of April until the 28th of May Paris was again under siege, this time by forces of the French government, fighting to overcome the revolutionists within. The proceedings of the latter were more wantonly destructive than those of the Terrorists of the Revolution, and scarcely less sanguinary. The Commune was suppressed in the end with great severity.

The Third French Republic.

M. Thiers held the presidency of the Third Republic in France until 1873, when he resigned and was succeeded by Marshal MacMahon. In 1875 the constitution which has since remained, with some amendments, in force, was framed and adopted. In 1878 Marshal MacMahon gave place to M. Jules Grévy, and the latter to M. Sadi Carnot in 1887. Republican government seems to be firmly and permanently established in France at last. The country is in a prosperous state, and nothing but its passionate desire to recover Alsace and to avenge Sedan appears threatening to its future.

{1102}

The new German Empire.

While the army of the Germans was still besieging Paris, and King William and Prince Bismarck were at Versailles, in January, 1871, the last act which completed the unification and nationalization of Germany was performed. This was the assumption of the title of Emperor by King William, in response to the prayer of the princes of Germany and of the North German Parliament. On the 16th of the following April, a constitution for the German Empire was proclaimed.

The long and extraordinary reign of the Emperor William I. was ended by his death in 1888. His son, Frederick III., was dying at the time of an incurable disease, and survived his father only three months. The son of Frederick III., William II., signalized the beginning of his reign by dismissing, after a few months, the great minister, Count Bismarck, on whom his strong grandfather had leaned, and who had wrought such marvels of statesmanship and diplomacy for the German race. What may lie at the end of the reign which had this self-sufficient beginning is not to be foretold.

The Russo-Turkish War.

Since the Franco-German War of 1870-1871, the peace of Europe has been broken but once by hostilities within the European boundary. In 1875 a rising against the unendurable misrule of the Turks began in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and was imitated the next year in Bulgaria. Servia and Montenegro declared war against Turkey and were overcome. Russia then espoused the cause of the struggling Slavs, and opened, in 1877, a most formidable new attempt to crush the Ottoman power, and to accomplish her coveted extension to the Mediterranean. From May until the following January the storm of war raged fiercely along the Balkans. The Turks fought stubbornly, but they were beaten back, and nothing but a dangerous opposition of feeling among the other powers in Europe stayed the hand of the Czar from being laid upon Constantinople. The powers required a settlement of the peace between Russia and Turkey to be made by a general Congress, and it was held at Berlin in June, 1878. Bulgaria was divided by the Congress into two states, one tributary to the Turk, but freely governed, the other subject to Turkey, but under a Christian governor. This arrangement was set aside seven years later by a bloodless revolution, which formed one Bulgaria in nominal relations of dependence upon the Porte. This was the third important nationalizing movement within a quarter of a century, and it is likely to go farther in southeastern Europe, until it settles, perhaps, "the Eastern question," so far as the European side of it is concerned.

Bosnia and Herzegovina were given to Austria by the Congress of Berlin; the independence of Roumania, Servia, and Montenegro was made more complete; the island of Cyprus was turned over to Great Britain for administration.

Spain in the last half Century.

A few words will tell sufficiently the story of Spain since the successor of Joseph Bonaparte quitted the scene. Ferdinand VII. died in 1833, and his infant daughter was proclaimed queen, as Isabella II., with her mother, Christina, regent. Isabella's title was disputed by Don Carlos, the late king's brother, and a civil war between Carlists and Christinos went on for years. When Isabella came of age she proved to be a dissolute woman, with strong proclivities toward arbitrary government. A liberal party, and even a republican party, had been steadily gaining ground in Spain, and the queen placed herself in conflict with it. In 1868 a revolution drove her into France. The revolutionists offered the crown to a prince distantly related to the royal family of Prussia. It was this incident that gave Louis Napoleon a pretext for quarreling with the King of Prussia in 1870 and declaring war. Declined by the Hohenzollern prince, the Spanish crown was then offered to Amadeo, son of the King of Italy, who accepted it, but resigned it again in 1873, after a reign of two years, in disgust with the factions which troubled him. Castelar, the distinguished republican orator, then formed a republican government which held the reins for a few months, but could not establish order in the troubled land. The monarchy was restored in December, 1874, by the coronation of Alfonso XII., son of the exiled Isabella. Since that time Spain has preserved a tolerably peaceful and contented state.

England and Ireland.

In recent years, the part which Great Britain has taken in Continental affairs has been slight; and, indeed, there has been little in those affairs to bring about important international relations. In domestic politics, a single series of questions, concerning Ireland and the connection of Ireland with the British part of the United Kingdom, has mastered the field, overriding all others and compelling the statesmen of the day to take them in hand. The sudden imperiousness of these questions affords a peculiar manifestation of the political conscience in nations which the nineteenth century has wakened and set astir. Through all the prior centuries of their subjection, the treatment of the Irish people by the English was as cruel and as heedless of justice and right as the treatment of Poles by Russians or of Greeks by Turks. They were trebly oppressed: as conquered subjects of an alien race, as religious enemies, as possible rivals in production and trade. They were deprived of political and civil rights; they were denied the ministrations of their priests; the better employments and more honorable professions were closed to them; the industries which promised prosperity to their country were suppressed. A small minority of Protestant colonists became the recognized nation, so far as a nationality in Ireland was recognized at all. When Ireland was said to have a Parliament, it was the Parliament of the minority alone. No Catholic sat in it; no Catholic was represented in it. When Irishmen were permitted to bear arms, they were Protestant Irishmen only who formed the privileged militia. Seven-tenths of the inhabitants of the island were politically as non-existent as actual serfdom could have made them. For the most part they were peasants and their state as such scarcely above the condition of serfs. They owned no land; their leases were insecure; the laws protected them in the least possible degree; their landlords were mostly of the hostile creed and race. No country in Europe showed conditions better calculated to distress and degrade a people.

{1103}

This was the state of things in Ireland until nearly the end of the eighteenth century. In 1782 legislative independence was conceded; but the independent legislature was still the Parliament in which Protestants sat alone. In 1793 Catholics were admitted to the franchise; but seats in Parliament were still denied to them and they must elect Protestants to represent them. In 1800 the Act of Union, creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, extinguished the Parliament at Dublin and provided for the introduction of Irish peers and members to represent Irish constituencies in the greater Parliament at London; but still no Catholic could take a seat in either House. Not until 1829, after eighteen years of the fierce agitation which Daniel O'Connell stirred up, were Catholic disabilities entirely removed and the people of that faith placed on an equal footing with Protestants in political and civil rights. O'Connell's agitation was not for Catholic emancipation alone, but for the repeal of the Act of Union and the restoration of legislative independence and national distinctness to Ireland. That desire has been hot in the Irish heart from the day the Union was accomplished. After O'Connell's death, there was quiet on the subject for a time. The fearful famine of 1845-7 deadened all political feeling. Then there was a recurrence of the passionate animosity to British rule which had kindled unfortunate rebellions in 1798 and 1803. It produced the Fenian conspiracies, which ran their course from about 1858 to 1867. But soon after that time Irish nationalism resumed a more politic temper, and doubled the energy of its efforts by confining them to peaceful and lawful ways. The Home Rule movement, which began in 1873, was aimed at the organization of a compact and well-guided Irish party in Parliament, to press the demand for legislative independence and to act with united weight on lines of Irish policy carefully laid down. This Home Rule party soon acquired a powerful leader in Mr. Charles Parnell, and was successful in carrying questions of reform in Ireland to the forefront of English politics.

Under the influence of its great leader, Mr. Gladstone, the Liberal party had already, before the Home Rule party came into the field, begun to adopt measures for the redress of Irish wrongs. In 1869, the Irish branch of the Church of England, calling itself the Church of Ireland, was disestablished. The membership of that church was reckoned to be one-tenth of the population; but it had been supported by the taxation of the whole. The Catholics, the Presbyterians and other dissenters were now released from this unjust burden. In 1870, a Land Bill—the first of several, which restrict the power of Irish landlords to oppress their tenants, and which protect the latter, while opening opportunities of land-ownership to them—was passed. The land question became for a time more prominent than the Home Rule question, and the party of Mr. Parnell was practically absorbed in an Irish National Land League, formed to force landlords to a reduction of rents. The methods of coercion adopted brought the League into collision with the Liberal Government, notwithstanding the general sympathy of the latter with Irish complaints. For a time the Irish Nationalists went into alliance with the English Conservatives; but in 1886 Mr. Gladstone became convinced, and convinced the majority of his party, that just and harmonious relations between Ireland and Great Britain could never be established without the concession of Home Rule to the former. A bill which he introduced to that end was defeated in the House of Commons and Mr. Gladstone resigned. In 1892 he was returned to power, and in September of the following year he carried in the House of Commons a bill for the transferring of Irish legislation to a distinct Parliament at Dublin. It was defeated, however, in the House of Lords, and the question now rests in an unsettled state. Mr. Gladstone's retirement from the premiership and from the leadership of his party, which occurred in March, 1894, may affect the prospects of the measure; but the English Liberals are committed to its principle, and it appears to be certain that the Irish question will attain some solution within no very long time.

Conclusion.

The beginning of the year 1894, when this is written, finds Europe at peace, as it has been for a number of years. But the peace is not of friendship, nor of honorable confidence, nor of good will. The greater nations are lying on their arms, so to speak, watching one another with strained eyes and with jealous hearts. France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, are marshaling armies in the season of peace that, not many years ago, would have seemed monstrous for war. Exactions of military service and taxation for military expenditure are pressed upon their people to the point of last endurance. The preparation for battle is so vast in its scale, so unceasing, so increasing, so far in the lead over all other efforts among men, that it seems like a new affirmation of belief that war is the natural order of the world.

And yet, the dread of war is greater in the civilized world than ever before. The interests and influences that work for peace are more powerful than at any former time. The wealth which war threatens, the commerce which it interrupts, the industry which it disturbs, the intelligence which it offends, the humanity which it shocks, the Christianity which it grieves, grow stronger to resist it, year by year. The statesman and the diplomatist are under checks of responsibility which a generation no older than Palmerston's never felt. The arbitrator and the tribunal of arbitration have become familiar within a quarter of a century. The spirit of the age opposes war with rising earnestness and increasing force; while the circumstance and fact of the time seem arranged for it as the chief business of mankind. It is a singular and a critical situation; the outcome from it is impenetrably hidden.

Within itself, too, each nation is troubled with hostilities that the world has not known before. Democracy in politics is bringing in, as was inevitable, democracy in the whole social system; and the period of adjustment to it, which we are passing through, could not fail to be a period of trial and of many dangers. The Anarchist, the Nihilist, the Socialist in his many variations—what are they going to do in the time that lies before us?

Europe, at the present stage of its history, is in the thick of many questions; and so we leave it.

{1104}

EURYMEDON, Battles of the (B. C. 466).

See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

EUSKALDUNAC.

See BASQUES.

EUTAW SPRINGS, Battle of(1781).

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

EUTHYNI, The.

See LOGISTÆ.

EUTYCHIAN HERESY.

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

EUXINE, The.

Euxinus Pontus, or Pontus Euxinus, the Black Sea, as named by the Greeks.

EVACUATION DAY. The anniversary of the evacuation of New York by the British, Nov. 25, 1783.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

EVANGELICAL UNION OF GERMANY, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

EVER VICTORIOUS ARMY, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

EVESHAM, Battle of (1265).

The battle which finished the civil war in England known as the Barons' War. It was fought Aug. 3, 1265, and Earl Simon de Montfort, the soul of the popular cause, was slain, with most of his followers. Prince Edward, afterwards Edward I., commanded the royal forces.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

EVICTIONS, Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.

EXARCHS OF RAVENNA.

See ROME: A. D. 554-800.

EXARCHS OF THE DIOCESE.

See PRIMATES.

EXCHEQUER. EXCHEQUER ROLLS. EXCHEQUER TALLIES.

"The Exchequer of the Norman kings was the court in which the whole financial business of the country was transacted, and as the whole administration of justice, and even the military organisation, was dependent upon the fiscal officers, the whole framework of society may be said to have passed annually under its review. It derived its name from the chequered cloth which covered the table at which the accounts were taken, a name which suggested to the spectator the idea of a game at chess between the receiver and the payer, the treasurer and the sheriff. … The record of the business was preserved in three great rolls; one kept by the Treasurer, another by the Chancellor, and a third by an officer nominated by the king, who registered the matters of legal and special importance. The rolls of the Treasurer and Chancellor were duplicates; that of the former was called from its shape the great roll of the Pipe, and that of the latter the roll of the Chancery. These documents are mostly still in existence. The Pipe Rolls are complete from the second year of Henry II. and the Chancellor's Rolls nearly so. Of the preceding period only one roll, that of the thirty-first year of Henry I., is preserved, and this with Domesday book is the most valuable store of information which exists for the administrative history of the age. The financial reports were made to the barons by the sheriffs of the counties. At Easter and Michælmas each of these magistrates produced his own accounts and paid in to the Exchequer such an instalment or proffer as he could afford, retaining in hand sufficient money for current expenses. In token of receipt a tally was made; a long piece of wood in which a number of notches were cut, marking the pounds, shillings, and pence received; this stick was then split down the middle, each half contained exactly the same number of notches, and no alteration could of course be made without certain detection. … The fire which destroyed the old Houses of Parliament is said to have originated in the burning of the old Exchequer tallies."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11, section 126.

"The wooden 'tallies' on which a large notch represented £1,000, and smaller notches other sums, while a halfpenny was denoted by a small round hole, were actually in use at the Exchequer until the year 1824."

_Sir J. Lubbock, Preface to Hall's "Antiquities and Curiosities of the Exchequer."_

ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 1, number 5.

See, also, CURIA REGIS and CHESS.

EXCHEQUER, Chancellor of the.

In the reign of Henry III., of England, "was created the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom the Exchequer seal was entrusted, and who with the Treasurer took part in the equitable jurisdiction of the Exchequer, although not in the common law jurisdiction of the barons, which extended itself as the legal fictions of pleading brought common pleas into this court."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 15, section 237.

EXCLUSION BILL, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681.

EXCOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERDICTS.

"Excommunication, whatever opinions may be entertained as to its religious efficacy, was originally nothing more in appearance than the exercise of a right which every society claims, the expulsion of refractory members from its body. No direct temporal disadvantages attended this penalty for several ages; but as it was the most severe of spiritual censures, and tended to exclude the object of it, not only from a participation in religious rites, but in a considerable degree from the intercourse of Christian society, it was used sparingly and upon the gravest occasions. Gradually, as the church became more powerful and more imperious, excommunications were issued upon every provocation, rather as a weapon of ecclesiastical warfare than with any regard to its original intention. … Princes who felt the inadequacy of their own laws to secure obedience called in the assistance of more formidable sanctions. Several capitularies of Charlemagne denounce the penalty of excommunication against incendiaries or deserters from the army. Charles the Bald procured similar censures against his revolted vassals. Thus the boundary between temporal and spiritual offences grew every day less distinct; and the clergy were encouraged to fresh encroachments, as they discovered the secret of rendering them successful. … The support due to church censures by temporal judges is vaguely declared in the capitularies of Pepin and Charlemagne. It became in later ages a more established principle in France and England, and, I presume, in other countries. By our common law an excommunicated person is incapable of being a witness or of bringing an action; and he may be detained in prison until he obtains absolution. By the Establishments of St. Louis, his estate or person might be attached by the magistrate. These actual penalties were attended by marks of abhorrence and ignominy still more calculated to make an impression on ordinary minds. They were to be shunned, like men infected with leprosy, by their servants, their friends, and their families. … {1105} But as excommunication, which attacked only one and perhaps a hardened sinner, was not always efficacious, the church had recourse to a more comprehensive punishment. For the offence of a nobleman she put a county, for that of a prince his entire kingdom, under an interdict or suspension of religious offices. No stretch of her tyranny was perhaps so outrageous as this. During an interdict the churches were closed, the bells silent, the dead unburied, no rite but those of baptism and extreme unction performed. The penalty fell upon those who had neither partaken nor could have prevented the offence; and the offence was often but a private dispute, in which the pride of a pope or bishop had been wounded. Interdicts were so rare before the time of Gregory VII., that some have referred them to him as their author; instances may however be found of an earlier date."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 7, part 1.

ALSO IN: M. Gosselin, The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages, part 2, chapter 1, article 3.

H. C. Lea, Studies in Church History, part 3.

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 4, chapter 8, section 86.

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.

See CONGRESS OF THE UNITED SESSIONS.

EXEGETÆ, The.

A board of three persons in ancient Athens "to whom application might be made in all matters relating to sacred law, and also, probably, with regard to the significance of the Diosemia, or celestial phenomena and other signs by which future events were foretold."

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

EXETER, Origin of.

"Isca Damnoniorum, Caer Wisc, Exanceaster, Exeter, keeping essentially the same name under all changes, stands distinguished as the one great English city which has, in a more marked way than any other, kept its unbroken being and its unbroken position throughout all ages. The City on the Exe, in all ages and in all tongues keeping its name as the City on the Exe, allows of an easy definition. … It is the one city [of England] in which we can feel sure that human habitation and city life have never ceased from the days of the early Cæsars to our own." At the Norman conquest, Exeter did not submit to William until after a siege of 18 days, in 1068.

E. A. Freeman, Exeter, chapters 1-2.

EXILARCH, The.

See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.

EXODUS FROM EGYPT, The.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

EYLAU, Battle of (1807).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806-1807.

EYRE, Governor, and the Jamaica insurrection.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.

EYSTEIN I., King of Norway, A. D. 1116-1122. Eystein II., 1155-1157.

EZZELINO, OR ECCELINO DI ROMANO, The tyranny of, and the crusade against.

See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

F.

FABIAN POLICY.-FABIAN TACTICS.

The policy pursued by Q. Fabius Maximus, the Roman Dictator, called "the Cunctator" or Lingerer, in his campaigns against Hannibal.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

FACTORY LEGISLATION, English.

"During the 17th and 18th centuries, when the skill of the workmen had greatly improved, and the productiveness of labour had increased, various methods were resorted to for the purpose of prolonging the working day. The noontide nap was first dispensed with, then other intervals of rest were curtailed, and ultimately artificial light was introduced, which had the effect of abolishing the difference between the short days of winter and the long days of summer, thus equalising, the working day throughout the year. The opening of the 19th century was signalised by a new cry, namely, for a reduction in the hours of labour; this was in consequence of the introduction of female and child labour into the factories, and the deterioration of the workers as a result of excessive overwork. … The overwork of the young, and particularly the excessive hours in the factories, became such crying evils that in 1801 the first Act was passed to restrict the hours of labour for apprentices, who were prohibited from working more than 12 hours a day, between six A. M. and nine P. M., and that provision should be made for teaching them to read and write, and other educational exercises. This Act further provided that the mills should be whitewashed at least once a year; and that doors and windows should be made to admit fresh air. This Act was followed by a series of commissions and committees of inquiry, the result being that it was several times amended. The details of the evidence given before the several commissions and committees of inquiry are sickening in the extreme; the medical testimony was unanimous in its verdict that the children were physically ruined by overwork; those who escaped with their lives were so crippled and maimed that they were unable to maintain themselves in after life, and became paupers. It was proven that out of 4,000 who entered the factory before they were 30 years of age, only 600 were to be found in the mills after that age. By Sir Robert Peel's Bill in 1819 it was proposed to limit the hours to 11 per day with one and a half for meals, for those under 16 years of age. But the mill-owners prophesied the ruin of the manufacturers of the country—they could not compete with the foreign markets, it was an interference with the freedom of labour, the spare time given would be spent in debauchery and riot, and that if passed, other trades would require the same provisions. The Bill was defeated, and the hours fixed at 72 per week; the justices, that is to say the manufacturers, were entrusted with the enforcement of the law. In 1825 a new law was passed defining the time when breakfast and dinner was to be taken, and fixing the time to half an hour for the first repast, and a full hour for dinner; the traditional term of apprentices was dropped and the modern classification of children and young persons was substituted, and children were once more prohibited from working more than 12 hours a day. But every means was adopted to evade the law. … After thousands of petitions, and numerous angry debates in Parliament, the Act of 1833 was passed, which limited the working hours of children to 48 hours per week, and provided that each child should have a certain amount of schooling, and with it factory inspectors were appointed to enforce the law. {1106} But the law was not to come into operation until March 1, 1836, during which time it had to be explained and defended in one session, amended in a second, and made binding in a third. After several Royal Commissions and inquiries by select committees, this Act has been eight times amended, until the working hours of children are now limited to six per day, and for young persons and women to 56 per week; these provisions with certain modifications are now extended to workshops, and the whole law is being consolidated and amended. … The whole series of the Factory Acts, dating from 42 George III., c. 73, to the 37 and 38 Victoria 1874, forms a code of legislation, in regard to working people, unexampled in any age and unequalled in any country in the world. … Outside Parliament efforts have been constantly made to further reduce the working hours."

G. Howell, The Conflicts of Capital and Labour, pages 298-301.

"The continental governments, of course, have been obliged to make regulations covering kindred subjects, but rarely have they kept pace with English legislation. America has enacted progressive laws so far as the condition of factory workers has warranted. It should be remembered that the abuses which crept into the system in England never existed in this country in any such degree as we know they did in the old country. Yet there are few States in America where manufactures predominate or hold an important position in which law has not stepped in and restricted either the hours of labor, or the conditions of labor, and insisted upon the education of factory children, although the laws are usually silent as to children of agricultural laborers. It is is not wholly in the passage of purely factory acts that the factory system has influenced the legislation of the world. England may have suffered temporarily from the effects of some of her factory legislation, and the recent reduction of the hours of labor to nine and one-half per day, less than in any other country, has had the effect of placing her works at a disadvantage; but, in the long run, England will be the gainer on account of all the work she has done in the way of legislative restrictions upon labor. In this she has changed her whole policy. Formerly trade must be restricted and labor allowed to demoralize itself under the specious plea of being free; now, trade must be free and labor restricted in the interests of society, which means in the interest of good morals. The factory system has not only wrought this change, but has compelled the economists to recognize the distinction between commodities and services. There has been greater and greater freedom of contract in respect to commodities, but the contracts which involve labor have become more and more completely under the authority and supervision of the State. 'Seventy-five years ago scarcely a single law existed in any country for regulating the contract for services in the interest of the laboring classes. At the same time the contract for commodities was everywhere subject to minute and incessant regulations' [Hon. F. A. Walker]. Factory legislation in England, as elsewhere, has had for its chief object the regulation of the labor of children and women; but its scope has constantly increased by successive and progressive amendments until they have attempted to secure the physical and moral well-being of the working-man in all trades, and to give him every condition of salubrity and of personal safety in the workshops. The excellent effect of factory legislation has been made manifest throughout the whole of Great Britain. 'Physically, the factory child can bear fair comparison with the child brought up in the fields,' and, intellectually, progress is far greater with the former than with the latter. Public opinion, struck by these results, has demanded the extension of protective measures for children to every kind of industrial labor, until parliament has brought under the influence of these laws the most powerful industries. To carry the factory regulations and those relative to schooling into effect, England has an efficient corps of factory inspectors. The manufacturers of England are unanimous in acknowledging that to the activity, to the sense of impartiality, displayed by these inspectors, is due the fact that an entire application of the law has been possible without individual interests being thereby jeopardized to a very serious extent. … In no other country is there so elaborate a code of factory laws as the 'British factory and workshop act' of 1878 (41 Vict., chapter 16), it being an act consolidating all the factory acts since Sir Robert Peel's act of 1802."

_C. D. Wright, Factory Legislation (Tenth Census of the United States, volume 2)._

ALSO IN: First annual Report of the Factory Inspectors of the State of New York, 1886, appendix.

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 8, chapters 22 and 27.

H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years' Peace, volume 2, pages 512-515.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

FADDILEY, Battle of.

Fought successfully by the Britons with the West Saxons, on the border of Cheshire, A. D. 583.

J. R. Green, The Making of England, page 206.

FAENZA, Battle of (A. D. 542).

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

FÆSULÆ.

See FLORENCE, ORIGIN AND NAME.

FAGGING.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. ENGLAND.—THE GREAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

FAGGIOLA, Battle of (1425).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

FAINÉANT KINGS.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

FAIR OAKS, Battle of.

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

FAIRFAX AND THE PARLIAMENTARY ARMY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JANUARY-APRIL), and (JUNE); 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST); 1648 (NOVEMBER); 1649 (FEBRUARY).

FALAISE.

"The Castle [in Normandy] where legend fixes the birth of William of Normandy, and where history fixes the famous homage of William of Scotland, is a vast donjon of the eleventh or twelfth century. One of the grandest of those massive square keeps which I have already spoken of as distinguishing the earliest military architecture of Normandy crowns the summit of a precipitous rock, fronted by another mass of rock, wilder still, on which the cannon of England were planted during Henry's siege. To these rocks, these 'felsen,' the spot owes its name of Falaise. … Between these two rugged heights lies a narrow dell. … The den is crowded with mills and tanneries, but the mills and tanneries of Falaise have their share in the historic interest of the place. … In every from which the story has taken in history or legend, the mother of the Conqueror appears as the daughter of a tanner of Falaise."

E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 8, section 1.

{1107}

FALAISE, Peace of (1175).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1174-1189.

FALK LAWS, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

FALKIRK, Battles of (1298 and 1746).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305; and 1745-1746.

FAMAGOSTA: A. D. 1571. Taken by the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

FAMILIA.

The slaves belonging to a master were collectively called familia among the Romans.

E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans, section 100.

FAMILY COMPACT.

The First Bourbon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

The Second.

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

The Third.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

FAMILY COMPACT IN CANADA, The.

See CANADA: A. D.1820-1837.

FAMINE, The Cotton.

See, ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

FAMINE, The Irish.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1845-1847.

FANARIOTS.

See PHANARIOTS.

FANEUIL HALL.

"The fame of Faneuil Hall [Boston, Mass.] is as wide as the country itself. It has been called the 'Cradle of Liberty,' because dedicated by that early apostle of freedom, James Otis, to the cause of liberty, in a speech delivered in the hall in March, 1763. … Its walls have echoed to the voices of the great departed in times gone by, and in every great public exigency the people, with one accord, assembled together to take counsel within its hallowed precincts. … The Old Market-house … existing in Dock Square in 1734, was demolished by a mob in 1736-37. There was contention among the people as to whether they would be served at their houses in the old way, or resort to fixed localities, and one set of disputants took this summary method of settling the question. … In 1740, the question of the Market-house being revived, Peter Faneuil proposed to build one at his own cost on the town's land in Dock Square, upon condition that the town should legally authorize it, enact proper regulations, and maintain it for the purpose named. Mr. Faneuil's noble offer was courteously received, but such was the division of opinion on the subject that it was accepted by a majority of only seven votes, out of 727 persons voting. The building was completed in September, 1742, and three days after, at a meeting of citizens, the hall was formally accepted and a vote of thanks passed to the donor. … The town voted that the hall should be called Faneuil Hall forever. … The original size of the building was 40 by 100 feet, just half the present width; the hall would contain 1,000 persons. At the fire of January 13, 1763, the whole interior was destroyed, but the town voted to rebuild in March, and the State authorized a lottery in aid of the design. The first meeting after the rebuilding was held on the 14th March, 1763, when James Otis delivered the dedicatory address. In 1806 the Hull was enlarged in width to 80 feet, and by the addition of a third story."

S. A. Drake, Old Landmarks of Boston, chapter 4.

FANNIAN LAW, The.

See ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

FARM.

See FERM.

FARMERS' ALLIANCE.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

FARMER'S LETTERS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1767-1768.

FARNESE, Alexander, Duke of Parma, in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, to 1588-1593.

FARNESE, The House of.

See PARMA: A. D. 1545-1592.

FARRAGUT, Admiral David G. Capture of New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Attack on Vicksburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Victory in Mobile Bay.

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

FARSAKH, OR FARSANG, The.

See PARASANG.

FASCES.

See LICTORS.

FASTI.

"Dies Fasti were the days upon which the Courts of Justice [in ancient Rome] were open, and legal business could be transacted before the Praetor; the Dies Nefasti were those upon which the Courts were closed. … All days consecrated to the worship of the Gods by sacrifices, feasts or games, were named Festi. … For nearly four centuries and a-half after the foundation of the city the knowledge of the Calendar was confined to the Pontifices alone. … These secrets which might be, and doubtless often were, employed for political ends, were at length divulged in the year B. C. 314, by Cn. Flavius, who drew up tables embracing all this carefully-treasured information, and hung them up in the Forum for the inspection of the public. From this time forward documents of this description were known by the name of Fasti. … These Fasti, in fact, corresponded very closely to a modern Almanac. … The Fasti just described have, to prevent confusion, been called Calendaria, or Fasti Calendares, and must be carefully distinguished from certain compositions also named Fasti by the ancients. These were regular chronicles in which were recorded each year the names of the Consuls and other magistrates, together with the remarkable events, and the days on which they occurred. The most important were the Annales Maximi, kept by the Pontifex Maximus."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquities, chapter 11.

FATIMITE CALIPHS, The.

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

Also, ASSASSINS.

FAVILA, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 737-739.

FEAST OF LIBERTY.

See GREECE: B. C. 479: PERSIAN WARS. PLATÆA.

FEAST OF REASON, The.

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

FEAST OF THE FEDERATION, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791.

FEAST OF THE SUPREME BEING, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

FECIALES. FETIALES.

See FETIALES.

FEDELI.

See CATTANI.

FEDERAL CITY, The.

See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF SWITZERLAND.

See CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.

{1108}

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

See CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. FEDERATIONS.

"Two requisites seem necessary to constitute a Federal Government in … its most perfect form. On the one hand, each of the members of the Union must be wholly independent in those matters which concern each member only. On the other hand, all must be subject to a common power in those matters which concern the whole body of members collectively. Thus each member will fix for itself the laws of its criminal jurisprudence, and even the details of its political constitution. And it will do this, not as a matter of privilege or concession from any higher power, but as a matter of absolute right, by virtue of its inherent powers as an independent commonwealth. But in all matters which concern the general body, the sovereignty of the several members will cease. Each member is perfectly independent within its own sphere; but there is another sphere in which its independence, or rather its separate existence, vanishes. It is invested with every right of sovereignty on one class of subjects, but there is another class of subjects on which it is as incapable of separate political action as any province or city of a monarchy or of an indivisible republic. … Four Federal Commonwealths … stand out, in four different ages of the world, as commanding, above all others, the attention of students of political history. Of these four, one belongs to what is usually known as 'ancient,' another to what is commonly called 'mediæval' history; a third arose in the period of transition between mediæval and modern history; the creation of the fourth may have been witnessed by some few of those who are still counted among living men, … These four Commonwealths are, First, the Achaian League [see GREECE: B. C. 280-146] in the later days of Ancient Greece, whose most flourishing period comes within the third century before our era. Second, the Confederation of the Swiss Cantons [see CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION], which, with many changes in its extent and constitution, has lasted from the thirteenth century to our own day. Third, the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, and after], whose Union arose in the War of Independence against Spain, and lasted, in a republican form, till the war of the French Revolution. Fourth, the United States of North America [see CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA], which formed a Federal Union after their revolt from the British Crown under George the Third, and whose destiny forms one of the most important, and certainly the most interesting, of the political problems of our own time. Of these four, three come sufficiently near to the full realization of the Federal idea to be entitled to rank among perfect Federal Governments. The Achaian League, and the United States since the adoption of the present Constitution, are indeed the most perfect developments of the Federal principle which the world has ever seen. The Swiss Confederation, in its origin a Union of the loosest kind, has gradually drawn the Federal bond tighter and tighter, till, within our own times, it has assumed a form which fairly entitles it to rank beside Achaia and America. The claim of the United Provinces is more doubtful; their union was at no period of their republican being so close as that of Achaia, America, and modern Switzerland."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, volume 1, pages 3-6.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Classification of Federal Governments.

"To the classification of federal governments publicists have given great attention with unsatisfactory results. History shows a great variety of forms, ranging from the lowest possible organization, like that of the Amphictyonic Council [see AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL] to the highly centralized and powerful German Empire. Many writers deny that any fixed boundaries can be described. The usual classification is, however, into three divisions,—the Staatenstaat, or state founded on states; the Staatenbund, or union of states—to which the term Confederacy nearly corresponds; and the Bundesstaat, or united state, which answers substantially to the term federation as usually employed. The Staatenstaat is defined to be a state in which the units are not individuals, but states, and which, therefore, has no operation directly on individuals, but deals with and legislates for its corporate members; they preserve undisturbed their powers of government over their own subjects. The usual example of a Staatenstaat is the Holy Roman Empire [see ROMAN EMPIRE, THE HOLY]. This conception … is, however, illogical in theory, and never has been carried out in practice. … Historically, also, the distinction is untenable. The Holy Roman Empire had courts, taxes, and even subjects not connected with the states. In theory it had superior claims upon all the individuals within the Empire; in practice it abandoned control over the states. The second category is better established. Jellinek says: "When states form a permanent political alliance, of which common defence is at the very least the purpose, with permanent federal organs, there arises a Staatenbund.' This form of government is distinguished from an alliance by the fact that it has permanent federal organs; from a commercial league by its political purpose; from a Bundesstaat by its limited purpose. In other words, under Staatenbund are included the weaker forms of true federal government, in which there is independence from other powers, and, within the purposes of the union, independence from the constituent states. … The Staatenbund form includes most of the federal governments which have existed. The Greek confederations (except perhaps the Lycian and Achæan) and all the mediæval leagues were of this type: even the strong modern unions of the United States, Germany, and Switzerland, have gone through the Staatenbund stage in their earlier history. Between the Staatenbund and the more highly developed form, the Bundesstaat, no writer has described an accurate boundary. There are certain governments, notably those of Canada, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States, in which is found an elaborate and powerful central organism, including federal courts; to this organism is assigned all or nearly all the common concerns of the nation; within its exclusive control are war, foreign affairs, commerce, colonies, and national finances; and there is an efficient power of enforcement against states. Such governments undoubtedly are Bundesstaaten."

A. B. Hart, Introduction to the Study of Federal Government (Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2), chapter 1.

{1109}

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Greek Federations.

"Under the conditions of the Græco-Roman civic life there were but two practicable methods of forming a great state and diminishing the quantity of warfare. The one method was conquest with incorporation, the other method was federation. … Neither method was adopted by the Greeks in their day of greatness. The Spartan method of extending its power was conquest without incorporation: when Sparta conquered another Greek city, she sent a harmost to govern it like a tyrant; in other words she virtually enslaved the subject city. The efforts of Athens tended more in the direction of a peaceful federalism. In the great Delian confederacy [see GREECE: B. C. 478-477, and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454], which developed into the maritime empire of Athens, the Ægean cities were treated as allies rather than subjects. As regards their local affairs they were in no way interfered with, and could they have been represented in some kind of a federal council at Athens, the course of Grecian history might have been wonderfully altered. As it was, they were all deprived of one essential element of sovereignty,—the power of controlling their own military forces. … In the century following the death of Alexander, in the closing age of Hellenic independence, the federal idea appears in a much more advanced stage of elaboration, though in a part of Greece which had been held of little account in the great days of Athens and Sparta. Between the Achaian federation, framed in 274 B. C., and the United States of America, there are some interesting points of resemblance which have been elaborately discussed by Mr. Freeman, in his 'History of Federal Government.' About the same time the Ætolian League [see ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE] came into prominence in the north. Both these leagues were instances of true federal government, and were not mere confederations; that is, the central government acted directly upon all the citizens and not merely upon the local governments. Each of these leagues had for its chief executive officer a General elected for one year, with powers similar to those of an American President. In each the supreme assembly was a primary assembly at which every citizen from every city of the league had a right to be present, to speak, and to vote; but as a natural consequence these assemblies shrank into comparatively aristocratic bodies. In Ætolia, which was a group of mountain cantons similar to Switzerland, the federal union was more complete than in Achaia, which was a group of cities. … In so far as Greece contributed anything towards the formation of great and pacific political aggregates, she did it through attempts at federation. But in so low a state of political development as that which prevailed throughout the Mediterranean world in pre-Christian times, the more barbarous method of conquest with incorporation was more likely to be successful on a great scale. This was well illustrated in the history of Rome,—a civic community of the same generic type with Sparta and Athens, but presenting specific differences of the highest importance. … Rome early succeeded in freeing itself from that insuperable prejudice which elsewhere prevented the ancient city from admitting aliens to a share in its franchise. And in this victory over primeval political ideas lay the whole secret of Rome's mighty career."

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Mediæval Leagues in Germany.

"It is hardly too much to say that the Lombard League led naturally to the leagues of German cities. The exhausting efforts of the Hohenstaufen Emperors to secure dominion in Italy compelled them to grant privileges to the cities in Germany; the weaker emperors, who followed, bought support with new charters and privileges. The inability of the Empire to keep the peace or to protect commerce led speedily to the formation of great unions of cities, usually commercial in origin, but very soon becoming political forces of prime importance. The first of these was the Rhenish League, formed in 1254. The more important cities of the Rhine valley, from Basle to Cologne, were the original members; but it eventually had seventy members, including several princes and ruling prelates. The league had Colloquia, or assemblies, at stated intervals; but, beyond deciding upon a general policy, and the assignment of military quotas, it had no legislative powers. There was, however, a Kommission, or federal court, which acted as arbiter in disputes between the members. The chief political service of the league was to maintain peace during the interregnum in the Empire (1256-1273). During the fourteenth century it fell apart, and many of its members joined the Hansa or Suabian League. … In 1377 seventeen Suabian cities, which had been mortgaged by the Emperor, united to defend their liberties. They received many accessions of German and Swiss cities; but in 1388 they were overthrown by Leopold III. of Austria, and all combinations of cities were forbidden. A federal government they cannot be said to have possessed; but political, almost federal relations continued during the fifteenth century. The similar leagues of Frankfort and Wetterau were broken up about the same time. Other leagues of cities and cantons were in a like manner formed and dissolved,—among them the leagues of Hauenstein and Burgundy; and there was a confederation in Franche Comté, afterward French territory. All the mediæval leagues thus far mentioned were defensive, and had no extended relations beyond their own borders. The great Hanseatic League [see HANSA TOWNS], organized as a commercial union, developed into a political and international power, which negotiated and made war on its own account with foreign and German sovereigns; and which was for two centuries one of the leading powers of Europe."

A. B. Hart, Introduction to the Study of Federal Government (Harvard Historical Monographs, number 2), chapter 3.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Mediæval League of Lombardy.

When Frederick Barbarossa entered Italy for the fifth time in 1163, to enforce the despotic sovereignty over that country which the German kings, as emperors, were then claiming (see ITALY: A. D. 961-1039), a league of the Lombard cities was formed to resist him. "Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso, the most powerful towns of the Veronese marches, assembled their consuls in congress, to consider of the means of putting an end to a tyranny which overwhelmed them. The consuls of these four towns pledged themselves by oath in the name of their cities to give mutual support to each other in the assertion of their former rights, and in the resolution to reduce the imperial prerogatives to the point at which they were fixed under the reign of Henry IV. Frederick, informed of this association; returned hastily into Northern Italy, to put it down … but he soon perceived that the spirit of liberty had made progress in the Ghibeline cities as well as in those of the Guelphs. … {1110} Obliged to bend before a people which he considered only as revolted subjects, he soon renounced a contest so humiliating, and returned to Germany, to levy an army more submissive to him. Other and more pressing interests diverted his attention from this object till the autumn of 1166. … When Frederick, in the month of October, 1166, descended the mountains of the Grisons to enter Italy by the territory of Brescia, he marched his army directly to Lodi, without permitting any act of hostility on the way. At Lodi, he assembled, towards the end of November, a diet of the kingdom of Italy, at which he promised the Lombards to redress the grievances occasioned by the abuses of power by his podestas, and to respect their just liberties; … to give greater weight to his negotiation, he marched his army into Central Italy. … The towns of the Veronese marches, seeing the emperor and his army pass without daring to attack them, became bolder: they assembled a new diet, in the beginning of April, at the convent of Pontida, between Milan and Bergamo. The consuls of Cremona, of Bergamo, of Brescia, of Mantua and Ferrara met there, and joined those of the marches. The union of the Guelphs and Ghibelines, for the common liberty, was hailed with universal joy. The deputies of the Cremonese, who had lent their aid to the destruction of Milan, seconded those of the Milanese villages in imploring aid of the confederated towns to rebuild the city of Milan. This confederation was called the League of Lombardy. The consuls took the oath, and their constituents afterwards repeated it, that every Lombard should unite for the recovery of the common liberty; that the league for this purpose should last twenty years; and, finally, that they should aid each other in repairing in common any damage experienced in this sacred cause, by any one member of the confederation: extending even to the past this contract for reciprocal security, the league resolved to rebuild Milan. … Lodi was soon afterwards compelled, by force of arms, to take the oath to the league; while the towns of Venice, Placentia, Parma, Modena, and Bologna voluntarily and gladly joined the association."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Italian Republics, chapter 2.

In 1226 the League was revived or renewed against Frederick II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

"Milan and Bologna took the lead, and were followed by Piacenza, Verona, Brescia, Faenza, Mantua, Vercelli, Lodi, Bergamo, Turin, Alessandria, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso. … Nothing could be more unlike, than the First and the Second Lombard Leagues, that of 1167, formed against Frederick the First after the most cruel provocation, was sanctioned by the Pope, and had for its end the deliverance of Lombardy. That of 1226, formed against Frederick the Second, after no provocation received, was discountenanced by the Pope, and resulted in the frustration of the Crusade and in sowing the germ of endless civil wars. This year is fixed upon by the Brescian Chronicler as the beginning of 'those plaguy factions of Guelf and Ghibelline, which were so engrained into the minds of our forefathers, that they have handed them down as an heir-loom to their posterity, never to come to an end.'"

T. L. Kington, History of Frederick the Second, volume 1, pages 265-266.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Modern Federations.

"A remarkable phenomenon of the last hundred years is the impetus that has been given to the development of Federal institutions. There are to-day contemporaneously existing no less than eight distinct Federal Governments. First and foremost is the United States of America, where we have an example of the Federal Union in the most perfect form yet attained. Then comes Switzerland, of less importance than the United States of America, but most nearly approaching it in perfection. Again we have the German Empire [see CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY], that great factor in European politics, which is truly a Federal Union, but a cumbrous one and full of anomalies. Next in importance comes the Dominion of Canada [see CONSTITUTION OF CANADA], which is the only example of a country forming a Federal Union and at the same time a colony. Lastly come the Argentine Republic, Mexico, and the States of Colombia and Venezuela [see CONSTITUTIONS]. This is a very remarkable list when we consider that never before the present century did more than two Federal Unions ever coexist, and that very rarely, and that even those unions were far from satisfying the true requirements of Federation. Nor is this all. Throughout the last hundred years we can mark a growing tendency in countries that have adopted the Federal type of Government to perfect that Federal type and make it more truly Federal than before. In the United States of America, for instance, the Constitution of 1789 was more truly Federal than the Articles of Confederation, and certainly since the Civil War we hear less of State Rights, and more of Union. It has indeed been remarked that the citizens of the United States have become fond of applying the words 'Nation' and 'National' to themselves in a manner formerly unknown. We can mark the same progress in Switzerland. Before 1789, Switzerland formed a very loose system of Confederated States—in 1815, a constitution more truly Federal was devised; in 1848, the Federal Union was more firmly consolidated; and lastly, in 1874, such changes were made in the Constitution that Switzerland now presents a very fairly perfect example of Federal Government. In Germany we may trace a similar movement. In 1815, the Germanic Confederation was formed; but it was only a system of Confederated States, or what the Germans call Staatenbund; but after various changes, amongst others the exclusion of Austria in 1866, it became, in 1871, a composite State or, in German language, a Bundestaat. Beyond this, we have to note a further tendency to Federation. In the year 1886, a Bill passed the Imperial Parliament to permit of the formation of an Australasian Council for the purposes of forming the Australasian Colonies into a Federation. Then we hear of further aspirations for applying the Federal system, as though there were some peculiar virtue or talismanic effect about it which rendered it a panacea for all political troubles. There has, also, been much talk about Imperial Federation. Lastly, some people think they see a simple solution of the Irish Question in the application of Federation, particularly the Canadian form of it, to Ireland."

Federal Government (Westminster Rev., May, 1888, pages 573-574).

{1111}

"The federal is one of the oldest forms of government known, and its adaptability to the largest as well as to the smallest states is shown in all political formations of late years. States in the New and in the Old World, all in their aggregation, alike show ever a stronger tendency to adopt it. Already all the central states of Europe are federal—Switzerland, Germany, Austria [see AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867, and 1866-1887]; and if ever the various Sclav principalities in south-eastern Europe—the Serb, the Albanian, the Rouman, the Bulgar, and the Czech—are to combine, it will probably be (as Mr. Freeman so long ago as 1862 remarked) under a federal form,—though whether under Russian or Austrian auspices, or neither, remains to be seen. … In the German lands from early ages there has existed an aggregation of tribes and states, some of them even of non-German race, each of which preserved for domestic purposes its own arrangements and laws, but was united with the rest under one supreme head and central authority as regards its relation to all external powers. Since 1871 all the states of Germany 'form an eternal union for the protection of the realm and the care of the welfare of the German people.' For legislative purposes, under the Emperor as head, are the two Houses of Assembly; first, the Upper House of the Federated States, consisting of 62 members, who represent the individual States, and thus as the guardian of State rights, answers very closely to the Senate of the American Union, except that the number of members coming from each state is not uniform, but apportioned. … Each German state has its own local constitution and home rule for its internal affairs. Generally there are two chambers, except in some of the smallest states, the population of which does not much exceed in some cases that of our larger towns. … Since 1867 the Austro-Hungarian monarchy has been a political Siamese twin, of which Austria is the one body, and Hungary the other; the population of the Austrian half is 24 millions, and that of Hungary about 16 millions. Each of the two has its own parliament; the connecting link is the sovereign (whose civil list is raised half by one and half by the other) and a common army, navy, and diplomatic service, and another Over-parliament of 120 members, one-half chosen by the legislature of Hungary, and the other half by the legislature of Austria (the Upper House of each twin returns twenty, and the Lower of each forty delegates from their own number, who thus form a kind of Joint Committee of the Four Houses). The jurisdiction of this Over-parliament is limited to foreign affairs and war. … The western or Austrian part of the twin … is a federal government in itself. … Federated Austria consists of seventeen distinct states. The German element constitutes 36 per cent. of the inhabitants of these, and the Sclav 57 per cent. There are a few Magyars, Italians, and Roumanians. Each of these seventeen states has its own provincial parliament of one House, partly composed of ex-officio members (the bishops and archbishops of the Latin and Greek Churches, and the chancellors of the universities), but chiefly of representatives chosen by all the inhabitants who pay direct taxation. Some of these are elected by the landowners, others by the towns, others by the trade-guilds and boards of commerce; the representatives of the rural communes, however, are elected by delegates, as in Prussia. They legislate concerning all local matters, county taxation, land laws and farming, education, public worship, and public works. … Turning next to the oldest federation in Europe, that of Switzerland, which with various changes has survived from 1308, though its present constitution dates only from 1874, we find it now embraces three nationalities—German, French, Italian. The original nucleus of the State, however, was German, and even now three-fourths of the population are German. The twenty-two distinct states are federated under one president elected annually, and the Federal Assembly of two chambers. … Each of the cantons is sovereign and independent, and has its own local parliament, scarcely any two being the same, but all based on universal suffrage. Each canton has its own budget of revenue and expenditure, and its own public debt."

_J. N. Dalton, The Federal States of the World (Nineteenth Century, July, 1884)._

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Canadian Federation.

"A convention of thirty-three representative men was held in the autumn of 1864 in the historic city of Quebec, and after a deliberation of several weeks the result was the unanimous adoption of a set of seventy-two resolutions embodying the terms and conditions on which the provinces through their delegates agreed to a federal union in many respects similar in its general features to that of the United States federation, and in accordance with the principles of the English constitution. These resolutions had to be laid before the various legislatures and adopted in the shape of addresses to the queen whose sanction was necessary to embody the wishes of the provinces in an imperial statute. … In the early part of 1867 the imperial parliament, without a division, passed the statute known as the 'British North America Act, 1867,' which united in the first instance the province of Canada, now divided into Ontario and Quebec, with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and made provisions for the coming in of the other provinces of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, British Columbia, and the admission of Rupert's Land and the great North-west. Between 1867 and 1873 the provinces just named, with the exception of Newfoundland, which has persistently remained out of the federation, became parts of the Dominion and the vast Northwest Territory was at last acquired on terms eminently satisfactory to Canada and a new province of great promise formed out of that immense region, with a complete system of parliamentary government. … When the terms of the Union came to be arranged between the provinces in 1864, their conflicting interest had to be carefully considered and a system adopted which would always enable the Dominion to expand its limits and bring in new sections until it should embrace the northern half of the continent, which, as we have just shown, now constitutes the Dominion. It was soon found, after due deliberation, that the most feasible plan was a confederation resting on those principles which experience of the working of the federation of the United States showed was likely to give guarantees of elasticity and permanency. The maritime provinces had been in the enjoyment of an excellent system of laws and representative institutions for many years, and were not willing to yield their local autonomy in its entirety. The people of the province of Quebec, after experience of a union that lasted from 1841 to 1867, saw decidedly great advantages to themselves and their institutions in having a provincial government under their own control. The people of Ontario recognized equal advantages in having a measure of local government, apart from French Canadian influences and interference. The consequence was the adoption of the federal system, which now, after twenty-six years' experience, we can truly say appears on the whole well devised and equal to the local and national requirements of the people."

J. G. Bourinot, Federal Government in Canada (Johns Hopkins University Studies, 7th Series, numbers 10-13), lectures 1-2.

{1112}

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Britannic Federation, Proposed.

"The great change which has taken place in the public mind in recent years upon the importance to the Empire of maintaining the colonial connection found expression at a meeting held at the Westminster Palace Hotel in July 1884, under the guidance of the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, who occupied the chair. At that meeting—which was attended by a large number of members of Parliament of both parties, and representatives of the colonies—it was moved by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith: 'That, in order to secure the permanent unity of the Empire, some form of federation is essential.' That resolution was seconded by the Earl of Rosebery, and passed unanimously. In November of the same year the Imperial Federation League was formed to carry out the objects of that resolution; and the subject has received considerable attention since. … I believe all are agreed that the leading objects of the Imperial Federation League are to find means by which the colonies, the outlying portions of the Empire, may have a certain voice and weight and influence in reference to the foreign policy of this country, in which they are all deeply interested, and sometimes more deeply interested than the United Kingdom itself. In the next place, that measures may be taken by which all the power and weight and influence that these great British communities in Australasia, in South Africa, and in Canada possess shall be brought into operation for the strengthening and defence of the Empire. The discussion of these questions has led to a great deal of progress. We have got rid of a number of fallacies that obtained in the minds of a good many persons in relation to the means by which those objects are to be attained. Most people have come to the conclusion stated by Lord Rosebery at the Mansion House, that a Parliamentary Federation, if practicable, is so remote, that during the coming century it is not likely to make any very great advance. We have also got rid of the fallacy that it was practicable to have a common tariff throughout the Empire. It is not, in my opinion, consistent with the constitution either of England or of the autonomous colonies. The tariff of a country must rest of necessity mainly with the Government of the day, and involves such continual change and alteration as to make uniformity impracticable. … I regard the time as near at hand when the great provinces of Australasia will be confederated under one Government. … When that has been done it will be followed, I doubt not, at a very early day, by a similar course on the part of South Africa, and then we shall stand in the position of having three great dominions, commonwealths, or realms, or whatever name is found most desirable on the part of the people who adopt them—three great British communities, each under one central and strong Government. When that is accomplished, the measure which the Marquis of Lorne has suggested, of having the representatives of these colonies during the term of their office here in London, practically Cabinet Ministers, will give to the Government of England an opportunity of learning in the most direct and complete manner the views and sentiments of each of those great British communities in regard to all questions of foreign policy affecting the colonies. I would suggest that the representatives of those three great British communities here in London should be leading members of the Cabinet of the day of the country they represent, going out of office when their Government is changed. In that way they would always represent the country, and necessarily the views of the party in power in Canada, in Australasia, and in South Africa. That would involve no constitutional change; it would simply require that whoever represented those dominions in London should have a seat in their own Parliament, and be a member of the Administration."

_C. Tupper, Federating the Empire (Nineteenth Century, October, 1891)._

"Recent expensive wars at the Cape, annexations of groups of islands in the neighbourhood of Australia, the Fishery and other questions that have arisen, and may arise, on the North American continent, have all compelled us to take a review of our responsibilities in connection with our Colonies and to consider how far, in the event of trouble, we may rely upon their assistance to adequately support the commercial interests of our scattered Empire. It is remarkable that, although the matters here indicated are slowly coming to the surface, and have provoked discussion, they have not been forced upon the public attention suddenly, or by any violent injury or catastrophe. The review men are taking of our position, and the debates as to how best we can make our relationships of standing value, have been the natural outcome of slowly developing causes and effects. Politicians belonging to both of the great parties in the State have joined the Federation League. The leaders have expressly declared that they do not desire at the present moment to propound any definite theories, or to push any premature scheme for closer union of the Empire. The society has been formed for the purpose of discussing any plans proposed for such objects. The suggestions actually made have varied in importance from comprehensive projects of universal commercial union and common contributions for a world-wide military and naval organization, to such a trivial proposal as the personal recognition of distinguished colonists by a nomination to the peerage."

The Marquis of Lorne, Imperial Federation, chapter 1.

{1113}

"Many schemes of federation have been propounded, and many degrees of federal union are possible. Lord Rosebery has not gone further, as yet, than the enunciation of a general principle. 'The federation we aim at (he has said) is the closest possible union of the various self-governing States ruled by the British Crown, consistently with that free development which is the birthright of British subjects all over the world—the closest union in sympathy, in external action, and in defence.' … The representation of the Colonies in the Privy Council has been viewed with favour, both by statesmen and by theoretical writers. Earl Grey has proposed the appointment of a Federal Committee, selected from the Privy Council, to advise with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The idea thus shadowed forth has been worked out with greater amplitude of detail by Mr. Creswell, in an essay to which the prize offered by the London Chamber of Commerce was awarded. 'The Imperial assembly which we want,' says Mr. Creswell, 'must be an independent body, constitutional in its origin, representative in its character, and supreme in its decisions. Such a body we have already in existence in the Privy Council. Its members are chosen, irrespective of party considerations, from among the most eminent of those who have done service to the State. To this body colonists of distinguished public service could be elected. In constituting the Imperial Committee of the Privy Council, representation might be given to every part of the empire, in proportion to the several contributions to expenditure for Imperial defence.' The constitution of a great Council of the Empire, with similar functions in relation to foreign affairs to those which are exercised in the United States by a Committee of the Senate, is a step for which public opinion is not yet prepared. In the meanwhile the utmost consideration is being paid at the Foreign Office to Colonial feelings and interests. No commitments or engagements are taken which would not be approved by Colonial opinion. Another proposal which has been warmly advocated, especially by the Protectionists, is that for a customs-union between the Mother-country and the Colonies. It cannot be said that at the present time proposals for a customs-union are ripe for settlement, or even for discussion, at a conference of representatives from all parts of the empire. The Mother-country has been committed for more than a generation to the principle of Free-trade. By our policy of free imports of food and raw materials we have so cheapened production that we are able to compete successfully with all comers in the neutral markets of the world. … It would be impossible to entertain the idea of a reversal of our fiscal policy, in however restricted a sense, without careful and exhaustive inquiry. … Lord Rosebery has recently declared that in his opinion it is impracticable to devise a scheme of representation for the Colonies in the House of Commons and House of Lords, or in the Privy Council. The scheme of an Imperial customs-union, ably put forward by Mr. Hoffmeyer at the last Colonial Conference, he equally rejects. Lord Rosebery would limit the direct action of the Imperial Government for the present to conferences, summoned at frequent intervals. Our first conference was summoned by the Government at the instance of the Imperial Federation League. It was attended by men of the highest distinction in the Colonies. Its deliberations were guided by Lord Knutsford with admirable tact and judgment; it considered many important questions of common interest to the different countries of the empire; it arrived at several important decisions, and it cleared the air of not a few doubts and delusions. The most tangible, the most important, and the most satisfactory result of that conference was the recognition by the Australian colonies of the necessity for making provision for the naval defence of their own waters by means of ships, provided by the Government of the United Kingdom, but maintained by the Australian Governments. Lord Rosebery holds that the question of Imperial Federation depends for the present on frequent conferences. In his speech at the Mansion House he laid down the conditions essential to the success of conferences in the future. They must be held periodically and at stated intervals. The Colonies must send the best men to represent them. The Government of the Mother-country must invest these periodical congresses with all the authority and splendour which it is in their power to give. The task to be accomplished will not be the production of statutes, but the production of recommendations. Those who think that a congress that only meets to report and recommend has but a neutral task before it, have a very inadequate idea of the influence which would be exercised by a conference representing a quarter of the human race, and the immeasurable opulence and power that have been garnered up by the past centuries of our history. If we have these conferences, if they are allowed to discuss, as they must be allowed to discuss, all topics which any parties to these conferences should recommend to be discussed, Lord Rosebery cannot apprehend that they would be wanting in authority or in weight. Lord Salisbury, in his speeches recently delivered in reply to the Earl of Dunraven in the House of Lords, and in reply to the deputation of the Imperial Federation League at the Foreign Office, has properly insisted on the chief practical obstacle to a policy of frequent conferences. Attendance at conferences involves grave inconvenience to Colonial statesmen. … In appealing to the Imperial Federation League for some practical suggestions as to the means by which the several parts of the British Empire may be more closely knit together, Lord Salisbury threw out some pregnant hints. To make a united empire both a Zollverein and a Kriegsverein must be formed. In the existing state of feeling in the Mother-country a Zollverein would be a serious difficulty. The reasons have been already stated. A Kriegsverein was, perhaps, more practicable, and certainly more, urgent. The space which separates the Colonies from possible enemies was becoming every year less and less a protection. We may take concerted action for defence without the necessity for constitutional changes which it would be difficult to carry out."

_Lord Brassey, Imperial Federation: An English View (Nineteenth Century, September., 1891)._

"The late Mr. Forster launched under the high-sounding title of the 'Imperial Federation League,' a scheme by which its authors proposed to solve all the problems attending the administration of our colonial empire. From first to last the authors of this scheme have never condescended on particulars. 'Imperial federation,' we were always told, was the only specific against the disintegration of the Empire, but as to what this specific really was, no information was vouchsafed. … It is very natural that the citizens of a vast but fragmentary empire, whose territorial atoms (instead of forming, like those of the United States, a 'ring-fence' domain) are scattered over the surface of the globe, should cast about for some artificial links to bind together the colonies we have planted, and 'the thousand tribes nourished on strange religions and lawless slaveries' which we have gathered under our rule. {1114} This anxiety has been naturally augmented by a chronic agitation for the abandonment of all colonies as expensive and useless. For though there may be little to boast of in the fact that Great Britain has in the course of less than three centuries contrived by war, diplomacy, and adventure, to annex about a fifth of the globe, it can hardly be expected that she should relinquish without an effort even the nominal sway she still holds over her colonial empire. Hence it comes to pass that any scheme which seems to supply the needed links is caught up by those who, possessing slight acquaintance with the past history or the present aspirations of our colonists, are simply looking out for some new contrivance by which they may hope that an enduring bond of union may be provided. 'Imperial federation' is the last new 'notion' which has cropped up in pursuance of this object. … Some clue … to its objects and aims may be gained by a reference to the earliest exposition by Mr. Forster of his motives contained in his answer five years ago to the question, 'Why was the League formed at all?' 'For this reason,' says Mr. Forster, 'because in giving self-government to our colonies we have introduced a principle which must eventually shake off from Great Britain, Greater Britain, and divide it into separate states, which must, in short, dissolve the union unless counteracting measures be taken to preserve it.' Believing, as we do, that it has only been by conceding to our larger groups of colonies absolute powers of self-government that we have retained them at all, and that the secret of our protracted empire lies in the fact of this abandonment of central arbitrary power, the retention of which has caused the collapse of all the European empires which preceded us in the path of colonisation, we are bound to enter our emphatic protest against an assumption so utterly erroneous as that propounded by Mr. Forster. So far from believing that the permanent union of the British Empire is to be secured by 'measures which may counteract the workings of colonial self-government,' we are convinced that the only safety for our Empire lies in the unfettered action of that self-government which we have ourselves granted to our colonies. It would almost seem that for Lord Rosebery and his fellow workers the history of the colonial empires of Portugal, Spain, Holland, and France had been written in vain. For if we ask why these colonial empires have dwindled and decayed, the answer is simply because that self-government which is the life of British colonies was never granted to their dependencies. There was a time when one hundred and fifty sovereign princes paid tribute to the treasury of Lisbon. For two hundred years, more than half the South American continent was an appanage of Spain. Ceylon, the Cape, Guiana, and a vast cluster of trade factories in the East were at the close of the seventeenth century colonies of Holland; while half North America, comprising the vast and fertile valleys of the St. Lawrence, the Mississippi, and the Ohio, obeyed, a little more than a century ago, the sceptre of France. Neither Portugal, nor Spain, nor Holland, nor France, has lacked able rulers or statesmen, but the colonial empire of all these states has crumbled and decayed. The exceptional position of Great Britain in this respect can only be ascribed to the relinquishment of all the advantages, political and commercial, ordinarily presumed to result to dominant states from the possession of dependencies. … The romantic dreams of the Imperial Federation League were in fact dissipated beforehand by the irrevocable grant of independent legislatures to all our most important colonies, and Lord Rosebery may rest assured that, charm he never so wisely, they will not listen to his blandishments at the cost of one iota of the political privileges already conferred on them."

_Imperial Federation (Edinburgh Review, July, 1889)._

"'Britannic Confederation' is defined to be an union of 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, British North America, 'British South Africa, and Australasia.' The West Indies and one or two other British Dependencies seem here to be shut out; but, at any rate, with this definition we at least know where we are. The terms of the union we are not told; but, as the word 'confederation' is used, I conceive that they are meant to be strictly federal. That is to say, first of all, the Parliament of the United Kingdom will give up its right to legislate for British North America, British South Africa, and Australasia. Then the United Kingdom, British North America, British South Africa and Australasia will enter into a federal relation with one another. They may enter either as single members (States or Cantons) 'or as groups of members. That is, Great Britain and Ireland might enter as a single State of the Confederation, or England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales—or possibly smaller divisions again—might enter as separate States. Or Great Britain, Australia, Canada, &c., might enter as themselves Leagues, members of a greater League, as in the old state of things in Graubünden. I am not arguing for or against any of these arrangements. I am only stating them as possible. But whatever the units are to be—Great Britain and Australia, England and Victoria, or anything larger or smaller—if the confederation is to be a real one, each State must keep some powers to itself, and must yield some powers to a central body. That Central body, in which all the States must be represented in some way or other, will naturally deal with all international matters, all matters that concern the Britannic Confederation as a whole. The legislatures of Great Britain and Australia, England and Victoria, or whatever the units fixed on may be, will deal only with the internal affairs of those several cantons. Now such a scheme as this is theoretically possible. That is, it involves no contradiction in terms, as the talk about Imperial Federation does. It is purely federal; there is nothing 'imperial' about it. It is simply applying to certain political communities a process which has been actually gone through by certain other political communities. It is proposing to reconstruct a certain political constitution after the model of certain other political constitutions which are in actual working. It is therefore something better than mere talk and theory. But, because it is theoretically possible, it does not follow that it is practically possible, that is, that it is possible in this particular case. … Of the federations existing at this time the two chief are Switzerland and the United States of America. They differ in this point, that one is very large and the other very small; they agree in this, that the territory of both is continuous. But the proposed Britannic Confederation will be scattered, scattered over every part of the world. {1115} I know of no example in any age of a scattered confederation, a scattered Bundesstaat. The Hanse Towns were not a Bundesstaat; they were hardly a Staatenbund. Of the probable working of such a body as that which is now proposed the experience of history can teach us nothing; we can only guess what may be likely. The Britannic Confederation will have its federal congress sitting somewhere, perhaps at Westminster, perhaps at Melbourne, perhaps at some Washington called specially into being at some point more central than either. … For a while their representatives will think it grand to sit at Westminster; presently, as the spirit of equality grows, they are not unlikely to ask for some more central place; they may even refuse to stir out of their own territory. That is to say, they will find that the sentiment of national unity, which they undoubtedly have in no small measure, needs some physical and some political basis to stand on. It is hard to believe that States which are united only by a sentiment, which have so much, both political and physical, to keep them asunder, will be kept together for ever by a sentiment only. And we must further remember that that sentiment is a sentiment for the mother-country, and not for one another. … Canada and Australia care a great deal for Great Britain; we may doubt whether, apart from Great Britain, Canada and Australia care very much for one another. There may be American States which care yet less for one another; but in their case mere continuity produces a crowd of interests and relations common to all. We may doubt whether the confederation of States so distant as the existing colonies of Great Britain, whether the bringing them into closer relations with one another as well as with Great Britain, will at all tend to the advance of a common national unity among them. We may doubt whether it will not be likely to bring out some hidden tendencies to disunion among them. … In the scattered confederation all questions and parties are likely to be local. It is hard to see what will be the materials for the formation of great national parties among such scattered elements."

_E. A. Freeman, The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity (Britannic Confederation, edited by A. S. White)._

"I have the greatest respect for the aspirations of the Imperial Federationists, and myself most earnestly desire the moral unity of our race and its partnership in achievement and grandeur. But an attempt at formal Federation, such as is now proposed, would in the first place exclude the people of the United States, who form the largest portion of the English-speaking race, and in the second place it would split us all to pieces. It would, I am persuaded, call into play centrifugal forces against which the centripetal forces could not contend for an hour. What interests of the class with which a Federal Parliament would deal have Australia and Canada in common? What enemy has either of them whom the other would be inclined to fight? Australia, it seems, looks forward to a struggle with the Chinese for ascendency in that quarter of the globe. Canada cares no more about a struggle between the Australians and the Chinese at the other extremity of the globe than the Australians would care about a dispute between Canada and her neighbours in the United States respecting Canadian boundaries or the Fisheries Question. The circumstances of the two groups of colonies, to which their policy must conform, are totally different. Australia lies in an ocean by herself: Canada is territorially interlocked and commercially bound up, as well as socially almost fused, with the great mass of English-speaking population which occupies the larger portion of her continent. Australia again is entirely British. Canada has in her midst a great block of French population, constituting a distinct nationality, which instead of being absorbed is daily growing in intensity; and she would practically be unable to take part in any enterprise or support any policy, especially any policy entailing an increase of taxation, to which the French Canadians were opposed. Of getting Canada to contribute out of her own resources to wars or to the maintenance of armaments, for the objects of British diplomacy in Europe or in the East, no one who knows the Canadians can imagine that there would be the slightest hope. The very suggestion, at the time of the Soudan Expedition, called forth emphatic protests on all sides. The only results of an experiment in formal Federation, I repeat, would be repudiation of Federal demands, estrangement and dissolution."

_Goldwin Smith, Straining the Silken Thread (Macmillan's Magazine. August, 1888)._

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: European Federation.

"While it is obvious that Imperial Federation of the British Empire would cover many of the defects in our relationship with the colonies, it is equally apparent that it is open to the fatal objection of merely making us a more formidable factor in the field of international anarchy. Suppose the colonies undertook to share equitably the great cost of imperial defence in the present state of things throughout Europe—and that is a very large assumption—England would be entirely dependent, in case of war, for the supply of food on the fleet, any accident to which would place us at the enemy's mercy. Even without actual hostilities, however, our additional strength would cause another increase of foreign armaments to meet the case of war with us. This process has taken place invariably on the increase of armaments of any European state, and may be taken to be as certain as that the sun will rise to-morrow. But all the benefits accruing from Imperial Federation may be secured by European Federation, plus a reduction of military liability, which Imperial Federation would not only not reduce, but increase. There is nothing to prevent the self-governing colonies from joining in a European Federation, and thus enlarging the basis of that institution enormously, and cutting off in a corresponding degree the chance of an outbreak of violence in another direction, which could not fail to have serious consequences to the colonies at any rate."

C. D. Farquharson, Federation, the Polity of the Future (Westminster Review, December, 1891), pages 602-603.

----------FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: End----------

FEDERALIST, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787-1789.

FEDERALISTS; The party of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792; also 1812; and 1814 (DECEMBER): THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.

FEDS. CONFEDS.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

FEE.

See FEUDALISM.

FEHDERECHT.

The right of private warfare, or diffidation, exercised in mediæval Germany.

See LANDDFRIEDE.

{1116}

FEHRBELLIN, Battle of (1675).

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688; and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

FEIS OF TARA.

See TARA.

FELICIAN HERESY.

See ADOPTIANISM.

FELIX V., Pope, A. D. 1439-1449 Elected by the Council of Basle.

FENIAN MOVEMENT, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867; and CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

FENIAN: Origin of the Name.

An Irish poem of the ninth century called the Duan Eireannach, or Poem of Ireland, preserves a mythical story of the origin of the Irish people, according to which they sprang from one Fenius Farsaidh who came out of Scythia. Nel, or Niul, the son of Fenius, travelled into Egypt and married Scota, a daughter of Forann (Pharaoh). "Niul had a son named Gaedhuil Glas, or Green Gael; and we are told that it is from him the Irish are called Gaedhil (Gael) or Gadelians, while from his mother is derived the name of Scoti, or Scots, and from Fenius that of Feni or Fenians."

M. Haverty, History of Ireland, page 10.

From this legend was derived the name of the Fenian Brotherhood, organized in Ireland and America for the liberation of the former from British rule, and which played a disturbing but unsuccessful part in Irish affairs from about 1865 to 1871.

FEODORE.

See THEODORE.

FEODUM.

See FEUDALISM.

FEOF.

See FEUDALISM.

FEORM FULTUM.

See FERM.

FERDINAND, King of Portugal, A. D. 1367-1383.

Ferdinand 1., Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1835-1848.

Ferdinand I., Germanic Emperor, 1558-1564; Archduke of Austria, and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1526-1564; King of the Romans, 1531-1558.

Ferdinand I., King of Aragon and Sicily, 1412-1416.

Ferdinand I., King of Castile, 1035-1065; King of Leon, 1037-1065.

Ferdinand I., King of Naples, 1458-1494.

Ferdinand II., Germanic Emperor and King of Bohemia and Hungary, 1619-1637.

Ferdinand II., King of Aragon, 1479-1516; V. of Castile (King-Consort of Isabella of Castile and Regent), 1474-1516; II. of Sicily, 1479-1516; and III. of Naples, 1503-1516.

Ferdinand II., King of Leon, 1157-1188.

Ferdinand II., King of Naples, 1495-1496.

Ferdinand II., called Bomba, King of the Two Sicilies, 1830-1859.

Ferdinand III., Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1637-1657.

Ferdinand III., King of Castile, 1217-1230; King of Leon and Castile, united, 1230-1252.

Ferdinand IV., King of Leon and Castile, 1295-1312.

Ferdinand IV., King of Naples, and I. of the Two Sicilies, 1759-1806; and 1815-1825.

Ferdinand VI., King of Spain, 1746-1759.

Ferdinand VII., King of Spain, 1808; and 1814-1833.

FERIÆ.

See LUDI.

FERM. FIRMA. FARM.

"A sort of composition for all the profits arising to the king [in England, Norman period] from his ancient claims on the land and from the judicial proceedings of the shire-moot; the rent of detached pieces of demesne land, the remnants of the ancient folk-land; the payments due from corporate bodies and individuals for the primitive gifts, the offerings made in kind, or the hospitality—the feorm-fultum—which the kings had a right to exact from their subjects, and which were before the time of Domesday generally commuted for money; the fines, or a portion of the fines, paid in the ordinary process of the county courts, and other small miscellaneous incidents. These had been, soon after the composition of Domesday, estimated at a fixed sum, which was regarded as a sort of rent or composition at which the county was let to the sheriff and recorded in the 'Rotulus Exactorious'; for this, under the name of ferm, he answered annually; if his receipts were in excess, he retained the balance as his lawful profit, the wages of his service; if the proceeds fell below the ferm, he had to pay the difference from his own purse. … The farm, ferm, or firma, the rent or composition for the ancient feorm-fultum, or provision payable in kind to the Anglo-Saxon kings. The history of the word in its French form would be interesting. The use of the word for a pecuniary payment is traced long before the Norman Conquest."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11, section 126, and note.

FERNANDO.

See FERDINAND.

FEROZESHUR, Battle of (1845)

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

FERRARA: The House of Este.

See ESTE.

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

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

FERRARA: A. D. 1597. Annexation to the states of the Church. End of the house of Este. Decay of the city and duchy.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1597.

FERRARA: A. D. 1797. Joined to the Cispadine Republic.

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

----------FERRARA: End----------

FERRY BRIDGE, Battle of (1461).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

FETIALES. FECIALES.

"The duties of the feciales, or fetiales [among the Romans]. extended over every branch of international law. They gave advice on all matters of peace or war, and the conclusion of treaties and alliances. … They fulfilled the same functions as heralds, and, as such, were frequently entrusted with important communications. They were also sent on regular embassies. To them was entrusted the reception and entertainment of foreign envoys. They were required to decide on the justice of a war about to commence, and to proclaim and consecrate it according to certain established formalities. … The College of Feciales consisted of nearly twenty members, with a president, who was called Pater Patratus, because it was necessary that he should have both father and children living, that he might be supposed to take greater interest in the welfare of the State, and look backwards as well as forwards. … The name of Feciales … still existed under the emperors, as well as that of Pater Patratus, though only as a title of honour, while the institution itself was for ever annihilated; and, after the reign of Tiberius, we cannot find any trace of it."

E. C. G. Murray, Embassies and Foreign Courts, pages 8-10.

See, also, AUGURS.

{1117}

FEUDAL TENURES.

"After the feudal system of tenure had been fully established, all lands were held subject to certain additional obligations, which were due either to the King (not as sovereign, but as feudal lord) from the original grantees, called tenants-in-chief (tenentes in capite), or to the tenants-in-chief themselves from their under tenants. Of these obligations the most honourable was that of knight-service. This was the tenure by which the King granted out fiefs to his followers, and by which they in turn provided for their own military retainers. The lands of the bishops and dignified ecclesiastics, and of most of the religious foundations, were also held by this tenure. A few exceptions only were made in favour of lands which had been immemorially held in frankalmoign, or free-alms. On the grant of a fief, the tenant was publicly invested with the land by a symbolical or actual delivery, termed livery of seisin. He then did homage, so called from the words used in the ceremony: 'Je deveigne votre homme' ['I become your man']. … In the case of a sub-tenant (vavassor), his oath of fealty was guarded by a reservation of the faith due to his sovereign lord the King. For every portion of land of the annual value of £20, which constituted a knight's fee [in England], the tenant was bound, whenever required, to render the services of a knight properly armed and accoutred, to serve in the field forty days at his own expense. … Tenure by knight-service was also subject to several other incidents of a burdensome character. … There was a species of tenancy in chief by Grand Serjeanty, … whereby the tenant was bound, instead of serving the King generally in his wars, to do some special service in his own proper person, as to carry the King's banner or lance, or to be his champion, butler, or other officer at his coronation. … Grants of land were also made by the King to his inferior followers and personal attendants, to be held by meaner services. … Hence, probably, arose tenure by Petit Serjeanty, though later on we find that term restricted to tenure 'in capite' by the service of rendering yearly some implement of war to the King. … Tenure in Free Socage (which still subsists under the modern denomination of Freehold, and may be regarded as the representative of the primitive alodial ownership) denotes, in its most general and extensive signification, a tenure by any certain and determinate service, as to pay a fixed money rent, or to plough the lord's land for a fixed number of days in the year. … Tenure in Burgage was a kind of town socage. It applied to tenements in any ancient borough, held by the burgesses, of the King or other lord, by fixed rents or services. … This tenure, which still subsists, is subject to a variety of local customs, the most remarkable of which is that of borough-English, by which the burgage tenement descends to the youngest instead of to the eldest son. Gavelkind is almost confined to the county of Kent. … The lands are held by suit of court and fealty, a service in its nature certain. The tenant in Gavelkind retained many of the properties of alodial ownership: his lands were devisable by will; in case of intestacy they descended to all his sons equally; they were not liable to escheat for felony … and they could be aliened by the tenant at the age of fifteen. Below Free Socage was the tenure in Villeinage, by which the agricultural labourers, both free and servile, held the land which was to them in lieu of money wages."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, pages 58-65.

FEUDALISM.

"Feudalism, the comprehensive idea which includes the whole governmental policy of the French kingdom, was of distinctly Frank growth. The principle which underlies it may be universal; but the historic development of it with which the constitutional history of Europe is concerned may be traced step by step under Frank influence, from its first appearance on the conquered soil of Roman Gaul to its full development in the jurisprudence of the Middle Ages. In the form which it has reached at the Norman Conquest, it may be described as a complete organisation of society through the medium of land tenure, in which from the king down to the lowest landowner all are bound together by obligation of service and defence: the lord to protect his vassal, the vassal to do service to his lord; the defence and service being based on and regulated by the nature and extent of the land held by the one of the other. In those states which have reached the territorial stage of development, the rights of defence and service are supplemented by the right of jurisdiction. The lord judges as well as defends his vassal; the vassal does suit as well as service to his lord. In states in which feudal government has reached its utmost growth, the political, financial, judicial, every branch of public administration, is regulated by the same conditions. The central authority is a mere shadow of a name. This institution had grown up from two great sources—the beneficium, and the practice of commendation,—and had been specially fostered on Gallic soil by the existence of a subject population which admitted of any amount of extension in the methods of dependence. The beneficiary system originated partly in gifts of land made by the kings out of their own estates to their kinsmen and servants, with a special undertaking to be faithful; partly in the surrender by landowners of their estates to churches or powerful men, to be received back again and held by them as tenants for rent or service. By the latter arrangement the weaker man obtained the protection of the stronger, and he who felt himself insecure placed his title under the defence of the church. By the practice of commendation, on the other hand, the inferior put himself under the personal care of a lord, but without altering his title or divesting himself of his right to his estate; he became a vassal and did homage. … The union of the beneficiary tie with that of commendation completed the idea of feudal obligation; the two-fold hold on the land, that of the lord and that of the vassal, was supplemented by the two-fold engagement, that of the lord to defend, and that of the vassal to be faithful. A third ingredient was supplied by the grants of immunity by which in the Frank empire, as in England, the possession of land was united with the right of judicature: the dwellers on a feudal property were placed under the tribunal of the lord, and the rights which had belonged to the nation or to its chosen head were devolved upon the receiver of a fief. The rapid spread of the system thus originated, and the assimilation of all other tenures to it, may be regarded as the work of the tenth century; but as early as A. D. 877 Charles the Bald recognised the hereditary character of all benefices; and from that year the growth of strictly feudal jurisprudence may be held to date. The system testifies to the country and causes of its birth. {1118} The beneficium is partly of Roman, partly of German origin. … Commendation on the other hand may have had a Gallic or Celtic origin, and an analogy only with the Roman clientship. … The word feudum, fief, or fee, is derived from the German word for cattle (Gothic 'faihu'; Old High German 'fihu'; Old Saxon 'fehu'; Anglo-Saxon 'feoh'); the secondary meaning being goods, especially money: hence property in general. The letter d is perhaps a mere insertion for sound's sake; but it has been interpreted as part of a second root, od, also meaning property, in which case the first syllable has a third meaning, that of fee or reward, and the whole word means property given by way of reward for service. But this is improbable. … The word feodum is not found earlier than the close of the ninth century."

W. Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 9, section 93, and notes (volume 1).

"The regular machinery and systematic establishment of feuds, in fact, may be considered as almost confined to the dominions of Charlemagne, and to those countries which afterwards derived it from thence. In England it can hardly be thought to have existed in a complete state, before the Conquest. Scotland, it is supposed, borrowed it soon after from her neighbour. The Lombards of Benevento had introduced feudal customs into the Neapolitan provinces, which the Norman conquerors afterwards perfected. Feudal tenures were so general in the kingdom of Aragon, that I reckon it among the monarchies which were founded upon that basis. Charlemagne's empire, it must be remembered, extended as far as the Ebro. But in Castile and Portugal they were very rare, and certainly could produce no political effect. Benefices for life were sometimes granted in the kingdoms of Denmark and Bohemia. Neither of these, however, nor Sweden, nor Hungary, come under the description of countries influenced by the feudal system."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 2.

"Hardly any point in the whole history of European institutions has been the subject of so violent controversy as this of the origin of Feudalism. It was formerly supposed that Feudalism was only a somewhat more developed form of the ancient Germanic 'following' transplanted to Roman soil, but a more critical examination of the documents of the early period soon showed that there was more to it than this. It became evident that Feudalism was not so simple as had at first appeared. … When, however, scholars had come to see this, they then found themselves at variance upon the details of the process by which the popular monarchical arrangements of the early Franks were converted into the aristocratic forms of the later Feudalism. While they agreed upon the essential fact that the Germans, at the time of their emergence from their original seats and their occupation of the Roman lands, were not mere wandering groups of freebooters, as the earlier school had represented them, but well-organized nations, with a very distinct sense of political organization, they found themselves hopelessly divided on the question how this national life had, in the course of time, come to assume forms so very different from those of the primitive German. The first person to represent what we may call the modern view of the feudal system was Georg Waitz, in the first edition of his History of the German Constitution, in the years 1844-47. Waitz presented the thing as a gradual growth during several centuries, the various elements of which it was composed growing up side by side without definite chronological sequence. This view was met by Paul Roth in his History of the Institution of the Benefice, in the year 1850. He maintained that royal benefices were unknown to the Merovingian Franks, and that they were an innovation of the earliest Carolingians. They were, so he believed, made possible by a grand confiscation of the lands of the Church, not by Charles Martel, as the earlier writers had believed, but by his sons, Pippin and Karlmann. The first book of Roth was followed in the year 1863 by another on Feudalism and the Relation of the Subject to the State, (Feudalität und Unterthanenverband), in which he attempted to show that the direct subjection of the individual to the government was not a strange idea to the early German, but that it pervaded all forms of Germanic life down to the Carolingian times, and that therefore the feudal relation was a something entirely new, a break in the practice of the Germans. In the years 1880-1885 appeared a new edition of Waitz's History of the German Constitution, in which, after acknowledging the great services rendered by Roth to the cause of learning, he declares himself unable to give up his former point of view, and brings new evidence in support of it. Thus for more than thirty years this question has been before the world of scholars, and may be regarded as being quite as far from a settlement as ever."

E. Emerton, An Introduction to the Study of the Middle Ages, page 236 (foot-note).

ALSO IN: _F. P. Guizot, History of Civilization: Second Course, lecture 2._

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 987-1327.

FEUILLANTS, Club and Party of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790, and 1791 (OCTOBER).

FEZ: Founding of the city and kingdom.

See EDRISITES.

FIANNA EIRINN.

The ancient militia of Erin, famous in old Irish romance and song.

T. Moore, History of Ireland, volume 1, chapter 7.

FIDENÆ.

An ancient city on the left bank of the Tiber, only five miles from Rome, originally Latin, but afterwards containing a mixed Latin and Etruscan population. It was at war with Rome until the latter destroyed it, B. C. 426.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 15.

FIEFS.

See FEUDAL TENURES; and FEUDALISM.

FIELD OF LIES, The.

Ludwig, or Louis, the Pious, son and successor of Charlemagne, was a man of gentle character, and good intentions—too amiable and too honest in his virtues for the commanding of a great empire in times so rude. He lost the control of his state, and his family, alike. His own sons headed a succession of revolts against his authority. The second of these insurrections occurred in the year 833. Father and sons confronted one another with hostile armies, on the plain of Rothfeld, not far from Colmar in Alsace. Intrigue instead of battle settled the controversy, for the time being. The adherents of the old emperor were all enticed away from him, and he found himself wholly deserted and alone. To signify the treacherous methods by which this defection was brought about, the "Rothfeld" (Red-field) on which it occurred received the name of "Lügenfeld," or Field of Lies.

J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the Carlovingians; translated by Bellingham, chapter 7.

{1119}

FIELD OF THE CLOTH OF GOLD, The.

The place of the famous meeting of Henry VIII. of England with Francis I. of France, which took place in the summer of 1520 [see FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523], is notable in history, from the magnificence of the preparations made for it, as The Field of the Cloth of Gold. It was at Guisnes, or between Guisnes and Arde, near Calais (then English territory). "Guisnes and its castle offered little attraction, and if possible less accommodation, to the gay throng now to be gathered within its walls. … But on the castle green, within the limits of a few weeks, and in the face of great difficulties, the English artists of that day contrived a summer palace, more like a vision of romance, the creation of some fairy dream (if the accounts of eye-witnesses of all classes may be trusted), than the dull every-day reality of clay-born bricks and mortar. No 'palace of art' in these beclouded climates of the West ever so truly deserved its name. … The palace was an exact square of 328 feet. It was pierced on every side with oriel windows and clerestories curiously glazed, the mullions and posts of which were overlaid with gold. An embattled gate, ornamented on both sides with statues representing men in various attitudes of war, and flanked by an embattled tower, guarded the entrance. From this gate to the entrance of the palace arose in long ascent a sloping daïs or hall-pace, along which were grouped 'images of sore and terrible countenances,' in armour of argentine or bright metal. At the entrance, under an embowed landing place, facing the great doors, stood 'antique' (classical) figures girt with olive branches. The passages, the roofs of the galleries from place to place and from chamber to chamber, were ceiled and covered with white silk, fluted and embowed with silken hanging of divers colours and braided cloths, 'which showed like bullions of fine burnished gold.' The roofs of the chambers were studded with roses, set in lozenges, and diapered on a ground of fine gold. Panels enriched with antique carving and gilt bosses covered the spaces between the windows; whilst all along the corridors and from every window hung tapestry of silk and gold, embroidered with figures. … To the palace was attached a spacious chapel, still more sumptuously adorned. Its altars were hung with cloth of gold tissue embroidered with pearls; cloth of gold covered the walls and desks. … Outside the palace gate, on the greensward, stood a gilt fountain, of antique workmanship, with a statue of Bacchus 'birlying the wine.' Three runlets, fed by secret conduits hid beneath the earth, spouted claret, hypocras, and water into as many silver cups, to quench the thirst of all comers. … In long array, in the plain beyond, 2,800 tents stretched their white canvas before the eyes of the spectator, gay with the pennons, badges, and devices of the various occupants; whilst miscellaneous followers, in tens of thousands, attracted by profit or the novelty of the scene, camped on the grass and filled the surrounding slopes, in spite of the severity of provost-marshal and reiterated threats of mutilation and chastisement. … From the 4th of June, when Henry first entered Guisnes, the festivities continued with unabated splendour for twenty days. … The two kings parted on the best of terms, as the world thought."

J. S. Brewer, Reign of Henry VIII., chapter 12.

ALSO IN: Lady Jackson, The Court of France in the 16th Century, volume 1, chapters 11-12.

Miss Pardoe, The Court and Reign of Francis I., volume 1, chapter 14.

FIESCO, Conspiracy of.

See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.

FIESOLE.

See FLORENCE: ORIGIN AND NAME.

FIFTEEN, The (Jacobite Rebellion).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.

FIFTH MONARCHY MEN.

One of the most extremely fanatical of the politico-religious sects or factions which rose in England during the commonwealth and the Protectoral reign of Cromwell, was that of the so-called Fifth Monarchy Men, of whom Major-General Harrison was the chief. Their belief is thus described by Carlyle: "The common mode of treating Universal History, … not yet entirely fallen obsolete in this country, though it has been abandoned with much ridicule everywhere else for half a century now, was to group the Aggregate Transactions of the Human Species into Four Monarchies: the Assyrian Monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar and Company; the Persian of Cyrus and ditto; the Greek of Alexander; and lastly the Roman. These I think were they; but am no great authority on the subject. Under the dregs of this last, or Roman Empire, which is maintained yet by express name in Germany, 'Das heilige Römische Reich,' we poor moderns still live. But now say Major-General Harrison and a number of men, founding on Bible Prophecies, Now shall be a Fifth Monarchy, by far the blessedest and the only real one,—the Monarchy of Jesus Christ, his Saints reigning for Him here on Earth,—if not He himself, which is probable or possible,—for a thousand years, &c., &c.—O Heavens, there are tears for human destiny; and immortal Hope itself is beautiful because it is steeped in Sorrow, and foolish Desire lies vanquished under its feet! They who merely laugh at Harrison take but a small portion of his meaning with them."

T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 8, speech 2.

The Fifth Monarchy fanaticism, sternly repressed by Oliver Cromwell, gave some signs of turbulence during Richard Cromwell's protectorate, and broke out in a mad way the year after the Restoration. The attempted insurrection in London was headed by one Venner, and was called Venner's Insurrection. It was easily put down. "It came as the expiring flash of a fanatical creed, which had blended itself with Puritanism, greatly to the detriment of the latter; and, dying out rather slowly, it left behind the quiet element of Millenarianism."

J. Stoughton, History of Religion in England, volume 3, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 5, page 16.

"FIFTY-FOUR FORTY OR FIGHT."

See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

FILI.

A class of poets among the early Irish, who practiced originally certain rites of incantation. Their art was called Filidecht. "The bards, who recited poems and stories, formed at first a distinct branch from the Fili. According as the true Filidecht fell into desuetude, and the Fili became simply a poet, the two orders practically coalesced and the names Fili and bard became synonymous. … In Pagan times and during the Middle Ages the Irish bards, like the Gaulish ones, accompanied their recitation of poems on a stringed instrument called a crut. … The bard was therefore to the Fili, or poet, what the Jogler was to the Troubadour."

_W. K. Sullivan, Article, Celtic Literature, Encyclopedia Brittanica._

{1120}

FILIBUSTER.

"The difference between a filibuster and a freebooter is one of ends rather than of means. Some authorities say that the words have a common etymology; but others, including Charlevoix, maintain that the filibuster derived his name from his original occupation, that of a cruiser in a 'flibote,' or 'Vly-boat,' first used on the river Vly, in Holland. Yet another writer says that the name was first given to the gallant followers of Dominique de Gourgues, who sailed from Finisterre, or Finibuster, in France, on the famous expedition against Fort Caroline in 1567 [see FLORIDA: A. D. 1567-1568]. The name, whatever its origin, was long current in the Spanish as 'filibustero' before it became adopted into the English. So adopted, it has been used to describe a type of adventurer who occupied a curious place in American history during the decade from 1850 to 1860."

J. J. Roche, The Story of the Filibusters, chapter 1.

See, also, AMERICA: A: D. 1639-1700.

FILIBUSTERING EXPEDITIONS OF LOPEZ AND WALKER.

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860; and NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.

FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY, The.

"The Council of Toledo, held under King Reccared, A. D. 589, at which the Visigothic Church of Spain formally abjured Arianism and adopted the orthodox faith, put forth a version of the great creed of Nicæa in which they had interpolated an additional clause, which stated that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father 'and from the Son' (Filioque). Under what influence the council took upon itself to make an addition to the creed of the universal Church is unknown. It is probable that the motive of the addition was to make a stronger protest against the Arian denial of the co-equal Godhead of the Son. The Spanish Church naturally took a special interest in the addition it had made to the symbol of Nicæa, and sustained it in subsequent councils. … The Frankish Church seems to have early adopted it from their Spanish neighbours. … The question was brought before a council held at Aix in A. D. 809. … The council formally approved of the addition to the creed, and Charles [Charlemagne] sent two bishops and the abbot of Corbie to Rome to request the pope's concurrence in the decision. Leo, at a conference with the envoys, expressed his agreement with the doctrine, but strongly opposed its insertion into the creed. … Notwithstanding the pope's protest, the addition was adopted throughout the Frankish Empire. When the Emperor Henry V. was crowned at Rome, A. D. 1014, he induced Pope Benedict VIII. to allow the creed with the filioque to be chanted after the Gospel at High Mass; so it came to be generally used in Rome; and at length Pope Nicholas I. insisted on its adoption throughout the West. At a later period the controversy was revived, and it became the ostensible ground of the final breach (A. D. 1054) between the Churches of the West and those of the East."

E. L. Cutts, Charlemagne, chapter 23.

"The Filioque controversy relates to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, and is a continuation of the trinitarian controversies of the Nicene age. It marks the chief and almost the only important dogmatic difference between the Greek and Latin churches, … and has occasioned, deepened, and perpetuated the greatest schism in Christendom. The single word Filioque keeps the oldest, largest and most nearly related churches divided since the ninth century, and still forbids a reunion."

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 4, chapter 11, section 107.

ALSO IN: _G. B. Howard, The Schism between the Oriental and Western Churches._

See, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

FILIPPO MARIA, Duke of Milan, A. D. 1412-1447.

FILLMORE, Millard. Vice-Presidential Election. Succession to the Presidency. Administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848 to 1852.

FINÉ, The.

A clan or sept division of the tribe in ancient Ireland.

FINGALL.

See NORMANS. NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES; also, IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

FINLAND: A. D. 1808-1810. Conquest by and peculiar annexation to Russia. Constitutional independence of the Finnish grand duchy confirmed by the Czar.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

FINN GALLS.

See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

FINNS.

See HUNGARIANS.

FIODH-INIS.

See IRELAND, THE NAME.

FIRBOLGS, The.

One of the races to which Irish legend ascribes the settlement of Ireland; said to have come from Thrace.

See NEMEDIANS, and IRELAND: THE PRIMITIVE INHABITANTS.

FIRE LANDS, The.

See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

FIRMA.

See FERM.

FIRST CONSUL OF FRANCE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

FIRST EMPIRE (FRENCH), The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805, to 1815.

FIRST-FRUITS.

See ANNATES.

FIRST REPUBLIC (FRENCH), The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), to 1804-1805.

FISCALINI.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: FRANCE.

FISCUS, The.

"The treasury of the senate [in the early period of the Roman empire] retained the old republican name of the ærarium; that of the emperor was denominated the fiscus, a term which ordinarily signified the private property of an individual. Hence the notion rapidly grew up, that the provincial resources constituted the emperor's private purse, and when in process of time the control of the senate over the taxes gave way to their direct administration by the emperor himself, the national treasury received the designation of fiscus, and the idea of the empire being nothing else than Cæsar's patrimony became fixed ineradicably in men's minds."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 32.

FISHER, Fort, The capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864-1865 (DECEMBER-JANUARY: NORTH CAROLINA).

FISHERIES, North American: A. D. 1501-1578. The Portuguese, Norman, Breton and Basque fishermen on the Newfoundland Banks.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

{1121}

FISHERIES: A. D. 1610-1655. Growth of the English interest.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1620. Monopoly granted to the Council for New England.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1660-1688. The French gain their footing in Newfoundland.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1713. Newfoundland relinquished to England, with fishing rights reserved to France, by the Treaty of Utrecht.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1720-1745. French interests protected by the fortification of Louisbourg.

See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1748. St. Pierre and Michelon islands on the Newfoundland coast ceded to France.

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

FISHERIES: A. D. 1763.

Rights secured to France on the island of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by the Treaty of Paris.

Articles V. and VI. of the Treaty of Paris (1763), which transferred Canada and all its islands from France to England, are in the following language:

"The subjects of France shall have the liberty of fishing and drying, on a part of the coasts of the island of Newfoundland, such as it is specified in the 13th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht; which article is renewed and confirmed by the present treaty (except what relates to the island of Cape Breton, as well as to the other islands and coasts, in the mouth and in the gulph of St. Laurence): and his Britannic majesty consents to leave to the subjects of the most Christian king the liberty of fishing in the gulph of St. Laurence, on condition that the subjects of France do not exercise the said fishery, but at the distance of three leagues from all the coasts belonging to Great Britain, as well those of the continent, as those of the islands situated in the said gulph of St. Laurence. And as to what relates to the fishery on the coasts of the island of Cape Breton out of the said gulph, the subjects of the most Christian king shall not be permitted to exercise the said fishery, but at the distance of 15 leagues from the coasts of the island of Cape Breton; and the fishery on the coasts of Nova Scotia or Acadia, and everywhere else out of the said gulph, shall remain on the foot of former treaties.

Article VI. The King of Great Britain cedes the islands of St. Peter and Miquelon, in full right, to his most Christian majesty, to serve as a shelter to the French fishermen: and his said most Christian majesty engages not to fortify the said islands; to erect no buildings upon them, but merely for the convenience of the fishery; and to keep upon them a guard of 50 men only for the police."

Text of the Treaty (Parliamentary History, volume 15, page 1295).

FISHERIES: A. D. 1778. French fishery rights recognized in the treaty between France and the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

FISHERIES: A. D. 1783. Rights secured to the United States by the Treaty of Paris.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

FISHERIES: A. D. 1814-1818. Disputed rights of American fishermen after the War of 1812. Silence of the Treaty of Ghent. The Convention of 1818.

Under the Treaty of Paris (1783) "we claimed that the liberty which was secured to the inhabitants of the United States to take fish on the coasts of Newfoundland, under the limitation of not drying or curing the same on that island, and also on the other coasts, bays, and creeks, together with the limited rights of drying or curing fish on the coasts of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, were not created or conferred by that treaty, but were simply recognized by it as already existing. They had been enjoyed before the Revolution by the Americans in common with other subjects of Great Britain, and had, indeed, been conquered, from the French chiefly, through the valor and sacrifices of the colonies of New England and New York. The treaty was therefore considered analogous to a deed of partition. It defined the boundaries between the two countries and all the rights and privileges belonging to them. We insisted that the article respecting fisheries was therefore to be regarded as identical with the possession of land or the demarcation of boundary. We also claimed that the treaty, being one that recognized independence, conceded territory, and defined boundaries, belonged to that class which is permanent in its nature and is not affected by subsequent suspension of friendly relations. The English, however, insisted that this treaty was not a unity; that while some of its provisions were permanent, other stipulations were temporary and could be abrogated, and that, in fact, they were abrogated by the war of 1812; that the very difference of the language used showed that while the rights of deep-sea fishing were permanent, the liberties of fishing were created and conferred by that treaty, and had therefore been taken away by the war. These were the two opposite views of the respective governments at the conferences which ended in the treaty of Ghent, of 1814." No compromise appearing to be practicable, the commissioners agreed, at length, to drop the subject from consideration. "For that reason the treaty of Ghent is entirely silent as to the fishery question.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

In consequence of conflicts arising between our fishermen and the British authorities, our point of view was very strongly maintained by Mr. Adams in his correspondence with the British Foreign Office, and finally, on October 20, 1818, Mr. Rush, then our minister at London, assisted by Mr. Gallatin, succeeded in signing a treaty, which among other things settled our rights and privileges by the first article, as follows: … 'It is agreed between the high contracting parties that the inhabitants of the said United States shall have forever, in common with the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, the liberty of taking fish of any kind on that part of the southern coast of Newfoundland which extends from Cape Ray to the Rameau Islands; on the western and northern coasts of Newfoundland from the said Cape Ray to the Qurpon Islands; on the shores of the Magdalen Islands, and also on the coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks from Mont Joly, on the southern coast of Labrador, to and through the straits of Belle Isle, and thence northwardly indefinitely along the coast. And that the American fishermen shall have liberty forever to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks in the southern part of Newfoundland herein-before described, and of the coasts of Labrador; but as soon as the same, or any portion thereof, shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such portion, so settled, without previous agreement for such purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground. {1122} And the United States hereby renounces forever any liberty heretofore enjoyed, claimed by the inhabitants thereof to take, dry, or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included in the above-mentioned limits. Provided, however, That the American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter, of repairing damages therein, of purchasing wood, and obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever. But they shall be under such restrictions as shall be necessary to prevent their taking, drying, or curing fish therein, or in any other manner whatever abusing the privileges hereby secured to them.' The American plenipotentiaries evidently labored to obtain as extensive a district of territory as possible for in-shore fishing, and were willing to give up privileges, then apparently of small amount, but now much more important, than of using other bays and harbors for shelter and kindred purposes. For that reason they acquiesced in omitting the word 'bait' in the first sentence of the proviso after water.' … The power of obtaining bait for use in the deep-sea fisheries is one which our fishermen were afterward very anxious to secure. But the mackerel fisheries in those waters did not begin until several years later. The only contention then was about the cod fisheries."

E. Schuyler, American Diplomacy, chapter 8.

Treaties and Conventions between the United States and other Powers (edition of 1889), pages 415-418.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1854-1866. Privileges defined under the Canadian Reciprocity Treaty.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1871. Reciprocal privileges adjusted between Great Britain and the United States by the Treaty of Washington.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

FISHERIES: A. D. 1877-1888. The Halifax award. Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington. The rejected Treaty of 1888.

In accordance with the terms of articles 22 and 23 of the Treaty of Washington (see ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871), a Commission appointed to award compensation to Great Britain for the superior value of the fishery privileges conceded to the citizens of the United States by that treaty, met at Halifax on the 5th of June, 1877. The United States was represented on the Commission by Hon. E. H. Kellogg, of Massachusetts, and Great Britain by Sir Alexander F. Gault, of Canada. The two governments having failed to agree in the selection of the third Commissioner, the latter was named, as the Treaty provided, by the Austrian Ambassador at London, who designated M. Maurice Delfosse, Belgian Minister at Washington. The award was made November 27, 1877, when, "by a vote of two to one, the Commissioners decided that the United States was to pay $5,500,000 for the use of the fishing privileges for 12 years. The decision produced profound astonishment in the United States." Dissatisfaction with the Halifax award, and generally with the main provisions of the Treaty of Washington relating to the fisheries, was so great in the United States that, when, in 1878, Congress appropriated money for the payment of the award, it inserted in the bill a clause to the effect that "Articles 18 and 21 of the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain concluded on the 8th of May, 1871, ought to be terminated at the earliest period consistent with the provisions of Article 33 of the same Treaty." "It is a curious fact that during the time intervening between the signing of the treaty of Washington and the Halifax award an almost complete change took place in the character of the fisheries. The method of taking mackerel was completely revolutionized by the introduction of the purse-seine, by means of which vast quantities of the fish were captured far out in the open sea by enclosing them in huge nets. … This change in the method of fishing brought about a change in the fishing grounds. … The result of this change was very greatly to diminish the value of the North-eastern Fisheries to the United States fishermen." On the 1st of July, 1883, "in pursuance of instructions from Congress, the President gave the required notice of the desire of the United States to terminate the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington, which consequently came to an end the 1st of July, 1885. The termination of the treaty fell in the midst of the fishing season, and, at the suggestion of the British Minister, Secretary Bayard entered into a temporary arrangement whereby the American fishermen were allowed the privileges of the treaty during the remainder of the season, with the understanding that the President should bring the question before Congress at its next session and recommend a joint Commission by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain." This was done; but Congress disapproved the recommendation. The question of rights under former treaties, especially that of 1818, remained open, and became a subject of much irritation between the United States and the neighboring British American provinces. The local regulations of the latter were enforced with stringency and harshness against American fishermen; the latter solicited and procured retaliatory legislation from Congress. To end this unsatisfactory state of affairs, a treaty was negotiated at Washington in February, 1888, by Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary of State, William L. Putnam and James B. Angell, plenipotentiaries on the part of the United States, and Joseph Chamberlain, M. P., Sir L. S. Sackville West and Sir Charles Tupper, plenipotentiaries on the part of Great Britain, which treaty was approved by the President and sent to the Senate, but rejected by that body on the 21st of August, by a negative vote of 30, against 27 in its favor.

C. B. Elliott, The United States and the North-eastern Fisheries, pages 79-100.

ALSO IN: E. Schuyler, American Diplomacy, chapter 8.

_J. H. De Ricci, The Fisheries Dispute (1888)._

Annual Cyclopedia, volume 13 (1888), pages 217-226.

Annual Report of United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries for 1886.

Correspondence relative to proposed Fisheries Treaty (Senate Ex. Doc., Number 113, 50th Congress, 1st Session).

Documents and Proceedings of Halifax Commission (H. R. Ex. Doc., Number 89, 45th. Congress, 2d Session).

----------FISHERIES: End----------

FISHER'S HILL, Battle of.

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

FISHING CREEK, Battle of.

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

{1123}

FITCH, John, and the beginnings of steam navigation.

See STEAM NAVIGATION.

FITZGERALD'S (LORD THOMAS) REBELLION IN IRELAND.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1535-1553.

FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

FIVE BLOODS, The.

See IRELAND; 13TH-14TH CENTURIES.

FIVE BOROUGHS, The.

A confederation of towns occupied by the Danes in England, including Derby, Lincoln, Leicester, Nottingham and Stamford, which played a part in the events of the tenth and eleventh centuries. It afterwards became Seven Boroughs by addition of York and Chester.

FIVE FORKS, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

FIVE HUNDRED, The French Council of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

FIVE HUNDRED AT ATHENS, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

FIVE MEMBERS, King Charles' attempt against the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (JANUARY).

FIVE MILE ACT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

FIVE NATIONS OF INDIANS, The.

The five original tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy,—the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas,—were commonly called by the English the Five Nations. Subsequently, in 1715, a sixth tribe, the Tuscaroras, belonging to the same stock, was admitted to the confederacy, and its members were then known as the Six Nations.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

FIVE THOUSAND, The

See ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.

FIVE YEARS' TRUCE, The.

The hostilities between Athens and Sparta which preceded the Peloponnesian War, being opened by the battle of Tanagra, B. C. 457, were suspended B. C. 451, by a truce called the Five Years' Truce, arranged through the influence of the soldier-statesman Cimon.

Thucydides, History, book 1, section 112.

ALSO IN: E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 2.

FLAGELLANTS.

"Although the Church's forgiveness for sin might now [14th century] be easily obtained in other ways: Still Flagellation was not only greatly admired among the religious, but was also held in such high estimation by the common people, that in case of any calamity or plague, they thought they could propitiate the supposed wrath of God in no more effectual manner than by scourging, and processions of scourgers; just as though the Church's ordinary means of atonement were insufficient for extraordinary cases. A decided mistrust of the Church's intercession, and the clergy who dispensed it, prevailed among the societies of Flagellants; roused to action by the plague that past over from Asia into Europe in the year 1348, and spread devastation everywhere, ever since the beginning of the year 1349 they diffused themselves from the Hungarian frontier over the whole of Germany, and found entrance even into the neighbouring countries. … They practised this penance according to a fixed rule, without the co-operation of the clergy, under the guidance of Masters, Magistri, and made no secret of the fact, that they held the Church's way of salvation in much lower estimation than the penance by the scourge. Clement VI. put an end to the public processions of Flagellants, which were already widely prevalent: but penance by the scourge was only thus forced into concealment. In Thuringia, Conrad Schmidt, one of their masters, gave the form of a connected system of heretical doctrine to their dislike of the Church. … Thus there now rose heretical Flagellants, called also by the common name of Beghards; they existed down to the time of the Reformation, especially in Thuringia, as an heretical sect very dangerous to the Church. This warning example, as well as the mistrust natural to the Hierarchy of all spiritual impulses which did not originate from itself, decided the destiny of the later societies of Flagellants. When the Whitemen (Bianchi) [see WHITE PENITENTS], scourging themselves as they went, descended from the Alps into Italy, they were received almost everywhere with enthusiasm by the clergy and the people; but in the Papal territory death was prepared for their leader, and the rest accordingly dispersed themselves."

J. C. L. Gieseler, Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, section 123 (volume 4).

"Divided into companies of male and female devotees, under a leader and two masters, they stripped themselves naked to the waist, and publicly scourged themselves, or each other, till their shoulders were covered with blood. This expiatory ceremony was repeated every morning and afternoon for thirty-three days, equal in number to the years which Christ is thought to have lived upon earth; after which they returned to their former employments, cleansed from sin by the baptism of blood.' The flagellants appeared first in Hungary; but missionary societies were soon formed, and they hastened to impart the knowledge of the new gospel to foreign nations. They spread with rapidity over Poland, Germany and the Low Countries. From France they were excluded at the request of the pope, who had issued a severe constitution against them; but a colony reached England, and landed in London, to the number of 120 men and women. … The missionaries made not a single proselyte."

J. Lingard, History of England, volume 4, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: _W. M. Cooper, Flagellation and the Flagellants._

G. Waddington, History of the Church, note appendix to chapter 23.

FLAMENS. FLAMINES.

"The pontifices, like several other priestly brotherhoods [of ancient Rome] … had sacrificial priests (flamines) attached to them, whose name was derived from 'flare' (to blow the fire). The number of flamines attached to the pontifices was fifteen, the three highest of whom, … viz., the Flamen Dialis, Martialis, and Quirinalis, were always chosen from old patrician families. … Free from all civil duties, the Flamen Dialis, with his wife and children, exclusively devoted himself to the service of the deity. His house … lay on the Palatine hill. His marriage was dissoluble by death only; he was not allowed to take an oath, mount a horse, or look at an army. He was forbidden to remain a night away from his house, and his hand touched nothing unclean, for which reason he never approached a corpse or a burial-place. … In the daytime the Flamen Dialis was not allowed to take off his head-dress, and he was obliged to resign his office in case it fell off by accident. In his belt he carried the sacrificial knife, and in his hand he held a rod, in order to keep off the people on his way to the sacrifice. For the same purpose he was preceded by a lictor, who compelled everybody on the way to lay down his work, the flamen not being allowed to see the business of daily life."

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

See AUGURS.

{1124}

FLAMINIAN WAY.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

FLAMINIUS, The defeat of.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

FLANDERS: A. D. 863. Creation of the County.

Judith, daughter of Charles the Bald, of France (not yet called France), and a twice widowed queen of England, though hardly yet out of her girlhood (she had wedded Ethelwulf and Ethelbald, father and son, in succession), took a mate, at last, more to her liking, by a runaway match with one of her father's foresters, named Baudouin, or Baldwin, Bras-de-fer. This was in 862. King Charles, in his wrath, caused the impudent forester to be outlawed and excommunicated, both; but after a year of intercession and mediation he forgave the pair and established them in a suitable fief. Baudouin was made Count or Marquis of Flanders. "Previously to Baudouin's era, Flanders or 'Flandria' is a designation belonging, as learned men conjecture, to a Gau or Pagus, afterwards known as the Franc de Bruges, and noticed only in a single charter. Popularly, the name of Flanders had obtained with respect to a much larger surrounding Belgic country. … The name of 'Flanders' was thus given to the wide, and in a degree indefinite tract, of which the Forester Baudouin and his predecessors had the official range or care. According to the idiom of the Middle Ages, the term 'Forest' did not exactly convey the idea which the word now suggests, not being applied exclusively to wood-land, but to any wild and unreclaimed region. … Any etymology of the name of Flamingia, or Flanders, which we can guess at, seems intended to designate that the land was so called from being half-drowned. Thirty-five inundations, which afflicted the country at various intervals from the tenth to the sixteenth century, have entirely altered the coast-line; and the interior features of the country, though less affected, have been much changed by the diversions which the river-courses have sustained. … Whatever had been the original amplitude of the districts over which Baudouin had any control or authority, the boundaries were now enlarged and defined. Kneeling before Charles-le-Chauve, placing his hands between the hands of the Sovereign, he received his 'honour':—the Forester of Flanders was created Count or Marquis. All the countries between the Scheldt, the Somme and the sea, became his benefice; so that only a narrow and contested tract divided Baudouin's Flanders from Normandy. According to an antient nomenclature, ten counties, to wit, Theerenburch, Arras, Boulogne, Guisnes, Saint-Paul, Hesdin, Blandemont, Bruges, Harlebec, and Tournay, were comprehended in the noble grant which Baudouin obtained from his father-in-law."

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

FLANDERS: A. D. 1096. The Crusade of Count Robert.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1201-1204. The diverted Crusade of Count Baldwin and the imperial crown he won at Constantinople.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203; and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1214. Humbled at the battle of Bouvines.

See BOUVINES.

FLANDERS: 13th Century. The industry, commerce and wealth of the Flemings.

"In the 13th century, Flanders was the most populous and the richest country in Europe. She owed the fact to the briskness of her manufacturing and commercial undertakings, not only amongst her neighbours, but throughout Southern and Eastern Europe. … Cloth, and all manner of woolen stuffs, were the principal articles of Flemish production, and it was chiefly from England that Flanders drew her supply of wool, the raw material of her industry. Thence arose between the two countries commercial relations which could not fail to acquire political importance. As early as the middle of the 12th century, several Flemish towns formed a society for founding in England a commercial exchange, which obtained great privileges, and, under the name of the Flemish hanse of London, reached rapid development. The merchants of Bruges had taken the initiative in it; but soon all the towns of Flanders—and Flanders was covered with towns—Ghent, Lille, Ypres, Courtrai, Furnes, Alost, St. Omer, and Douai, entered the confederation, and made unity as well as extension of liberties in respect of Flemish commerce the object of their joint efforts. Their prosperity became celebrated; and its celebrity gave it increase. It was a burgher of Bruges who was governor of the hanse of London, and he was called the Count of the Hanse. The fair of Bruges, held in the month of May, brought together traders from the whole world. 'Thither came for exchange,' says the most modern and most enlightened historian of Flanders (Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove, 'Histoire de Flandre,' t. ii., page 300), 'the produce of the North and the South, the riches collected in the pilgrimages to Novgorod, and those brought over by the caravans from Samarcand and Bagdad, the pitch of Norway and the oils of Andalusia, the furs of Russia and the dates from the Atlas, the metals of Hungary and Bohemia, the figs of Granada, the honey of Portugal, the wax of Morocco, and the spice of Egypt; whereby, says an ancient manuscript, no land is to be compared in merchandise to the land of Flanders.' … So much prosperity made the Counts of Flanders very puissant lords. 'Marguerite II., called "the Black," Countess of Flanders and Hainault, from 1244 to 1280, was extremely rich,' says a chronicler, 'not only in lands, but in furniture, jewels, and money; … insomuch that she kept up the state of queen rather than countess.' Nearly all the Flemish towns were strongly organised communes, in which prosperity had won liberty, and which became before long small republics, sufficiently powerful not only for the defence of their municipal rights against the Counts of Flanders, their lords, but for offering an armed resistance to such of the sovereigns their neighbours as attempted to conquer them or to trammel them in their commercial relations, or to draw upon their wealth by forced contributions or by plunder."

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 18.

ALSO IN: J. Hutton, James and Philip Van Arteveld, part 1, chapter 2.

{1125}

FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304. The war with Philip the Fair.

As the Flemings advanced in wealth and consequence, the feudal dependence of their country upon the French crown grew increasingly irksome and oppressive to them, and their attitude towards France became one of confirmed hostility. At the same time, they were drawn to a friendly leaning towards England by common commercial interests. This showed itself decisively on the occasion of the quarrel that arose (A. D. 1295) between Philip IV., called the Fair, and Edward I. of England, concerning the rule of the latter in Aquitaine or Guienne. The French king found allies in Scotland; the English king found allies in Flanders. An alliance of marriage, in fact, had been arranged to take place between king Edward and the daughter of Guy de Dampierre, count of Flanders; but Philip contrived treacherously to get possession of the persons of the count and his daughter and imprisoned them both at Paris, declaring the states of the count to be forfeited. In 1299 the two kings settled their quarrel and abandoned their allies on both sides—Scotland to the tender mercies of Edward, and Flanders to the vengeance of the malignant king Philip the Fair. The territory of the Flemings was annexed to the crown of France, and Jacques de Châtillon, uncle of the queen, was appointed governor. Before two years had passed the impatient Flemings were in furious revolt. The insurrection began at Bruges, May 18, 1302, and more than 3,000 Frenchmen in that city were massacred in the first rage of the insurgents. This massacre was called the Bruges Matins. A French army entered Flanders to put down the rising and was confronted at Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302) by the Flemish militia. The latter were led by young Guy of Dampierre and, a few knights, who dismounted to fight on equal terms with their fellows. "About 20,000 militia, armed only with pikes, which they employed also as implements of husbandry, resolved to abide the onset of 8,000 Knights of gentle blood, 10,000 archers, and 30,000 foot-soldiers, animated by the presence and directed by the military skill of Robert Count of Artois, and of Raoul de Nesle, Constable of France. Courtrai was the object of attack, and the Flemings, anxious for its safety, arranged themselves on a plain before the town, covered in front by a canal." An altercation which occurred between the two French commanders led to the making of a blind and furious charge on the part of the French horsemen, ignorant and heedless of the canal, into which they plunged, horses and riders together, in one inextricable mass, and where, in their helplessness, they were slain without scruple by the Flemings. "Philip had lost his most experienced Generals, and the flower of his troops; but his obstinacy was unbending." In repeated campaigns during the next two years, Philip strove hard to retrieve the disaster of Courtrai. He succeeded, at last (A. D. 1304), in achieving, with the help of the Genoese, a naval victory in the Zuruck-Zee, followed by a victory, personally his own, at Mons-en-Puelle, in September of the same year. Then, finding the Flemings as dauntlessly ready as ever to renew the fight, he gave up to their obstinacy and acknowledged the independence of the county. A treaty was signed, in which "the independence of Flanders was acknowledged under its Count, Robert de Bethune (the eldest son of Guy de Dampierre), who, together with his brothers and all the other Flemish prisoners, was to be restored to liberty. The Flemings, on the other hand, consented to surrender those districts beyond the Lys in which the French language was vernacularly spoken; and to this territory were added the cities of Douai, Lille, and their dependencies. They engaged, moreover, to furnish by instalments 200,000 livres in order to cover the expenses which Philip had incurred by their invasion."

E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: J. Hutton, James and Philip Van Arteveld, part 1, chapters 2-3.

J. Michelet, History of France, book 5, chapter 2.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1314. Dishonesty of Philip of France.

Philip was one of the most treacherous of princes, and his treaty with the Flemings did not secure them against him. "The Flemings, who had paid the whole of the money stipulated by the treaty of 1305, demanded the restitution of that part of Flanders which had been given up as a pledge; but Philippe refused to restore it on the plea that it had been given to him absolutely and not conditionally. He commenced hostilities [A. D. 1314] by seizing upon the counties of Nevers and Réthel, belonging to the count of Flanders and his eldest son, who replied by laying siege to Lille." Philippe was making great exertions to raise money for a vigorous prosecution of the war, when he died suddenly, Nov. 25, 1314, as the result of an accident in hunting.

T. Wright, History of France, volume 1, book 2, chapter 2.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1328. The Battle of Cassel.

The first act of Philip of Valois, King of France, after his coronation in 1328, was to take up the cause of his cousin, Louis de Nevers, Count of Flanders, who had been driven from his territories by the independent burghers of Bruges, Ypres, and other cities, and who had left to him no town save Ghent, in which he dared to appear. The French king "gathered a great host of feudal lords, who rejoiced in the thought of Flemish spoil, and marched to Arras, and thence onwards into Flanders. He pitched his tent under the hill of Cassel, 'with the fairest and greatest host in the world' around him. The Flemish, under Claus Dennequin, lay on the hill-top: thence they came down all unawares in three columns on the French camp in the evening, and surprised the King at supper and all but took him. The French soon recovered from the surprise; 'for God would not consent that lords should be discomfitted by such riffraff': they slew the Flemish Captain Dennequin, and of the rest but few escaped; 'for they deigned not to flee,' so stubborn were those despised weavers of Flanders. This little battle, with its great carnage of Flemish, sufficed to lay all Flanders at the feet of its count."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France, book 4, chapter 1.

"Sixteen thousand Flemings had marched to the attack in three divisions. Three heaps of slain were counted on the morrow in the French lines, amounting altogether to 13,000 corpses; and it is said that Louis … inflicted death upon 10,000 more of the rebels."

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

ALSO IN: Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 1, chapters 21-22.

{1126}

FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337. The revolt under Jacques Van Arteveld. The alliance with England.

The most important measure by which Edward III. of England prepared himself for the invasion of France, as a claimant of the French crown [See FRANCE: A. D. 1328-1339] was the securing of an alliance with the Flemish burghers. This was made easy for him by his enemies. "The Flemings happened to have a count who was wholly French—Louis de Nevers—who was only count through the battle of Cassel and the humiliation of his country, and who resided at Paris, at the court of Philippe de Valois. Without consulting his subjects, he ordered a general arrest of all the English throughout Flanders; on which Edward had all the Flemings in England arrested. The commerce, which was the life-blood of each country, was thus suddenly broken off. To attack the English through Guyenne and Flanders was to wound them in their most sensible parts, to deprive them of cloth and wine. They sold their wool at Bruges, in order to buy wine at Bordeaux. On the other hand, without English wool, the Flemings were at a stand-still. Edward prohibited the exportation of wool, reduced Flanders to despair, and forced her to fling herself into his arms. At first, a crowd of Flemish workmen emigrated into England, whither they were allured at any cost, and by every kind of flattery and caress. … I take it that the English character has been seriously modified by these emigrations, which went on during the whole of the fourteenth century. Previously, we find no indications of that patient industry which now distinguishes the English. By endeavouring to separate Flanders and England the French king only stimulated Flemish emigration, and laid the foundation of England's manufactures. Meanwhile, Flanders did not resign herself. The towns burst into insurrection. They had long hated the count, either because he supported the country against the monopoly of the towns, or because he admitted the foreigners, the Frenchmen, to a share of their commerce. The men of Ghent, who undoubtedly repented of having withheld their aid from those of Ypres and of Bruges at the battle of Cassel, chose, in 1337, as their leader, the brewer, Jacquemart Artaveld. Supported by the guilds, and, in particular, by the fullers and clothiers, Artaveld organized a vigorous tyranny. He assembled at Ghent the men of the three great cities, 'and showed them that they could not live without the king of England; for all Flanders depended on cloth-making, and, without wool, one could not make cloth; therefore he recommended them to keep the English king their friend.'"

J. Michelet, History of France, book 6, chapter 1.

ALSO IN F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 20.

J. Hutton, James and Philip Van Altevelde, part 3.

J. Froissart, Chronicles (Johnes's translation), book 1, chapter 29.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1345. The end of Jacques Van Artaveld.

"Jacob von Artaveld, the citizen of Ghent that was so much attached to the king of England, still maintained the same despotic power over all Flanders. He had promised the king of England, that he would give him the inheritance of Flanders, invest his son the prince of Wales with it, and make it a duchy instead of an earldom. Upon which account the king was, at this period, about St. John the Baptist's day, 1345, come to Sluys, with a numerous attendance of barons and knights. He had brought the prince of Wales with him, in order that Jacob von Artaveld's promises might be realized. The king remained on board his fleet in the harbour of Sluys, where he kept his court. His friends in Flanders came thither to see and visit him; and there were many conferences between the king and Jacob Von Artaveld on one side, and the councils from the different capital towns on the other, relative to the agreement before mentioned. … When on his return he [Van Artaveld] came to Ghent about midday, the townsmen who were informed of the hour he was expected, had assembled in the street that he was to pass through; as soon as they saw him, they began to murmur, and put their heads close together, saying, 'Here comes one who is too much the master, and wants to order in Flanders according to his will and pleasure, which must not be longer borne.' With this they had also spread a rumour through the town, that Jacob von Artaveld had collected all the revenues of Flanders, for nine years and more. … Of this great treasure he had sent part into England. This information inflamed those of Ghent with rage; and, as he was riding up the streets, he perceived that there was something in agitation against him; for those who were wont to salute him very respectfully, now turned their backs, and went into their houses. He began therefore to suspect all was not as usual; and as soon as he had dismounted, and entered his hotel, he ordered the doors and windows to be shut and fastened. Scarcely had his servants done this, when the street which he inhabited was filled from one end to the other with all sorts of people, but especially by the lowest of the mechanics. His mansion was surrounded on every side, attacked and broken into by force. Those within did all they could to defend it, and killed and wounded many: but at last they could not hold out against such vigorous attacks, for three parts of the town were there. When Jacob von Artaveld saw what efforts were making, and how hardly he was pushed, he came to a window; and, with his head uncovered, began to use humble and fine language. … When Jacob von Artaveld saw that he could not appease or calm them, he shut the window, and intended getting out of his house the back way, to take shelter in a church adjoining; but his hotel was already broke into on that side, and upwards of four hundred were there calling out for him. At last he was seized by them, and slain without mercy: his death-stroke was given him by a sadler, called Thomas Denys. In this manner did Jacob von Artaveld end his days, who in his time had been complete master of Flanders. Poor men first raised him, and wicked men slew him."

J. Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 1, chapter 115 (volume 1).

{1127}

FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381. The revolt of the White Hoods.

"We will … speak of the war in Flanders, which began about this time [A. D. 1379]. The people were very murderous and cruel, and multitudes were slain or driven out of the country. The country itself was so much ruined, that it was said a hundred years would not restore it to the situation it was in before the war. Before the commencement of these wars in Flanders, the country was so fertile, and everything in such abundance, that it was marvellous to see; and the inhabitants of the principal towns lived in very grand state. You must know that this war originated in the pride and hatred that several of the chief towns bore to each other: those of Ghent against Bruges, and others, in like manner, vying with each other through envy. However, this could not have created a war without the consent of their lord, the earl of Flanders, who was so much loved and feared that no one dared anger him." It is in these words that the old court chronicler, Froissart, begins his fully detailed and graphic narrative of the miserable years, from 1379 to 1384, during which the communes of Flanders were at war with one another and at war with their worthless and oppressive count, Luis de Maele. The picturesque chronicle is colored with the prejudices of Froissart against the Flemish burghers and in favor of their lord; but no one can doubt that the always turbulent citizens were jealous of rights which the always rapacious lord never ceased to encroach upon. As Froissart tells the story, the outbreak of war began with an attempt on the part of the men of Bruges, to dig a canal which would divert the waters of the river Lys. When those of Ghent had news of this unfriendly undertaking, they took counsel of one John Yoens, or John Lyon, a burgher of much cunning, who had formerly been in favor with the count, but whom his enemies had supplanted. "When he [John Lyon] was prevailed on to speak, he said: 'Gentlemen, if you wish to risk this business, and put an end to it, you must renew an ancient custom that formerly subsisted in the town of Ghent: I mean, you must first put on white-hoods, and choose a leader, to whom everyone may look, and rally at his signal.' This harangue was eagerly listened to, and they all cried out, 'We will have it so, we will have it so! now let us put on white-hoods.' White-hoods were directly made, and given out to those among them who loved war better than peace, and had nothing to lose. John Lyon was elected chief of the White Hoods. He very willingly accepted of this office, to avenge himself on his enemies, to embroil the towns of Ghent and Bruges with each other and with the earl their lord. He was ordered, as their chief, to march against the pioneers and diggers from Bruges, and had with him 200 such people as preferred rioting to quiet."

Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 2, chapters 36-102.

When the White Hoods had driven the ditchers of Bruges from their canal, they returned to Ghent, but not to disband. Presently the jealous count required them to lay aside the peculiar badge of their association, which they declined to do. Then Count Louis sent his bailiff into Ghent with 200 horsemen, to arrest John Lyon, and some others of his band. The White Hoods rallied, slew the bailiff and drove his posse from the town; after which unmistakable deed Ghent and the count were distinctly at war. The city of the White Hoods took prompt measures to secure the alliance and support of its neighbors. Some nine or ten thousand of its citizens marched to Bruges, and partly by persuasion, partly by force, partly by the help of the popular party in the town, they effected a treaty of friendship and alliance—which did not endure, however, very long. Courtray, Damme, Ypres and other cities joined the league and it soon presented a formidable array. Oudenarde, strongly fortified, by the count, became the key of the situation, and was besieged by the citizen-militia. In the midst of the siege, the Duke of Burgundy, son-in-law of the count, made successful efforts to bring about a peace (December 1379). "The count promised to forget the past and return to his residence in Ghent. This peace, however, was of short duration; and the count, after passing only two or three days in Ghent, alleged some cause of dissatisfaction and returned to Lille, to recommence hostilities, in the course of which, with the assistance of the richer citizens, he made himself master of Bruges. Another peace was signed in the August of 1380, which was no more durable than the former, and the count reduced Ypres; and, at the head of an army of 60,000 men, laid siege to Ghent itself, the chief and soul of the popular confederacy, in the month of September. But the citizens of Ghent defended themselves so well that he was obliged to raise the siege in the middle of November, and agree to a truce. This truce also was broken by the count's party, the war renewed in the beginning of the year 1381, and the men of Ghent experienced a disastrous defeat in the battle of Nevelle towards the middle of May. It was a war of extermination, and was carried on with extreme ferocity. … Ghent itself, now closely blockaded by the count's troops, was only saved by the great qualities of Philip Van Artevelde [son of Jacques Van Arteveld, of the revolution of 1337], who, by a sort of peaceful revolution, was placed at the head of affairs [January 25, 1381]. The victory of Beverholt, in which the count was defeated with great slaughter, and only escaped with difficulty, made the town of Ghent again master of Flanders."

T. Wright, History of France, book 2, chapter 8.

ALSO IN J. Hutton, James and Philip Van Arteveld, chapters 14-16.

W. C. Taylor, Revolutions, Insurrections and Conspiracies of Europe, volume 2, chapters 7-9.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1382. The rebellion crushed.

By the marriage of Philip, Duke of Burgundy, to the daughter and heiress of the Count of Flanders, that powerful French prince had become interested in the suppression of the revolt of the Flemish burghers and the restoration of the count to his lordship. His nephew, the young king of France, Charles VI., was easily persuaded to undertake a campaign to that end, and an army of considerable magnitude was personally led northwards by the monarch of fourteen years. "The object of the expedition was not only to restore to the Count of Flanders his authority, but to punish the turbulent commons, who stirred up those of France to imitate their example. Froissart avows it to have been a war between the commons and the aristocracy. The Flemings were commanded by Artaveldt, son of the famous brewer, the ally of Edward III. The town of Ghent had been reduced to the extreme of distress and famine by the count and the people of Bruges, who supported him. Artaveldt led the people of Ghent in a forlorn hope against Bruges, defeated the army of the count, and broke into the rival town, which he took and plundered. After this disaster, the count had recourse to France. The passage of the river Lys, which defended Flanders, was courageously undertaken, and effected with some hazard by the French. {1128} The Flemings were rather dispirited by this first success: nevertheless, they assembled their forces; and the two armies of French knights and Flemish citizens met at Rosebecque [or Roosebeck], between Ypres and Courtray. The 27th of November, 1382, was the day of battle. Artaveldt had stationed his army on a height, to await the attack of the French, but their impatience forced him to commence. Forming his troops into one solid square, Artaveldt led them against the French centre. Froissart compares their charge to the headlong rush of a wild boar. It broke the opposite line, penetrating into its ranks: but the wings of the French turned upon the flank of the Flemings, which, not having the advantage of a charge or impulse, were beaten by the French men at arms. Pressed upon one another, the Flemings had not room to fight: they were hemmed in, surrounded, and slaughtered: no quarter was asked or given; nearly 30,000 perished. The 9,000 Ghentois that had marched under their banner were counted, to a man, amongst the slain: Artaveldt, their general, was among the foremost who had fallen. Charles ordered his body to be hung upon a tree. It was at Courtray, very near to the field where this battle was fought, that Robert of Artois, with a French army, had perished beneath the swords of the Flemings, nearly a century previous. The gilded spurs of the French knights still adorned the walls of the cathedral of Courtray. The victory of Rosebecque in the eyes of Charles had not sufficiently repaid the former defeat: the town of Courtray was pillaged and burnt; its famous clock was removed to Dijon, and formed the third wonder of this kind in France, Paris and Sens alone possessing similar ornaments. The battle of Rosebecque proved more unfortunate for the communes of France than for those of Flanders. Ghent, notwithstanding her loss of 9,000 slain, did not yield to the conqueror, but held out the war for two years longer; and did not finally submit until the Duke of Burgundy, at the death of their count, guaranteed to the burghers the full enjoyment of their privileges. The king avenged himself on the mutinous city of Paris; entered it as a conqueror; took the chains from the streets and unhinged the gates: one hundred of the citizens were sent to the scaffold; the property of the rich was confiscated; and all the ancient and most onerous taxes, the gabelle, the duty on sales, as well as that of entry, were declared by royal ordinance to be established anew. The principal towns of the kingdom were visited with the same punishments and exactions. The victory of Rosebecque overthrew the commons of France, which were crushed under the feet of the young monarch and his nobles."

E. E. Crowe, History of France, chapter 4.

ALSO IN Sir J. Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 2, chapters 111-130.

J. Michelet, History of France, book 7, chapter 1 (volume 2).

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 23 (volume 3).

FLANDERS: A. D. 1383. The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade.

The crushing defeat of the Flemings at Roosebeke produced alarm in England, where the triumph of the French was quickly felt to be threatening. "English merchants were expelled from Bruges, and their property was confiscated. Calais even was in danger. The French were at Dunkirk and Gravelines, and might by a sudden dash on Calais drive the English out." There had been aid from England promised to Van Artevelde, but the promise had only helped on the ruin of the Ghent patriot by misleading him. No help had come when he needed it. Now, when it was too late, the English bestirred themselves. For some months there had been on foot among them a Crusade, which Pope Urban VI. had proclaimed against the supporters of the rival Pope Clement VII.—the "Schismatics." France took the side of the latter and was counted among the Schismatics. Accordingly, Pope Urban's Crusade, so far as the English people could be moved to engage in it, was now directed against the French in Flanders. It was led by the Bishop of Norwich, who succeeded in rousing a very considerable degree of enthusiasm in the country for the movement, despite the earnest opposition of Wyclif and his followers. The crusading army assembled at Calais in the spring of 1383, professedly for a campaign in France; but the Bishop found excuses for leading it into Flanders. Gravelines was first attacked, carried by storm, and its male defenders slaughtered to a man. An army of French and Flemings, encountered near Dunkirk, was routed, with fearful carnage, and the whole coast, including Dunkirk, fell into the hands of the English. Then they laid siege to Ypres, and there their disasters began. The city held out with stubbornness from the 9th of June until the 10th of August, when the baffled besiegers—repulsed in a last desperate assault which they had made on the 8th—marched away. "Ypres might rejoice, but the disasters of the long siege proved final. Her stately faubourgs were not rebuilt, and she has never again taken her former rank among the cities of Flanders." In September a powerful French army entered Flanders, and the English crusaders could do nothing but retreat before it, giving up Cassel (which the French burned), then Bergues, then Bourbourg, after a siege, and, finally, setting fire to Gravelines and abandoning that place. "Gravelines was utterly destroyed, but the French soon began to rebuild it. It was repeopled from the surrounding country, and fortified strongly as a menace to Calais." The Crusaders returned to England "'dripping with blood and disgracing their country. Blessed be God who confounds the proud,' says one sharp critic, who appears to have been a monk of Canterbury."

_G. M. Wrong, The Crusade of MCCCLXXXIII._

ALSO IN Sir J. Froissart, (Johnes), Chronicles book 2, chapters 130-145 (volumes 1-2).

FLANDERS: A. D. 1383 Joined to the Dominions of the Duke of Burgundy.

"Charles V. [of France] had formed the design of obtaining Flanders for his brother Philip, Duke of Burgundy, afterwards known as Philip the Bold—by marrying him to Margaret [daughter and heiress of Louis de Maele, count of Flanders]. To gain the good will of the Communes, he engaged to restore the three bailiwicks of Lille, Douai, and Orchies as a substitute for the 10,000 livres a year promised to Louis de Maele and his successors in 1351, as well as the towns of Peronne, Crèvecœur, Arleux and Château-Chinon, assigned to him in 1358. … On the 13th May, 1369, the 'Lion of Flanders' once more floated, after an interval of half a century, over the walls of Lille, Douai, and Orchies, and at the same time Flemish garrisons marched into St. Omer, Aire, Bethune and Hesdin. The marriage ceremony took place at Ghent on the 19th of June." The Duke of Burgundy waited fourteen years for the heritage of his wife. In January, 1383, Count Louis died, and Flanders was added to the great and growing dominion of the new Burgundian house.

J. Hutton, James and Philip van Arteveld, chapters 14 and 18.

See BURGUNDY (THE FRENCH DUKEDOM): A. D. 1364.

{1129}

FLANDERS: A. D. 1451-1453. Revolt against the Burgundian Gabelle.

See GHENT: A. D. 1451-1453.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1477. Severance from Burgundy. Transference to the Austrian House by marriage of Mary of Burgundy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1482-1488. Resistance to Maximilian.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1494-1588. The Austro-Spanish sovereignty and its oppressions. The great revolt and its failure in the Flemish provinces.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1494-1519, and after.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1529. Pretensions of the king of France to Suzerainty resigned.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1539-1540. The unsupported revolt of Ghent.

See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

FLANDERS: A. D. 1594-1884. Later history.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1609, to 1830-1884.

----------FLANDERS: End----------

FLATHEAD INDIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: FLATHEADS.

FLAVIA CÆSARIENSIS.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

FLAVIAN AMPHITHEATRE, The.

See COLOSSEUM.

FLAVIAN FAMILY, The.

"We have designated the second period of the [Roman] Empire by the name of the Flavian family—the family of Vespasian [Titus Flavius Vespasian]. The nine Emperors who were successively invested with the purple, in the space of the 123 years from his accession, were not all, however, of Flavian race, even by the rites of adoption, which in Rome was become a second nature; but the respect of the world for the virtues of Flavius Vespasian induced them all to assume his name, and most of them showed themselves worthy of such an affiliation. Vespasian had been invested with the purple at Alexandria, on the 1st of July, A. D. 69; he died in 79. His two sons reigned in succession after him; Titus, from 79 to 81; Domitian, from 81 to 96. The latter having been assassinated, Nerva, then an old man, was raised to the throne by the Senate (A. D. 96-98). He adopted Trajan (98-117); who adopted Adrian (117-138). Adrian adopted Antoninus Pius (138-161); who adopted Marcus Aurelius (161-180); and Commodus succeeded his father, Marcus Aurelius (180-192). No period in history presents such a succession of good and great men upon any throne: two monsters, Domitian and Commodus, interrupt and terminate it."

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

FLEETWOOD, OR BRANDY STATION, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

FLEIX, The Peace of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

FLEMINGS. FLEMISH.

See FLANDERS.

FLEMISH GUILDS.

See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

FLEURUS, Battle of (1622).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

FLEURUS, Battle of (1690).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

FLEURUS, Battle of (1794).

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

FLODDEN, Battle of (A. D. 1513).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1513.

FLORALIA, The.

See LUDI.

FLORÉAL, The month.

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

FLORENCE: Origin and Name:

"Fæsulre was situated on a hill above Florence. Florentine traditions call it the metropolis of Florence, which would accordingly be a colony of Fæsulre; but a statement in Machiavelli and others describes Florence as a colony of Sulla, and this statement must have been derived from some local chronicle. Fæsulre was no doubt an ancient Etruscan town, probably one of the twelve. It was taken in the war of Sulla [B. C. 82-81]. … My conjecture is, that Sulla not only built a strong fort on the top of the hill of Fæsulre, but also the new colony of Florentia below, and gave to it the 'ager Fæsulanus.'"

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and Geography. volume 2, page 228.

"We can reasonably suppose that the ancient trading nations may have pushed their small craft up the Arno to the present site of Florence, and thus have gained a more immediate communication with the flourishing city of Fiesole than they could through other ports of Etruria, from whatever race its people might have sprung. Admitting the high antiquity of Fiesole, the imagined work of Atlas, and the tomb of his celestial daughter, we may easily believe that a market was from very early times established in the plain, where both by land and water the rural produce could be brought for sale without ascending the steep on which that city stood. Such arrangements would naturally result from the common course of events, and a more convenient spot could scarcely be found than the present site of Florence, to which the Arno is still navigable by boats from its mouth, and at that time perhaps by two branches. … 'There were,' says Villani, 'inhabitants round San Giovanni, because the people of Fiesole held their market there one day in the week, and it was called the Field of Mars, the ancient name: however it was always, from the first, the market of the Fiesolines, and thus it was called before Florence existed.' {1130} And again: 'The Pæetor Florinus, with a Roman army, encamped beyond the Arno towards Fiesole and had two small villages there, … where the people of Fiesole one day in the week held a general market with the neighbouring towns and villages. … On the site of this camp, as we are also assured by Villani, was erected the city of Florence, after the capture of Fiesole by Pompey, Cæsar, and Martius; but Leonardo Aretino, following Malespini, asserts that it was the work of Sylla's legions, who were already in possession of Fiesole. … The variety of opinions almost equals the number of authors. … It may be reasonably concluded that Florence, springing originally from Fiesole, finally rose to the rank of a Roman colony and the seat of provincial government; a miniature of Rome, with its Campus Martius, its Capitol, Forum, temple of Mars, aqueducts, baths, theatre and amphitheatre, all erected in imitation of the 'Eternal City;' for vestiges of all these are still existing either in name or substance. The name of Florence is as dark as its origin, and a thousand derivations have confused the brains of antiquarians and their readers without much enlightening them, while the beautiful Giagiolo or Iris, the city's emblem, still clings to her old grey walls, as if to assert its right to be considered as the genuine source of her poetic appellation. From the profusion of these flowers that formerly decorated the meads between the rivers Mugnone and Arno, has sprung one of the most popular opinions on the subject; for a white plant of the same species having shown itself amongst the rising fabrics, the incident was poetically seized upon and the Lily then first assumed its station in the crimson banner of Florence."

H. E. Napier, Florentine History, book 1, chapter 1.

FLORENCE: A. D. 406. Siege by Radagaisus. Deliverance by Stilicho.

See ROME: A. D. 404-408.

FLORENCE: 12th Century. Acquisition of republican independence.

"There is … an assertion by Villani, that Florence contained twenty-two thousand fighting men, without counting the old men and children,' about the middle of the sixth century; and modern statisticians have based on this statement an estimate which would make the population of the city at that period about sixty-one thousand. There are reasons too for believing that very little difference in the population took place during several centuries after that time. Then came the sudden increase arising from the destruction, more or less entire, of Fiesole, and the incorporation of its inhabitants with those of the newer city, which led to the building of the second walls. … An estimate taking the inhabitants of the city at something between seventy and eighty thousand at the period respecting which we are inquiring [beginning of the 12th century] would in all probability be not very wide of the mark. The government of the city was at that time lodged in the hands of magistrates exercising both legislative and administrative authority, called Consuls, assisted by a senate composed of a hundred citizens of worth—buoni uomini. These Consuls 'guided everything, and governed the city, and decided causes, and administered justice.' They remained in office for one year. How long this form of government had been established in Florence is uncertain. It was not in existence in the year 897; but it was in activity in 1102. From 1138 we have a nearly complete roll of the names of the consuls for each year down to 1219. … The first recorded deeds of the young community thus governed, and beginning to feel conscious and proud of its increasing strength, were characteristic enough of the tone of opinion and sentiment which prevailed within its walls, and of the career on which it was entering. 'In the year 1107,' says Malispini, 'the city of Florence being much increased, the Florentines, wishing to extend their territory, determined to make war against any castle or fortress which would not be obedient to them. And in that year they took by force Monte Orlando, which belonged to certain gentlemen who would not be obedient to the city. And they were defeated, and the castle was destroyed.' These 'gentlemen,' so styled by the civic historian who thus curtly records the destruction of their home, in contradistinction to the citizens who by no means considered themselves such, were the descendants or representatives of those knights and captains, mostly of German race, to whom the Emperors had made grants of the soil according to the feudal practice and system. They held directly of the Empire, and in no wise owed allegiance or obedience of any sort to the community of Florence. But they occupied almost all the country around the rising city; and the citizens' wanted to extend their territory.' Besides, these territorial lords were, as has been said, gentlemen, and lived as such, stopping wayfarers on the highways, levying tolls in the neighbourhood of their strongholds, and in many ways making themselves disagreeable neighbours to peaceable folks. … The next incident on the record, however, would seem to show that peaceful townsfolk as well as marauding nobles were liable to be overrun by the car of manifest destiny, if they came in the way of it. 'In the same year,' says the curt old historian, 'the men of Prato rebelled against the Florentines; wherefore they went out in battle against it, and took it by siege and destroyed it.' Prato rebelled against Florence! It is a very singular statement; for there is not the shadow of a pretence put forward, or the smallest ground for imagining that Florence had or could have claimed any sort of suzerainty over Prato. … The territorial nobles, however, who held castles in the district around Florence were the principal objects of the early prowess of the citizens; and of course offence against them was offence against the Emperor. … In 1113, accordingly, we find an Imperial vicar residing in Tuscany at St. Miniato; not the convent-topped hill of that name in the immediate neighbourhood of Florence, but a little mountain city of the same name, overlooking the lower Valdarno, about half way between Florence and Pisa. … There the Imperial Vicars perched themselves hawk-like, with their Imperial troops, and swooped down from time to time to chastise and bring back such cities of the plain as too audaciously set at naught the authority of the Emperor. And really these upstart Florentines were taking the bit between their teeth, and going on in a way that no Imperial Vicar could tolerate. … So the indignant cry of the harried Counts Cadolingi, and of several other nobles holding of the Empire, whose houses had been burned over their heads by these audacious citizens, went up to the ears of 'Messer Ruberto,' the Vicar, in San Miniato. {1131} Whereupon that noble knight, indignant at the wrong done to his fellow nobles, as well as at the offence against the authority of his master the Emperor, forthwith put lance in rest, called out his men, and descended from his mountain fortress to take summary vengeance on the audacious city. On his way thither he had to pass through that very gorge where the castle of Monte Orlando had stood, and under the ruins of the house from which the noble vassals of the Empire had been harried. … There were the leathern-jerkined citizens on the very scene of their late misdeed, come out to oppose the further progress of the Emperor's Vicar and his soldiers. And there, as the historian writes, with curiously impassible brevity, 'the said Messer Ruberto was discomfited and killed.' And nothing further is heard of him, or of any after consequences resulting from the deed. Learned legal antiquaries insist much on the fact, that the independence of Florence and the other Communes was never 'recognised' by the Emperors; and they are no doubt perfectly accurate in saying so. One would think, however, that that unlucky Vicar of theirs, Messer Ruberto, must have 'recognised' the fact, though somewhat tardily."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 1, chapter 1 (volume 1).

Countess Matilda, the famous friend of Pope Gregory VII., whose wide dominion included Tuscany, died in 1115, bequeathing her vast possessions to the Church.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

"In reality she was only entitled thus to bequeath her allodial lands, the remainder being imperial fiefs. But as it was not always easy to distinguish between the two sorts, and the popes were naturally anxious to get as much as they could, a fresh source of contention was added to the constant quarrels between the Empire and the Church. 'Henry IV. immediately despatched a representative into Tuscany, who under the title of Marchio, Judex, or Praeses, was to govern the Marquisate in his name.' 'Nobody,' says Professor Villari, 'could legally dispute his right to do this: but the opposition of the Pope, the attitude of the towns which now considered themselves independent and the universal confusion rendered the Marquis's authority illusory. The imperial representatives had no choice but to put themselves at the head of the feudal nobility of the contado and unite it into a Germanic party hostile to the cities. In the documents of the period the members of this party are continually described as Teutonici.' By throwing herself in this juncture on the side of the Pope, and thus becoming the declared opponent of the empire and the feudal lords, Florence practically proclaimed her independence. The grandi, having the same interests with the working classes, identified themselves with these; became their leaders, their consuls in fact if not yet in name. Thus was the consular commune born, or, rather, thus did it recognize itself on reaching manhood; for born, in reality, it had already been for some time, only so quietly and unconsciously that nobody had marked its origin or, until now, its growth. The first direct consequence of this self-recognition was that the rulers were chosen out of a larger number of families. As long as Matilda had chosen the officers to whom the government of the town was entrusted, the Uberti and a few others who formed their clan, their kinsmen, and their connections had been selected, to the exclusion of the mass of the citizens. Now more people were admitted to a share in the administration: the offices were of shorter duration, and out of those selected to govern each family had its turn. But those who had formerly been privileged—the Uberti and others of the same tendencies and influence—were necessarily discontented with this state of things, and there are indications in Villani of burnings and of tumults such as later, when the era of faction fights had fairly begun, so often desolated the streets of Florence."

B. Duffy, The Tuscan Republics, chapter 6.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1215-1250. The beginning, the causes and the meaning of the strife of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

Nearly from the beginning of the 13th century, all Italy, and Florence more than other Italian communities, became distracted and convulsed by a contest of raging factions. "The main distinction was that between Ghibellines and Guelphs—two names in their origin far removed from Italy. They were first heard in Germany in 1140, when at Winsberg in Suabia a battle was fought between two contending claimants of the Empire; the one, Conrad of Hohenstauffen, Duke of Franconia, chose for his battle-cry 'Waiblingen,' the name of his patrimonial castle in Würtemburg; the other, Henry the Lion, Duke of Saxony, chose his own family name of 'Welf,' or 'Wölf.' Conrad proved victorious, and his kindred to the fourth ensuing generation occupied the imperial throne; yet both war-cries survived the contest which gave them birth, lingering on in Germany as equivalents of Imperialist and anti-Imperialist. By a process perfectly clear to philologists, they were modified in Italy into the forms Ghibellino and Guelfo; and the Popes being there the great opponents of the Emperors, an Italian Guelph was a Papalist. The cities were mainly Guelph; the nobles most frequently Ghibelline. A private feud had been the means of involving Florence in the contest."

M. F. Rossetti, A Shadow of Dante, chapter 3.

"The Florentines kept themselves united till the year 1215, rendering obedience to the ruling power, and anxious only to preserve their own safety. But, as the diseases which attack our bodies are more dangerous and mortal in proportion as they are delayed, so Florence, though late to take part in the sects of Italy, was afterwards the more afflicted by them. The cause of her first division is well known, having been recorded by Dante and many other writers; I shall, however, briefly notice it. Amongst the most powerful families of Florence were the Buondelmonti and the Uberti; next to these were the Amidei and the Donati. Of the Donati family there was a rich widow who had a daughter of exquisite beauty, for whom, in her own mind, she had fixed upon Buondelmonti, a young gentleman, the head of the Buondelmonti family, as her husband; but either from negligence, or because she thought it might be accomplished at any time, she had not made known her intention, when it happened that the cavalier betrothed himself to a maiden of the Amidei family. This grieved the Donati widow exceedingly; but she hoped, with her daughter's beauty, to disturb the arrangement before the celebration of the marriage; and from an upper apartment, seeing Buondelmonti approach her house alone, she descended, and as he was passing she said to him, 'I am glad to learn you have chosen a wife, although I had reserved my daughter for you'; and, pushing the door open, presented her to his view. {1132} The cavalier, seeing the beauty of the girl, … became inflamed with such an ardent desire to possess her, that, not thinking of the promise given, or the injury he committed in breaking it, or of the evils which his breach of faith might bring upon himself, said, 'Since you have reserved her for me, I should be very ungrateful indeed to refuse her, being yet at liberty to choose'; and without any delay married her. As soon as the fact became known, the Amidei and the Uberti, whose families were allied, were filled with rage," and some of them, lying in wait for him, assassinated him as he was riding through the streets. "This murder divided the whole city; one party espousing the cause of the Buondelmonti, the other that of the Uberti; and … they contended with each other for many years, without one being able to destroy the other. Florence continued in these troubles till the time of Frederick II., who, being king of Naples, endeavoured to strengthen himself against the church; and, to give greater stability to his power in Tuscany, favoured the Uberti and their followers, who, with his assistance, expelled the Buondelmonti; thus our city, as all the rest of Italy had long time been, became divided into Guelphs and Ghibellines."

N. Machiavelli, History of Florence, book 2, chapter 1.

"Speaking generally, the Ghibellines were the party of the emperor, and the Guelphs the party of the Pope; the Ghibellines were on the side of authority, or sometimes of oppression, the Guelphs were on the side of liberty and self-government. Again, the Ghibellines were the supporters of an universal empire of which Italy was to be the head, the Guelphs were on the side of national life and national individuality. … If these definitions could be considered as exhaustive, there would be little doubt as to the side to which our sympathies should be given. … We should … expect all patriots to be Guelphs, and the Ghibelline party to be composed of men who were too spiritless to resist despotic power, or too selfish to surrender it. But, on the other hand, we must never forget that Dante was a Ghibelline."

O. Browning, Guelphs and Ghibellines, chapter 2.

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1215.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278. The wars of a generation of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

In 1248, the Ghibellines, at the instigation of Frederick II., and with help from his German soldiery, expelled the Guelfs from the city, after desperate fighting for several days, and destroyed the mansions of their chiefs, to the number of 38. In 1250 there was a rising of the people—of the under-stratum which the cleavage of parties hardly penetrated—and a popular constitution of government was brought into force. At the same time, the high towers, which were the strongholds of the contending nobles, were thrown down. An attempt was then made by the leaders of the people to restore peace between the Ghibellines and the Guelfs, but the effort was vain; whereupon the Guelfs (in January, 1251) came back to the city, and the Ghibellines were either driven away or were shut up in their city castles, to which they had retired when the people rose. In 1258 the restless Ghibellines plotted with Manfred, King of the Two Sicilies, to regain possession of Florence. The plot was discovered, and the enraged people drove the last lingerers of the faction from their midst and pulled down their palaces. The great palace of the Uberti family, most obnoxious of all, was not only razed, but a decree was made that no building should ever stand again on its accursed site. The exiled Ghibellines took refuge at Siena, and there plotted again with King Manfred, who sent troops to aid them. The Florentines did not wait to be attacked, but marched out to meet them on Sienese territory, and suffered a terrible defeat at Montaperti (September 4, 1260), in the battle that Dante refers to, "which coloured the river Arbia red." "'On that day,' says Villani, … 'was broken and destroyed the old popular government of Florence, which had existed for ten years with so great power and dignity, and had won so many victories.' Few events have ever left a more endurable impression on the memory of a people than this great battle between two cities and parties animated both of them by the most unquenchable hatred. The memory of that day has lasted through 600 years, more freshly perhaps in Siena than in Florence." As a natural consequence of their defeat at Montaperti, the Guelfs were again forced to fly into exile from Florence, and this expatriation included a large number of even the commoner people. "So thorough had been the defeat, so complete the Ghibelline ascendency resulting from it, that in every city the same scene on a lesser scale was taking place. Many of the smaller towns, which had always been Guelph in their sympathies, were now subjected to Ghibelline despotism. One refuge alone remained in Tuscany—Lucca. … And thither the whole body of the expatriated Guelphs betook themselves. … The Ghibellines entered Florence in triumph on the 16th of September, three days after their enemies had left it. … The city seemed like a desert. The gates were standing open and unguarded; the streets were empty; the comparatively few inhabitants who remained, almost entirely of the lowest class of the populace, were shut up in their obscure dwellings, or were on their knees in the churches. And what was worse, the conquerors did not come back alone. They had invited a foreign despot to restore order;" and so King Manfred's general, Giordano da Anglona, established Count Guido Novello in Florence as Manfred's vicar. "All the constitutional authorities established by the people, and the whole frame-work of the former government, were destroyed, and the city was ruled entirely by direction transmitted from the King's Sicilian court." There were serious proposals, even, that Florence itself should be destroyed, and the saving of the noble city from that untimely fate is credited to one patriotic noble, of the Uberti family, who withstood the proposition, alone. "The Ghibelline army marched on Lucca, and had not much more difficulty in reducing that city. The government was put into Ghibelline hands, and Lucca became a Ghibelline city like all the rest of Tuscany. The Lucchese were not required by the victors to turn their own Guelphs out of the city. But it was imperatively insisted on that every Guelph not a native citizen should be thrust forth from the gates." The unfortunate Florentines, thus made homeless again, now found shelter at Bologna, and presently helped their friends at Modena and Reggio to overcome the Ghibellines in those cities and recover control. But for five years their condition was one of wretchedness. Then Charles of Anjou was brought into Italy (1265) by the Pope, to snatch the crown of the Two Sicilies from King Manfred, and succeeded in his undertaking.

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

{1133}

The prop of the Ghibellines was broken. Guido Novello and his troopers rode away from Florence; 800 French horsemen, sent by the new Angevine king, under Guy de Montfort, took their places; the Guelfs swarmed in again—the Ghibellines swarmed out; the popular constitution was restored, with new features more popular than before. In 1273 there was a great attempt made by Pope Gregory X. in person, to reconcile the factions in Florence; but it had so little success that the Holy Father left the city in disgust and pronounced it under interdict for three years. In 1278 the attempt was renewed with somewhat better success. "'And now, says Villani, 'the Ghibellines were at liberty to return to Florence, they and their families. … And the said Ghibellines had back again their goods and possessions; except that certain of the leading families were ordered, for the safety of the city, to remain for a certain time beyond the boundaries of the Florentine territory.' In fact, little more is heard henceforward of the Ghibellines as a faction within the walls of Florence. The old name, as a rallying cry for the Tory or Imperialist party, was still raised here and there in Tuscany; and Pisa still called herself Ghibelline. But the stream of progress had run past them and left them stranded."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 1, chapters 4-5, and book 2, chapter 1 (volume 1).

ALSO IN N. Machiavelli, Florentine Histories, book 1.

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Italian Republics, chapter 4.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293. Development of the popular constitution of the Commonwealth.

When it became clear that the republic was to rule itself henceforth untrammelled by imperial interference, the people [in 1250] divided themselves into six districts, and chose for each district two Ancients, who administered the government in concert with the Potestà and the Captain of the People. The Ancients were a relic of the old Roman municipal organization. … The body of the citizens, or the popolo, were ultimately sovereigns in the State. Assembled under the banners of their several companies, they formed a parlamento for delegating their own power to each successive government. Their representatives, again, arranged in two councils, called the Council of the People and the Council of the Commune, under the presidency of the Captain of the People and the Potestà, ratified the measures which had previously been proposed and carried by the executive authority or signoria. Under this simple State system the Florentines placed themselves at the head of the Tuscan League, fought the battles of the Church, asserted their sovereignty by issuing the golden florin of the republic, and flourished until 1266. In that year an important change was effected in the Constitution. The whole population of Florence consisted, on the one hand, of nobles or Grandi, as they were called in Tuscany, and on the other hand of working people. The latter, divided into traders and handicraftsmen, were distributed in guilds called Arti; and at that time there were seven Greater and five Lesser Arti, the most influential of all being the Guild of the Wool Merchants. These guilds had their halls for meeting, their colleges of chief officers, their heads, called Consoli or Priors, and their flags. In 1266 it was decided that the administration of the commonwealth should be placed simply and wholly in the hands of the Arti, and the Priors of these industrial companies became the lords or Signory of Florence. No inhabitant of the city who had not enrolled himself as a craftsman in one of the guilds could exercise any function of burghership. To be scioperato, or without industry, was to be without power, without rank or place of honour in the State. The revolution which placed the Arts at the head of the republic had the practical effect of excluding the Grandi altogether from the government. … In 1293, after the Ghibellines had been defeated in the great battle of Campaldino, a series of severe enactments, called the Ordinances of Justice, were decreed against the unruly Grandi. All civic rights were taken from them; the severest penalties were attached to their slightest infringement of municipal law; their titles to land were limited; the privilege of living within the city walls was allowed them only under galling restrictions; and last not least, a supreme magistrate, named the Gonfalonier of Justice, was created for the special purpose of watching them and carrying out the penal code against them. Henceforward Florence was governed exclusively by merchants and artisans. The Grandi hastened to enroll themselves in the guilds, exchanging their former titles and dignities for the solid privilege of burghership. The exact parallel to this industrial constitution for a commonwealth, carrying on wars with emperors and princes, holding haughty captains in its pay, and dictating laws to subject cities, cannot, I think, be elsewhere found in history. It is as unique as the Florence of Dante and Giotto is unique."

_J. A. Symonds, Florence and the Medici (Sketches and Studies in Italy, chapter 5)._

ALSO IN C. Balbo, Life and Times of Dante, volume 1, Introduction.

A. Von Reumont, Lorenzo de Medici, book 1, chapter 1.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1284-1293. War with Pisa.

See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1289. The victory of Campaldino, and the jealousy among its heroes.

In 1289 the Ghibellines of Arezzo having expelled the Guelfs from that city, the Florentines made war in the cause of the latter and won a great victory at Campaldino. This "raised the renown and the military spirit of the Guelf party, for the fame of the battle was very great; the hosts contained the choicest chivalry of either side, armed and appointed with emulous splendour. The fighting was hard, there was brilliant and conspicuous gallantry, and the victory was complete. It sealed Guelf ascendency. The Ghibelline warrior-bishop of Arezzo fell, with three of the Uberti, and other Ghibelline chiefs. … In this battle the Guelf leaders had won great glory. The hero of the day was the proudest, handsomest, craftiest, most winning, most ambitious, most unscrupulous Guelf noble in Florence—one of a family who inherited the spirit and recklessness of the proscribed Uberti, and did not refuse the popular epithet of 'Malefami'—Corso Donati. {1134} He did not come back from the field of Campaldino, where he had won the battle by disobeying orders, with any increased disposition to yield to rivals, or court the populace, or respect other men's rights. Those rivals, too—and they also had fought gallantly in the post of honour at Campaldino—were such as he hated from his soul—rivals whom he despised, and who yet were too strong for him [the family of the Cerchi]. His blood was ancient, they were upstarts; he was a soldier, they were traders; he was poor, they the richest men in Florence. … They had crossed him in marriages, bargains, inheritances. … The glories of Campaldino were not as oil on these troubled waters. The conquerors flouted each other all the more fiercely in the streets on their return, and ill-treated the lower people with less scruple."

R. W. Church, Dante and Other Essays, pages 27-31.

ALSO IN C. Balbo, Life and Times of Dante, part 1, chapter 6 (volume 1).

FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300. New factions in the city, and Dante's relations to them. The Bianchi and the Neri (Whites and Blacks).

Among the Nobles "who resisted the oppression of the people, Corso Donati must have been the chief, but he did not at first come forward; with one of his usual stratagems, however, he was the cause of a new revolution [January, 1295], which drove Giano della Bella, the leader of the people, from the city. … Notwithstanding the fall of Giano, the Nobles did not return into power. He was succeeded as a popular leader by one much his inferior, one Pecora, surnamed, from his trade, the Butcher. New disputes arose between the nobles and the people, and between the upper and lower ranks of the people itself. Villani tells us that, in the year 1295, 'many families, who were neither tyrannical nor powerful, withdrew from the order of the nobles, and enrolled themselves among the people, diminishing the power of the nobles and increasing that of the people.' Dante must have been precisely one of those nobles 'who were neither tyrannical nor powerful;' and … it is certain that he was among those who passed over from their own order to that of the Popolani, by being matriculated in one of the Arts. In a register from 1297 to 1300, of the Art of the physicians and druggists, the fifth of the seven major Arts, he is found matriculated in these words: 'Dante d'Aldighiero degli Aldighieri poeta fiorentino.' … Dante, by this means, obtained office under the popular government. … The new factions that arose in Florence, in almost all Tuscany, and in some of the cities in other parts of Italy, were merely subdivisions of the Guelf party; merely what, in time, happens to every faction after a period of prosperity, a division of the ultras and of the moderates, or of those who hold more or less extravagant views. … All this happened to the Guelf party in a very few years, and the Neri and Bianchi, the names 'Of the two divisions of that party, which had arisen in 1300, were no longer mentioned ten years afterwards, but were again lost in the primitive appellations of Guelfs and Ghibellines. Thus this episode would possess little interest, and would be scarcely mentioned in the history of Italy, or even of Florence, had not the name of our sublime Poet been involved in it; and, after his love, it is the most important circumstance of his life, and the one to which he most frequently alludes in his Commedia. It thus becomes a subject worthy of history. … Florentine historians attribute Corso Donati's hatred towards Vieri de Cerchi to envy. … This envy arose to such a height between Dante's neighbours in Florence that he has rendered it immortal. 'Through envy,' says Villani, 'the citizens began to divide into factions, and one of the principal feuds began in the Sesto dello Scandalo, near the gate of St. Pietro, between the families of the Cerchi and the Donati [from which latter family came Dante's wife]. … Messer Vieri was the head of the House of the Cerchi, and he and his house were powerful in affairs, possessing a numerous kindred; they were very rich merchants, for their company was one of the greatest in the world.'" The state of animosity between these two families "was existing in Florence in the beginning of 1300, when it was increased by another rather similar family quarrel that had arisen in Pistoia. . . . 'There was in Pistoia a family which amounted to more than 100 men capable of bearing arms; it was not of great antiquity, but was powerful, wealthy, and numerous; it was descended from one Cancellieri Notaio, and from him they had preserved Cancellieri as their family name. From the children of the two wives of this man were descended the 107 men of arms that have been enumerated; one of the wives having been named Madonna Bianca, her descendants were called Cancellieri Bianchi (White Cancellieri); and the descendants of the other wife, in opposition, were called Cancellieri Neri (Black Cancellieri).'" Between these two branches of the family of the Cancellieri there arose, some time near the end of the thirteenth century, an implacable feud. "Florence … exercised a supremacy over Pistoia … and fearing that these internal dissensions might do injury to the Guelf party, she took upon herself the lordship or supremacy of that city. The principal Cancellieri, both Bianchi and Neri, were banished to Florence itself; 'the Neri took up their abode in the house of the Frescobaldi, beyond the Arno; the Bianchi at the house of the Cerchi, in the Garbo, from being connected with them by kindred. But as one sick sheep infects another, and is injurious to the flock, so this cursed seed of discord, that had departed from Pistoia and had now entered Florence, corrupted all the Florentines, and divided them into two parties.' … The Cerchi, formerly called the Forest party (parte selvaggia), now assumed the name of Bianchi; and those who followed the Donati were now called Neri. … 'There sided with [the Bianchi, says Villani] the families of the Popolani and petty artisans, and all the Ghibellines, whether Nobles or Popolani.' … Thus the usual position in which the two parties stood was altered; for hitherto the Nobles had almost always been Ghibellines, and the Popolani Guelfs; but now, if the Popolani were not Ghibellines, they were at least not such strong Guelfs as the nobles. Sometimes these parties are referred to as White Guelfs and Black Guelfs."

C. Balbo, Life and Times of Dante, chapter 10.

ALSO IN H. E. Napier, Florentine History, book 1, chapter 14 (volume l).

N. Machiavelli, The Florentine Histories, book 2.

{1135}

FLORENCE: A. D. 1301-1313. Triumph of the Neri. Banishment of Dante and his party. Downfall and death of Corso Donati.

"In the year 1301, a serious affray took place between the two parties [the Bianchi and the Neri]; the whole city was in arms; the law, and the authority of the Signoria, among whom was the poet Dante Alighieri, was set at naught by the great men of each side, while the best citizens looked on with fear and trembling. The Donati, fearing that unaided they would not be a match for their adversaries, proposed that they should put themselves under a ruler of the family of the king of France. Such a direct attack on the independence of the state was not to be borne by the Signoria, among whom the poet had great influence. At his instigation they armed the populace, and with their assistance compelled the heads of the contending parties to lay down their arms, and sent into exile Messer Donati and others who had proposed the calling in of foreigners. A sentence of banishment was also pronounced against the most violent men of the party of the Bianchi, most of whom, however, were allowed, under various pretences, to return to their country. The party of the Donati in their exile carried on those intrigues which they had commenced while at home. They derived considerable assistance from the king of France's brother, Charles of Valois, whom Pope Boniface had brought into Italy. That prince managed, by means of promises, which he subsequently violated, to get admission for himself, together with several of the Neri, and the legate of the pope, into Florence. He then produced letters, generally suspected to be forgeries, charging the leaders of the Bianchi with conspiracy. The popularity of the accused party had already been on the wane, and after a violent tumult, the chief men among them, including Dante, were obliged to leave the city; their goods were confiscated, and their houses destroyed. … From this time Corso Donati, the head of the faction of the Neri, became the chief man at Florence. The accounts of its state at this period, taken from the most credible historians, warrant us in thinking that the severe invectives of Dante are not to be ascribed merely to indignation or resentment at the harsh treatment he had received. … The city was rent by more violent dissensions than ever. There were now three distinct sources of contention—the jealousy between the people and the nobles, the disputes between the Bianchi and the Neri, and those between the Ghibellines and the Guelfs. It was in vain that the legate of Pope Benedict, a man of great piety, went thither for the sake of trying to restore order. The inhabitants showed how little they respected him by exhibiting a scandalous representation of hell on the river Arno; and, after renewing his efforts without success, he cursed the city and departed [1302]. The reign of Corso Donati ended like that of most of those who have succeeded to power by popular violence. Six years after the banishment of his adversaries he was suspected, not without reason, of endeavouring to make himself independent of constitutional restraints. The Signori declared him guilty of rebellion. After a protracted resistance he made his escape from the city, but was pursued and taken at Rovesca [1308]. When he was led captive by those among whom his authority had lately been paramount, he threw himself under his horse, and, after having been dragged some distance, he was dispatched by one of the captors. … The party that had been raised by Corso Donati continued to hold the chief power at Florence even after the death of their chief. The exiled faction, in the words of one of their leaders, … had not learned the art of returning to their country as well as their adversaries. Four years after the events alluded to, the Emperor, Henry VII., made some negotiations in their favour, which but imperfectly succeeded. The Florentines, however, were awed when he approached their city at the head of his army; and in the extremity of their danger they implored the assistance of King Robert of Naples, and made him Lord of their city for the space of five years. The Emperor's mysterious death [August 24, 1313], at Buonconvento freed them from their alarm."

W. P. Urquhart, Life and Times of Francesco Sforza, book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN Mrs. Oliphant, The Makers of Florence, chapter 2.

B. Duffy, The Tuscan Republics, chapter 12.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1310-1313. Resistance to the Emperor, Henry VII. Siege by the imperial army.

See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1313-1328. Wars with Pisa and with Castruccio Castracani, of Lucca. Disastrous battles of Montecatini and Altopascio.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1336-1338. Alliance with Venice against Mastino della Scala.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343. Defeat by the Pisans before Lucca. The brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens.

In 1341, Mastino della Scala, of Verona, who had become master of Lucca in 1335 by treachery, offered to sell that town to the Florentines. The bargain was concluded; "but it appeared to the Pisans the signal of their own servitude, for it cut off all communication between them and the Ghibelines of Lombardy. They immediately advanced their militia into the Lucchese states to prevent the Florentines from taking possession of the town; vanquished them in battle, on the 2d of October, 1341, under the walls of Lucca; and, on the 6th of July following, took possession of that city for themselves. The people of Florence attributed this train of disasters to the incapacity of their magistrates. … At this period, Gauttier [Walter] de Brienne, duke of Athens, a French noble, but born in Greece, passed through Florence on his way from Naples to France; The duchy of Athens had remained in his family from the conquest of Constantinople till it was taken from his father in 1312. … It was for this man the Florentines, after their defeat at Lucca, took a sudden fancy. … On the 1st of August, 1342, they obliged the signoria to confer on him the title of captain of justice, and to give him the command of their militia." A month later, the duke, by his arts, had worked such a ferment among the lower classes of the population that they "proclaimed him sovereign lord of Florence for his life, forced the public palace, drove from it the gonfalonier and the priori, and installed him there in their place. … Happily, Florence was not ripe for slavery: ten months sufficed for the duke of Athens to draw from it 400,000 golden florins, which he sent either to France or Naples; but ten months sufficed also to undeceive all parties who had placed any confidence in him," and by a universal rising, in July, 1343, he was driven from the city.

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Italian Republics, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 3, chapter 4 (volume 2).

{1136}

FLORENCE: 14th Century. Industrial Prosperity of the City.

"John Villani has given us an ample and precise account of the state of Florence in the earlier part of the 14th century. The revenue of the Republic amounted to 300,000 florins, a sum which, allowing for the depreciation of the precious metals, was at least equivalent to 600,000 pounds sterling; a larger sum than England and Ireland, two centuries ago, yielded annually to Elizabeth—a larger sum than, according to any computation which we have seen, the Grand Duke of Tuscany now derives from a territory of much greater extent. The manufacture of wool alone employed 200 factories and 30,000 workmen. The cloth annually produced sold, at an average, for 1,200,000 florins; a sum fairly equal, in exchangeable value, to two millions and a half of our money. Four hundred thousand florins were annually coined. Eighty banks conducted the commercial operations, not of Florence only, but of all Europe. The transactions of these establishments were sometimes of a magnitude which may surprise even the contemporaries of the Barings and the Rothschilds. Two houses advanced to Edward the Third of England upwards of 300,000 marks, at a time when the mark contained more silver than 50 shillings of the present day, and when the value of silver was more than quadruple of what it now is. The city and its environs contained 170,000 inhabitants. In the various schools about 10,000 children were taught to read; 1,200 studied arithmetic; 600 received a learned education. The progress of elegant literature and of the fine arts was proportioned to that of the public prosperity. … Early in the 14th century came forth the Divine Comedy, beyond comparison the greatest work of imagination which had appeared since the poems of Homer. The following generation produced indeed no second Dante: but it was eminently distinguished by general intellectual activity. The study of the Latin writers had never been wholly neglected in Italy. But Petrarch introduced a more profound, liberal, and elegant scholarship; and communicated to his countrymen that enthusiasm for the literature, the history, and the antiquities of Rome, which divided his own heart with a frigid mistress and a more frigid Muse. Boccaccio turned their attention to the more sublime and graceful models of Greece."

_Lord Macaulay, Machiavelli (Essays, volume 1)._

FLORENCE: A. D. 1348. The Plague.

"In the year then of our Lord 1348, there happened at Florence, the finest city in all Italy, a most terrible plague; which, whether owing to the influence of the planets, or that it was sent from God as a just punishment for our sins, had broken out some years before in the Levant, and after passing from place to place, and making incredible havoc all the way, had now reached the west. There, spite of all the means that art and human foresight could suggest, such as keeping the city clear from filth, the exclusion of all suspected persons, and the publication of copious instructions for the preservation of health; and notwithstanding manifold humble supplications offered to God in processions and otherwise; it began to show itself in the spring of the aforesaid year, in a sad and wonderful manner. Unlike what had been seen in the east, where bleeding from the nose is the fatal prognostic, here there appeared certain tumours in the groin or under the armpits, some as big as a small apple, others as an egg; and afterwards purple spots in most parts of the body; in some cases large and but few in number, in others smaller and more numerous—both sorts the usual messengers of death. To the cure of this malady, neither medical knowledge nor the power of drugs was of any effect. … Nearly all died the third day from the first appearance of the symptoms, some sooner, some later, without any fever or other accessory symptoms. What gave the more virulence to this plague, was that, by being communicated from the sick to the hale, it spread daily, like fire when it comes in contact with large masses of combustibles. Nor was it caught only by conversing with, or coming near the sick, but even by touching their clothes, or anything that they had before touched. … These facts, and others of the like sort, occasioned various fears and devices amongst those who survived, all tending to the same uncharitable and cruel end; which was, to avoid the sick, and everything that had been near them, expecting by that means to save themselves. And some holding it best to live temperately, and to avoid excesses of all kinds, made parties, and shut themselves up from the rest of the world. … Others maintained free living to be a better preservative, and would baulk no passion or appetite they wished to gratify, drinking and revelling incessantly from tavern to tavern, or in private houses (which were frequently found deserted by the owners, and therefore common to everyone), yet strenuously avoiding, with all this brutal indulgence, to come near the infected. And such, at that time, was the public distress, that the laws, human and divine, were no more regarded; for the officers to put them in force being either dead, sick, or in want of persons to assist them, everyone did just as he pleased. … I pass over the little regard that citizens and relations showed to each other; for their terror was such that a brother even fled from a brother, a wife from her husband, and, what is more uncommon, a parent from his own child. … Such was the cruelty of Heaven, and perhaps of men, that between March and July following, according to authentic reckonings, upwards of 100,000 souls perished in the city only; whereas, before that calamity, it was not supposed to have continued so many inhabitants. What magnificent dwellings, what noble palaces, were then depopulated to the last inhabitant!"

G. Boccaccio, The Decameron, introd.

See, also, BLACK DEATH.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1358. The captains of the Guelf Party and the "Ammoniti."

"The magistracy called the 'Capitani di Parte Guelfa,'—the Captains of the Guelph party,—was instituted in the year 1267; and it was remarked, when the institution of it was recorded, that the conception of a magistracy avowedly formed to govern a community, not only by the authority of, but in the interest of one section only of its members, was an extraordinary proof of the unfitness of the Florentines for self-government, and a forewarning of the infallible certainty that the attempt to rule the Commonwealth on such principles would come to a bad ending. In the year 1358, a little less than a century after the first establishment of this strange magistracy, it began to develop the mischievous capabilities inherent in the nature of it, in a very alarming manner. … {1137} In 1358 this magistracy consisted of four members. … These men, 'born,' says Ammirato, 'for the public ruin, under pretext of zeal for the Guelph cause' … caused a law to be passed, according to which any citizen or Florentine subject who had ever held, or should thereafter hold, any office in the Commonwealth, might be either openly or secretly accused before the tribunal of the Captains of the Guelph Party of being Ghibelline, or not genuine Guelph. If the accusation was supported by six witnesses worthy of belief, the accused might be condemned to death or to fine at the discretion of the Captains. … It will be readily conceived that the passing of such a law, in a city bristling with party hatreds and feuds, was the signal for the commencement of a reign of terror." The citizens proscribed were "said to be 'admonished'; and the condemnations were called 'admonitions'; and henceforward for many years the 'ammonizioni' [or 'ammoniti'] play a large part in the domestic history and political struggles of Florence."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: H. E. Napier, Florentine History, chapter 23 (volume 2).

FLORENCE: A. D. 1359-1391. The Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood and the wars with Pisa, with Milan, and with the Pope.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378. War with the Pope in support of the oppressed States of the Church. The Eight Saints of War. A terrible excommunication.

In 1375, the Florentines became engaged in war with Pope Gregory XI., supporting a revolt of the States of the Church, which were heavily oppressed by the representatives of their papal sovereign

See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

"Nevertheless, so profoundly reverenced was the church that even the sound of war against a pope appeared to many little less than blasphemy: numbers opposed on this pretence, but really from party motives alone." But "a general council assembled and declared the cause of liberty paramount to every other consideration; the war was affirmed to be rather against the injustice and tyranny of foreign governors than the church itself. … All the ecclesiastical cities then groaning under French oppression were to be invited to revolt and boldly achieve their independence. These spirited resolutions were instantly executed, and on the 8th of August 1375 Alessandro de' Bardi [and seven other citizens] … were formed into a supreme council of war called 'Gli Otto della Guerra'; and afterwards, from their able conduct, 'Gli Otto Santi della Guerra' [The Eight Saints of War]; armed with the concentrated power of the whole Florentine nation in what regarded war." A terrible sentence of excommunication was launched against the Florentines by the Pope. "Their souls were solemnly condemned to the pains of hell; fire and water were interdicted; their persons and property outlawed in every Christian land, and they were finally declared lawful prey for all who chose to sell, plunder, or kill them as though they were mere slaves or infidels."

H. E. Napier, Florentine History, book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2).

FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427. Complete democratizing of the commonwealth. The Tumult of the Ciompi. First appearance of the Medici in Florentine history.

Though the reign of the Duke of Athens lasted rather less than a year, "it bore important fruits; for the tyrant, seeking to support himself upon the favour of the common people, gave political power to the Lesser Arts at the expense of the Greater, and confused the old State-system by enlarging the democracy. The net result of these events for Florence was, first, that the city became habituated to rancorous party-strife, involving exiles and proscriptions, and, secondly, that it lost its primitive social hierarchy of classes. … Civil strife now declared itself as a conflict between labour and capital. The members of the Lesser Arts, craftsmen who plied trades subordinate to those of the Greater Arts, rose up against their social and political superiors, demanding a larger share in the government, a more equal distribution of profits, higher wages, and privileges that should place them on an absolute equality with the wealthy merchants. It was in the year 1378 that the proletariate broke out into rebellion. Previous events had prepared the way for this revolt. First of all, the republic had been democratised through the destruction of the Grandi and through the popular policy pursued to gain his own ends by the Duke of Athens. Secondly, society had been shaken to its very foundation by the great plague of 1348 … nor had 30 years sufficed to restore their relative position to grades and ranks confounded by an overwhelming calamity. … Rising in a mass to claim their privileges, the artisans ejected the Signory from the Public Palace, and for awhile Florence was at the mercy of the mob. It is worthy of notice that the Medici, whose name is scarcely known before this epoch, now come for one moment to the front. Salvestro de' Medici was Gonfalonier of Justice at the time when the tumult first broke out. He followed the faction of the handicraftsmen, and became the hero of the day. I cannot discover that he did more than extend a sort of passive protection to their cause. Yet there is no doubt that the attachment of the working classes to the house of Medici dates from this period. The rebellion of 1378 is known in Florentine history as the Tumult of the Ciompi. The name Ciompi strictly means the Wool-Carders. One set of operatives in the city, and that the largest, gave its title to the whole body of the labourers. For some months these craftsmen governed the republic, appointing their own Signory and passing laws in their own interest; but, as is usual, the proletariate found itself incapable of sustained government. The ambition and discontent of the Ciompi foamed themselves away, and industrious workingmen began to see that trade was languishing and credit on the wane. By their own act at last they restored the government to the Priors of the Greater Arti. Still the movement had not been without grave consequences. It completed the levelling of classes, which had been steadily advancing from the first in Florence. After the Ciompi riot there was no longer not only any distinction between noble and burgher, but the distinction between greater and lesser guilds was practically swept away. … The proper political conditions had been formed for unscrupulous adventurers. Florence had become a democracy without social organisation. … The time was come for the Albizzi to attempt an oligarchy, and for the Medici to begin the enslavement of the State. {1138} The Constitution of Florence offered many points of weakness to the attacks of such intriguers. In the first place it was in its origin not a political but an industrial organisation—a simple group of guilds invested with the sovereign authority. … It had no permanent head, like the Doge of Venice, no fixed senate like the Venetian Grand Council; its chief magistrates, the Signory, were elected for short periods of two months, and their mode of election was open to the gravest criticism. Supposed to be chosen by lot, they were really selected from lists drawn up by the factions in power from time to time. These factions contrived to exclude the names of all but their adherents from the bags, or 'borse,' in which the burghers eligible for election had to be inscribed. Furthermore, it was not possible for this shifting Signory to conduct affairs requiring sustained effort and secret deliberation; therefore recourse was being continually had to dictatorial Commissions. The people, summoned in parliament upon the Great Square, were asked to confer plenipotentiary authority upon a committee called Balia [see BALIA OF FLORENCE], who proceeded to do what they chose in the State; and who retained power after the emergency for which they were created passed away. … It was through these [and other specified] defects that the democracy merged gradually into a despotism. The art of the Medici consisted in a scientific comprehension of these very imperfections, a methodic use of them for their own purposes, and a steady opposition to any attempts made to substitute a stricter system. … Florence, in the middle of the 14th century, was a vast beehive of industry. Distinctions of rank among burghers, qualified to vote and hold office, were theoretically unknown. Highly educated men, of more than princely wealth, spent their time in shops and counting-houses, and trained their sons to follow trades. Military service at this period was abandoned by the citizens; they preferred to pay mercenary troops for the conduct of their wars. Nor was there, as in Venice, any outlet for their energies upon the seas. Florence had no navy, no great port—she only kept a small fleet for the protection of her commerce. Thus the vigour of the commonwealth was concentrated on itself; while the influence of citizens, through their affiliated trading-houses, correspondents, and agents, extended like a network over Europe. … Accordingly we find that out of the very bosom of the people a new plutocratic aristocracy begins to rise. … These nobles of the purse obtained the name of 'Popolani Nobili'; and it was they who now began to play at high stakes for the supreme power. … The opening of the second half of the 14th century had been signalised by the feuds of two great houses, both risen from the people. These were the Albizzi and the Ricci." The Albizzi triumphed, in the conflict of the two houses, and became all-powerful for a time in Florence; but the wars with the Visconti, of Milan, in which they engaged the city, made necessary a heavy burden of taxation, which they rendered more grievous by distributing it unfairly. "This imprudent financial policy began the ruin of the Albizzi. It caused a clamour in the city for a new system of more just taxation, which was too powerful to be resisted. The voice of the people made itself loudly heard; and with the people on this occasion sided Giovanni de' Medici. This was in 1427. It is here that the Medici appear upon that memorable scene where in the future they are to play the first part. Giovanni de' Medici did not belong to the same branch of his family as the Salvestro who favoured the people at the time of the Ciompi Tumult. But he adopted the same popular policy. To his sons Cosimo and Lorenzo he bequeathed on his death-bed the rule that they should invariably adhere to the cause of the multitude, found their influence on that, and avoid the arts of factious and ambitious leaders."

_J. A. Symonds, Florence and the Medici (Sketches and Studies in Italy, chapter 5)._

ALSO IN: A. von Reumont, Lorenzo de' Medici, book 1, chapter 2 (volume l).

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, books 4-5 (volume 2).

FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402. War with Gian Galeazzo Visconti, Duke of Milan.

"Already in 1386, the growing power of Giangaleazzo Visconti, the tenth duke of Milan of that family, began to give umbrage, not only to all the sovereign princes: his neighbours, but also to Florence [see MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447]. … Florence … had cause enough to feel uneasy at the progress of such a man in his career of successful invasion and usurpation;—Florence, no more specially than other of the free towns around her, save that Florence seems always to have thought that she had more to lose from the loss of her liberty than any of the other cities … and felt always called upon to take upon herself the duty of standing forward as the champion and supporter of the principles of republicanism and free government. … The Pope, Urban VI., added another element of disturbance to the condition of Italy. For in his anxiety to recover sundry cities mainly in Umbria and Romagna … he was exceedingly unscrupulous of means, and might at any moment be found allying himself with the enemies of free government and of the old Guelph cause in Italy. Venice, also, having most improvidently and unwisely allied herself with Visconti, constituted another element of danger, and an additional cause of uneasiness and watchfulness to the Florentine government. In the spring of 1388, therefore, a board of ten, 'Dieci di Balia,' was elected for the general management of 'all those measures concerning war and peace which should be adopted by the entire Florentine people.'" The first war with Visconti was declared by the republic in May, 1390, and was so successfully conducted for the Florentines by Sir John Hawkwood that it terminated in a treaty signed January 26, 1392, which bound the Duke of Milan not to meddle in any way with the affairs of Tuscany. For ten years this agreement seems to have been tolerably well adhered to; but in 1402 the rapacious Duke entered upon new encroachments, which forced the Florentines to take up arms again. Their only allies were Bologna and Padua (or Francesco Carrara of Padua), and the armies of the three states were defeated in a terribly bloody battle fought near Bologna on the 26th of June. "Bologna fell into the hands of Visconti. Great was the dismay and terror in Florence when the news … reached the city. It was neither more nor less than the fall, as the historian says, of the fortress which was the bulwark of Florence. Now she lay absolutely open to the invader." But the invader did not come. He was stricken with the plague and died, in September, and Florence and Italy were saved from the tyranny which he had seemed able to extend over the whole.

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence, book 4, chapters 4-5 (volume 2).

{1139}

FLORENCE: 14th-15th Centuries. Commercial enterprise, industrial energy, wealth and culture of the city.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us